Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

February 10[edit]

Template:Sheet authority[edit]

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

completely unused. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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:Samurai[edit]

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 do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Samurai with Template:Infobox military person.
Only 3 transclusions. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Keep per some of the opposes below, which raise a good point. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are many articles to which it might be applied. It appears to have fields which are better suited to its intended application than military person template. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Cinderella157: template has been around for 4 years and is only used in 3 articles... No reason to keep it just because there are articles that it "might" be used on. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
      • That it "could be used" is not my only rationale for keeping. A rationale for deletion is that it is not used and and has no likelihood of being used. Also per WP:TFD#REASONS, "Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing." I suggest that the usage could be increased by normal editing. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose∻ℳcCunicano 02:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - apart from the usual person parameters, the only one that they share is |rank=. Adding all the other parameters that are specific to Template:Samurai to the infobox would be pointless given that they won't be used for any other purpose. As Cinderella157 says, there are many pages where this could be used, in addition to the three that currently use it. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge - Very specific, better as a module.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - specific cultural parameters to Samurai it seems, better to retain for editors who specialise in this topic.80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 14:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per different cultural parameters that apply to Samurai. Kierzek (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – in fact there are 300+ names in List of samurai (blue, red, and black). With so many distinctive parameters applying to so many samurai the template needs more usage, not "deletion". – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Way too specific to merge. Jay D. Easy (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose There is only one thing that the two templates have in common. And that is rank. Felicia (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per above; cultural parameters and particularity. Creuzbourg (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
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 road small[edit]

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 to merge, so do not merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox road small with Template:Infobox road.
There is no reason for a second template here. The documentations states that the only purpose for this template is to provide a compact version of the template. If you want the template to be smaller, just omit certain parameters. No reason to maintain 2 separate templates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - there is really no reason to maintain two separate infobox for the same subject, just one with less parameters. As Zackmann08 noted, if you want the template shorter, just add the parameters you need. Less optimal option would be to at least make this a wrapper of the main template so at least maintenance would be easier, but I believe there is no reason for that either. --Gonnym (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Gonnym: this is essentially a duplication of a previous nomination where the concept of merging the two was resoundingly opposed. Nothing has changed since that previous nomination to address the issues with any merger. Imzadi 1979  00:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Imzadi1979: the fact that it was opposed 4 years ago is irrelevant. Judge the template based on its merits not on the outcome of a discussion 4 years ago. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose—per my opposition at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 2#Template:Infobox road small. The nominator, Zackmann08, would do well to read that previous discussion and withdraw this nomination until such time as the issues mentioned there with a merger have been thought through. Imzadi 1979  00:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Imzadi1979: The fact that it was nominated almost 4 years ago doesn't mean it can't be nominated again. I did read the previous discussion and don't agree with the assessment or the conclusion, thus I am re-nominating it. So thanks but no, I will not withdraw my nomination. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Zackmann08: in most cases, IRS is used repeatedly on the articles where it is called. IR is used once. At the longest, IRS shows the marker graphic for the highway, the name, a small color bar (using the same color coding scheme as the headers in IR), the location, length, dates, history and tourist routes. (If used for Australia, a route number line is added at the bottom and the marker graphic above is omitted.) It also does so in a physically narrower box. Compare that to IR, which uses a larger marker graphic, displays a map, can display a photo, has parameters for the maintenance organization/agency, legal definition, roadway allocations, a whole junction list section (or sections for segmented highways), a whole section for locations (states/counties/cities/other divisions), a whole section for links to the highway system/roadway network with links to the previous/next highway designation in sequence in addition to the length, dates, history and tourist routes information in IRS. It does all of this with a variety of regionalizations for various countries of the world. That customization, absent the one use case for Australia is unneeded in IRS.

        The coding to shut off the unwanted parameters for the simplified use case when a box is repeated in those listicles would bloat IR and increase page load times when called 6–12 times per article where it's used. (Edit: we use IRS up to 100 times in some articles, as noted below.)

        So I have to ask, who's going to maintain this extra complexity when those who already maintain the two templates resoundingly opposed the nomination the last time around? Imzadi 1979  00:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Per the previous TFD. The small version of infobox road is better designed for certain uses such as RCS lists where the regular infobox road would take up too much space. Dough4872 00:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I do believe these templates could be merged, I do not think that's an optimal outcome. A "proper configuration" is a gross understatement of the amount of shoehorning that would need to be done. Adding the half-dozen or so (I didn't count, but I'm taking an educated guess) parserfunctions needed to whittle {{Infobox road}} down to the {{Infobox road small}} footprint would add to page load times. A page like List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1–99) with over 100 instances of {{Infobox road small}} would frustrate some readers. The small infobox was specifically designed to present the relevant information about a highway without the bloat, for lack of a better word, of the main infobox. The text in green here is what I said four years ago. The only difference between then and now is that Lua is used to a slight degree. The rest of the concern stands and I still oppose. –Fredddie 00:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel like we were just here and not much has changed. Anyway, my rationale from then still stands - if we merged all three we would wind up with 1 template that does not fit any of these three needs very well. --Rschen7754 00:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Nothing has changed in either template since 2015 that would make a merge (either of the front-end or back-end) easier, more effective, or more necessary. The interfaces and front-ends should never be merged, per the earlier positions and discussion, and merging the back-ends is not feasible until the Lua version of IBR is finished. The previous discussion was a non-admin keep, and the points made by the nominator have been clearly refuted by Imzadi, Dough, Fredddie, and others here and in the 2015 discussion, which is still relevant because nothing has changed since 2015. -happy5214 02:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I would support the addition of more parameters to the small infobox (such as termini and perhaps a map frame), there's not much point in merging the two and the many reasons against merging have already been laid out. (On a side note, I do find it interesting how much attention one can draw to a discussion when it's plastered onto every road article.) Roadsguy (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the issues identified by Fredddie. This seems like a nomination in search of a problem. SounderBruce 03:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy close per WP:AINT. Cards84664 (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per comments of Fredddie, Imzadi and others. The two infoboxes are designed for two specific and different use cases. While they could theoretically be merged, it seems the amount of coding needed on the back end to achieve the desired result is more troublesome than it's worth at the current time. LJ  15:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, a merge wasn't really hard and required almost no tinkering around. See results:

This sandbox is in the Wikipedia namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template.




U.S. Route 1-9 Truck
LocationJersey City, New Jersey
Length4.11 mi[1] (6.61 km)

The changes to the infobox do not require any user input on the articles and is taken care of at the infobox level, so no changes are needed to any article. Unless I'm missing something, there really is no disadvantage in creating this as a wrapper. --Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You are missing something, Gonnym. If I'm reading your code correctly, you've edited {{infobox road}} so that it always appears like {{infobox road small}}, which is not acceptable. These are two different use cases, and as such, the two output versions need to be preserved. That's why they're separate templates. Imzadi 1979  14:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Nope, that isn't what I did. I've added |bodystyle= and |labelstyle= parameters that when not empty (called from the small infobox) don't do anything (as the small one currently does) else, do the normal infobox (as the normal one currently does). Try calling User:Gonnym/sandbox/tests2 and see the difference. --Gonnym (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: it doesn't work on Business routes of Interstate 96. If I replace "infobox road small" with "User:Gonnym/sandbox/tests2 |bodystyle=none|labelstyle=none" and preview, the marker graphics appear at full size, the full-size headers appear instead of the thin color bars and the browselinks appear, so this is not a solution. Trying it on List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1–99) breaks the page because you reach template inclusion limits. Imzadi 1979  15:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
As I said, there is no need to add any parameters to the articles. So just use {{User:Gonnym/sandbox/tests2}} (I've tested it on Business routes of Interstate 96 and it works). Regarding the inclusion limit on the second page, I've changed all 100+ usages and it works and there is no error message (I can see all 189 citations without a problem). --Gonnym (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The third infobox is what tests2 looks like using the same example. This clearly isn't acceptable. -happy5214 19:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Truck
U.S. Route 1-9 marker

U.S. Route 1-9 Truck
Route information
Maintained by NJDOT
LocationJersey City, New Jersey
Length4.11 mi[1] (6.61 km)
Highway system
That's essentially what I was getting, and I second what happy5214 says: that's not acceptable based on the intended use case for which the template was designed years ago. The marker graphic is too large, there are the headers ("route information" and "highway system") plus everything under the second header should not appear. Imzadi 1979  21:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Again, for the 3rd time - the template should not be used with |bodystyle=none and |labelstyle=none. If you ignore what I said, then of course the template will not work as I said. test1 is infobox road small, while test2 is infobox road. Here is how test2 looks (the same as infobox road):

Truck
U.S. Route 1-9 marker

U.S. Route 1-9 Truck
Route information
Maintained by NJDOT
LocationJersey City, New Jersey
Length4.11 mi[1] (6.61 km)
Highway system
  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, per Imzadi, Dough, Fredddie, Rschen, and others. There are way too many articles and lists where {{infobox road}} and {{infobox road small}} are both needed for their own separate reasons. You can say what you want about the "bodystyle" vs "labelstyle" codes, but I don't see this in your examples. And as strongly opposed as I am about being against a merger, I'm even more opposed to deletion. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It's ok if you don't know how to read code, but saying you can't see it, is just untrue when the examples shown here show it. --Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the template is helpful for streamlining lists without unnecessary coding per what others have said.∻ℳcCunicanℴ 01:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Imzadi et al. The templates have completely different purposes: one is an introduction to a road article, the other is for subsections of articles for minor roads that don't have their own article. See Arizona State Route 79 for an example.Roadguy2 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Adding on to what I said earlier: I think this is a case of WP:SLFP, as I don't see what we're trying to fix here. I also think it's relevant that of the editors who have commented here, the vast majority (if not all) who edit in the relevant field have opposed. Plus, if the two templates were to be merged, would that mean every instance of {{infobox road small}} would need to be changed to {{infobox road}}? That's quite a task, as there are currently almost 2000 transclusions of the small template. Roadguy2 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The two templates exist for different purposes - among them being that the "small" infobox works better for instances where, for example, a former highway is covered in the article for the one that replaced it. (In addition to the other reasons mentioned above.) There is no benefit to Wikipedia nor any improvement to be had by eliminating Infobox road small. --Sable232 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Xninetynine (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)X99

References

  1. ^ a b c "U.S. Route 1-9 Truck straight line diagram" (PDF). New Jersey Department of Transportation. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
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 Pass[edit]

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 do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Pass with Template:Infobox mountain pass.
Seems like a straight forward case for merging. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion: how about renaming all of these translation shims to {{Infobox whatever/de}}? That might make their purpose clear and allow easy generalization to other languages. —hike395 (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I like the language option. Pretty sure though, that it would have to pass through WP:RM for that. --Gonnym (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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 online music service[edit]

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 February 20. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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 spacecraft[edit]

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 February 20. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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 aircraft[edit]

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 February 17. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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:Permian–Triassic extinction event graphical timeline[edit]

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 February 17. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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:Ninjas in Pyjamas[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yet another bloated esports template featuring tons of non-notable entries that fails its sole purpose of navigation. 93 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Leuqarte (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
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:FlyQuest[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yet another bloated esports template featuring tons of non-notable entries that fails its sole purpose of navigation. 93 (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Leuqarte (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
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:SK Telecom T1[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yet another bloated esports template featuring tons of non-notable entries that fails its sole purpose of navigation. 93 (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Leuqarte (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
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:R to anthroponymy page[edit]

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Zero transclusions in main namespace after deletions per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_1#Louis-Alphonse_(anthroponymy). This template categorized redirects with names ending in (anthroponymy) to a target anthroponymy (name) lists. This was mimicking the practice of WP:DABNAME to create redirects ending in (disambiguation). However, unlike with dab pages, there is no issue with linking to name pages directly. Anthroponymy pages are not dab pages. Note that the template's documentation was recently changed to remove mention of the prior (anthroponymy) suffix practice. —Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm the one who changed the template's documention, repurposing it to cover redirects ending in "(surname)" and the like. In the most minimal scenario, this can be treated at least as a subject-specific form of {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. However, it is not the case that there are no issues with links to name pages: they might not be dab pages formally, but they mostly function as such and so tend to accumulate incoming links intended for other articles. My impression from the times the matter has been discussed previously, is that there's broad agreement that ultimately something needs to be done about that, but I'm not sure working out the specifics of that has been on anyone's top list of priorities. – Uanfala (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment As this template is currently unused and and there is no current consensus on the (anthroponymy) suffix at even the WikiProject standard WP:APO/S, there's nothing precluding this from being recreated If consensus should form later in the WikiProject.—Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Link to this template's previous TfD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_9#Template:R_to_anthroponymy_page. – Uanfala (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Delete. Redirects that end with "(surname)" and/or "(given name)" are {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, leaving this WP:RCAT template rather unnecessary. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the nom's reason that anthroponymy articles are articles and therefore valid link targets. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Largest cities of Brazil[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

One transclusion. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Part of a series and could be used elsewhere, eg Brazil. Nigej (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Hormone levels with intramuscular estradiol benzoate[edit]

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 February 20. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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:Real Madrid in La Liga[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Chart template with no transclusions. The information in this template may belong in Real Madrid CF or La Liga, but unsure where a list like this would go. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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:Ligat Al Map[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Map template with one transclusion. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Substitute and delete or just delete - Awful map which is very hard to read with text overlapping and very bad color contrast over water. I'd even be ok with delete. --Gonnym (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete - used by 2007–08 Israeli Premier League. Later seasons use a different style. Nigej (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Fb EU p ESP 2007[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Reference template with specific source and one transclusion. Unlikely to be used again. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete per nom. {{Fb EU p ENG 2007}} has 4 transclusions and is similarly abandoned. Nigej (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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).

More one-transclusion election templates[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Each of these has one transclusion. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Substitute and delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Nosig[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Warning template for an edit now stopped by a filter [Username Needed] 14:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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:POVtest[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Uw-npov1 [Username Needed] 14:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Template:Uw-npov. Steel1943 (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete (if not possible, just delete) - has only 2 uses and there is no reason for this redirect's naming style. --Gonnym (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Warning3[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:Warnsign [Username Needed] 14:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. The template is unique from Template:Warnsign in its appearance. In addition, the nominated template has several transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - this image is very ambiguous. What does the yellow mean in relation to the number 3? Why is a yellow traffic light even a warning? This might be a regional thing, but I've never heard of a yellow traffic light being associated with warning. The new image makes it much more clear that it is a warning. --Gonnym (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Sign1[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:Uw-sign [Username Needed] 14:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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:Chinup[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by template:Afd notice [Username Needed] 14:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. The confusing name of the template doesn't make it worth redirecting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Steel1943. --Gonnym (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
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:No template[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oddly worded user warning for an ambiguous purpose [Username Needed] 14:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Agree this is oddly worded and unlikely to be used.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Finding out the purpose was a what-links-here-click away. With the context revealed, its purpose is unambiguous. It's a notice to users who did not submit their requests at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple using some template-assisted request format that is or was in use there at least at one time. It may even be unknown to the current crop of responders, having gotten lost in some shuffle, who might otherwise use it. Or it may be completely useless because the project's format has completely changed since it was tailored for use there. Hard to tell. I'll drop a note on the talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm a global renamer who works at WP:CHUS. I can say that I've never heard of this template before and can note that we don't currently use it. AFAIK this template was only used twice: here and here. We don't have a very pressing issue with users not using the requesting template at all to file their requests, and we're usually pretty good with clerking and fixing broken requests. No need for this template, from what I can see. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete As a global renamer, I agree with all of K6ka's points. Nihlus 12:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per above, the project for which this template was created, has no use for it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Non-encyclo[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:Uw-vandalism1 [Username Needed] 14:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:BlueHelmet[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:Uw-npov1 [Username Needed] 14:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. The existing transclusions do not need replacing. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Vandalism about[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:Uw-vandalism1 [Username Needed] 14:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:No personal summaries[edit]

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:Uw-npa1. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:Uw-npa1 [Username Needed] 14:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

    • If so, then redirect. However, where does {{Uw-npa1}} mention edit summaries? Hyacinth (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Icw[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User warning template for non-existent criterion [Username Needed] 14:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete if no criterion really exists. --Gonnym (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Notchat-n[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:Uw-forum [Username Needed] 14:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Replaceable short[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:db-redundantimage-notice [Username Needed] 14:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Orphaned short[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:di-orphaned fair use-notice [Username Needed] 14:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:No fair[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:di-no fair use rationale-notice [Username Needed] 14:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:No personal comments[edit]

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:Uw-npa1. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:Uw-npa1 [Username Needed] 14:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

    • Then redirect. Hyacinth (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Fdw-noncom-deleted[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:db-noncom-notice [Username Needed] 14:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Userpage warning[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by the Template:uw-vandalism series [Username Needed] 14:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Sign2[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:Uw-sign [Username Needed] 14:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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:No personal headings[edit]

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 February 20. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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:Nonsense-warn-deletion[edit]

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 keep. (non-admin closure) [Username Needed] 14:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:Db-nonsense-notice [Username Needed] 14:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep. This is not superseded by {{Db-nonsense-notice}}, serves a different purpose entirely than it does, and I use it for that purpose. This is a template to place after an article has already been deleted as meeting G1, and is appropriately listed under CSD deletions at WP:WARN. Db-nonsense-notice, by contrast, is placed after one has tagged an article for deletion under G1. With that entirely different purpose, timing, and condition in mind, this template says:
  • "[Page Name] has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1..."
whereas Db-nonsense-notice says:
  • "A tag has been placed on [Page Name], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1..."
Thereafter, each provides relevant text tailored to the entirely different situation each addresses, one being post deletion, and one being a tagging, e.g., Db-nonsense-notice goes on to give instructions about contesting the deletion while it is pending consideration, and further instructs about how the article may be deleted at any time, once tagged, and so forth, all of which would make no sense in Nonsense-warn-deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
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:Empty-warn-deletion[edit]

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 keep. (non-admin closure) [Username Needed] 17:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by Template:Db-nocontext-notice [Username Needed] 14:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep. This is not superseded by {{Db-nocontext-notice}}, serves a different purpose entirely than it does, and I use it for that purpose. This is a template to place after an article has already been deleted as meeting A1, and is appropriately listed under CSD deletions at WP:WARN. Db-nocontext-notice, by contrast, is placed after one has tagged an article for deletion under A1. With that entirely different purpose, timing, and condition in mind, this template says:
  • "...[Page Name] has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1..."
whereas Db-nocontext-notice says:
  • "...a tag has been placed on [Page Name], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1..."
Thereafter, each provides relevant text tailored to the entirely different situation each addresses, one being post deletion, and one being a tagging, e.g., Db-nocontext-notice goes on to give instructions about contesting the deletion while it is pending consideration, and further instructs about how the article may be deleted at any time, once tagged, and so forth, all of which would make no sense in Empty-warn-deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
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:CSDNotice[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Superseded by the templates at Template:Speedy Deletion Notices [Username Needed] 14:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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:PD-UN[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This template was deprecated 4.5 years ago but still has 25 files tagged with it. The remaining uses should be changed to other copyright tags and this template should be deleted to stop it being used, as its rational is incorrect per previous discussion. Gonnym (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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 Inhumans IMAX[edit]

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 February 20. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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:Mexico NFT results[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Template is full of redlinks that are unlikely to ever be created, as individual years for national teams are not maintained and are instead maintained cumulatively by articles such as Mexico national football team schedule and results. Jay eyem (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. As noted, results from 2007 to date are in a single file and presumably earlier years will be added. If they are ever split into years/decades/whatever that is the time to create the template. NFT is unsuitable too, why not "national football team". Nigej (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
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).