Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 25



Portuguese Second Division templates

 * 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) 03:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Portuguese Second Division Serie A
 * Portuguese Second Division Serie B
 * Portuguese Second Division Serie C
 * Portuguese Second Division Serie D
 * Portuguese Second Division Série Norte
 * Portuguese Second Division Série Sul

as requested on talk page, nominating these for deletion since they are out of date. Frietjes (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into new template - a template being out-of-date is not reason to delete - simply update it. In fact, the user who requested this TFD on the talk page has even said (on my talk page) that somebody has volunteered to do just that. However, I don't see the need for 6 seperate templates, and would propose a merge into a new Portuguese Second Division. GiantSnowman 09:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - use new one Template:Portuguese Second Division, have just pasted clubs from the league article -Koppapa (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Noarchive

 * 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) 03:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Noarchive

unused template from 2008, nearly orphaned. Corresponding Bots/Requests for approval/Lunabot bot request withdrawn. Functionally provided by DNAU NE Ent 10:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * keep ask all archival bot developers to cover this template. ; there should be a way to tag threads (sections) for non-archival. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They already have DNAU for this, as the nomination plainly states. We don't need, or want, multiple redundant ways to do the same thing, especially where one isn't actually being used. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But this is a sensible redirect name, so as I said, ask all archival bot developers to cover this template. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 00:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Perak FA

 * 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) 02:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perak FA

All of the articles in this template, except for the stadiums redirect to the parent page, unlikely new articles would be split off. Secret account 04:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an article table of contents masquerading as a navbox template.  This navbox includes 15 links, 14 of which are section-specific links within the same parent article.  I might not object to a handful of section-specific links when there is potential for future article development, but that does not appear to the case here.  If I'm wrong the template can be recreated in the future when content catches up.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NAVBOX as the template does not aid navigation between articles. Only one other article is linked. C 679 05:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 11:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Major League Soccer Supporters Groups

 * 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) 01:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Major League Soccer Supporters Groups

Dubious notability of template, most articles aren't even linked or in position to be deleted or merged. Delete Secret account 02:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fifty of the 60+ fan groups listed on this navbox are either non-links or red links, and thus this template does not perform the primary function of a navbox, i.e., linking navigable content.  That's before we even begin to discuss the notability of this subject or the (non)notability of the individual fan groups listed per WP:GNG and WP:ORG.  IMHO, many if not most of the existing linked articles probably fail GNG, too.  Furthermore, by my reckoning, this template fails four of the five "good navbox" guidelines suggested by WP:NAVBOX, including the lack of an underlying stand-alone article or list on the subject.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - supporters groups are not generally considered notable, and the number of red-links here shows that this serves no purpose. It could also encourage the creation of non-notable articles. GiantSnowman 11:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Better served as a list. Resolute 16:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.