The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should be kept as the rest of the set from :00 to :10 are still here. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now, should be considered with ((Ctime:00)), ... per above. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2022 (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).
South Africa rugby sevens squad templates
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 for all but the four mentioned below, which have no consensus to delete Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary templates as the squads are for yearly competitions featuring the same teams and similar players each year. Not sure it offers anything to aid navigation as has been discussed here. Templates for major tournaments such as Sevens World Cups, Commonwealth Games and Olympics are acceptable and haven't been includedRugbyfan22 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rugbyfan22, you might check the templates again because some of those navboxes in this nomination are of teams that won. The ones I found are 2016–2017/2017–2018 South Africa Sevens World Series squad. Winning teams can stay on Wikipedia unless these two have the same issues as the non-winning team navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCleanerMan:, I think for these sorts of tournaments navboxes shouldn't be allowed for even the winning teams, We don't keep navboxes for each six nations winning sides, which would be a similar comparison. I just don't think these aid navigation, but happy to remove if consensus is for some of them to be kept. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all EXCEPT for 2008–2009 South Africa IRB Sevens World Series squad, 2013 South Africa World Games squad, and the 2016–2017/2017–2018 South Africa Sevens World Series squad, as these are the squads that won the respective tournaments and are far more notable than the rest of the squads. I'm opposed to winning teams' squad navboxes being deleted. Despite the nominator's objection to their existence and I fully understand his point. But the winning teams in this case are not excessive. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm happy for the 2008–09, 2013, 2016–17 and 2017–18 templates to be kept, although still believe they don't aid navigation, to help speed up this process. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An editor without much experience, closed this discussion yesterday and tagged all of the pages for speedy deletion. I reverted that tagging and closure. I'm hoping that an admin with experience closing discussions at TFD can reclose this discussion. LizRead!Talk! 21:20, 19 April 2022 (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:AraJet
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Unused and blanked by creator. No longer needed. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was never a template, but an article that was declined. No idea why EAKMP moved it from draft to template space and then blanked it. Gonnym (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2022 (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:C.D. Veracruz squad
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no current squad so does not need a template. GiantSnowman 18:46, 11 April 2022 (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:Liaquat Ali Khan 1945.jpg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 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:S-line/BJS left/1
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 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:S-line/CR left/Baoji–Chengdu
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Delete these are unused and were made years ago by several users. Seems like a late-2000s thing. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2022 (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:Anthony
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Rebuild on Wiktionary as a see also section template there -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #3: The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. One could imagine each article referring to Anthony, presuming they are verifiably related, but not to all of the variants.—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:APORED has no relation at all to this template? It just talks about when it is acceptable, and when it isn't, to put red links on anthroponomy pages. It says nothing about creating templates like this one. Fram (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, APORED is just a project essay so does not really have any weight. Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
APORED, essay or not, is unrelated to sidebars and navboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
APORED Is about the content of "lists, disambiguation pages or templates", why would that exclude navboxes and sidebars.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
where are the redlinks? Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no, you keep directing us to APORED which is about redlinks, but yet no one here is talking about redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete, better to have a category or a list article for this sort of thing. Frietjes (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2022 (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:Nicholas
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Rebuild on Wiktionary as a see also section template there -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #3: The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. One could imagine each article referring to Nicholas, presuming they are verifiably related, but not to all of the variants.—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete, better to have a category or a list article for this sort of thing. Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2022 (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:Guizhou F.C. squad
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no current squad so does not merit a 'current' squad template. GiantSnowman 20:17, 13 April 2022 (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:Muna
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Only two albums which already interlink to and from one another, and two tours in which they were only a supporting act for part of the tours. WP:NENANStarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:08, 11 April 2022 (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).
