Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 2 December 4 >

December 3 edit

Template:Elections by year 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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn ~ Rob13Talk 02:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a failed experiment. Unless I'm mistaken, it is unused. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: You might want to check the what links here, as it has 444 transclusions. As such, I'll be !voting to keep, although I hope you'll withdraw this. Cheers, Number 57 23:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I got nothing. If it has 444 transclusions, then I withdraw. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah my bad. I used the twinkle unlink and it showed me nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2016 (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).

Template:ARW2013riders 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).

The result of the discussion was merge / delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2013 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. The Banner talk 23:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see reasons here, at the other nomination. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 19:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with the article and delete as was decided last month. for templates used on more than one page, we can use LST, as was decided last month. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/delete in keeping with the previous outcome. ~ Rob13Talk 08:22, 11 December 2016 (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).

Template:GIW2014riders 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).

The result of the discussion was merge / delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2014 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. The Banner talk 23:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Important note Starting in June 2014 The Banner (talk · contribs) started nominating these kind of templates. Seen over the last months every other week a few of these templates are nominating. In October 2016 he wrote " I have only nominated the ones with link to disambiguation pages, but I am willing to nominate the whole series." But untill know he is still nominating the templates one-by-one. Only some of the nominations where announced on my talk page. As can be seen, most of the tempalate where I replied where kept, othere were sometimes deleted sometimes kept. See for examples: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 29, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 18, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 10 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 10, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 29. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 19:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Help:LST for several reasons
  1. Nominator has as argument information that is completely static. The template was of the riders after the season. But there are almost always riders joining or leaving the team during the season. This should be indicated at the template, see for instance at Template:DLT2014riders. I didn't add this information (yet) to all of the templates. So, no, these template will not be completely static.
  2. Nominator has as arguments both outdated ànd information isn't going to change. Outdated means needs to be updates, so appears to be a contradiction
  3. Nominator has as argument outdated template, as this template is only about the 2014, the template is not outdated.
  4. Template is used at three pages where the info needs to be kept: List of Team Liv–Plantur riders, List of 2014 UCI Women's Teams and riders and 2014 Team Giant–Shimano season.
  5. Nominator has as argument There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Well take a look at for example template:2016 Summer Olympics United States men's basketball team roster (part within Category:2016 Summer Olympics basketball team roster templates). There are categories for every team sport at these Olympics and exist for multiple Olympic Games and even for multiple multiple-sports tournaments (like Pan American Games etc.). And what about templates like Template:2002 FIFA World Cup goalscorers? The nominator made even contributions to it before nominatimg this one. My point is, there are 100s maybe even 1000s of these kind of templates! And these templates are about one competition so there are even much static compared to these ones.
  6. Parts of a well structured serie, there are about 250 of these (men's and women's) templates, see category:Cycling team templates. When nominating, please nominate all (in 1 deletion proposal!).
Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 19:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the templates for 2016 were kept for now but the templates for other years were al deleted. But your lack of accuracy is visible here again, as I was not involved in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 18 and a few others were relistings. The Banner talk 20:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never replied to these other years, I don't know they were listed on my talk page. Not all older years were kept, see for instance Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 29 (who said something about lack of accuracy?). But why always nominatimg one-by-one and not the whole bunch? In other nominations I have asked you several times to combine nominations. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 22:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed these on Sander v. Ginkel's talk page, but he preferred that I discussed it here. While my example was about a different template and not all arguments may exactly apply here, the main points stay the same, and some general issues with these templates (and with the arguments for them) are addressed. Fram (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are creating many cycling team templates, and many get nominated for deletion. You give as reasons "minimize storage space", which is not a valid reason (WMF policy is that we shouldn't worry about storage at all and that that shouldn't come into play when editing) and minimize maintenance. As has been said at the deletion discussions, how much maintenance do 2010 squads need? You say "collect source text used in several articles", but as far as I can see, these are only used on one page (e.g. List of 2010 UCI Women's Teams and riders), so you don't decrease maintenance or storage space and don't really collect anything, you just remove information from the article directly and put it into a template, making it harder for non-veteran editors to edit when needed (which like I said won't be often if ever). I see no benefit at the moment from all these templates. A disadvantage though is that a page like List of 2010 UCI Women's Teams and riders now has many more "edit" links and many unecessary and distracting "view" links inserted into it (and a needless repetition of things like "ages as of January 2010", which you could otherwise have stated only once).
Another disadvantage, as can be seen in that article, is that at the moment you have the same link to [1] with one description on 21 templates, and another description on 5 other templates. If the squads had been on the page instead of on a template, you would have had one named reference. Now you have to edit either 5 or 21 templates to give them all the same description, which means that your efforts have actually increased the maintenance needed, not decreased.
Please stop creating further such templates until it has been established that they really are beneficial. Fram (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(end of self-quote).
In general, I would support deletion of all these templates. Fram (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Fram (talk · contribs) Your comment is about the most recent created templates. I didn't finish creating them and are still working on them. I didn't have time to put all of them already at the team pages, but they will all be linked to multiple pages. You say you just remove information from the article directly and put it into a template. Well please take a look, the info was never at the page, I started creating the templates. You say now has many more "edit" links and many unecessary and distracting "view" links inserted into it. See reason #5, this is not a problem regarding to these templates. There are 100s of pages including these kind of themplates with these links problems. You say needless repetition of things like "ages as of January 2010" well that is on a page like List of 2010 UCI Women's Teams and riders but not on the other pages that includes these templates like List of Specialized–lululemon riders. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 13:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)?[reply]
My comment is about all templates up for deletion. If they aren't ready, it is your responsbility, your problem only; you added them to mainspace articles, and then abandoned them to create others, instead of continuing on a template until it was finished. Don't use your poor editing methods as an excuse to keep these templates, they are an extra argument to delete them. Fram (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is not correct. Please take a proper loop Template:GIW2014riders, it was created in January 2014, almost three years ago(!). The templates up for deletion don't have the problems you are indicating. So please start nominating them and don't comment it here. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made these comments on your talk page, you said to post them here. If now you claim that they don't apply because this template is much older, then tough luck, you wanted the arguments here. Furthermore, for a template like Template:GEW2012riders, you point to the discussion here as well. But that template has been just created... "The templates up for deletion don't have the problems you are indicating." seems to be highly optimistic. E.g. Template:GEW2012riders has the wrong ages, adds unwanted "view" links in mainspace articles, and so on. So pleas try again with correct arguments this time. Fram (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was me who said about the wrong ages, but never mind. If your "view" links is one of you meain reasons for deletion, you probably haven't seen many of such articles to know that is common use. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 15:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not just the view links, all the reasons I gave combined, with the very limited use of these (compared to e.g. the Olympics ones you linked to in earlier comment). Fram (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As another example of how these templates create more confusion and maintenance: go to List of 2011 UCI Women's Teams and riders, to "Kuota Speed Kueens" and next to "Ages as of 1 January 2011" click on edit... The sames happens to about 10 of the teams, and is caused by poor templates. This problem wouldn't happen if the information was simply kept in the article(s). 13:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I know, as I said, I didn't finish the 2010 and 2011 templates. Also the ages are not at all templates correct yet. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 13:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't put unfinished templates in articles. You are adding incorrect information to the main page (again). Haven't we gad this same discussion often enough by now? Fram (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I created them I didn't know it had these errors. I saw them later. Will correct it all (like I always do) when I have time. And I must say, it's always easy to pick some small errors in pages/templates that are just created. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, you claim to make templates for the current squad but in fact are those squads 1 to 6 years old.But it is funny to hear your standard excuse again: At the time I created them I didn't know it had these errors.. The Banner talk 14:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you would put as lot as data on Wikipedia as I do, you would probably also make some mistakes. Already in the few sentences you wrote about these templates you made several mistakes ;). I don't claim to make templates for the current squad, do I? Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's always your defense. If only you made "some mistakes", we wouldn't be here. In reality, you make way too many mistakes. And these are in mainspace articles, not in back-office comments where these don't matter (I wouldn't e.g. dismiss your comments here because you write "as lot as data", but I object to your templates when they have wrong information, wrong links, and layout that doesn't belong in the mainspace, all for very little actual benefit if any). Fram (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If only you made "some mistakes", we wouldn't be here. The nomination for these templates is not about making mistakes. I think we should not talk here about some tiny errors in the template but about the issue keep them or not. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 15:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The many mistakes you make (not just "tiny" ones, see e.g. below for one rather big mistake in this very template), only make these templates worse (and more work than they are worth). Such templates are harder to find and correct for the casual editor, so they reduce the chance that things get corrected. High rate of errors, smaller chance of them getting corrected, means that these are more hassle than they are worth. They create inconsistent, more ugly articles for little to no benefit. Fram (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another "tiny error"[2]. Fram (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I always fix my own problems. Well I can tell, All the many mistakes I made in these templates have been fixed. It took me hours!! No joking, just a few minutes. But still, your comment it about these kind of templates. There are 1000s of them on Wikipedia, and they work all in the same way. You can also say les vandalism. And as not much has to be changed on this article, it's fine that they are a bit harder to edit. Get used to this kind of templates and pages. And leave your unfundamented opinion like ugly articles for your self again (like you were told already many times). Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 15:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "I have corrected most of the errors that have been pointed out to me, though I have missed others"? I don't really care about other templates now, we are here discussing the ones you created. Perhaps these others need to go as well, perhaps (like the Olympics ones you first linked here) they are used in many, many more pages which makes the argument to keep them a bit stronger, I don't care here and now, I am discussing only these. "Get used to this" is hardly a convincing argument to keep them. As for "ugly", I argued why I think they make articles uglier. Compare [3] with [4] and you might see what I mean. Oh look, there's a big red citiation error in that older, template-based version. What a surprise... Fram (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You really shouldn't have started the works as if templates where deleted. This is realy bad practice and not how an administrator should work. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 20:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
S.v.G., when during an edit conflict you remove someone else's comments, don't proceed as if nothing happened. I have reverted all your changes since the edit where you removed my comment. Feel free to manually readd your changes without losing someone else's comments now. And please try to minimize the number of edits you need to make a comment, you are causing numerous edit conflicts (but I took care to keep your comments when that happened to me). Fram (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this comment has been restored as well. S.v.G., don't remove the comments from others. Fram (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
don't remove the comments from others like you did here. But well shall we continue talking about the deletion the templates or not? Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I brought it back to the state it was before someone removed comments. Which he then did again... Fram (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, let's keep talking about the deletion. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 15:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason that Amy Pieters isn't listed at Template:GIW2014riders? She was part of the team in 2013, 2014, 2015, so it's not as if she joined after 1 January 2014 only. The link at the template doesn't work, but this with the right filters returns her name... Fram (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with the article and delete as was decided last month. for templates used on more than one page, we can use LST, as was decided last month. Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes:, I know you are experienced with these kind of templates. I want to add later who joined of left the team during the season, and yes there are many (see what I mean at for instance at Template:DLT2014riders). I will do that at one place, and don't copy it to all the other place where the same info might be listed. During the previous discussion like the one from previous month, I didn't realise that the templates are not complete with showing this information. It would be such a shame if the templates get deleted. In that case the info will become different at different places on Wikipedia. I think Help:LST is the best option and everybody would be happy with it. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 20:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Administrator Fram started already copying the content from the templates to List of 2011 UCI Women's Teams and riders (see here) As no consensus has been reached here, and this might harm/making difficult completing LST, I undid his revisions. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 20:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sander.v.Ginkel: and this might harm/making difficult completing LST [citation needed]. LST does not depend on the info being in a template and thus converting to it will require copying the info to an article.
Like Frietjes said LST for templates used on more than one page. Because of you we don't know how many times the templates have been used. Your way of acting and the way you're talking is not the way an administrator should act. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 08:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:GIW2014riders wasn't or isn't used on that page. Only one template nominated for deletion was and is actually used there, and it was nominated at about the same time as my original edits to the page, so I wasn't even aware of it then. Fram (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: As a frequent closer of TfDs, please do not substitute these templates until there's consensus to delete at a TfD. When that occurs, I almost universally wind up closing the discussion as either "keep" or "no consensus", because the "delete" rationales must often be discounted as inaccurate. They wind up stating the template is unused, whereas it was only unused due to an out-of-process orphaning. Even when the effect on the discussion isn't very large, I tend to err in that direction to discourage the very slippery slope of out-of-process orphaning, something that tends to impact our limited supply of editors spending time at TfD when it comes to cleanup. The end result is usually that the templates returning to the article and having to start a new discussion to clarify consensus, which is counterproductive. While the issue isn't huge here with a couple transclusions, situations like this at TfD and CfD have taken hours of clean-up or even the use of a bot in the past, so the process is important. Thank you. ~ Rob13Talk 09:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, when I started substituting them, not a single one was up for deletion. One was nominated at about the same time as my edits. This one is now unsubstituted in the article. I have not removed a single substitution of GIW2014riders. But the article I cleaned up had loads of errors, both factual and in the reference section (different templates used the same reference name for a different link, which gives no error at the template but gives errors in articles where they clash). The discussion here can continue as always nothing was impacted, and at the same time an article was seriuosly improved. Fram (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: I'm aware. I was speaking generally about orphaning templates prior to a TfD discussion. Apologies if that was not clear. ~ Rob13Talk 10:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the note that you didnt unsubstituted the template yourself and reverted it several times while you were warned. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete as per the previous outcome related to these templates. ~ Rob13Talk 08:24, 11 December 2016 (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).

Template:2014UCIWomenTeams 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2016 December 12 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 12 December 2016 (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).

Template:Bids for the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with only two links. Insufficient navigation to justify the template. ~ Rob13Talk 08:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:56, 3 December 2016 (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).

Template:ME-fact 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2016 December 12 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 12 December 2016 (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).

Template:PrSpam 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the elements that misrepresent policy, this is redundant to Template:Advert. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but disagree with nominator's reasoning. It's equivalent to {{Prod}} (with a specified reason) + {{Advert}}. The implication that the template may not be deleted by the spammer original editor is against policy, but that could be resolved by a wording change. If there were a proposal that the template be used, change to Weak keep, but edit to make it subst to {{Advert}}+{{subst:Prod}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There has not been a consensus for when this template should be used. The template even says that it is not yet approved for use. It also uses an out-of-date background color that was used in Template:Proposed deletion 10 years ago. And, it gives {{dated prspam =}}, a transclusion of a non-existent template displaying as a redlink. Until there is consensus, the template should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:16, 3 December 2016 (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).

Template:Acc 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2016 December 12 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 12 December 2016 (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).

Template:Chinese calendar date (2001–2050) 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).

The result of the discussion was merge / delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A template used in only one article, Chinese New Year, is not useful, as the information can simply be put within the article itself via template substitution. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 15:31, 3 December 2016 (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).

Template:Qif 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2016 December 10 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:27, 10 December 2016 (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).

Template:Curry Colonels football coach navbox 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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn ~ Rob13Talk 06:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only three blue links. Insufficient navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 02:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are now four blue links. Requesting withdrawal of nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2016 (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).

Template:Cornell Rams football coach navbox 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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn ~ Rob13Talk 06:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only three blue links. Insufficient navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 02:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are now four blue links. Requesting withdrawal of nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2016 (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).

Template:Concordia Cougars football coach navbox 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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn ~ Rob13Talk 06:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only three blue links. Insufficient navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 02:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are now four blue links. Requesting withdrawal of nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2016 (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).

Template:Coe Kohawks football coach navbox 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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn ~ Rob13Talk 02:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only three blue links. Insufficient navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 02:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are now five blue links. @BU Rob13: would you consider withdrawing this nomination? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2016 (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).

Template:Christopher Newport Captains football coach navbox 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2016 December 12 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 12 December 2016 (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).

Template:Central College Dutch football coach navbox 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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn ~ Rob13Talk 06:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only three blue links. Insufficient navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 02:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are now four blue links. Requesting withdrawal of nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2016 (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).

Template:Becker Hawks football coach navbox 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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn ~ Rob13Talk 05:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only two blue links. Insufficient navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 02:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: There are now four blue links. Requesting withdrawal of nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2016 (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).

Template:Augustana (Illinois) Vikings football coach navbox 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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn ~ Rob13Talk 06:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only three blue links. Insufficient navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 02:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are now four blue links. Requesting withdrawal of nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2016 (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).

Template:Anderson Ravens football coach navbox 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).

The result of the discussion was withdrawn ~ Rob13Talk 06:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only three links. Insufficient navigation. ~ Rob13Talk 02:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: There are now four blue links. Requesting withdrawal of nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2016 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_3&oldid=1065802412"