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) 21:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable team honor. Subject does not have its own article and seemingly does not merit its own navigational box. Eagles24/7(C) 02:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does it not have its own article its not like I made this information up, I just created the template for wiki.[1][2]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcaholic (talk • contribs) 10:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete@Falcaholic: So what is meant by it doesn't have it's own article is that the subject of the template, "Atlanta Falcons All-2010s Team", does not have a solo article on Wikipedia about it, which is why, for example, the target of link to Atlanta Falcons All-2010s Team does not exist. Also, the link in the title of the template, Atlanta Falcons#2010s is to a section that does not exist. The Atlanta Falcons article does not mention the Atlanta Falcons All-2010s Team. Indeed, the Atlanta Falcons All-2010s Team doesn't actually exist in reality, it's a creation of sports commentary, so is only as notable as the commentary itself. Since the commentary doesn't have its own article and neither is it mentioned at the Atlanta Falcons article, readers have nowhere to go to understand what this navigation template is about. This is criterion #4 at WP:NAVBOX. --Bsherr (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Patriots do not have an article or a working link to their template, I don't understand what the problem is with my template. It not hurting anyone to make the template and allow the player to have that accomplishment on their page and the recognize the articles the Atlanta Falcons writers made.[1]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcaholic (talk • contribs) 10:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New England Patriots#2010s at least mentions the topic, and many, though not all of the players' articles mention the topic too. In contrast, the Falcons article does not mention the topic, and I don't see that any of the players' articles do either. Have you looked at the criteria at WP:NAVBOX? --Bsherr (talk) 12:58, 28 September 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:AR talk
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) 02:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marked "currently inactive and is retained for historical reference".
Nonetheless transcluded on over 100 pages, mostly if not all IP talk pages, on which it says "this IP address is currently the subject of an open Abuse Response investigation", which is patently false.
Blank and retain for historical reference? Also note previous 2 TfDs, the earliest of which was yours and found consensus to orphan and mark historical. Not exactly sure why that wasn't done then. Not sure if it should be removed from talk pages, or left there (for some kind of record?) and just blanked on the template itself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template is not useful anymore as the Abuse Response process has been retired. --Gonnym (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Template has been orphaned per the 2015 TFD, now looking for further opinions on "mark historical" vs "delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mark historical If this template shouldn't be in place on IP talk pages, remove it. Deleting old templates because it isn't currently used seems like a solution looking for a problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like it's been orphaned now. This template isn't transcluded on any historical pages. While there are links, retention of the template itself doesn't do much toward understanding the deprecated process. --Bsherr (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bsherr. --Izno (talk) 21:16, 3 October 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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded templates. Anyone that violates policies when in sandbox should be given the template most appropriate to the policy. We can still give vandalism templates for sandbox blanking and blp templates for adding blp violations to the sandbox. There is little point in having a warning series for the sandbox. Aasim 20:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To add on, there is no sandbox-specific policies about content that can be added to the sandbox. We do have policies where sandbox does apply as well, but those policies are not exclusive to the sandbox. We have an information page explaining "Hey, while this is a sandbox, our policies still apply when adding stuff here." But violations of a particular policy can be addressed by using the specific policy-specific template, like ((uw-npov1)), ((uw-disruptive1)), ((uw-blp1)), etc. Aasim 20:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWe can still give vandalism templates for sandbox blanking and blp templates for adding blp violations to the sandbox Why can't these templates serve that purpose? They're more useful than the more generic warning templates in notifying users that the sandbox is not exempt from the policies regarding vandalism, BLP violations, copyright violations, spam, etc. Adam9007 (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Templates could be useful -- also in the sandbox it does say not to put libelous content inside, so it is technically to vio of policy to put libelous content in the sandbox. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't libel covered by Project:Libel? That applies across all pages, not just the sandbox. Aasim 21:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uw-sandbox4im, keep the others. It's not clear to me how one can vandalize the sandbox, so perhaps the content of the user warnings warrants some discussion. But certainly other policies do apply there. The uw-sandbox templates may actually be helpful in that they provide an alternative to potentially using the wrong user warning template for a sandbox edit. Clearly, the "npov" and "blp" series do not apply to the sandbox, since the sandbox isn't an article. The "defamatory" series clearly would apply. Having the extra reminder to a user that these policies apply even in the sandbox seems worthwhile enough. However, if someone is using the "4im" level for something a user has done in the sandbox, I think it really should be the appropriate 4im template for that specific conduct, so that the specific policy is clearly identified in that extreme case. So I would support deleting the 4im template for that reason. --Bsherr (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all templates as per reasons above and there's no consensus to delete it. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some above comments don't make sense to me - keep because no consensus to delete?Delete per nom - this is completely redundant to the vandalism templates. Vandalism, libel and defamation are prohibited throughout Wikipedia, and we have templates for all of that. We don't need a sandbox specific variant. What's next? ((Uw-categorytalk-libel-4im))? Second, is not consistent with our sandbox policy what sandbox policy? The template is both redundant and incorrect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that, because users are generally free to do what they please in the sandbox, including things that would be prohibited as vandalism or test edits in other places, it is helpful to have a template that is specific to the sandbox to warn users that some policies are nevertheless applicable while editing in the sandbox. Not to pick on Awesome Aasim, but his mention of warning templates that would clearly be inapplicable to the sandbox (like uw-npov1 and uw-blp1) suggests that having a warning template specific to the sandbox may be just as useful for those giving the warning (avoiding the use of the wrong templates) than those receiving it. Does that make sense? --Bsherr (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use the appropriate general templates. - "there's no consensus to delete"? - Let's see. Also per ProcrastinatingReader What's next? - Maybe: "You vandalized an Australian place/Canadian province article"? TerraCyprus (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Let's kick this discussion down the road for now to see if these templates gain usage. Further discussions can always be held to discuss what templates are kept over others. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:30, 10 October 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:Big Four (tennis)
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).
Other than the rivalries and maybe the (incomplete) notable matches links, none of the extensive links are really "Big Four"-related. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or listify This is a useful navigational tool for this period of tennis. I think it should either be kept as a navbox or, if there is consensus it is unsuitable for template space, moved to a list that is linked in the main article.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This set is an invention of sports commentary. The subject article, and the existing textual links between the constituents, are sufficient for navigation. --Bsherr (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant navigation to the individual players' navboxes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I know this is swinging towards deletion, but in deference to the size and number of transclusions, relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a useful information box for tennis.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excessive. The individual players' navboxes are sufficient. Nigej (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this abomination. No objection to someone turning it into a list if they want a refund. --Izno (talk) 21:23, 3 October 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).