Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 15

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 14 March 16 >

March 15 edit

Template:2013 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's soccer 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 delete. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned tempalte; all redlinks... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:33, 15 March 2017 (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:Paris Metro/line 3bis stations 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 2017 March 24. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2017 (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:Chennai Metro line 1 Route 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. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and obsolete: has been replaced by Template:Chennai Metro Blue Line Route. Useddenim (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:06, 17 March 2017 (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:NPB labeled map 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 2017 March 24. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2017 (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:Use British (Oxford) English 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 redirect to Template:Use British (Oxford) English. Action performed by creator. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:EngvarO with Template:Use British (Oxford) English.
Recently created template that seems to do exactly the same as another long established one. I can see no difference between this and Use British (Oxford) English, other than that having a much clearer to understand name. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 23#Template:EngvarA spelling.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: I have made this template - it is intended to be a neutral spelling marker for Oxford spelling, in analogy to the existing template Template:EngvarB. There was a long discussion about whether that template should be deleted and the result was to keep it: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_5#Template:EngvarB
My rationale was along the same lines, but I'll reconsider it. Perhaps "Use Oxford spelling" would be better as a name. Acopyeditor (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is it different from Template:Use British (Oxford) English?--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"EngvarB" marks British/Commonwealth spelling, but not British/Commonwealth English. A national variety of English encompasses more than just a spelling standard. What do I mean by that? For example: "The colourful lift has just gone up" is British English with British spelling. "The colorful lift has just gone up" is British English, but with American spelling. "The colorful elevator just went up." is American English. "The colourful elevator just went up" is American English, but with British spelling. EngvarB was introduced as a marker for a semi-automatic script (of the same name) that ensures consistent British/Commonwealth spelling. "EngvarO" does the same for Oxford spelling. The other template that you compare it to is called "Use British (Oxford) English", which has a broader scope. It asks the user to use British English, not just British spelling. For articles closely connected to the UK, that's fine, of course, but for nationally neutral articles this template appears overly prescriptive. I have noticed that the corresponding template for the talk page is called "British English Oxford spelling". What do you think about renaming the current "Use British (Oxford) English" template to "Use British English Oxford spelling"? "EngvarO" could be a redirect to that, and then I would not use "EngvarO" any longer. Acopyeditor (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"EngvarO" does the same for Oxford spelling" does not make sense to me. Could you say what EngvarO does, in a few words or a sentence. There are so many of these templates that I do not keep track of them all, so saying it is the same relative to Z as how X relates to Y is just confusing. The examples don’t make sense: you should not mix American spelling with English vocabulary, or vice versa, that is simply wrong.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have explained it well above. "EngvarO" only marks Oxford spelling, nothing else. But I realize now that this distinction is probably too nuanced for Wikipedia... I propose to rename "Use British (Oxford) English" to "Use British English Oxford spelling" because that is clearer and directly corresponds to the existing talk page template "British English Oxford spelling" Template:British_English_Oxford_spelling. Would you be ok with that? Acopyeditor (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So EngvarO marks Oxford spelling, the standard only used in British publications. And you want British (Oxford) English renamed Use British English Oxford spelling. So that means you are happy with the merge as they essentially do the same thing? Nevermind, I see that you are from the end of your note below. I would add that here is not the place to decide whether to move the other template: as a long standing template, part of a larger group, I think that requires a separate discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will make "EngvarO" redirect to "Use British (Oxford) English". Re: the proposed move -- I would suggest to go ahead with it. On Wikipedia:Requested moves, it says: " If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." The current English variant templates all follow a pattern: Template:American English -> Template:Use American English, Template:Canadian English -> Template:Use Canadian English. But Template:British English Oxford spelling and Template:Use British (Oxford) English. It's the only exception. And it is not clear what "Oxford English" is supposed to mean, but "Oxford spelling" is clear, there is even the Wikipedia article about it. So I would go ahead and move the template, unless you object. Acopyeditor (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming and redirect: Rename (move) Template:Use_British_(Oxford)_English to Template:Use_British_English_Oxford_spelling for clarity and consistency. Make Template:EngvarO a redirect. Acopyeditor (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:13, 15 March 2017 (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:Talk-warn 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 2017 March 28 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 28 March 2017 (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:PD-NZSection27 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 23:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This tag may be used on a file which is not PD in other countries, for example one that is not PD in the US and so is only allowed under fair use. Thincat (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no requirement in policy to upload free content to commons rather than to en-wiki. Most of these templates should be expected to appear unused because anyone who uses them, will probably have their content moved to commons anyway. There are editors who choose to avoid commons, and deleting these templates only makes their work more difficult, for really no good reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This tag may be required for files temporarily copied from commons for protection purposes. For work in joint copyright this tag may be one of several for a file that is in copyright in one of the source countries and so may not be hosted on commons. Template deletion is not an appropriate way of encouraging uploading to commons. This is a template associated with a policy, WP:Image use policy, and so should not have been nominated here ("cannot be listed at TFD", see above). Thincat (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It's currently the prerogative of an uploader to upload a file locally, regardless of its acceptability at commons, and they may even choose to tag it with {{keep local}}. The appropriateness of that is not a debate to have here. If an editor chooses to do so: making properly licensing easy is much preferable to the lack of licenses. Weak as it is unused. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:19, 22 March 2017 (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:PD-Highsmith 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 keep. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, images under these criteria should be uploaded directly to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Correct, you will notice I created the template for temporary uploads from Commons for use of the image on the Main Page. I see no point in deleting this template when the next admin who uploads a file under this license to this project will have to recreate the template. Regards SoWhy 15:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Also, local uploads are no longer necessary for main page images because they are protected by cascading protection. -FASTILY 02:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
::WP:CASCADE seems to say otherwise but what it says may not be true. Is this the right place to be looking on commons? Thincat (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard my comment, I've found Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en Thincat (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Locally uploading a Commons images remain necessary in certain situations, including KrinkleBot's recurring outages. It also remains one of the accepted methods (and the only one that's instantaneous for Wikipedia admins who aren't also Commons admins) of protecting images for use at Template:In the news, whose content does not pass through a queue that triggers KrinkleBot's cascading protection before appearing on the main page. (The other local method is to transclude the file at WP:CMP, but that relies on KrinkleBot and entails a delay – even when the bot is operational.)
    When a local upload is needed, the applicable license template's absence is one of the most inconvenient and time-consuming aspects. We should strive to increase the tags' availability here, not reduce it. —David Levy 01:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that admins should take over during infrequent outages of KrinkleBot. Disagreed that "license template's absence [is]... inconvenient and time-consuming". If the uploads in question are meant to be temporary anyways, then I don't see a problem with directly filling out an {{Imbox}} with the license details. Note that WP:CSD#F4 only mandates declaration of copyright status, and not specifically a license tag. I am also of the opinion that we should be encouraging uploaders to contribute free files to Commons, where they can be a benefit across WMF projects globally. Leaving a myriad of unused copyright tags here speaks otherwise. -FASTILY 02:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, I'm not sure that I'd describe KrinkleBot's outages as "infrequent". We've gone fairly long stretches with little or no downtime, but we've also experienced periods in which we've averaged about one per month (with each lasting up to several days). I'll note that this often occurs due to factors beyond Krinkle's control (such as MediaWiki updates that unexpectedly break or otherwise alter functionality on which the bot relies).
    Secondly, I'll reiterate that locally uploading Commons media is not limited to such outages. We must routinely protect Commons images (via one method or another) before using them at ITN.
    Thirdly, under the best of circumstances, ensuring that administrators follow the proper file protection procedures is a constant struggle. (As you might imagine, this garish notice was far from a first resort, and it still gets ignored sometimes.) The type of workaround that you've described might seem simple to you and me, but all Wikipedians have areas of relative weakness – and this is no exception. Anything that complicates matters – even slightly – increases the likelihood of something going awry (owing either to error or to sheer frustration). Pestering my fellow admins is a necessarily evil (and one that I don't enjoy, I assure you), but I've also attempted to make things as easy as possible. Deleting valid license tags runs counter to that.
    Even with the ability to tell admins that they need only copy and paste the Commons description, I already have to twist arms to prevent main page images from being left vulnerable to vandalism such as this (NSFW: a pornographic photograph that actually appeared on our main page). Can we please not make this more difficult?
    Fourthly, while I certainly agree that users should be encouraged to contribute free files to Commons, I disagree that withholding suitable copyright tags from Wikipedia accomplishes this goal; it's more likely to increase the quantity of local uploads lacking appropriate licensing information. A properly tagged file that can be transferred to Commons is vastly preferable to one with the wrong tag (or no tag at all) that gets deleted instead. Uploading to Commons in the first place is better still, of course, and we can encourage this through ample documentation (including mentions in and around the templates themselves). We need to point out the benefits of Commons, not purposely make Wikipedia inhospitable to free media in the hope of forcing contributors to find Commons on their own. —David Levy 04:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No issues with points one and two; these are accepted practices, but are not entirely relevant to this discussion. As for point three, you do not explicitly address my {{Imbox}} suggestion? I review many files each day, and I often find files with no license tag and text such as "CC-BY-SA-2.0". This is literally as easy and lazy as it gets, and it is perfectly valid under policy. Furthermore, we're talking about infrequent temporary uploads, which will be deleted or moved to Commons anyways. As for point four: "purposely make Wikipedia inhospitable to free media". David, that's ridiculous. I do not support such a thing. What I am against, is leaving a mess of unused/unmaintained (sometimes wrong or outdated), obscure, and very specific copyright tags, where they are likely to a) confuse newbies, and b) be misapplied. In fact, I find misapplied obscure tags from newbies *all* the time, so much that I'd rather they use tags such as {{PD-because}} so that it's possible to see their thought process and actually verify the copyright status of their uploads, as opposed to outright nominating for deletion. Now I think anyone that knows what they're doing would have uploaded the file to Commons, making the argument of likelihood of frequent legitimate use completely moot. If we agree on anything, it's that the current upload procedures should be easier. This makes it easier. -FASTILY 07:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No issues with points one and two; these are accepted practices, but are not entirely relevant to this discussion.
    They became relevant to the discussion when you stated that "local uploads are no longer necessary for main page images because they are protected by cascading protection", a scenario in which the template would be obsolete. I'm addressing this point by noting that the need for such uploads has merely been reduced, not eliminated outright. Therefore, license tags for "temporary uploads from Commons for use of the image on the Main Page" (as the template's creator explained above) remain helpful.
    As for point three, you do not explicitly address my {{Imbox}} suggestion?
    I acknowledged that workaround's simplicity from the perspective of someone familiar with such matters. I'm attempting to convey that some administrators are less knowledgeable in this area and more inclined to err, just as you and I likely are in relation to certain areas with which they're intimately familiar. I encourage admins to take the appropriate protection measures by stressing that the Commons description can simply be copied and pasted, with no need to analyze its content or adapt its formatting. You "don't see a problem with directly filling out an {{imbox}} with the license details" because this is a task that you (and I) find trivially easy. For others, it's burdensome at best and a seemingly insurmountable challenge at worst. (Unfortunately, this has no impact on the ease with which an unprotected image can be transcluded on the main page, particularly when the associated risks are not understood).
    I review many files each day,
    And I deal with main page images every day. I'm citing a problem that I encounter with alarming frequency and explaining why templates such as this one help to counter it. Likewise, I assume that various tools whose utility might be unclear to me assist you in your daily file review efforts.
    and I often find files with no license tag and text such as "CC-BY-SA-2.0". This is literally as easy and lazy as it gets, and it is perfectly valid under policy.
    Indeed, copying and pasting the text "CC-BY-SA-2.0" from Flickr (for example) is perfectly valid under policy. So is copying and pasting a Commons license tag call, but deleting this template and others like it would deprive editors of the ability.
    Furthermore, we're talking about infrequent temporary uploads, which will be deleted or moved to Commons anyways.
    However you're defining "infrequent" (and there's no question that we're discussing an occurrence far removed from the scale of Wikipedia file uploads in general), I don't see the relevance. Unless infrequent main page image vandalism (again, NSFW) is acceptable – and I'm not suggesting that you've said anything of the sort – these temporary uploads remain important, despite their relative infrequency.
    As for point four: "purposely make Wikipedia inhospitable to free media". David, that's ridiculous. I do not support such a thing.
    Perhaps I've misunderstood your point. Are you not arguing that the existence of free license templates at Wikipedia contributes to an environment unduly conducive to local uploads of free media, thereby discouraging users from contributing them directly to Commons instead?
    What I am against, is leaving a mess of unused/unmaintained (sometimes wrong or outdated),
    To my knowledge, no one advocates that we retain "wrong or outdated" license tags. Any flaws in their content should be rectified as soon as they're discovered. The sheer quantity of templates involved raises a legitimate concern that issues might be overlooked, but potential solutions other than deletion are available. In particular, I filed a relevant bot request (which, unfortunately, received no response). I focused on the automatic creation of Commons-specific license tags not currently duplicated at Wikipedia (and special categorization intended to clearly indicate their nature), but automatic checks of our templates copies for inconsistent wording and usage in conjunction with files not present at Commons are other possible applications.
    Perhaps such tasks could be added to your bot's repertoire. (If not, their omission isn't a subject of criticism on my part. I don't even possess the ability to author such code.)
    obscure, and very specific copyright tags,
    I agree that many of the tags are obscure and very specific. So how is it reasonable to expect persons inexperienced in this area to recognize them and effectively express the underlying licenses (however common those might be) via an-{{imbox}}-based implementation?
    where they are likely to a) confuse newbies, and b) be misapplied. In fact, I find misapplied obscure tags from newbies *all* the time, so much that I'd rather they use tags such as {{PD-because}} so that it's possible to see their thought process and actually verify the copyright status of their uploads, as opposed to outright nominating for deletion.
    I've acknowledged the importance of appropriate documentation and demarcation. I certainly don't discount your experience, which suggests that improvements are needed. But I know from my experience that the templates' deletion would exacerbate a different problem (one that exists in far smaller numbers, but with far greater potential harm in each instance).
    Now I think anyone that knows what they're doing would have uploaded the file to Commons, making the argument of likelihood of frequent legitimate use completely moot.
    In the sense that you appear to be using the word "frequent", I'm not making such an argument.
    If we agree on anything, it's that the current upload procedures should be easier. This makes it easier.
    See above. —David Levy 18:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi David, thanks for your reply. I think I have made my position clear in my previous replies, and I continue to stand by them. However, the issue isn't nearly as important to me as you might imagine, so I do not feel that it is a good use of my time to continue this discussion. Moving forward, it sounds like you have some bot ideas you'd like to explore, and I'd be interested in collaborating with you on those. Let me know. Respectfully, FASTILY 01:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template and other such. Unless it becomes policy that PD files should not be uploaded to enwp, it is appropriate that appropriate licence tags exist. Replacing PD licences with text does not help with moving to commons where this is appropriate. Thincat (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no requirement in policy to upload free content to commons rather than to en-wiki. Most of these templates should be expected to appear unused because anyone who uses them, will probably have their content moved to commons anyway. There are editors who choose to avoid commons, and deleting these templates only makes their work more difficult, for really no good reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:12, 15 March 2017 (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:Mobile phone companies in Ukraine 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 to Template:Mobile phone companies in Ukraine. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Mobile phone companies in Ukraine with Template:Ukraine mobile phone companies.
Both templates have the same information. One is older, and the other is used more Islamomt (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, seems like a reasonable idea. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, same function. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     15:08, 17 March 2017 (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:Guldbagge Awards hosts 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 2017 March 28 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 28 March 2017 (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:I liga Top scorers 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 soft delete. Only opposition is the creator. WP:REFUND applies, provided that sources and/or an article are given/created. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unsourced template that links to an article that does not support this list. Qed237 (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eemiratess (talk • contribs)
As the nominator says, the template provenance is unsourced. GiantSnowman 20:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please, even on this side of the wikipedia were previously the same information published and accepted, so please restore my template, or please help me to improve it, anyway edition live well and anyone can add something, if you see errors, but do not see the point of reset if the earlier Polish Wikipedia editors accepted it.
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kr%C3%B3l_strzelc%C3%B3w_w_pi%C5%82ce_no%C5%BCnej#Kr.C3.B3lowie_strzelc.C3.B3w_polskiej_pierwszej_ligi
source informationEemiratess (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Eemiratess[reply]
if everything is OK? Eemiratess (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Eemiratess[reply]
  • keep if someone writes a list article, with sources, demonstrating the notability and source. otherwise, delete as unsourced trivia. Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (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/2017_March_15&oldid=1052632618"