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]

Template:Missing (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 information)), and ((missing information non-contentious)). Less clear is how to solve this situation, though I think I can safely suggest we end with no more than two of these. Given how infrequently editors really start talk page discussions regarding maintenance templates, my preference would be to bow to reality by using only ((missing information non-contentious)), probably at the simple ((missing)) title. But if we really want to try to strongarm editors into best practices, we could just merge ((missing)) and ((missing information)) and call it a day. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Hi. I myself wanted to submit this nomination for the very same reasons, only I forgot every time. So, BDD beat me to it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ((Missing information)) and ((Missing)) into ((Missing information non-contentious)). Jarble (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, since they're redundant, and make "Missing information" the name of the template. "Missing" is more ambiguous, and "Missing information non-contentious" is too long. 2001:18E8:2:1020:DD55:A339:B1AA:40FE (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete. Although I don't feel strongly about it, it seems to me that any page could stand to have more information added, so it's sort of stating the obvious. There are more specific templates, such as Template:Expand section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 18 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)). Merge ((Missing information non-contentious)) into ((Missing)), since ((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]
  • Pleistocene Park, Web banner, Ein Gedi, and possibly others have further information on the talk page and now there no longer is a link in the article pointing this out. If ((Missing)) and ((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

• Merge I don't favour deletion; sometimes a page has really obvious basic missing info (e.g. a stub article on a software package or company that doesn't tell you what it does, or an article on a historical event that doesn't tell you when or where, or an article on a chemical that doesn't give the formula). I assume that was what this template was for. 92.20.24.18 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all three into ((Missing information)). There's considerable overlap, and I don't think it's entirely necessary for us to have them all. Like the above user says, "Missing information" seems to be the most unambiguous and succinct name. Whatever template we're left with, it would be best for it to have the option to refer to sections as well as just articles ( ((Missing information)) and ((Missing information non-contentious)) both offer this; ((Missing)) does not). I also think that it be best to include reference to engaging in discussion on the article's talk page, although having it just as an option parameter would be fine by me. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into ((Missing information non-contentious)) and move that to ((Missing information)). I personally think "Missing information non-contentious" has the best format, but the name is a turn-off, which is why I think the template should be moved after the merge. TCN7JM 07:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the majority of comments above sats 10:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all three to one. Present transclusions are 80% ((missing information)), but none are used as much as they should be. Adding a parameter for a known source to be cited would help, though it may be prudent to keep that parameter non-displaying.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all three into ((Missing information)). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:56, 16 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.

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.

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 EEA-relevance, which is very important in much EU legislation. I furthermore, have the feeling it is used more and more, now EU legislation is gaining traction since the 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.

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. Snappy (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.

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) Snappy (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.

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].--obi2canibe^{talk 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.

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.

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]

• Delete per Andy. Banhtrung1 (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Andy. Snappy (talk) 17:11, 31 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.

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, Mission County proposal, this was a proposed county in California that was sounded and strongly rejected by voters in 2006 (seven years ago). WP:NAVBOX states in its guidelines for a good template: "the subject of the template should be mentioned in every article" and " articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent". Looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Mission_County_(proposal),_California and Special:WhatLinksHere/Mission_County_proposal, it clearly does not. The proposed borders are not currently even mention or cited in the Mission County proposal article, so the navbox's criteria of inclusion seems more like unverified content or original research. Navigation boxes are suppose "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]

• Delete This template is highly misleading, since it doesn't indicate that there is no such place as Mission County. I'm baffled as to why it would be created now; it would at least make sense if it were a relic from 2006 or something. --BDD (talk) 03:05, 13 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 Mission County proposal article: notability is not temporary. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to invoke WP:NOTTEMPORARY, how about where it says "from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable." IMO, what actually should happen is that the 1-paragraph Mission County proposal stub article should be merged back into the history or government section of the Santa Barbara County, California article per 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

• Keep First of all here are the borders, and this is only intended to be used on the Mission County proposal article. Secondly, this is a highly unusual case for a navbox. County municipality/communities navboxes are a standard part of a county article. In addition to their navbox benefits, they also function as a presto-section of a county article allowing a reader to quickly and easily see the municipalities and communities of a county. Their function on county articles is as much that of a section as that of a navbox. Most of the navbox benefits do not apply here (as this is only intended to be used on Mission County proposal), but as a presto-section it retains it's usefulness. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  A table would be sufficient to display the municipalities and communities of the proposed county, not a seperate navigation box that is only used in one article. You could also use the meta-template ((US county navigation box)) directly on the Mission County article. Again, this not a standard county article, but one on a proposed and then subsequently rejected county. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Stevie is the man! ^{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. Stevie is the man! ^{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. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I agree with Stevie is the manCoal town guy (talk) 15:46, 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.

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. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I do not support deleting all these navboxes, when most of them seem to pass the criteria listed in WP:NAVBOX and provides useful navigation between articles on a related subject. Morris also makes a good point that there is a big difference between U-17 and U-20, though the redlinks to non-notable footballers (if any) should be removed. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• We must delete all because all previous discussions confirmed to delete the similar templates. This is proof: here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't vote more than once. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per the previous talks below. Sawol (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 6#FIFA U-20 World Cup navboxes (the latest)
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 17#Template:Japan Squad 2007 U-20 World Cup
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 1#Template:United Arab Emirates squad – 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
  • Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 16#Template:South Korea Squad 1979 World Youth Championship
  • Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 14#Template:Brazil Squad 1991 FIFA World Youth Championship
  • Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 22#Template:Poland U-20 Squad 2007 World Cup
• Delete all - per recent similar TfDs and current consensus.--Oleola (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All - the value of templates have been shown in each article of tournament. According to rule in wikipedia, They should be kept.hoising (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All - Having these led me on an informative trip about players who made it and players who didn't, or still could. There's value in that. finval (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although there's value in that, it's a youth tournament only. It don't have enough value to create navboxes. Banhtrung1 (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your have a misconception. The value of each page/navbox was depended on the notability, not only the type of tournament. hoising (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the World Cup. "Regional tournament", yes. It's only that it covers the region that is Earth. finval (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sr. I wrote wrong! It's not regional. It's youth tournament. I solved that mistake. Banhtrung1 (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • So it may be informative and have value, but it's a youth tournament and so to no ones interest (excluding mine, apparently)? I can't agree with that. You see, things are notable when there is a target audience for that thing. Notability is not something forever stable, never to change. finval (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Although it relatively notable, all previous discussions confirmed to delete the similar navboxes. Historical respect are very necessary. Youth competitions have poor professional quality, most of the players are not really experienced and famous. Such quality is not necessary to make the box! I hope you understand. Tks! Banhtrung1 (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I repeat: "Notability is not something forever stable, never to change." I hope you understand. finval (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all – per hoising. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 08:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Long-standing consensus that we shouldn't have navboxes for youth tournaments, as players at this level do not necessarily meet notability criteria, and the existence of navboxes only serves to make editors think players are article-worthy. Number 57 12:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only serve" you say, despite there being an argument here. The argument is because the navboxes serve some on Wikipedia, but apparently not all. It doesn't serve you, but it does others. If your primary argument against it is that there may be a very slight increase in the total of new articles that have to be deleted, when other people are arguing that it improves the experience they have browsing Wikipedia, your argument isn't rock-solid. Instead, why not just de-link those players who don't have pages, so that their name will be written in normal text instead of appearing red? That would prevent most of those "new articles" you're worried will spring up. If every long-standing consensus was non-arguable, Wikipedia would never evolve. finval (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My eight years of experience have taught me that non-links on templates are almost always turned into redlinks by someone. It just doesn't work. Number 57 21:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, no need for youth squad templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there has been some excessive WP:VOTESTACKING the recent days, where User:Hoising has left a neutral message to people that has voted to keep templates like this (User:Leifurf [1], User:Ranking Update [2] and me [3]), while User:Banhtrung1 has been canvassing users that has voted to deleted templates like this in the past (User:Frietjes [4] and User:Number 57 [5] among others. I've warned both users on their talk-pages. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the canvassing is not good. fwiw, I comment on almost all discussions, so the notification was a non-issue for me. however, it probably wasn't the case for others. Frietjes (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also comment on almost all these discussions too. And why would you "warn" the people who have been canvassed? Number 57 21:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My intention was not warn the people who have been canvassed, but warn the users who have been canvassing. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it is not canvassing as just a prompted to editors, no suggest for standards of vote. You want to vote with nobody knows to satisfy your own desires?　hoising (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between WP:CANVASSING and WP:VOTESTACKING, and as I stated in my above post, you were votestacking while the other user was canvassing. The problem with your post, was that you only sent them to the users who you knew had voted keep in previous similar discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The consensus was established quite recently. The result of the discussion was delete. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 14#FIFA U-20 World Cup. Sawol (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Clearly enough, under-20 isn't the best team of that country and may be amateur. Matthew_hk tc 11:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Per Jesus Christ, our lord saviour. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you doing? Discuss or prayer? This is Wikipedia. It's not a church. Here is not a place of prayer. This vote is VERY not valid. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether that was a valid vote or not, or is up to the closing admin to decide. You should refrain from altering other peoples comments, like striking a vote. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:51, 6 August 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.

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)

• Comment - I've undone this edit, where templates where unnecessary "moved" from another discussion on July 12. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm surprised that you've found an old discussion from 2009, without linking to this related discussion from October 2011 with a consensus to keep. These two navboxes are the two finalists in this years championship, and they provide useful navigation between articles on a related subject in addition to meeting the criteria listed in WP:NAVBOX — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentoz86 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 July 2013

• Delete all per the previous talks below. Sawol (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_30#Template:Spain squad 2011 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship (the latest)
  • Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_14#Template:Yugoslavia_U21_Squad_1984
  • Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_22#Template:Germany_U21_Squad_Euro_2009
• Delete all - per recent similar TfDs and current consensus.--Oleola (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all – per hoising. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 08:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Long-standing consensus that we shouldn't have navboxes for youth tournaments, as players at this level do not necessarily meet notability criteria, and the existence of navboxes only serves to make editors think players are article-worthy. Number 57 12:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with the long-standing part, given that it was consensus to have these templates until the Yugoslavian under-21 template was deleted in February due to failing WP:NAVBOX #2-4. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The consensus was established several years ago. There was a temporary blip of them being kept, probably after a rogue TfD that was then used as a rationale to keep for a while, before we went back to deleting them. Number 57 15:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - There's almost every player I view there blue, that is, has his own wiki-page. That means nearly every player there is notable, despite this being a youth tournament. Players aren't notable just for playing in youth tournaments, but there are always many players competing in them who will prove notable enough for their own wiki-page, as is the case here. I also find it funny that people are referencing a "long-standing consensus" when there's a link here to a discussion where the consensus was to keep this. finval (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, no need for youth squad templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - some users has been WP:VOTESTACKING other users to this discussion. See my comment in #2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup navboxes for more info Mentoz86 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The consensus was established quite recently. The result of the discussion was delete. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 11#U21 Euro squad (next). Sawol (talk) 03:54, 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 - 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.

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 per the nominator. Sawol (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per nom.--Oleola (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All - the value of templates have been shown in each article of tournament. According to rule in wikipedia, They should be kept.hoising (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all – per hoising. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 08:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - some users has been WP:VOTESTACKING other users to this discussion. See my comment in #2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup navboxes for more info Mentoz86 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – AFF Suzuki Cup templates, another regional competition, were deleted completely after being allow to delete. This is proof: here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:21, 29 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]

• Delete all - not a major tournament, not worthy of navboxes, as shows by recent consensus. GiantSnowman 13:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all – per hoising. Fabregas0414 ^talk 16:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, not a major tournament. Frietjes (talk) 18:06, 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.

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 per the nominator. Sawol (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per nom.--Oleola (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All - the value of templates have been shown in each article of tournament. According to rule in wikipedia, They should be kept.hoising (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is regional tournament only. We shouldn't keep it. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are notable. Proof: this. hoising (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That discussion don't have consensus because I mentioned too much navboxes of the different competitions, so this make problem to analysis them. That does not mean that regional tournaments are notable to create navboxes. This is the other proof: this discussion Banhtrung1 (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • They use the word all and do not specifically delete particular squad, so your statement is wrong. hoising (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all – per hoising. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 08:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - some users has been WP:VOTESTACKING other users to this discussion. See my comment in #2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup navboxes for more info Mentoz86 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – AFF Suzuki Cup templates, another regional competition, were deleted completely. This is proof: here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:17, 29 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.

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]

• Delete per the nominator. Sawol (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per nom.--Oleola (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All - the value of templates have been shown in each article of tournament. According to rule in wikipedia, They should be kept.hoising (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its value is very little because it is a regional tournament. This is proof: this and this. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey! You posted outdated informationm. They are notable. Proof: this. hoising (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That discussion don't have consensus because I mentioned too much navboxes of the different competitions, so this make problem to analysis them. That does not mean that regional tournaments are notable to create navboxes. This is the other proof: this discussion Banhtrung1 (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
        • They use the word all and do not specifically delete particular squad, so your statement is wrong. hoising (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all – per hoising. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 08:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - some users has been WP:VOTESTACKING other users to this discussion. See my comment in #2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup navboxes for more info Mentoz86 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – AFF Suzuki Cup templates, another regional competition, were deleted completely after being allow to delete. This is proof: here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per the nominator. Matthew_hk tc 11:13, 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 13:13, 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.

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]

• Delete all per the nominator. Sawol (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per nom.--Oleola (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All - the value of templates have been shown in each article of tournament. According to rule in wikipedia, They should be kept.hoising (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created them and I have discovered that they are unncessary because SEA Games is a regional multi-sport event only. It is not known commonly. I think it should be deleted, per Oleola and Sawol Banhtrung1 (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all – per hoising. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 07:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - some users has been WP:VOTESTACKING other users to this discussion. See my comment in #2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup navboxes for more info Mentoz86 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – AFF Suzuki Cup templates, another ASEAN competition, were deleted completely after being allow to delete. This is proof: here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:21, 29 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]

• Delete all per the nominator. Matthew_hk tc 11:13, 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 13:14, 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.