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).
Delete. Not useful anymore. --Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2020 (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:2020–21 Premier League 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. For reference, the WT:FOOTY discussion that keeps being mentioned is in Archive 122, with a later discussion about this template specifically in Archive 134. The latter discussion is much the same as this nomination, and while there is no clear and concise consensus at the first discussion, if anything "no consensus" at WT:FOOTY means that TFD precedent takes priority.
There have been many league table and similar templates deleted at TFD, with the general consensus often involving reasons of a) being easier to maintain/watch/prevent vandalism on a table in the related article, b) WP:LST or other selective transclusion method still allowing for the wikitext to be used on multiple pages, and c) avoiding having a large number of templates for long-finished seasons.
If those in favour of keeping these sorts of tables in the template space wish to overcome the past precedents as set at TFD, I would highly advise an RFC to determine the best place to store league table (and other "standings"-type tables) results. Primefac (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad nom in my opinion, it's not redundant and is used with multiple articles. Govvy (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's because your edit to the main article added back the template_name parameter in the table, which means it's listed under club season articles even though it's not actually used in them. The articles where the template is used can easily be edited to use the article. Boothy m (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard practice is to transclude the template into the club season articles. Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the "what links here" seems to suggest it's used on a lot of articles. I'm not sure I like the idea of tranaluding tables to so many articles outside of template space Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That can and will be fixed by editing a few club season articles before deleting the template. Boothy m (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Table on the main article can be transcluded elsewhere, so a standalone template that has few watchers and is prone to vandalism is unnecessary. Number57 17:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easier to edit after every match. It takes more time to edit on the main article than on the template itself.--Sakiv (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does it take more time to edit a section in the article than the template? The code is identical. Number57 18:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Numerous league table templates have been deleted at TfD recently as the table on the main article is now transcluded into club season articles. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per N57 and recent TFD consensus that has seen a number of similar templates deleted. GiantSnowman 20:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subset and delete. These tables have slowly been subset into articles and transcluded elsewhere as this allows more watchers to keep track of them. --Gonnym (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this was discussed at WT:FOOTY a year or so ago, with agreement to put the table in one place, and then call it from there in other articles. Which was exactly why we deleted 20 of these no longer needed templates a few weeks ago. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying... if the consensus is to move the tables into the articles and transclude those instead (if necessary) because the tables in mainspace can be watched for footy vandalism better, why not make the templates wrapper around the transclusion rather than delete them? It'd make it more friendly to transclude the section elsewhere, and since the footy vandalism is about the content it's not like the code is going to get vandalised. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this is the exact purpose of the template namespace per Help:Template and Wikipedia:Template namespace: to transclude code to a number of different articles. The Template namespace on Wikipedia is used to store templates, which contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages, usually via transclusion. Using the template namespace for football standings, especially major competitions (this table is transcluded to over 20 articles), is still useful as it can help prevent mistakes, edit conflicts, and is more effecient for those putting in the effort to keep such standings updated. As mentioned at WT:FOOTY: As standings change rapidly during the season, it can flood the watchlists of users who are watching the page. It's easier to opt-out by un-watching a template page rather than a bundled mainspace article that has to be watched to prevent more obvious forms of vandalism. There was actually no clear consensus from prior WT:FOOTY discussions to outright forbid standing templates on Wikipedia. The Premier League is the highest profile football league in the world, there are plenty of users checking the standings remain correct. Over-relying on pseudo-templates in the mainspace should also be avoided, one mistake in the article by a user unfamiliar with code can affect over 20 other articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guidance on policy about this? There had been mass deletions (substitutions!) recently on this and TFDs become basically ILIKEIT vs IDONTLIKEIT. Is there policy or guideline on why things such as these be deleted? S.A. Julio's analysis is spot on. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2020 (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:Wrapports
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).
Company sold off enough holdings (potentially all) that there are too few links to justify a navbox. Raymie (t • c) 09:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: contains only non-navigable external site urls. Navbars should not have external site links. → Timbaaatalk 03:31, 29 August 2020 (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).
NSW Closed Line templates
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).
Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2020 (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:Negazione
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).
All of their musical recordings were not notable and were redirected back to the band's article, leaving only the band's article in the template, so it now no longer navigates anywhere. Aspects (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 12 links to the same article seems a bit excessive to me. --Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2020 (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:Brecqhou English
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).
Unused template; Brecqhou is a 74-acre island with a single owner and can't possibly have its own English dialect. Other unused creations by the same editor might also be deletable, but are conceivably usable. ((Tanzanian English)) possibly, ((Ascension Island English)) less so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 22 August 2020 (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).