Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 23

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 22 March 24 >

March 23 edit

Template:Smith Media edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smith Media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox that is only used on the article for the company itself, and not on the other articles it links to; it was previously in use on the WKTV and WKTV-DT2 articles, but following the sale of WKTV to another company the navbox was removed from those articles. An earlier TfD in January was closed as no consensus, but the door was left open for a renomination following the aforementioned sale's completion; that has happened, and so here we are. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per prior discussion —PC-XT+ 02:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was the OP of the first nominated TfD, but some have stated to wait until the sale was completed. And since it has happened, we can follow through with this process. Csworldwide1 (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Basketball Pan American Games tourney edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, no objections, and replaced in Basketball at the 2011 Pan American Games. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Basketball Pan American Games tourney (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Probably redundant; possibly to {{Infobox Basketball Olympic tourney}}, which could be made more generic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Basketball European Games tournament edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, no objections, and replaced in Basketball at the 2015 European Games. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Basketball European Games tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Probably redundant; possibly to {{Infobox Basketball Olympic tourney}}, which could be made more generic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox ESC entry edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Template:Infobox ESC entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should be recast as a module of {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}, so as not to repeat information on composers, lyricists, performers, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly against. Crucial part of the Eurovision portal and I feel we would be going backwards. Spa-Franks (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template is not used on a portal, but on articles where, from a random sample, it always appears below another infobox, whose content it largely duplicates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against: Unless a replacement infobox or such is shown, I cannot support removing the ESC song infobox. While I realise a lot of information is duplicated, it still serves the Eurovision portal (which it IS a part of - I think you'll find it's not only below another infobox) well.Kapitan110295 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against It's important for the ESC project and the infobox has more information that just the lyricist it has data about the place and the language used in the ESC that sometimes is not the same as the official release. Josegeographic (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recasting this template as a module of the infoboxes mentioned above would not remove any information from the articles using them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against: As mentioned above, the template is important for both the Eurovision portal and project. Most of the Eurovision songs, especially the older songs, use only this infobox. Also, seeing the results of the song, the year or even the country it represented is useful and easier than going through the articles of the contests or countries. Dimitris  talk 19:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked at the portal (thank your for the link) and can't see the template used there; please can you explain precisely where it appears? articles which use only this template (again, please provide an example) could, if it were recast as a module, still use it inside one of the song/ single templates. the details would still be on individual articles, with no need to "go through the articles of the contests or countries". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against: really important template. needed for eurovision articles. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain why this "importance" would not be satisfied by having the template as a module, as proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it aint broke don't fix it.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You appear to have misread my question, which was "Please explain why this "importance" would not be satisfied by having the template as a module, as proposed". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All of the objections that have been made here would be catered for by the proposal. Andy, perhaps it would be helpful if you could provide a mock-up of what you are suggesting. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no upside to the proposal so that is why most users are against it.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox JESC entry edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Template:Infobox JESC entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two transclusions; duplicates large parts of {{Infobox single}} or {{Infobox song}} in each case. Redundant to {{Infobox ESC entry}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Country data OC edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data OC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template consisting of a single piped link with no flag image to link to. If it is actually a handy shortcut, it should be moved, since it's not a country data template. SiBr4 (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox United States proposed state legislation edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox United States proposed state legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single, malformed use (on Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act, with no content). Redundant to {{Infobox United States federal proposed legislation}}, per previous TfD Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom, proposed legislation can easily be handled by a single infobox.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Coppélia edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete after substitution (used in only one article) Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coppélia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Everything here redirects back to the main article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please retain as it formats dancers' names in listings of productions of the ballet (if deleted a large number of broken pages will need to be fixed.) — Robert Greer (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Ismaili edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete/merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ismaili (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only seven transclusions. Redundant to {{Infobox religious biography}} (to which {{Infobox Imam}} already redirects). The list of Imams at the foot of the template should be recast as a navbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Jus Allah edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jus Allah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does not aid in navigating to enough that is only related to him to meet WP:NENAN. Template: Army of the Pharaohs and Template: Jedi Mind Tricks provide any needed navigation for all but two of the links STATic message me! 18:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Crypt the Warchild edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crypt the Warchild (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does not aid in navigating anything that is only related to him. Template: OuterSpace and Template: Army of the Pharaohs provide any needed navigation. STATic message me! 18:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Planetary edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Planetary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does not aid in navigating anything that is only related to him. Template: OuterSpace and Template: Army of the Pharaohs provide any needed navigation. STATic message me! 18:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Crimean Crisis of 2014 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crimean Crisis of 2014 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded template. Absolutely duplicate of the navbox {{2014 Crimean crisis}}. NickSt (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion (speedy keep) - It is common to have both a sidebar and navbox available for different uses. However, I'm more startled by the clear bad faith expressed by Nickst in this regard. We had a slight disagreement about the title of the template, and I directed him to the talk page. However, instead of discussing it with me there, where I left commentary, he nominated said template for deletion. RGloucester — ☎ 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nickst has now added a brief remark to the talk page, but I want to make it clear that he did not do this until well after he nominated the template for deletion. RGloucester — ☎ 16:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what. Title discussion and duplicate problem are independent things. WP:AGF NickSt (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite clear that you did not treat them as independent, and I'm sure third party observers would see this way as well. You could've nominated the template for deletion at first. You did not. You only did so after a dispute arose, that you, for some reason, preferred not to discuss. However, you are correct in that we should not discuss matters of good/bad faith further here, as this is a deletion discussion based on the merits of your arguments, which have been thoroughly debunked. RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (strongly). {{2014 Crimean crisis}} is a navbar template while the nominated template is a sidebar template. It is quite common to use both kind of templates in an article, as sidebars are used on the right side of the article vertically and immediately after an infobox, while navbars are used at the very bottom of the article horizontally. Furthermore, I don't see any compelling arguments from the nominators besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NAV: The two main types of navigation template are navboxes and sidebars. The two serve similar purposes: to allow related subjects to link to each other easily in a consistent manner. NickSt (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read further on, my dear fellow. Yes, they do serve similar purposes. There is no doubt of that. However, as one will see if one read on: "The two types are used interchangeably, and either or both may be appropriate in different circumstances". RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You want to say, we can create one more sidebar-analog for each navbox?! NickSt (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to say anything. I'm merely reading the essay WP:NAV, which you cited incompletely. Regardless, it is an essay, and hence non-binding. RGloucester — ☎ 16:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree per nom, that this is essentially a duplicate. I think our time would be spent more wisely if we were occupied with writing good text and articles than fighting over a template.   DDima 18:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the waste of time, however you are incorrect about the template. You've not provided justification for why the template must be deleted. Merely that it is a "duplicate". However, as has been stated, it is usual to have both available for different purposes, as it says in the essay the nominator cited. RGloucester — ☎ 18:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have my view and you have your view. I think this template should be deleted.   DDima 21:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if you do not explain why, how can one understand what one says? RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it does look like a duplication of the navbox, and the latter allows many more links compared to this template. RGloucester is right in that there are cases where it is desirable to have both a sidebar and a navbox, but that doesn't mean that having them is mandatory.—eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not mandatory" is not a rationale for deleting something that otherwise causes no harm, but can be useful. RGloucester — ☎ 18:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TFD#REASONS #2, if you need a bureaucratic explanation.—eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That does not apply, as this is a sidebar, and not a navbox. RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant. On WP:fr, we just have massively transform the sidebars into navboxs. Because It's take the place of the infobox for lot of articles, and trouble the layout. Personnaly, I think Navboxs have to be privileged to sideboxs. And have the two in the same article is useless, especially in short article like Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet. —Nouill (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that this sidebar is not meant to be used that way it is on the page you cited. That is a perfect example of a page that, according to WP:NAV, would be well suited to having only a sidebar, as it does not have an infobox. However, once again, I do not understand how it is "redundant". It is an entirely separate style of navigation template. It is common to have both options available. It does no harm. It is well designed, and pleasant to look at. There is no reason to delete well-wrought templates with the potential to aid us. I shall add that that page was created with this template. The navbox was added by the nominator after the fact, despite the fact that he should've realised that this would've been incorrect use of the navbox. RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a sidebar template and looks to be doing the job of a footer template in the articles that don't have infoboxes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others stated, a sidebar and an infobox are often both used Orser67 (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This comment does not address the substance of the debate. Remember, Cmoilbenlepro, that this is not a vote. Please give us a proper reason for your stated viewpoint. RGloucester — ☎ 23:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely because, as I said earlier, the nominator Nickst embarked on a campaign to place the navbox on articles which had previously only had the sidebar. This is unacceptable, in its entirety. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Here is an example of the behaviour that I mentioned in my comment above: link. RGloucester — ☎ 23:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And he did so, unchallenged, well before the TfD was started. Can you provide an example of a page that would be improved in its layout by removing the navbox but adding (or retaining) the sidebar?—eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unchallenged, of course, because I don't want to start an edit war about templates, which is the last thing we need. Keep in mind that I did not place that template to start with. However, the page in question is a very good example. Short pages without infoboxes are well-suited to sidebars, and are in fact where sidebars are meant to be placed, as is written in the essay our dear nominator cited, WP:NAV. That is why, presumably, the creator of the page decided to create it WITH the sidebar, but WITHOUT the navbox, until Nickst placed the navbox there. Shouldn't those who create articles have that choice available to them? RGloucester — ☎ 23:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet could benefit from using the Template:Infobox treaty. I won't add it myself because of this ongoing discussion, but if someone else decided to add it, that would not leave space for a sidebar.—eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Such a small article, a stub, which is mainly known for its connection to the crisis, does not need an infobox. It is better served by the sidebar. RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: over a week later, the same CatScan query produces the same result: this sidebar is used exclusively along with the navbox, which means they are completely redundant to each other.—eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct. Once again, this only because of a campaign by Nickst to place the navbox on pages that previously had the sidebar. I'm not going to remove his navboxes and start an edit war, so the result is what you get. This is not a fair criteria for deletion, nor is it uncommon for sidebars and navboxes to coexist. I do not understand your hatred for sidebars. RGloucester — ☎ 14:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the sidebar. the navbox provides less obtrusive, and more complete, navigation. leaves more room for images and other infoboxes or sidebars. Frietjes (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebars are inherently more visible, and more easy to comprehend to the reader. They provide a direct link at the top of the page to appropriate articles. They are flashy, look nice, and attract attention. I do not think that this can be a rationale for deletion. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - template is needed as a sidebar template.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:U-Bahn edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U-Bahn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Underground rapid transit in the European Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:U-Bahn with Template:Underground rapid transit in the European Union.
Redundant. There is no obvious difference between an U-Bahn and a typical metro. |FDMS 12:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for a "country template" ... It would not have a lot of items. |FDMS 22:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, but only if we deflag the EU template. Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with deflagging. |FDMS 14:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox NRL Auckland Nines tournament edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, single use and replaced by Infobox sport tournament in 2014 NRL Auckland Nines. Also, it appears the concern about the league icons could be addressed by making a {{rls team}} template, since there is already a {{rls player}} template for the players. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NRL Auckland Nines tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created four days ago. It could be replaced by Template:Infobox sport tournament. eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_23&oldid=1138534073"