The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Under 15 Regionalliga Süd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I fail to see the point of this template. Under-15 football is nowhere near a relevant part of the football world. Geschichte (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, overkill, just links between parent clubs, no need for it. GiantSnowman 13:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Geschichte, will you nominate the two other Under-15 templates as well, Template:Under 15 Bayernliga Nord and Template:Under 15 Bayernliga Süd? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Template isn't all that useful. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete they don't provide navigation, as they are all links to parent clubs, not U-15 specific articles. Would support deleting the other similar ones too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Note that there is no prejudice against nominating ((uw-thumb1)) for nomination, but there was enough of an indication that that particular template could potentially be used in a different manner that it would be better to have it as a separate nomination (as opposed to deletion as a result of this discussion). Primefac (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-thumb2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Using thumbnailed images in an infobox isn't really the kind of behavior that would escalate to a block. I think you would be rightly laughed out of WP:AIV for being an anal SOB if you considered that to be misbehavior worthy of an administrator's time. See previous discussions 2016 November 22#Template:Uw-thumb4 and Template:Uw-thumb3 and Template:Uw-thumb2 Schierbecker (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment UW-THUMB2 is also incompatible with ((uw-thumb)) which is not a template warning about placing thumbnails in infoboxen, instead it's only about formatting of thumbnails -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE there also exists ((uw-thumb1)), will you also be nominating that for deletion ? It can't stay where it is, as a level-1 warning with implied escalation available. Also it's confusing with the existence of ((uw-thumb)) a different and incompatible warning. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be a single-issue notice without escalation, so it should be moved and re-worded accordingly. Schierbecker (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The question is whether the correct approach isn't just to fix the infobox, and tell the editor "hey, I've fixed your infobox. Is that what you meant?" The templates imply that the editor who added the image or caption using the wrong syntax should go and fix it, while it is much easier for an experienced editor to fix it. —Kusma (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Level 1 and 2 of this template can be useful. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For...? Schierbecker (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Template:Uw-thumb1 should be deleted as well. Both templates no longer fit their original intended purpose. I don't think a warning about thumbnails really makes any sense. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for this type of misunderstanding that is unlikely to be vandalism, you need to get the user to tell you what they want to do with their edit, not warn them about disruptive editing. And if you can tell that a user wants to add a caption and therefore uses the thumb syntax, you should not send them templated warnings, but just help them by adding the caption. —Kusma (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a tracking category at Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images for this, if anybody feels like helping newbies learn infobox syntax :) —Kusma (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2021 (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).