Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 30 July 2 >

July 1[edit]

Bus route maps/lists[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually have these sort of bus route maps/lists in template form unless absolutely needed (ie if they're notable in some way), Articles that have routes on them are usually in short paragraphs (or long depending on the history),

IMHO none of these are needed, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have tons of routemaps for train lines. Can you point to a discussion, guideline, or policy reason for not having routemaps for bus lines? If you are worried about sourcing, why not just add a source tore the template? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are not train routemaps tho, As I said unless these are notable in some way then we don't usually have these. –Davey2010Talk 22:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to where I said "I don't like it" .... I don't believe I did. –Davey2010Talk 22:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your exact words above are none of these are needed; the third example at WP:IDL is Delete: No need. Can the dots get any closer? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should re-read my above rationale as well as the essay you're citing as unless you're blind you would very clearly see I'm not basing my comment on "These aren't needed", I provided a valid reason above that, Given text alone can and does do the job I saw no reason for these hence the "these aren't needed". I would suggest you visit your local optician once the pandemic has cleared. –Davey2010Talk 00:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now you're resorting to Wikipedia:Personal attacks, giving even less credence to your (ir)rationale. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a rest, You stated I don't like it, I stated you were incorrect and said why. Now you can either provide a valid rationale for keeping or deleting or in the politest way of saying this you can go and waste all of your time and energy or more important things like articles.
FYI but telling someone "I Don't Like it is not a suitable rationale for deletion." whilst not providing a further policy-based reason is in itself not a valid reason to keep or delete (unless I stated I don't like it and that was it which very clearly isn't the case here). –Davey2010Talk 11:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- as well as being something we don't generally do, these templates also appear to be unused. Reyk YO! 16:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk and Serial Number 54129: They weren't unused until the nominator removed them. I didn't restore them (yet) as I didn't want to get into an edit war. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed remove them and apologies for not mentioning this, the Go North East article makes no mention of the routes (They were just dumped under the infobox) so therefore I saw no justification for keeping them. –Davey2010Talk 17:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-apology apology. They were NOT "just dumped", but added to the article that seemed the most appropriate. Davey2010, enough of the WP:Weasel words; leave the pejoratives out of this discussion. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Another non-apology apology" - I really would strongly suggest you get your eyesight checked pronto as that was indeed an apology and no it wasn't "another apology" because I've never gave you an apology, I haven't used weasel words or pejoratives - I simply stated it how I saw it ..... Please stop being a snowflake and looking for things to be offended at - it's pathetic and please stop pinging me, I have no desire to interact with you further. Have a nice day!. –Davey2010Talk 13:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic trivia and overly detailed for the routes concerned. And if their unused: WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. ——Serial # 16:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I might support keeping them if they were used and placed contextually within an article, but they don't appear to be used at all, and we are not a web host. (I don't think it would be trivia if they were properly sourced and formatted within a good article.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template:Go North East Q1 & Q2 and Template:Go North East Q3, as they can be used in the QuayLink article. The others should be deleted as unused templates unless there's somewhere suitable to use them; there is no mention of them in the operator's article so they don't belong there. They may be suitable for Commons if uploaded as files in PNG or SVG format. Peter James (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:13th LS members from Uttarakhand[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. Now in-use. Please feel free to renominate for another reason if you still feel it should be deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template –User456541 21:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Kindly give a valid reason for deletion. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 08:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemant Dabral: I would have nominated it for speedy deletion under G6, if it wasn't for Fastily. –User456541 12:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you didn't. G6 is not applicable to orphaned templates. -FASTILY 22:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not an unused/orphaned template. Kindly check before listing it for the deletion. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 13:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Archive header[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 after replacing with the appropriate template. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is only used on a handful of userspace archives. We have an abundance of archive header notices, and this one is inferior and redundant to other such header templates like {{UserTalkArchive}} and {{Talk archive navigation}}. Replace and delete. --Netoholic @ 18:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the two templates you provided as a replacement don't offer the ability to use a custom list like {{Archive header}} does, which is important when archives are sorted by month/year and also means {{Archive header}} is not inferior or redundant.– BrandonXLF (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (BrandonXLF is the template creator) We have so many header templates it becomes a blur, but if the navigation is a concern, we have options like {{Annual archive}}. We should be creating fewer one-offs, and instead centralize on a few options since most people archive in the same way. I ask that other voters look at the low number of transclusions of this, after almost 2 years of its existence, as evidence that this is a niche template replaceable by other existing ones. -- Netoholic @ 19:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Netoholic. It is used only on a handful of pages and it's very complex as a non technically skilled editor to work one's way through the vast array of archive related templates. I strongly support consolidation in this case. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Net and Tom. --Izno (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete archiving is overly complicated and having several templates for the same purpose isn't helping the matter. I see no reason why a replacement can't be used. The best choice for a replacement indeed seems to be {{Annual archive}} which is very similar. --Trialpears (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Archived talk[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 after suitable replacement. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this is supposed to be a notice on pages which are archived regularly, but the current majority use is on the archive pages themselves. This very confusing scope can be resolved by replacing with existing header templates for both the source (such as {{Archives}}) and destination pages (such as {{UserTalkArchive}} and {{Talk archive navigation}}). --Netoholic @ 18:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose there doesn't seem to be a replacement for it (i.e. an archive header that allows for a custom list), I suppose {{Archive header}} could be used as a replacement by providing the text parameter, but it would have to be not deleted for that to happen.– BrandonXLF (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support merging {{Archived talk}} into {{Archive header}} and using some logic to change the message depending on if the page the template is on is an archive (subpage). It would fix the issue with the template usage.– BrandonXLF (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (BrandonXLF is the template creator) No, we should be creating fewer one-offs, and instead centralize on a few options since most people archive in the same way. I ask that other voters look at the low number of transclusions of this, after almost 2 years of its existence, as evidence that this is a niche template replaceable by other existing ones. -- Netoholic @ 19:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Netoholic. It is used only on a handful of pages and it's very complex as a non technically skilled editor to work one's way through the vast array of archive related templates. I strongly support consolidation in this case. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Net and Tom. --Izno (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete archiving is overly complicated and having several templates for the same purpose isn't helping the matter. I see no reason why a replacement can't be used. The best choice for a replacement indeed seems to be {{Annual archive}} which is very similar. --Trialpears (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just like with {{Archive header}} I believe consolidation is desirable here. The most similar option would be {{Archived annually}}, but I think an even better option would be adding a banner option to {{Archives}} making that a universal very customizable template for displaying a list of archives. --Trialpears (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Concentration camps in Independent State of Croatia[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. It sounds like there's a square/rectangle juxtaposition between a "Croatian concentration camp" and "Serbs in concentration camps". If that can be worked out, there is NPASR. Primefac (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Concentration camps in Independent State of Croatia with Template:Genocide of Serbs.
As far as I can tell, all of these camps had at least some Serbian prisoners. Therefore, they should all be included in the Genocide of Serbs template. This would eliminate the need to transclude both templates on one article, as is done at Danica concentration camp. buidhe 08:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Tenja concentration camp was Jews-only. Not sure about the others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure. Not all camps were for Serbs, but for those, a category may remain, instead of a template.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope, as they were not only for Serbs. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a topic of substantial controversy, and this merge, while superficially tenable, could be leading towards a weird final state. This newer "Genocide of Serbs" template was created without an eponymous article having been created first; and by the same person who created Denial of genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, which still tagged as clearly problematic. I'd be very wary of orienting navigation in the encyclopedia in a way that it focuses on "who" instead of "what" - there's a history of Serbian nationalist edits in this topic area over the last few decades where there's been way so many undue weight violations, and we've had to enforce WP:ARBMAC so many times over these kinds of topics. I'd think it's safer to assume that contemporary historiography would be more likely to cover the more general history and the characteristics of the camps, rather than any individual class of captives, when there were many (at least four major groups in this jurisdiction). Indeed maybe it's worth pondering whether to navigate across the various WWII-era camps in the region, across various puppet-state jurisdictions, because some were run directly by occupying forces, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Population census of Zambia[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. Primefac (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already included in Demographics of Zambia, as File:Zambia-demography.png. TheImaCow (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is reasonable here. --Izno (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Anglican church composers[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. If there is an issue with the message, update it after a discussion. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit notice should only be used on articles where there is a demonstrable need for it i.e. where BLP violations are likely. Otherwise it will discourage contributions. This article is a list of blue-links meaning there is no requirement for a source for each entry, and really no need for editors to familiarize themselves with these two policies before simply adding a blue-link. In this context it's quite bitey and so doesn't belong here. --Pontificalibus 16:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This article does not need an edit notice. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A simple friendly message (no exclamation marks or other bitey imagery) that reminds users about best practices around lists of people (not just WP:BLP as the nominator cites, but also WP:LISTPEOPLE). There is no evidence provided that it actually reduces productive editing. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't "remind users about best practices", it insists in bold on the provision of a source when adding a blue-link to a list, but there is no such requirement. It may be helpful on certain articles, but I can't see how you can object to it's removal here, where there isn't even any evidence of BLP violations and certainly no requirement for a source for new additions.----Pontificalibus 05:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with IronGargoyle and wonder where this will end if this is deleted? How many more edit notices will be put up for deletion? If the message sounds bitey, then the place to go would be the template that this notice transcludes, {{Editnotice for lists of people}}. There is already a discussion there about the venue(s). If the message is dated and perhaps bitey, then let's get the message changed, not delete a helpful edit notice. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is it helpful on this article if it insists that sources be provided for each entry, when there are no sources in the article because it's a navigational list? It's misleading and should be removed. There's nothing wrong with the transcluded template, it just shouldn't be on this article.----Pontificalibus 05:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point is, how is insistence that sources be provided for each entry helpful in any such list, when each entry is a notable blue link to an article with its own sources? So perhaps that part should not be included in the meta template? The first part of the edit notice can be helpful, so I should have put it, "If the message is dated and perhaps bitey, then let's get the message changed, not delete an otherwise helpful edit notice." P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 11:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some lists of blue-links subject to BLP-violations do need a source for each entry e.g. List of transgender people. This notice could be perfectly worded for some articles, but it is entirely unnecessary for this particular article. I really don't understand the resistance to removing this notice from this one article. Most lists of people don't have an edit notice at all, and many such articles are far more likely to have BLP issues.----Pontificalibus 05:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Uw-attack1-default[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. Seems like there wasn't anything to merge here hence I'm closing as delete. If there is content to merge feel free to restore and do so. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Delete {{Uw-attack1-default}} (not both). Cabayi (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Uw-attack1-default with Template:Uw-npa1.
Two notices that say roughly the same message. "attack1" doesn't have a "2" variant that I can see. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure if I tend toward merge or delete. Probably lean delete side here. --Izno (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but really just delete Uw-attack1-default. Redundant. --Bsherr (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Eastern Tigers F.C. active departments[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused template, only redlinks -- AquaDTRS (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Radio kī kyoku[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 Radio kī kyoku. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Radio kī kyoku with Template:Tokyo Radio.
Nominated template is for all of Japan, while the merge target is just for Tokyo. Given the size of the nominated template, it seems trivial to fold it in to the target. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of Radio ki kyoku. The Tokyo Radio template covers all of the Radio ki kyoku data in more detail & depth. Also, the title is much clearer, & the Tokyo Radio Templar’s is in line with other radio markets internationally.Stereorock (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Radio ki kyoku. It is in bad and unlocalized shape, having apparently been created by a translation tool in 2007, and it is also unused. Attempting to translate the jawiki version reveals that it would likely be titled "Radio station network flagships/key stations in Japan" if it had been done by a user more fluent in English. The entries are in the format of "Tokyo station (network)" and the two with a note are "de facto flagship stations". We have Template:Japan radio networks, which links to almost all the articles that the jawiki version does (except Radio Nippon. Raymie (t • c) 02:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Project Gotham Racing[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:Bizarre Creations. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Project Gotham Racing with Template:Bizarre Creations.
Semi-procedural nomination as a declined WP:T3. Gotham is contained inside Bizarre, and the latter is a relatively small navbox, so a merge makes sense. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge per nom. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems like a good idea, as the PGR template is extremely small. BirdValiant (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Protection template-redirects[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated already a few of these a few days ago, now, i have found some more. Reason to delete: All of them are currently unused, and, since everyone uses Twinkle to add Protection-Templates, they'll probably stay unused. (notice: all of them were created in 2006-8)TheImaCow (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my rationale on the last proposal. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Nemzeti Bajnokság I seasons[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:Nemzeti Bajnokság I. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Nemzeti Bajnokság I seasons with Template:Nemzeti Bajnokság I teamlist.
Semi-procedural nomination; declined a WP:T3 because they're not identical, but I see little point in having just the seasons as their own template. An alternate option (if there is an opinion to have the seasons in their own group to keep things smaller) would be to replace the Seasons group in the "teamlist" template with a transclusion of the "seasons" template. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge per nom. There seems to be a lot of football templates out there with standalone templates for teams/players/seasons that could be merged into a unified one. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a third template to throw into the mix - {{Nemzeti Bajnokság I}}, which appears identical to the 'teamlist' one. I suggest all 3 are merged there. GiantSnowman 17:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edit request is for this template to be deleted as it has long outlived its usefulness. The template was created in 2017 but the article it provides a notice on has been indefinitely extended-confirmed protected since 2018. Do we really need a glaring stop sign notice to extended confirmed editors each time they make an edit to the page? The list of most-viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours has been merged since 2018 and no longer exists. Can we not just add a <!-- --> note in the table saying "wait for official YouTube confirmation" or something? This template is protected, so I can't nominate it for deletion myself. Heartfox (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Posted on behalf of user due to template-protection. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we can try deletion here if the page is indefinitely ECPd. --Izno (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Flavor of Love[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:The Surreal Life. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Flavor of Love with Template:The Surreal Life.
This navbos is currently unused, and its contents are included in Template:The Surreal Life. TheImaCow (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Dan Scanlon[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. Izno (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

an un-needed template with two entries, both of which can fit on the producer's page. I would say revisit if the producer creates more films but at the moment its really not needed. Nightfury 11:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a fair assessment. --2601:701:C000:1BC0:F979:F0E4:E6C5:ED5E (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Ticino rapid transit network 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

s-line data modules

{{s-line}} templates for the Rete celere del Canton Ticino. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/TILO and Module:Adjacent stations/Ferrovie Luganesi. All transclusions replaced. There are eight dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Note that the S-line data modules have already been deleted. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2015 Southeast Asian Games – Philippines football squad[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template only used once at Philippines at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games and has been substituted into the article. Currently unused. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_1&oldid=1131087130"