Template:Clist mergers
- 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 2020 April 2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:14, 2 April 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).
- 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. No prejudice against recreation provided they actually contain useful content. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think these templates should be deleted because they each have less than four wikilinks and redlinks combined. I would rather prefer if these navboxes were instead merged with the main navbox for each of these clubs. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the relevant parent navbox, no need for a separate one just for 2/3 matches. GiantSnowman 17:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge for the same reason. Asturkian (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: This is a procedural relist; the
original discussion closed as "merge to club navbox" but these do not have a club/parent navbox. Looking for more opinions on whether to convert to "general" navboxes, delete outright, or other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin note the following is copied from WP:TFDH and led to this relist. Posting it mainly for thoughts from those already involved. Primefac (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
::Trialpears as the closer of this discussion. How should templates like ((Pyramids FC matches)) be handled? There is no club navbox. Should these be deleted or renamed? --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have also been wondering that ever since I took care of the templates that did meet the close criteria. While I will obviously wait for their reply, my thought would be to re-open and then relist the discussion with the remaining templates. Primefac (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Since there wasn't any discussion about the ones without corresponding templates there is no consensus as to what to do with them. I suggest a new TfD for these. Courtesy ping to nominator KingSkyLord. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't know what to do. You can create general navboxes for all the clubs except for the Australian youth teams. That seems a little ridicoulous. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Two options - either rename and expand so that these templates become the parent navbox, or delete. If nobody can be bothered with the former then I suggest the latter. GiantSnowman 17:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking ((Pyramids FC matches)) as an example. It has 3 links: Pyramids FC, Egypt Cup and 2019 Egypt Cup Final. Only the club is actually relevant. I wouldn't want to see a page like Egypt Cup have a navbox for every single team that ever played in the cup for the past 99 years. A navbox like that should definitely be deleted. Since no one actually supporting a keep of any of the above templates has responded here, I'll vote to delete all. If anyone wants to keep any of these, please ping me so I can respond to any specific template. --Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 28 March 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:Addition 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) 17:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, and not even presented as a standard matrix-style addition table anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:18, 25 March 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).