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) 22:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:New South Wales Swifts 2015 Team nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

seems excessive since the team did not win the championship Frietjes (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:00, 18 June 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).

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Super League Show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

pointless with just 1 link. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:00, 18 June 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).

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 June 22. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mainpage_date_to_come (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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) 19:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2002 FIFA World Cup Group A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2002 FIFA World Cup Group B (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2002 FIFA World Cup Group C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2002 FIFA World Cup Group D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2002 FIFA World Cup Group E (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2002 FIFA World Cup Group F (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2002 FIFA World Cup Group G (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2002 FIFA World Cup Group H (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2002 FIFA World Cup groups talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2002 FIFA World Cup knockout stage bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1990 FIFA World Cup group tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer needed after being merged with the parent articles (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as merge has been done, no longer needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 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).

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. Primefac (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-blank1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-blank2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((subst:uw-delete1)) and ((subst:uw-delete2)) are for removing content from pages, and blanking pages counts as removing content. ((subst:uw-blank3)), ((subst:uw-blank4)) and ((subst:uw-blank4im)) all redirect to ((subst:uw-delete3)), ((subst:uw-delete4)) and ((subst:uw-delete4im)), respectively, and they are used for removing content and blanking pages. –User456541 14:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Suggesting merging. –User456541 14:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The Uw-blank contains more information, particularly blank-1. We'll just merge it into the Uw-delete and have the Uw-blank a redirect to Uw-delete. ((reply to|Can I Log In))'s talk page! 17:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: there is some history here:
  • A previous version was nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 28#Template:Blank
  • DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 8
  • Discussion referenced above at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 15#Page blanking messages
• None of these three discussions had much participation, although the DRV was greatest. They do, however, directly address the differences between the uw-blank and uw-delete series. I'll also note that neither of the templates above, nor their targets, have been tagged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Will tag the templates and ping previous participants, please hold... --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Templates tagged, Talk pages and RedWarn talk notified (WT:TW was already). Pinging previous participants: @Jc86035, Uanfala, Plastikspork, Smjg, Jclemens, DESiegel, Cunard, and Gatemansgc:. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I Oppose the merge, and favor Keeping the templates as they currently exist. While it is true that page-blanking is a form of removal of content, it is a very specific form, with specific reasons why it is usually a bad idea, and specific consequences. Those specifics are discussed in the current ((Uw-blank1)) and ((Uw-blank2)). While it would be possible to discuss them in a general content deletion template, that would mean including info that often does not apply, which could confuse the editors to whom it is directed. Having a specific, narrow template for page blanking is, IMO better than attempting to have one template cover all types of content deletion. Much this same point was made in the DRV linked above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. The uw-blank templates were set up because uw-delete is not adequate for the purpose of warning against blanking a page completely (or otherwise reducing a page to a state that meets WP:A3). DESiegel has taken most of the words out of my mouth. Furthermore, if I used ((uw-delete1)) in such a situation, it is likely that the blanker will repeat the blanking and this time either fill in the edit summary (if it wasn't filled in last time) or argue "I did explain why" (if it was), totally missing the point of the warning. Users who blank articles need to be taught not to blank articles, not to give a reason when doing so, and furthermore they need to be educated on the correct way to go about getting a page deleted if that's what they're trying to do.

Furthermore, that ((uw-blank3)) and above redirect to the corresponding uw-delete templates is irrelevant. There are several message templates like this; they are this way because it was felt that a single level 3 or 4 warning message would be suitable for multiple kinds of misbehaviour. This doesn't mean the same applies to the level 1 or 2 warnings for these misbehaviours. — Smjg (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion but thanks for pinging me even though I expressed no opinion in my previous DRV commentary, either. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion. Henry20090 (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Smjg Ed6767 talk! 12:26, 23 June 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).