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:Gentlemen's clubs of London. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Gentlemen's clubs of London associated with the British Armed Forces with Template:Gentlemen's clubs of London.
Propose merging Template:Liberal-aligned gentlemen's clubs of London with Template:Gentlemen's clubs of London.
Propose merging Template:Arts-themed gentlemen's clubs of London with Template:Gentlemen's clubs of London.
Propose merging Template:Gentlemen's clubs of London associated with the City of London with Template:Gentlemen's clubs of London.
Propose merging Template:Old school and university gentlemen's clubs of London with Template:Gentlemen's clubs of London.
Propose merging Template:Gentlemen's clubs of London associated with particular countries with Template:Gentlemen's clubs of London.
Propose merging Template:Conservative-aligned gentlemen's clubs of London with Template:Gentlemen's clubs of London.
Propose merging Template:Liberal-aligned gentlemen's clubs of London with Template:Gentlemen's clubs of London.
Should be able to consolidate into one collected template, with the former templates into sections (themselves divided into subsections)? PPEMES (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• merge, makes sense to me. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Trialpears (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2019 (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).

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2015 Campeonato Gaúcho first stage table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2015 Campeonato Gaúcho table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:55, 2 September 2019 (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).

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 2019 September 7. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bug (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Bugzilla (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Try (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Kick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates serve no useful purpose. The icon is not informative, since each score should be written in a section headed "Try", "Con", "Pen" or "Drop", indicating the type of score through text rather than an icon with no clear meaning, and the ((Try)) template itself actually encourages editors to provide less information for the reader. Before the creation of the ((Try)) template, tries would be written in plain text with a 'c' or 'm' after the time of each one to indicate whether the ensuing conversion was successful or not ('c' for 'converted', 'm' for 'missed'). There is no functionality in the template for this. Considering the only functionality of these templates is to add a pointless icon and reduce the font size, I suggest that we find a way to salvage the time information from these templates before deleting them altogether. The only issue is their widespread use, predominantly on Southern Hemisphere rugby union articles. – PeeJay 08:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - having the rugby ball and goal posts is useful and aids readers in seeing immediately that the score in question was a try. We do this in many sports articles, and no reason not to do it here.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, the icon is not necessary because the score is listed in a section that literally says "Try", "Con", "Pen" or "Drop". If you're going to oppose my suggestion, please try to use reasoning that I haven't already addressed in the nomination. See also MOS:ICONDECORATION; "Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction." – PeeJay 08:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was perfectly clear in my oppose rationale. The template is useful, it allows readers to look at a glance, spot the icons and know whether a given player scored tries that day or not, quicker than by using the text alone. Furthermore, as Lee notes below, this is used widely across different sports and any discussion about not doing it any more should gain consensus across the sporting spectrum. MOS:ICONDECORATION is satisfied anyway, per the clause "serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension", something these icons do. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see how an icon of a ball indicates a try being scored. The posts make more sense, but neither icon is more of an aid to comprehension than the text is. No icon should ever really be introduced without some sort of key anyway, so this makes the icons doubly redundant. – PeeJay 09:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that you fail to see it is neither her not there. It's the standard symbol for a try. See [1] [2][3] etc. Just as ((goal)) is a picture of a ball to represent a goal in football.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree with the use of the icon in ((goal)) as well, but we'll get to that later. In your first two links, every time a ball icon is used to signify a try, the word "try" (or its translated equivalent) is placed right next to it. In your third link, the ball icon is also used to indicate penalty goals. If that doesn't tell you that the use of these icons is ambiguous, I don't know if I can help you. Furthermore, your second link has a section at the top that quite closely resembles our ((rugbybox)) layout; if you look closely, you'll notice that the sections for tries, conversions, penalties and drop goals do not have any icons whatsoever, just listing the scorer's name and the time when he scored. Same goes for this BBC score page. That is what I am proposing here. The icons you are clinging to are not informative, they are decorative. – PeeJay 11:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Is this a consensus we already have not to use templates to denote these things - It can't be pointless if it is already widespread used. If there has already been a conversation saying it should be depreciated, please link. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that the consensus is provided by the existence of MOS:ICONDECORATION. See my response above. – PeeJay 08:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely that isn't a deletion reason, especially when this is still in use. I would suggest that it would be entirely possible to re-use the existing template and have it fit the MOS better (potentially with the wording in place of the image.) As stated above, a deletion would likely need work to remove the minutes parameter from the template, so unless this was not in use (and it's used a lot), I favour editing the template to a deletion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I recognised that in my nomination. If it's not possible to salvage the minutes using some sort of bot script, then of course the template should be kept, but if we can save that information, I see no reason to keep a template whose only purpose is to reduce font size. – PeeJay 08:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I see little merit in the nomination. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does that mean? I see little merit in the templates, once you get rid of the pointless icon. – PeeJay 08:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every aspect you complain about can be fixed through re-coding the template. This deletion conversation is pointy and a waste of time. Now stop badgering me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't have to respond, you know... All I'm saying is, once you get rid of the superfluous shit (i.e. the icons and the reduced font size), you might as well dispense with the template and just use plain text (as we do on all the Six Nations and Rugby World Cup articles). – PeeJay 09:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tone much? Fix, don't just pointedly delete. Finally, I asked you to stop badgering me, (and I suggest you stop badgering every single other person here too) so please respect that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not badgering anyone, I'm making my case by responding to your arguments. As I said, you don't have to respond; I'm not pinging you with my replies, so clearly you're looking for responses to get riled up over. – PeeJay 11:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're arguing with everyone who opposes your point of view. My advice is: don't. It won't work out for you in the end. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wouldn't be making a very good case for my position if I didn't address people's concerns with what I'm proposing. Also, I would hope people would judge the proposal based on the evidence, not the person proposing it. – PeeJay 12:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, but as I'm sure you already know, you've made your case, and now you're just battering everyone who has spoken here. It won't work and it won't end well. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If someone raises an objection I hadn't thought of, I'll respond to it. I don't expect anyone to change their minds, but this page is meant for discussion, which I intend to provide. – PeeJay 13:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well several of us have noted that your complaints could all be addressed by improving rather than deleting the templates. That's obvious, so the I guess the sooner this is closed, the sooner others can get on with improving things around here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, fully agree with Amakuru's reasoning above. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - These templates are already widespread throughout many rugby articles. My personal preference is they are useful as they represent a clearer idea of what the fact of the score was. As Amakuru mentioned above, we do this in many sports articles. Kidsoljah (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2019 (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).