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 Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite journal R (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This looks like a mistaken creation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as accidental. The author is currently learning how templates work. I orphaned it here because the author requested help. —PC-XT+ 22:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC) 22:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author seems happy, so it can probably be speedy deleted as G2 test or G6 uncontroversial. —PC-XT+ 00:38, 13 January 2015 (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.

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, but potentially delete Template:Canberra Capitals 2014/15 Roster instead. Feel free to start a new discussion if you would like to merge this or delete the individual season roster templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canberra Capitals current roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates Template:Canberra Capitals 2014/15 Roster At least this year. Will be obsolete soon. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Speaking from experience, these templates that need to stay current get deleted eventually, unless someone (or some bot) continues to put in that extra effort. If nobody chimes in to do that, here, I will probably !vote weak delete. —PC-XT+ 12:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC) 01:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC) If someone does chime in, I may !vote keep for now, but I don't recommend it. I've helped keep more complicated ones up to date, before, but if they are not redundant, they will likely become out of date at some point, and both are good enough reasons for deletion. —PC-XT+ 12:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)01:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - PC-XT, for what it's worth all of the American major league sports have current roster templates -- MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL -- and they're all very well maintained. That being said, I have no idea what kind of participation the Australian women's basketball league draws from WP editors. If they involved editors maintain these and keep them current, I think they should be kept. A bigger problem is here, however: several of these Australian NBL roster templates are mostly red links, and that violates one of the basic navbox criteria. I'm going to wait for further comments; I think what we should do with this navbox (and the other NBL rosters) will become clearer with some scrutiny over the next week or so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they should be kept as long as they are maintained and compliant with policy. I am very willing to change my !vote in this case. This particular template is mostly blue-linked, and the author has been around a while, and may very well maintain this. I'll mark my above comment as such, and !vote if I develop a strong opinion. If I did !vote delete at this point, it should be marked weak. —PC-XT+ 01:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)][reply]

    I've created a new template each year. The "current" roster duplicates the 2014/15 one. I wasn't aware of the American practice. We copied the practice used for the Olympic teams. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For the Capitals at least, I will be supplying the red-linked articles. There was a delay this year while I took photographs of some team members who didn't have them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, Hawkeye. The American major league sports practice is to maintain current roster templates, not year-by-year annual team templates. Apart from the current team navboxes, the only individual team navboxes should be those for teams that win major national or international championships; in this case the 2014/15 team navbox needs to go. I'm pretty sure that WP:FOOTY and the other major sports projects adhere to this same standard. Also, remember there should be a stand-alone article or list for every navbox per WP:NAVBOX, otherwise it doesn't satisfy the criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the "current roster" template, but in my opinion the yearly rosters should go. For most (if not all) sports, it is common to have a template for the current season if the players are likely all notable, but the yearly rosters for a club (if not a national or international champion or for a major FIBA event like the Olympics) are only creating infobox overload/clutter. Take a look at Alice Coddington – she now has four infoboxes for unique seasons with a team. If she were to stay with the Cannons 15 years, that'd be 15 navboxes. WAY too many. Imagine the glut of infoboxes that John Stockton would have if this practice were used for his 19 seasons with the Utah Jazz. This is not the same case as Olympic rosters where the event only happens every four years. Past rosters can (and often are) shown on the main team article (see Real Madrid Baloncesto for example) but full rosters are not necessary for each player's page. Rikster2 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as current rosters do seem to be the norm in sports (with good reason.) —PC-XT+ 20:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC) 20:28, 7 February 2015 (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.

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) 05:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tennis events 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tennis event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Tennis events 5 with Template:Tennis event.
There are only 3 differences between these two templates:

1. The note at the top of the template page, which could use updating, anyway
2. Coloring, which may be able to use the standard tennis infobox colors, instead
3. Width of 3 cells are set to 7em in ((Tennis events 5))

(diff) —PC-XT+ 11:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I notified WikiProject Tennis of this discussion. —PC-XT+ 11:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, provided that the differences are merged into ((Tennis event)).--Wolbo (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Template:Tennis event to Template:Tennis events 5: same, and Template:Tennis event is only 1 letter the same with Template:Tennis events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 333-blue (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 January 2015
  • Template:Tennis event has more transclusions. Did you mean to turn Template:Tennis events 5 into a redirect? Template:Tennis event is singular because it is for only one event, while Template:Tennis events is for multiple events. I am considering making a Lua module which could handle all of these. —PC-XT+ 07:49, 19 January 2015 (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.

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 relisted on 2015 February 8. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:31, 8 February 2015 (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.