< September 7 September 9 >

September 8


Template:Match in progress

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) 00:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Match in progress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This issue has raised its head again in various discussions recently hence this nomination. Wikipedia is not a live scoring site or a breaking news site and the existence of this template creates the impression to its user of legitimacy. There have been edit wars with inexperienced users who believe the practice of adding live scores is ok. However if the practice is condoned then there is no need for us to provide the template and help legitimise its use. Current consensus within the relative wiki project is that live scoring is not allowed so having a template that allows it to be done is not best practice. I fully understand why it was created but feel that it makes the problem worse not better. Blethering Scot 18:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dissagre with the deletion of this template. I am not an inexperienced user and as I see it there has been editwars fought by the persons that want to end live updating on wikipedia. This has been done in many sports. I myself have been part of it at the last summer olympic, the last FIFA world cup and at many local danish event when I was living there. It has long been the tradition to have live updates and this template have been of good use in this. I have no where seen a clear and solid new consensus about live updating, but I recognice the strong oppinions that many have. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has always been that live scoring is not allowed this is not new at all. This template was not created to condone its use or approve it but to show that a score is not final in case a user does not fully update which happens more often than not. It should be noted i wasnt just refering to you with the new editor description but your clear edit warring shows you certainly need to reacquaint yourself with several policies.Blethering Scot 18:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this template should be deleting as it is making users update live scores which is not acceptable on wikipedia. I vote for the deletion of this template. Skyblueshaun (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NOTNEWS says As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage. Bobby (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion of real-time updates has occured (see archives of WT:FOOTY; conclusion is that it's bad) and by !voting 'keep' you are merely enabling this practice to continue. GiantSnowman 10:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This isn't a policy or a consensus discussion. There is clear consensus among the relevant project at WP:Footy that live scoring is not to happen on this site. That consensus has been strong for some time and other projects have similar consensus. Wikipedia is not a live news site and nor should we be trying to be so thats written in policy. GS point is an excellent one and ill repeat it. Imagine this scenario - a team scores to make the real-life score 1-0. A good faith editor edits the score to show it is 1-0. 20 seconds later, another good faith editor hears that one of the teams has scored, does not realize that it has already been updated, and adds another goal to show 2-0, which is clearly wrong. It happens more often than you think, and needs to be stamped out. I would also add games have been abandoned on several occasions and weve been left with incorrect info for a game that you guessed it sources long term will not confirm even happened. This template is causing edit warring because people believe that by its existent live scoring is allowed, and that is not the case. So really it comes down to this as the consensus is against live scores and live scores will be reverted and by having this all we are doing is causing confusion and agro for editors old and new. So CaseyPenk & Banhtrung1 ill repeat Live scoring updates are not allowed on this site both per clear consensus and policy and scores should not be added until match is complete and score can be accurately sourced to a complete match report. Blethering Scot 17:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that live scoring is illegitimate is akin to saying we shouldn't have created the iPhone 5c or iPhone 5s immediately after those articles were announced yesterday; there is an inevitability to them being created, just as there's an inevitability for the scores of games to be updated. Similar, we didn't hold back on creating the 2020 Summer Olympics article just because some of the information isn't known yet. Sure, there are plenty of gaps, but we'll at least report on what we have so far. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I remain unconvinced that deleting this template will prevent or even discourage editors from updating scores while matches are in progress. Deleting this template would have a very unfortunate side-effect: people will still update scores, but readers would not be warned. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2013 (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:FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih squad

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) 03:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Impuls FC Dilijan squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FC Etar squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dalian Shide F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:APOP Kinyras FC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kolding FC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Vejle Boldklub Kolding squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AGOVV Apeldoorn squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SC Veendam squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:C.D. Necaxa squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hong Kong Sapling squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pailan Arrows squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:GKP Gorzów Wielkopolski squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Odra Wodzisław squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Polonia Warsaw squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ŁKS Łódź squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Puerto Rico Islanders squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FC Argeş Piteşti squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ASU Politehnica Timişoara squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FC Victoria Brăneşti squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:C.D. Atlético Balboa squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bay United F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:San Juan Jabloteh squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Llanelli A.F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Neath F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This clubs were dissolved or declared bankruptcy and playing in the amateur competitions. Alex (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:12, 8 September 2013 (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 television channel

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 to merge, but possibly some consensus to rename. Feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox television channel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox broadcast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox television channel with Template:Infobox broadcast.
I personally think there's some overlap between these two templates; while Infobox Broadcast seems to only be for OTA channels, the use of Infobox TV channel seems to depend (i.e. OTA channels outside of NTSC/ATSC regions seem to use Infobox television channel more)

I like the style and layout of the TV channel infobox better, so personally, I think we should make a backwards compatible superset of these two templates. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you confusing, Template:Infobox broadcasting network and Template:Infobox broadcast, ViperSnake151? And should be asking to merge Template:Infobox broadcasting network and Template:Infobox television channel? Spshu (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic, however some TV networks only get a channel via the TV station. Also, their has been some discussion (when needing Disambig.) what to disambig. cable broadcasts by channel or network, as they are definitely a TV channel(s) whether they are networks is dependant on additional factor. Spshu (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the root problem was a poorly written Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting) which didn't help distinguish the difference between radio/tv networks, channels, and stations. I've taken a stab at improving that page, and if there is consensus we can eventually rename & migrate the infobox templates that are used to be more consistent and clear. -- Netoholic @ 05:59, 10 September 2013 (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:EventsAt2020SummerOlympics

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) 03:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EventsAt2020SummerOlympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:TOOSOON. Of no use whatsoever right now, as there is no navigation within this template. Even if all the redlinks were redirected to the 2020 Summer Olympics article, this would still be pointless. Recreate once the qualifying process for each sport has begun (IE x country can send y athletes in z sport), which I guess will be some time after 2016. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few months? It will be at least 3 years before anything is known. And it will only take about a minute to recreate (copy the last one, do a find-and-replace from 2016 to 2010). BAM. This currently serves no purpose at all. I notice since the nomination was listed WP:POINTY redirects have been created that add no value too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:43, 11 September 2013 (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:Dodge in NASCAR

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) 02:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dodge in NASCAR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

After the end of the 2012 season, Dodge left the sport; therefore there is no longer a 'Dodge in NASCAR' (there are a few privateers running year-old cars - the only two of which listed here are the redlinks). Only contents are redlinks and pages that don't use the template anymore due to manufacturer switches (CFK) or being defunct (RGM), so it's an orphaned template with no need for retention. The Bushranger One ping only 07:51, 8 September 2013 (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:Red Eagle

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; deleted as G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Red Eagle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created in 2012 but doesn't appear to have ever been used and its broken. Kumioko (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2013 (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:New York Nemesis roster

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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New York Nemesis roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Created in 2010 and doesn't appear to have ever been used. Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2013 (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:Mississippi Tennessee Railroad

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 Kept. Template title has been corrected and is now in use. The Bushranger One ping only 06:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mississippi Tennessee Railroad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created back in 2011 and hasn't been used since. Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2013 (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:Out of Ashes track listing

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) 00:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Out of Ashes track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pretty unnecessary here as album has only two songs with articles and both are already linkable to and from each other in the singles chronology of the infobox as well as the ((Dead by Sunrise)) navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I know what you're talking about. In general, though, I've only seen a handful of those, and I've always seen them to be more legitimate as navboxes than the nommed template. (For example, I think a few Beatles articles have them.) LazyBastardGuy 00:15, 9 September 2013 (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:GCC

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, but I will rename the template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominating as part of the recent wave of discussion about the role, utility and correct placement of navboxes about geopolitical organizations. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2013 (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) 00:33, 8 September 2013 (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.
More