< June 4 June 6 >

June 5

Template:Super Over

Template includes ball-by-ball detail which is excessive and no reliable source is providing for verification. SocietyBox (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If super over template will delete then add another single innings template to show super over details... 2405:204:610F:AC6A:97F9:E182:439A:E12F (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified WP:CRICKET.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Население

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 07:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After unraveling the excessively complicated code, this is nothing more than a template that is used to store data, and each piece of data it stores is used on one or zero pages. * Pppery * survives 23:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:09, 5 June 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).

Template:Chronology of military events in the American Civil War

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 convert to list article. With the move to create a draft based on this template, there is a slight consensus to move in a "listification" direction as opposed to outright deletion. In order to preserve attribution, the template will be merged into the existing draft. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused MASSIVE navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone undid my change which nested this template in Template:American Civil War, saying it should be merged, I concur and support merging this template into Template:American Civil War (which may be the best long term solution), with keep as second choice. Mojoworker (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The template is linked to repeatedly, but still has no transclusions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it's not linked from those articles directly, but through another template (Template:American Civil War). And while it shouldn't be linked in that way, it should instead be transcluded as a nested template, but kept nonetheless. It's not really a candidate to be converted to an article, as it really is a template. Mojoworker (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD and made the transclusion. Mojoworker (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I was gone on vacation someone undid my change, saying it should be merged instead of nested, so I'm switching to merge (see above). Mojoworker (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The argument that this template "is useful" is somewhat evenly matched by the long-standing belief that templates holding what is essentially article-space content (whether in navbox form or directly storing article text) should not be linked to directly. Given that this template was viewed less than 10 times a day before this TFD nomination the "is useful" argument is somewhat weakened. At this point it's a tossup between deleting outright and converting into some sort of article (which can then still be linked from ((American Civil War))); I would like to see more opinions on which way this should go before a final decision is reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:09, 5 June 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).

Template:Viking Invasion of England

Propose merging Template:Viking Invasion of England with Template:Scandinavian England.
Seems like much overlapping scope. Might as well merge? PPEMES (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Death in Germanic mythology

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) 17:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Death in Germanic mythology with Template:Germanic pagan practices.
Do you think this one could be merge, for convenience? PPEMES (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bloated? Come on. It wouldn't be a large template. PPEMES (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:06, 5 June 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).

Template:Anne Rice Vampire Chronicles tree

WP:FANCRUFT. Misuse of navbox. Should probably be reformatted and included once at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters if at all. --woodensuperman 14:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

This isn't a proper WP:NAVBOX. There is already a navbox at ((The Vampire Chronicles)) which contains all the characters. This one does not need to be transcluded on every article. If this information is kept it should appear once only (at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters) in a different format. --woodensuperman 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although ((The Vampire Chronicles)) template lists the 13 individual character articles this one shows many more, as well as giving readers the interesting familial relationships and timeline. Readers (at least me) find it interesting and informative. It improves the encyclopedia, improves the pages it is (and can be) placed on, and is a fine addition to Wikipedia's Vampire Chronicles collection. There is nothing wrong with it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is everything wrong with it. It's content masquerading as a navbox. It certainly does not belong along the bottom of multiple pages. If this was a single use template sitting at List of The Vampire Chronicles characters, I'd probably have left it alone, but what the hell is it doing sitting at the bottom of Anne Rice? This needs at the very least converted to a different format, and used sparingly on extremely relevant articles. Something like Aztec emperors family tree, or Noldor#House of Finwë. This is NOT a WP:NAVBOX. --woodensuperman 12:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Rice is linked in the title. The family tree helps the understanding of the linked pages, and provides the readers with a valuable visual aide concept map to the topic. And it improves rather than harms the encyclopedia (which is what all of these discussions are about). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She may be linked in the title, but this isn't a navbox and the content is tangential to her biography. And cluttering up pages with family trees disguised as navboxes on irrelevant pages does harm the encyclopedia and certainly does not improve the experience for anyone. --woodensuperman 13:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"for anyone" is incorrect, when I first saw the template it was interesting and informative to my mental-map of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may find it "interesting", but that doesn't stop it from being in the wrong place. --woodensuperman 13:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your link is to another opinion essay. Interesting is a good descriptor of one of the many attributes a good template can have. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason it is using the navbox markup? If this is changed, then editors might not mistake it for a navbox and use it as such. --woodensuperman 07:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, family tree templates use navbox markup. I don't think many people would confuse it for a navbox. I've never seen one used as a navbox before. Its use as such seems like a unilateral decision by User:Randy Kryn. I think most editors will agree that it shouldn't be there. M.Clay1 (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems ((Downton Abbey family tree)) and ((Half-elven family tree)) manage to not use the navbox markup. I would suggest that this method be employed by all family tree templates. --woodensuperman 14:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iran Men's squad 2015 WT Taekwondo World Championship

I can't remember if we ever had such templates for individual sports. that looks unnecessary for me, we have World Championships in amateur individual sports almost each year imagine if someone creates such templates for each country for each sports each year for Taekwondo, Wrestling, Judo, Weightlifting etc. that will be too much. to me not notable enough to exists. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Arizona Elite

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) 22:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Northern Arizona Elite with Template:Footer Northern Arizona Elite.
((Northern Arizona Elite)) is an older, unused duplicate of ((Footer Northern Arizona Elite)). It has no transclusions and all of the information and functionality in the former (which is now outdated anyways) is available in the latter. Habst (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hi Woodensuperman, thank you for merging the templates. that was the original goal of this tfd, but i fear that putting it up here was a huge mistake that i hope you can help me fix. for the reasons above i really do think NAZ is notable enough to have an article and template. do you know if it is possible for me to postpone or close the vote that i started, because i did not start it with the intention of deleting the template? i hope you understand that in my opinion, the vote has gone out of hand because the english wikipedia has a severe shortage of athletics articles when compared to topics in published RSes, so in my opinion deleting templates for a notable track club in the U.S. would be a step backwards.
also, i see that you have nominated Template:Brooks Beast Track Club, Template:New Jersey New York Track Club, Template:Reebok Boston Track Club, Template:Saucony Freedom Track Club, and Template:Tinman Elite all for deletion. you only noticed those templates because i posted about Template:Footer Northern Arizona Elite here, right? i am being honest with you, this was my greatest fear. i know that i can save them all, but i need time to draft my rationale. i do think we should have standards for inclusion and of course we shouldn't include random teams that aren't notable, but all the templates you inserted are from notable teams that should all have athlete articles. i still need to think about my best course of action, but i am worried that we will not reach the most fair outcome so i think we should really be careful about taking our time with these nominations. thank you, --Habst (talk) 16:48, 13 June 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).

Template:Db-f8

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:Now Commons. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred way to flag F8-eligible files is via ((subst:Ncd)), which allows files to be sorted by the date they were tagged, so as to not overwhelm the main CSD category and allow adequate time to research/review each transferred file. In my experience, editors that use this tag are unfamiliar with our local file policies and file policies on Commons, and end up tagging files which were either inappropriately transferred or require many fixes in order to be acceptable for Commons. I think the best solution is to redirect this tag to Template:Now commons dated, so that there will be more opportunity for experienced editors to review tagged files and verify their eligibility for Commons. FASTILY 23:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not asking for deletion, just a redirect :) -FASTILY 00:27, 13 June 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).

Template:Salem–Vriddhachalam–Cuddalore Port line

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) 22:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail route map. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenDragon2293Return and Chandan Guha: can you answer this question? Useddenim (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Balablitz: I was not associated with these templates. Balablitz may be able to say, if it was used or not. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Useddenim, Chandan Guha, and Jc86035: My apologies for the delay in reply. I just had a look at various pages of Southern Railway. It seems that part of the line i.e Salem-Vriddhachalam section is already covered under the Template:Salem–Virudhachalam line template used in Salem Junction railway station page and the part from Vriddhachalam-Cuddalore Port Jn is covered under Chennai Egmore–Thanjavur main line template. We can either create a new page and link this template to it and in pages where it exist, we remove the stations and just add a connecting arrow (What is the usual Wiki convention here ? Do we create separate pages for terminus to terminus connections ?) or we can discard the template. I prefer the first way here as it reduces the size of the template and makes it a bit neat. Also a point to note is that there is a new line planned in between the Salem-Vriddhachalam part. I am planning to work on the Southern Railways after I have finished work under the Eastern & NE Railways. Please let me know what is your decision in this regards. ---- GoldenDragon2293Return (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest making the overlapped sections collapsible, and then adding the template to all relevant pages to provide context for the others. Does this sound like a reasonable solution? Useddenim (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 5 June 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).

Template:Capitals of provinces of Thailand

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) 22:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as the concept of a province "capital" in Thailand. Originally, this listed the towns/cities the provinces were named after (and which served as the seat of the provincial offices), but as the offices of some provinces have moved location, this has morphed into an WP:OR listing of municipalities in which the offices are located, labelling them as "capitals" where no reliable source does. It's absurd to say Ban Tom is the capital of Phayao Province and Bang Rin of Ranong. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of capitals in Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Paul_012 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:57, 5 June 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).

Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan

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 subst and delete. The "specific fields" concerns presented by many of the "keep" votes seems to have been mitigated by including ((Infobox region symbols)) as an embedded box. There is no prejudice (nor was there any) about creating templates designed for translating infoboxes from other language projects. Per some of the concerns, though, I would ask that the final subst-able version avoid blank params to avoid unnecessary code entered into the article (in particular the ((Infobox region symbols)) footnote). Primefac (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete

Prefecture-specific wrapper for ((Infobox settlement)), with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

Other entities either use Infobox city Japan or transclude ((Infobox settlement)) directly. No reason found, why 49 prefectures shall have their own wrapper.

Visualisation of Japan place infobox usage
Infobox usage on articles about places in Japan

78.54.185.74 (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<!-- blank fields (section 1) -->
| blank_name_sec1         = Flower
| blank_info_sec1         = (({Flower|))}
| blank1_name_sec1        = Tree
| blank1_info_sec1        = (({Tree|))}
| blank2_name_sec1        = Bird
| blank2_info_sec1        = (({Bird|))}
| blank3_name_sec1        = Fish
| blank3_info_sec1        = (({Fish|))}
77.183.46.198 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem still is that the blank parameters are still there. I would want to see the parameters |Flower=, |Tree=, |Bird= and |Fish= in ((Infobox settlement)) before substitution. If these parameters are not added, my vote is keep. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz: What in your opinion is the "problem" with blank parameters being there? The ((Infobox settlement)) has been coded with blank parameters, do you want to deny users to use them as coded? And if you think these biota symbols are that relevant to get their own parameters, why don't you propose them? For U.S. states biota symbols are not included in ((Infobox settlement)), but managed by an extra box - are you aware of any other set of administrative territorial entities that have biota symbols within ((Infobox settlement))? @Pigsonthewing and Underlying lk: what do you think? 77.183.46.198 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is that in 49 articles unclear blank parameters will be placed. For new users it may be confusing how to change a parameter which uses a blank parameter. In visual editor, this is only more confusing as where you would expect a simplified name (e.g. the parameter |coordinates= in visual editor is presented with a header of Coordinates), the blank parameters have two input boxes which are named by their parameter names (i.e. "blank2_info_sec1" and "Blank name section 1"). These, I can only imagine are confusing to new editors, who expect to see an input boxes named "Tree" and "Fish", not "Blank name section 1" and "blank3_name_sec1" (their current names). This could be alleviated slightly by giving these blank parameters nicer names for visual editor (i.e. nice names in templatedata) which could specify these are custom parameters in a clear way, but this is difficult as this name would have to fit all cases (i.e. not just this template), and this does not still get past the issue of new users using source editor, who won't have the visual editor to help them understand what parameter is the right one to change. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 08:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamy Jazz, if you move those to ((Infobox region symbols)) there shouldn't be a problem. Frietjes (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes thanks for this hint, done [10]. 77.11.252.115 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
try the version in the sandbox to eliminate the spurious horizontal line, and suppress the symbols heading when the symbols are not specified. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 20 June 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).

Template:Top25

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. No prejudice against renomination, merge discussion, or TFD for the other template. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Placed very haphazardly, no clear reason why it appears in some places but not others. Newer template ((Top 25 Report)) (which I created), which could potentially be moved to this title, is handled much better. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:55, 5 June 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).

Template:Scott Morrison sidebar

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 June 14. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 14 June 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).

Template:HC Slavia Praha 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

very old roster. if someone wants to add a current roster, it can be added to the parent article directly. Frietjes (talk) 21:15, 5 June 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).

Template:Timrå IK 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

old and unused. if someone wants to add a recent roster, the roster can be added to the parent article directly. Frietjes (talk) 21:13, 5 June 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).

Template:2016–17 Belgian First Amateur Division table

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) 23:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article per consensus at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:54, 6 June 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).