Template:Formula One World Drivers' Runner-up
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this needs a navbox. DH85868993 (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't imagine that any article would benefit from the addition of this template. —Alalch E. 00:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Useless template, can't think of any reason to group runners-up together. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete we don't have a column for this at List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions because it isn't a noteworthy metric. So I don't see the justification for the template. SSSB (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete second place is first loser, and coming second isn't a defining characteristic to link these people, which is what a template is supposed to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above – WP:NOTSTATS. Eagleash (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2023 (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:2019 Pan American Games men's handball game A1
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unused after being merged with the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nomination Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. I noticed this while browsing unused templates. —Alalch E. 21:20, 25 January 2023 (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 CEBL standings
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
single-use standings templates, should be merged with the parent articles and deleted. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2023 (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:VBW2011-12LNSVF
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unused after being merged with the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2023 (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:Kettle War infobox
- 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. Izno (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need for this to be in a template, belongs on the article page. Place there and remove the template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it was moved to a template due to repeated vandalism with aspects of off-wiki coordination. It is indef protected so the entire page does not need to be protected. No legitimate deletion criteria has been raised to overcome that. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 03:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Kettle War is already Pending changes protected, so why is this added layer of protection needed? Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Pending changes is not needed on the main page. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete it has one transclusion, in Kettle War, and no other valid places where it would be transcluded. The purpose of templates is to be used on multiple articles, which isn't the case here. Invalid use of template space. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Per IAR, it is improving Wikipedia and serving a legitimate purpose, and there is no reason to disturb that based upon some misplaced orthodoxy. (IMO). I guess we can move it to a different namespace, but that just feels like unnecessary steps to get the same result. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 19:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The infobox would still be improving Wikipedia if it weren't in a template. If it's being vandalised, then the article should be protected, as that's the usual solution to disruptive editing. Problematic users can still vandalise this in template space. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiCleanerMan: - any thoughts about my arguments? I ask because you !voted “Delete per nom” without rationale as to every template nominated on this page. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 03:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- subst and delete, as stated above, the parent article already has pending changes protection. if there is a problem with vandalism, then protect the article. Frietjes (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Frietjes: - This will be my last comment since I am not seeking to hound anyone, but: this was done as the infobox (and only the infobox) on the page was consistently vandalized to add the kettle as a casualty. Pending changes did not satisfactorily resolve the problem (creating the additional work of having to revert the same vandalism time after time is not a good solution), and so I created this template to avoid that issue altogether. The page can now be unprotected, it just never was (the vandalism was frequent enough to have the page permanently protected; I note that the template was also permanently protected, showing that this is not just some crazy scheme I came up with). Ultimately, the goal of Wikipedia is to allow free collaboration - the best way to do that is to protect the content which is being vandalized, while still allowing free access to the rest of the page. This should not be viewed in a vacuum, but rather in the context of -why- the template was created in the first place. It has served a proper purpose and I see no reason to undo it now. But that is all I will say. Thanks. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:46, 30 January 2023 (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:Wuhan F.C. squad
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The club was dissolved.
Qby (Talk to me) 11:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - club is defunct, has no 'current' squad, so does not need a navbox of this nature. GiantSnowman 12:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2023 (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).