Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< July 11 July 13 >

July 12

Template:Missing

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
)
Template:Missing information (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Missing information non-contentious (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
)

There's unquestionably significant overlap amongst this template, {{

missing}} and {{missing information}} and call it a day. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Hi. I think I need to add a clarification here: These template don't say "something is missing", as opposed to {{
    expand-section
    }}; they say "[X] is missing", where [X] is a mandatory parameter.
By the way, no, not any page could stand to have more info. In fact, some pages could use a merger and some pages have explored all that can be explored. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now removed the phrase "Further information might be found on the talk page" from {{
    Missing}} has better instructions and nicer formatting. I have no opinion on what you should do with {{Missing information}}. I see it has 314 transclusions. When do people usually use it? Is there always something relevant on the talk page when they use it? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Missing information non-contentious}} were merged, I would propose that the phrase "Further information can be found on the talk page" be inserted into the template, but as an optional parameter which only shows if a section header for the talk page (e.g. Permafrost/global warming, etc. – topics needing to be added for the Pleistocene Park article) is inserted in the template. If the optional phrase read "Further information and/or discussion can be found on the talk page" all three templates could be merged without any loss of editorial possibilities. Is anybody able and willing to insert such an optional parameter in the template? Only merge if some neutral way to point to the talk page stays possible. Otherwise don't merge. Roberta jr. (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Insightful points; thank you. I've re-added "Further information might be found on the talk page" to {{
Missing}} for now. Dear all: What's the most common way on Wikipedia to point to the talk page from certain template calls but not others? Do we simply write add the sentence "See talk." after the explanatory text? Do we use some special template parameter to get the template to link to a certain talk-page section? Or do we use some other way? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I like the "may be found on the Talk page"; if one sentence will say it all, it makes it quicker to use, and there is no obligation to clutter the Talk page with redundant chatter. An optional link to the Talk section, passed as a parameter, would be cool but probably not absolutely necessary, since this template is most likely to be used on short stubby articles, which usually do not have huge Talk pages to scroll through. 92.20.24.18 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with qualification. Like many academics who contribute here, I really have no strong opinions about how these tags should evolve. This is up to those more broadly involved, and technically informed and interested. My only concern is that, in automated fashion, without further manual editor participation, when a tag is "retired", its message and intent is merged and still appears in the most appropriate tag that is retained. There is simply not enough time in the day both to deal with content, and to revisit issues as technology within wikipedia changes. LeProf
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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox European Parliament election

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox European Parliament election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox election}}. Only 11 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete speedy because it has only 11 transclusions. Banhtrung1 (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, unless someone can actually demonstrate the redundancy. in many cases this template is used with {{infobox election}}, so it seems this covers something not covered by the generic election template. Frietjes (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox EU legislation

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox EU legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox legislation}}. Only 73 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's useful to me, as it works well in desribing the specifics of EU legislation. But I may be wrong: is there a minimum number of translcusions or another policy based reason that the deletion is based upon? L.tak (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no set number, but we try to avoid having redundant templates, as that increases the maintenance workload, when changes need to be made, and improves consistency between our articles, for the benefit of our readers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, clear: so it's weighing the value of maintainability against the use of customizing… I think in this case the benefits outweigh deletion, as I have explained below. I have specified my vote based on this…. L.tak (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not redundant. I'm not saying it can't be done (to use the Infobox legislation template), I'm just saying Infobox EU legislation is clearer and more precise. It is a good example of a specialized version of a more generic template. Just because a template has few transclusions is not a reason to make it have zero transclusions. Otherwise, all templates will be deleted before they can be used. Int21h (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If, as you say, {{Infobox legislation}} can be used instead of this template, them this template is, by definition, redundant. You don't say how this template is "clearer and more precise". This template is five years old, so the "newness" point is a red herring. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason I like it, is because it enables a consistent feel though out the transclusions (which is a lot more problematic using info box-legislation; and even more complicated if we were to use the ultimate general one: template:info box). Furthermore, the info box enables adding info on
        Lisbon Treaty; I don't have data, but think use has doubled in the past year. L.tak (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Keep, 70 transclusion + the argument about enabling consistent look is enough. There's also {{Infobox U.S. legislation}}. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This box serves a useful purpose in keeping relevant information together. Stating that maintenance is a problem is a lame excuse - why are the underlying templates in such a poor shape? Martinvl (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dáil Éireann constituency infobox

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dáil Éireann constituency infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox constituency}}. Only 55 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.
    talk) 17:07, 20 July 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dáil Éireann former constituency infobox

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dáil Éireann former constituency infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox constituency}}. Only 84 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (Note: I created this template)
    talk) 17:08, 20 July 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Sri Lankan Electoral District

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sri Lankan Electoral District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox constituency}}. Only 22 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - {{Infobox constituency}} provides all info that is provided by {{Infobox Sri Lankan Electoral District}}. [Note: I am the editor who originally created this template].--obi2canibetalk contr 15:08, 13 July 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Zimbabwe Constituency

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zimbabwe Constituency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox constituency}}. Only 4 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 12 July 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Northern Ireland Assembly constituency

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Northern Ireland Assembly constituency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox constituency}}. Only 18 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 12 July 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Mission County (proposal), California

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. It looks like these are now unused, and even if they were used, they would be single use templates, which is not a typical use for a navbox. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mission County (proposal), California (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Peconic County, New York (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I question the usefulness of this navbox. Per the main article,

to facilitate navigation between articles", not necessarily link settlement articles to a topic in which its citizens soundly rejected, and thus unlikely to be practically used. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The header could be changed to state "Municipalities and communities of the proposed Mission County, California, United States". As for why it was created now, same reason we haven't deleted the
notability is not temporary. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
If you want to invoke
WP:RECENTISM. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
That's a different issue. As for reassessing notably, I have no opinion. That said, ether Mission County was notable and still is today, or it isn't notable and never was. The point of NOTTEMPORARY is that if something ever was notable, it remains notable today, and will forever be notable. NOTTEMPORARY does not prejudge against us saying "Oops, we were wrong, this isn't (and never was) notable". The point of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTTEMPORARY is that somethings time period (baring an incomplete historical recored) has no impact on it's notability; doesn't matter weather something happened 5 days, 5 years, or 500 years ago, all else being equal it's just as notable either way. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 17 July 2013
Now that you mention it, despite being in the form of a navbox, it would really be more accurate to call it a table. It functions as a table, not a navbox. I suppose the reason I made the table it's own template, other then habit, was that it just seems like adding all that code to the extremal links section would make the section somewhat messy and more difficult to edit (see my sandbox). I suppose that would be my only objection to substing and deleting, but it's a weak objection.
There is one circumstance where I think a proposed county should have it's own template namespace navbox: if the proposed county has it's own category. Normally the county navbox is placed 2nd to the top at the category page (see Category:Arlington County, Virginia for an example), and the template-namespace page itself is intended to be viewed by the reader. I think that, for the sake of consistency, we should do the same for proposed counties. However, to the best of my knowledge, no proposed counties has it's own category yet. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Adding {{Peconic County, New York}} to nomination. It's also a municipality/communities navbox for a proposed county. This is procedural, I support keeping both. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever. Just make them tables only on the proposed county articles themselves. They should not appear on articles for communities that would have been in those counties. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. These are just tables in the form of a navbox, their not intended to be used on articles for communities that would have been in those counties. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • reformat as a table and merge with the parent articles, as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would it look in table form, and would it still cause excessive code in thee external links section? These county "navboxes" have a standard format, could table form support that format? What would be the point in putting this in table form? Despite it's navbox forum, it already has the function and purpose of a table just as all county navboxes do. This is just a rare example of a county "navbox" that doesn't have the function and purpose of a navbox, most have the function and purpose of both a navbox and a table (see my keep vote, but when you see the words "section" and "presto-section" read "table"). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • it would look something like this, with nothing in the external links section. clearly, as a navbox, it would not be used in more than one article, so no reason to have it as a separate template. Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Louisville neighborhoods

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Louisville neighborhoods (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Jefferson County, Kentucky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Louisville neighborhoods with Template:Jefferson County, Kentucky.
Jefferson County and Louisville are coterminous. There is a long standing consensus that county municipalities and community templates are supposed to include towns, census-designated places, and unincorporated communities; they are not supposed to restrict their scope to just incorporated cities. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The consolidation of city and county government did not make Louisville disappear. These are still neighborhoods of Louisville. Anyway, the two navbox templates are very large; the main effect of merging them would be to make the resulting template less useful than either of the existing templates. --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It did, according to the Louisville, Kentucky: "Since 2003, the city's borders have been coterminous with those of the county because of a city-county merger"; in other words, the term "Louisville" was redefined from referring to the city within Jefferson County, to being synonymous with Jefferson County. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These templates appear to serve different purposes. If the county one is supposed to include a lot of what's in the neighborhoods one, but not the original Louisville neighborhoods, that would wipe out a lot of information. Perhaps what is called for is using information from the neighborhoods template in the county one, to make it complete as you suggest.
    Talk • Work 09:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
My understanding it that the scope of the neighborhood template is the whole city-county, not just the old (pre-consolidation) City of Louisville. Am I mastaken? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The neighborhood template is for the whole city-county.
The templates should have different approaches. The county one should be a more of an overview that doesn't include all the neighborhoods. That the city and county are coterminous is irrelevant to this matter.
Talk • Work 17:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Interesting idea. We need to discuss this some more, and work some things about the templates out (I'm too tired right now), but in the meantime I'll partly implement your idea. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think neighborhood info is overkill for the county template. I'm not sure why any county template would include neighborhood info, except maybe for neighborhoods not incorporated into cities or CDPs. Since the city and county are coterminous, there is especially no reason to include any neighborhood info in the county template.
Talk • Work 17:16, 20 July 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup navboxes

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete per this discussion and previous TFD nominations. Garion96 (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a youth competition. So it's not eligible to create its squad navboxes. All templates should be deleted. Banhtrung1 (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chile squad 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Australia squad 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chile squad 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Colombia squad 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:England squad 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:France squad 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Iraq squad 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Paraguay squad 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Portugal squad 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Spain squad 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uruguay squad 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I oppose. The U-20 World Cup (particularly the men) is contested among almost 100% professional athletes who meet Wikipedia's definition of notable. I can understand not having templates for the U-17 World Cup, but not this.--MorrisIV (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although almost 100% professional athletes who meet Wikipedia's definition of notable, this is a youth competition only. All previous discussions agreed to delete them. Navboxes are necessary only for major senior continental and international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup, UEFA European Championship, AFC Asian Cup... Banhtrung1 (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That navboxes are necessary only for major senior continental competition is your opinion, but Morris have a different opinion than you. TfD is the venue to share our opinions about templates, to help reach a consensus.
talk) 21:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - clear, recent consensus that youth templates are not notable. GiantSnowman 13:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the consensus. --MicroX (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Euro U21

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Garion96 (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Euro U21 is also a youth tournament, so their navboxes are unnecessary. Sub-article about squads such as

2011 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship squads
are enough to lookup information. If readers want more convenient, you can write additional U21-related information to players' article so the readers will know what tournaments each player competed.

Below are two remaining navboxes of the

2013 edition. Remaining editions' navboxes also be deleted, like here, here and here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Spain squad 2013 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Italy squad 2013 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - clear, recent consensus that youth templates are not notable. GiantSnowman 13:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent and consensus. --MicroX (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

East Asian Games navboxes

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hong Kong football squad 2005 East Asian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hong Kong football squad 2009 East Asian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a regional multi-sport event only so their navboxes should be deleted. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all East Asian Games in fact a under-23 game, despite Hong Kong fielded their best players (as Olympic-like event were allowed a few overage player), as well as winning the event, it isn't the reason to keep it according to previous consensus. Matthew_hk tc 11:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:07, 7 August 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

EAFF Championship (formerly Dynasty Cup)

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hong Kong Squad 1995 Dynasty Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hong Kong Squad 1998 Dynasty Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hong Kong Squad 2003 EAFF Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hong Kong Squad 2010 EAFF Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Banana Fingers said:

The competitions for which these squad navboxes were created is a regional competition only, whereas the general consensus at
WP:FOOTY is that national team squad navboxes should only be created for continental or global competitions such as the AFC Asian Cup or the FIFA World Cup
.

Regional, regional tournament. Unnecessary. Like here and here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all a regional event that only cover part of the AFC. Matthew_hk tc 11:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - not a major tournament, not worthy of navboxes, as shows by recent consensus. GiantSnowman 13:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not a major tournament. Frietjes (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

SAFF Championship

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maldives Squad 2011 SAFF Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pakistan squad 2011 SAFF Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Banana Fingers said:

The competitions for which these squad navboxes were created is a regional competition only, whereas the general consensus at
WP:FOOTY is that national team squad navboxes should only be created for continental or global competitions such as the AFC Asian Cup or the FIFA World Cup
.

REGIONAL TOURNAMENT. They should be deleted like here and here and here.

Template:Pakistan squad 2011 SAFF Championship was copied from Thailand squad. It must be deleted. Banhtrung1 (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - not a major tournament, not worthy of navboxes, as shows by recent consensus. GiantSnowman 13:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not a major tournament. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

SEA Games

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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Malaysia men's football squad 2009 SEA Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Malaysia men's football squad 2011 SEA Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Vietnam men's football squad 2009 SEA Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Vietnam men's football squad 2011 SEA Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Thailand men's football squad 2011 SEA Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Singapore men's football squad 2011 SEA Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Myanmar men's football squad 2011 SEA Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Indonesia men's football squad 2011 SEA Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

SEA Games is a regional multi-sport event. I created them. I have recognized that their navboxes are unnecessary, so it need to be deleted. Banhtrung1 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 29#Template:Philippines men basketball squad 2011 Southeast Asian Games. Sawol (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - not a major tournament, not worthy of navboxes, as shows by recent consensus. GiantSnowman 13:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – a discussion confirmed to delete squad navbox of SEA Games. Banhtrung1 (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, not a major tournament. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2013 (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
). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_12&oldid=1140244073"