Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 13



Template:Rugby League in Australia table cells

 * 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. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Rugby League in Australia table cells

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Deletion: possibly could have been a speedy if unused? Mattlore (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * unfortunately, no, unless it is either (a) redundant to another template, or (b) is tagged for deletion by the author. using (a) takes about the same amount of time, since they stay up for 7 days (see db-t3). Frietjes (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Template that is not employed in any useful fashion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:58, 14 June 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:GuldbaggeAwardBestFilm footer

 * 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. Basically, there were at least outcomes being discussed: (1) Merge the "by-decade award navigational boxes" into single award navigational boxes, which would orphan the footer templates, (2) Remove the footer templates, but keep the split navigational boxes, and (3) Keep the footer templates, and the split navigational boxes. Since only the footer templates were tagged for discussion, the outcome of this particular discussion (technically) cannot be option 1, since that would involve merging templates that were never tagged for discussion. It appears as though there is only one editor strongly arguing for option 3, but the objections appear to be mostly procedural. I did not see any real discussion of option 2. Hence, I am closing this as no consensus. Since it seems like there could be consensus for option 1, I would suggest further discussion of merging the per-decade templates (or "just do it" if there are no serious objections). It should then be a no-brainer to simply delete any template that is orphaned in the merging process. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * GuldbaggeAwardBestSupportingActor footer
 * GuldbaggeAwardBestActor footer
 * GuldbaggeAwardBestActress footer
 * AACTA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role footer
 * Independent Spirit Award for Best Male Lead footer
 * The Golden Lion footer
 * GoldenGlobeBestTVMiniseriesFilm footer
 * DirectorsGuildofAmericaAwardFeatureFilm footer
 * Palme d'Or footer
 * Saturn Award for Best Horror Film footer
 * TokyoInternationalFilmFestivalBestActress footer
 * Independent Spirit Award for Best Supporting Female Lead footer
 * AcademyAwardBestForeignLanguageFilm footer
 * AcademyAwardBestAnimatedShortFilm footer
 * André Cavens Award footer
 * Prix d'interprétation masculine footer
 * Prix d'interprétation féminine footer
 * AcademyAwardBestFilmEditing footer
 * GoldenGlobeBestForeignLanguageFilm footer
 * BAFTAAwardBestFilm footer
 * CésarAwardBestFilm footer
 * Young Artist Award for Best Leading Young Actor in a Feature Film footer
 * Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film footer
 * Saturn Award for Best Fantasy Film footer
 * Saturn Award for Best Action/Adventure/Thriller Film footer
 * AACTA Award Best Film footer
 * GuldbaggeAwardBestFilm footer

We shouldn't be linking to navboxes within other navboxes Rob Sinden (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems common for awards templates to have these. However, I'm still of the opinion that these are not appropriate for navboxes, as they provide little in the way of usefulness, and do not provide links between articles.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is a common practice to include this kind of templates, why do you consider it a problem? I personally have no problem with these templates. Regge_robban2 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because we should not be including links to other navboxes within navboxes. Per WP:NAVBOX every article included as a link in the navbox should also transclude that navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional.  You can't transclude a navbox in a navbox - it isn't how they work.  They are for linking articles.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting that all footer templates should be deleted, and not just this one? I see no other users complaining about this. Regge_robban2 (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - I've just added all the ones I can find, and put a note regarding the discussion on the templates wikiproject talkpage. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * if you want to find most of them, check [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Footer_documentation&limit=500 here]. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There are a lot more than I thought (although some of them do not link to navboxes).  I'm still of the opinion they shouldn't be there.  If you click on a link in a navbox, you would expect to end up at another article with the template transcluded, not at the navbox "article" all on its own.  That isn't the point of a WP:NAVBOX.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep All - They provide navigation between navboxes for different eras or decades of the same subject. You would otherwise have to combine all the navboxes together in one large monumental clumsy box. Secondarywaltz (talk)
 * Merging the navboxes may not be a bad idea. There are certainly much larger navboxes around.  The point is that anyone reading an article shouldn't be directed to template space, but remain in article space.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right. I missed the part where they put you in template space. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all. I agree with the nominator. In terms of no one else complaining, there have been other similar nominations (one by me), and it's possible that a larger discussion may be needed:
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 4 (result: no consensus)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 26 (result: delete)
 * Personally, I do not find linking from one template to another helpful to navigation at all and linking to the "complete list" is redundant to the linked title of the main template. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an odd nomination. In the sense that it attempts to be broad, but only picks a small sample of templates (just enough to be annoying). I have created the following (as in I made the first edit for each of the following), which should probably all be nominated above, although only a few are:


 * AA OriginalSong footer
 * AA AnimatedShortFilm footer
 * AA ForeignLanguageFilm footer
 * AA FilmEditing footer
 * AA CostumeDesign footer
 * AA ProductionDesign footer
 * AA Actor footer
 * AA Actress footer
 * AA SupportingActor footer
 * AA SupportingActress footer
 * AA AdaptedScreenplay footer
 * AA Director footer
 * AA DocumentaryFeature footer
 * AA OriginalScreenplay footer
 * AA Cinematography footer
 * AA Picture footer
 * AA OriginalScore footer
 * AA DocumentaryShort footer
 * AA Short footer
 * AAshost footer
 * SAGsEnsembleTVDrama footer
 * SAGsEnsembleTVComedy footer
 * SAG MaleTVMiniseriesMovie footer
 * SAG FemaleTVMiniseriesMovie footer
 * SAG MaleTVDrama footer
 * SAG MaleTVComedy footer
 * SAG FemaleTVDrama footer
 * SAG FemaleTVComedy footer
 * SAG MaleLeadMotionPicture footer
 * SAG MaleSupportMotionPicture footer
 * SAG FemaleLeadMotionPicture footer
 * SAG FemaleSupportMotionPicture footer
 * SAG CastMotionPicture footer
 * SAG LifeAchievement footer
 * GG ActorTVDrama footer
 * GG ActorTVComedy footer
 * GG ActressTVComedy footer
 * GGTVDrama footer
 * GGTVComedy footer
 * GG ActressTVDrama footer
 * GG ActressTVMiniseriesFilm footer
 * GG ActorMotionPictureMusicalComedy footer
 * GG ActorMotionPictureDrama footer
 * GG ActressMotionPictureMusicalComedy footer
 * GG ActressMotionPictureDrama footer
 * GG SuppActorMotionPicture footer
 * GG SuppActressMotionPicture footer
 * GGSupportingActorTV footer
 * GGSupportingActressTV footer
 * GG ScreenplayMotionPicture footer
 * GG MotionPictureDrama footer
 * GG MotionPictureMusicalComedy footer
 * GGForeignLanguageFilm footer
 * GGG ActorTVMiniseriesFilm footer
 * GG Director footer
 * GG TVMiniseriesFilm footer
 * GG OriginalSong footer
 * GG OriginalScore footer
 * GG CecilB.DeMilleAward footer
 * Emmy ComedySeries footer
 * Emmy DramaSeries footer
 * Emmy Miniseries footer
 * Emmy VarietyMusicComedy footer
 * Emmy ComedyDirector footer
 * Emmy DirectingDrama footer
 * Emmy MiniseriesDirector footer
 * Emmy TelevisionMovie footer
 * Emmy DramaWriting footer
 * Emmy ComedyWriting footer
 * Emmy ComedyVarietyMusicWriting footer
 * Emmy DramaMiniseriesWriting footer
 * Emmy ComedyLeadActor footer
 * Emmy DramaLeadActor footer
 * Emmy MiniseriesLeadActor footer
 * Emmy ComedyLeadActress footer
 * Emmy DramaLeadActress footer
 * Emmy MiniseriesLeadActress footer
 * Emmy ComedySupportingActor footer
 * Emmy DramaSupportingActor footer
 * Emmy MiniseriesSupportingActor footer
 * Emmy ComedySupportingActress footer
 * Emmy DramaSupportingActress footer
 * Emmy MiniseriesSupportingActress footer
 * Emmy DramaGuestActor footer
 * Emmy ComedyGuestActor footer
 * Emmy DramaGuestActress footer
 * Emmy ComedyGuestActress footer
 * Emmy VarietyPerformance footer
 * Emmy Choreography footer
 * Emmy VoiceOver footer
 * BAFTA Actor footer
 * BAFTA Actress footer
 * BAFTA SupportingActor footer
 * BAFTA SupportingActress footer
 * BAFTA Film footer
 * BAFTA Direction footer
 * BAFTA OriginalScreenplay footer
 * BAFTA AdaptedScreenplay footer
 * BAFTA Music footer
 * BAFTA Editing footer
 * BAFTA Cinematography footer
 * DGA DirectingComedySeries footer
 * DGA DirectingDramaSeries footer
 * WGA EpisodicComedyScreenplay footer
 * WGA EpisodicDramaScreenplay footer
 * The Golden Lion footer
 * Palme d'Or footer
 * Prix d'interprétation féminine footer
 * Prix d'interprétation masculine footer
 * BritishAcademyTelevision BestActress footer
 * BritishAcademyTelevision BestActor footer
 * BritishAcademyTelevision ComedySeries footer

Omissions aside, I think I was following another editor with my first and then I just continued to make them. Then, others followed me. I like them and find them both useful and helpful. I think we should Keep them. However, if they are to be deleted it should be part of a decision to merge the partitioned templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't think you should delete a few Academy Awards footers and not the rest. You should take out all of my templates at once, if you are going to do anything.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC

While you are at it, I forgot to mention the ones below. Please consider all of these with the templates above:


 * Tony MusicalFeaturedActor footer
 * Tony MusicalLeadActor footer
 * Tony PlayFeaturedActor footer
 * Tony PlayLeadActor footer
 * Tony MusicalFeaturedActress footer
 * Tony MusicalLeadActress footer
 * Tony PlayFeaturedActress footer
 * Tony PlayLeadActress footer
 * Tony PlayDirection footer
 * Tony MusicalDirection footer
 * Tony Play footer
 * Tony Musical footer
 * Tony MusicalScore footer
 * Tony ScenicDesign footer
 * Tony CostumeDesign footer
 * Tony Choreography footer
 * Tony MusicalBook footer
 * Tony PlayRevival footer
 * Tony MusicalRevival footer
 * Tony RegionalTheatre footer
 * Tony LightingDesign footer
 * DD MusicalOutstandingActor footer
 * DD MusicalOutstandingActress footer
 * DD PlayOutstandingActor footer
 * DD PlayOutstandingActress footer
 * DD MusicalOutstandingFeaturedActor footer
 * DD MusicalOutstandingFeaturedActress footer
 * DD PlayOutstandingFeaturedActor footer
 * DD PlayOutstandingFeaturedActress footer
 * DD One-PersonShow footer
 * DD UniqueTheatricalExperience footer
 * DD Play footer
 * DD PlayRevival footer
 * DD Musical footer
 * DD MusicalRevival footer
 * DD PlayDirection footer
 * DD MusicalDirection footer
 * DD Choreography footer
 * DD Lyrics footer
 * DD Music footer
 * DD Book footer
 * DD Orchestrations footer
 * DD LightingDesign footer
 * DD CostumeDesign footer
 * DD SetDesign footer
 * Olivier Choreographer footer
 * Olivier Comedy footer
 * Olivier Director footer
 * Olivier Entertainment footer
 * Olivier Musical footer
 * Olivier MusicalActor footer
 * Olivier MusicalActress footer
 * Olivier Play footer
 * Olivier PlayActor footer
 * Olivier PlayActress footer
 * Olivier MusicalRevival footer
 * Olivier PlayRevival footer
 * Olivier SpecialAward footer
 * Olivier MusicalSupporting footer
 * Olivier OperaProduction footer
 * Olivier DanceAchievement footer
 * OlivierAward LightingDesign footer
 * OlivierAward CostumeDesign footer
 * OlivierAward SetDesign footer
 * OlivierAward PlayActress Supporting footer
 * OlivierAward PlayActor Supporting footer
 * OlivierAward PlaySupporting footer

Please do all or none.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Memory is coming back to me. What happened is I originated these footer templates to replace individually hard coded content at the bottom of templates. this is what the bottoms of these templates use to look like. In order to edit them you had to edit about 5 templates.  These footers were created to improve editorial efforts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * indifferent, it's an improvement over the old system of replicating the list of links, but it is debatable if navigating between the templates is necessary in article space. Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * PLEASE FORMALLY NOMINATE THE REST OF THESE OR STATE WHY THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * N.B. After I created these, there were a bunch of editors (or possibly a single one) who cleaned them up with edits like this. I don't know who they were or if it was all done by .--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They were the only ones I could find at the time, and agree that the ones you list should all be nominated by the same prinicple. Unfortunately, I haven't got the time to go through them right now, as I'm off to a wedding!  But if anyone else wants to nominate them on my behalf...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The main reason for the footers is because the templates are all split in to decades (or other ranges of dates) rather than having a complete list in a single template. If the footers are removed then shouldn't all the templates be merged back into a single larger template for each award and the split versions deleted as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is what I meant to say above. Just deleting these would be deleterious to WP unless it is for the purpose of merging the split versions back into the larger templates. People who use templates likely want to jump around from one set of winners to another if not see them all at once. The people who use templates want to see what they are looking for on a single screen rather than scrolling through a list article or something. They either need to be able to see another small template or the whole thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, merge them back into a larger template, possibly with collapsed irrelevant sections. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * PLEASE CONSIDER WITHDRAWING NOMINATION AND DISCUSSING THE LARGER ISSUE IN A MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM. Proposing to merge back all the templates is a decision that should be made with the involvement of WP:TV, WP:FILM, WP:MUSICALS, WP:THEATRE, WP:WPLIST, WP:AWARDS and probably a few other projects. This is not a change that should be rammed through WP:TFD without notifying the proper people and projects or tagging the proper templates to also alert ineterested parties. This is much larger than a TFD issue. Not only should all the footer templates be tagged, but all the partitioned templates should be tagged. This is the wrong forum for this discussion, which is just part of a much larger issue that should be addressed all at once.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep All Mmmvidyahoo (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While this nom could have done with being more coherent, that's not a reason to dismiss it. I'm inclined to strongly agree with Rob Sinden that this is the wrong solution to the problem; we shouldn't be splitting these navboxes up by arbitrary date periods in the first place, and fixing that would obviate the need to use these footers at all. If the list of affected templates can be consolidated into one big list, then it shouldn't take an interested party that much more than an hour to fix all of the root navboxes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a discussion of whether we want them split is in order, but we should not handle that topic by stripping all the split templates of their linkages. I created all of these because the linkages were wrong not because I had an opinion of whether they should be split. Let's have a discussion regarding whether they should be split and then handle (or not) the footer removal pending that discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Does anyone know if and where an original discussion was held regarding splitting these award templates?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no need to have a wider discussion. The consensus above is against arbitrary splits, and against the need to navigate to navbox templates themselves. So all that is required is for someone to do the work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see that consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the only one saying they should stay Tony. I've merged the Guldbagge ones - much better, and much closer to how navboxes should work...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What about User:Mmmvidyahoo and User:Regge_robban2? Are you ignoring them. The vote seems to be no consensus. Also are you considering someone who says it is debateable (User:Frietjes) as support for your argument?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Mmmvidyahoo did not give any reasoning. User:Regge_robban2 asked for an explanation, without casting a !vote, and seemed to accept my explanation. User:Frietjes didn't give support either way - hence you are the only one arguing for them to stay. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just notified User:Mmmvidyahoo that his comments have no weight without a reasoning. You are shamefully misrepresenting User:Regge_robban2 who said "I personally have no problem with these templates" and then later said "I see no other users complaining about this." Technically, he did not cast a vote, but he expressed opposition to your arguments.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)I don't see that consensus, but if this technique is going to be reversed by this discussion, please look at the categories these templates are in and do all the templates in those categories. The lists above are not comprehensive. The thing is that I and others have not attempted to debate whether the templates should be split here. Arguments for and against splitting have not been presented other than to say. Oh while your at it why even split at all. I am pretty sure there was a discussion held at some time regarding splitting. I don't know what those arguments were and no one has researched them. Currently unsplitting is likely to cause many entertainment talents to have too many links on a page (There are limits to the number of links allowed). Many templates with 25 links on their pages is not the same as many templates with 75 or 100 links. People like Streep, Streisand, etc. may suddenly have pages breaking for having too many templated links. I don't know what the other arguments are, but they have not even been discussed here. Splitting or not splitting is not a minor side issue. No appropriate projects have even been notified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We're actually more likely to have less templates on an artist's page this way - someone may appear three times on the same navbox, rather than on three separate navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding. Suppose Streep is currently on three of the 5 templates for a given award. Currently only three/fifths of the links from the entire template are on her page. Merging all 5 would result in all of the links being on her page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why that should be an issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As of 2011, there were limits to the number of links a page could have. I tried to add a template at Hillary Rodham Clinton with 100 links and went over the limit, which caused some problems. I don't know if the limit exists now. I am more concerned that there was probably a good reason fro splitting these templates and by not holding a proper discussion, we may run unto that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And whether or not splits have been discussed in the past, interlinking with footers and taking the reader out of article space into template space is not the way to go about things. Maybe splits are necessary, but not in this way.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If we have split templates, they should probably be linked. The way they were done before was wrong because each template was individually coded. These templates link them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So how should we go about it? We shouldn't be directing readers out of article space.  "A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In general, links should go to article space. I just created these because there was demand (people were creating code incorrectly) to link the templates. I think we should just hold a properly noticed discussion regarding splitting them. I would like to see what issues arise. I still don't know why they were split and if the problems that splitting them solved will still be an issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if they are remain split, which I can see will be necessary for some, the link in the title should link to a page with all relevant navboxes on - therefore reader will remain in article space to find the other templates - same number of mouse clicks - rendering the footers redundant as they serve no purpose other than to direct readers out of article space and into template space. The same result can be achieved with the reader remaining in article space. --Rob Sinden (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to influence the result by pretending your opinion has already been determined to be correct.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you think some need to remain split. I do not see any discussion above that any of these are in a different class than the others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Some may be too large to merge. But that's okay.  As stated, footers taking you out of article space are redundant and unhelpful.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Too large to merge? What does that mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, take for example Template:ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVDrama. Arguably too large to merge from its component parts, but the header on each points to Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series where you will find all the relevant templates.  The footer links take you out of article space, and therefore is less useful than clicking on the header link.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also - I did notify the relevant project. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not really the proper notification for all of these templates. They are an issue for all the projects I listed above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. This is a template issue more than anything else.  WikiProject Templates is the best place to notify people who know how navboxes should work.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The templates are mostly for excellence in the field of entertainment. The relevant projects should be involved in the discussion, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion is regarding correct technical usage and functionality of the templates, not their content. --Rob Sinden (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there are exceptions to the general rule. I don't think we would be better off with unlinked split templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WTF Now these are being renominated at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_20 after preemptive mergers prior to consensus., why are you merging before consensus is determined.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I understood consensus had been reached. --Rob Sinden (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I never see this at any WP:XFD than WP:TFD. At all other XFD consensus is not consider reached until the discussion is closed. At TFD, people seem to try to ensure the outcome they want be deleting stuff before a decision has been reached, which seems unkosher to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per User:Thumperward (a respected admin): "all that is required is for someone to do the work". Sorry if I mistook this for a green light.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, nothing prohibits visitors from template space. Categories themselves take readers outside article space and that is expressly allowed. I don't see much difference. Heck, the navbox are more "dress up" than the category pages.  Most templates are linked to template space via the "V T E" at the top right of each navbox anyways. This all began because Rod Sinden wanted to double categorize 1997 Spider-man TV pilot as a film and I offer up links between the three Marvel Comics media adaption navboxes. Spshu (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Rob Sinden also is attempting to recruit his ally on this issue in the Template_talk:Marvel Comics films discussion. Which I understand is frowned upon. Although, he may be right in the case of what was nominated, general a test nomination is done then follow up with one or more sweeping nominations. Spshu (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoah - please assume good faith. That's a despicable picture you've painted of me.  And as you will see from the above, I am not alone in my view.  I spend a fair bit of time tidying up some clumsy navboxes, and it was just coincidence that I came across these shortly after your inappropriate additions.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

←You are the one selecting the "despicable" label for your actions. I just pointed out your actions thusly labeling it as "comment" so reader could decide for themselves. I guess you decided what your actions are. I assume good faith in point out what you did right, but you glossed over that. Again you as Tony pointed out "You are attempting to influence the result by pretending your opinion has already been determined to be correct." You have only one supporter here that I see, so previous to my arrival: 2 (now 3) keep, 1 indifferent, 2 delete (your position). One additional was also seem to be arguing to keep. You then decide that this was consensus for your position. Spshu (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Chris would like to comment again, seeing as he called consensus. I don't think you can count.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Work it out amongst yourselves. If there are specific cases where there's an actual reason for the split, as opposed to "well, I created thirty of these today already, another thirty won't hurt" then keep it around for now. There are surely plenty among the nom that even Tony doesn't object to being unsplit. There's no requirement for some formal admin edict to start doing work in a TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which ones are you saying I said were O.K. to unsplit?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been informed by that this discussion has been "closed" in some sense. I do not understand his opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For the majority of these, there is no justification to split into sub-templates. These should be merged unless there is justification to split (not split until there is justification to merge).  The use of footer templates takes the reader out of article namespace and into template namespace, which is not part of the encyclopedia, but part of Wikipedia administration. Chris is saying that no formal edict should be required to carry out this work.  I guess it's just common sense.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that this is being closed without being closed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's how I understood Chris's comments. I read it as "Nothing to close, this is all work that should be carried out unless there's a compelling reason to split."  Chris - correct me if I misunderstand you.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If people feel unsplitting without some consensus determination is the proper thing to do. Here are some more:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 June 2013‎ (UTC)
 * State Pageant Winners footer
 * Miss USA delegates footer
 * Miss America Delegates footer
 * MissAmericas footer
 * MissUSAs footer
 * MissTeenUSAs footer
 * MissUniverses footer
 * MissWorlds footer
 * MissInternationals footer
 * Grand Slam pageant winners by country footer
 * Miss Universe delegates footer
 * Miss Universe Organization titleholders footer
 * Major International Pageants titleholders footer
 * Miss Earth titleholders footer
 * Miss World Continental Queen of Beauty titleholders footer
 * PulitzerPrize Drama footer
 * PulitzerPrize DramaAuthors footer
 * PulitzerPrize GeneralNon-Fiction footer
 * PulitzerPrize MusicComposers footer
 * PulitzerPrize PoetryAuthors footer
 * PulitzerPrize Fiction footer
 * PulitzerPrize BiographyorAutobiographyAuthors footer
 * PulitzerPrize HistoryAuthors footer
 * PulitzerPrize Criticism footer
 * PulitzerPrize Commentary footer
 * PulitzerPrize EditorialCartooning footer
 * PulitzerPrize SpecialCitations footer
 * PulitzerPrize BreakingNews footer
 * PulitzerPrize PublicService footer

More for you to consider.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * NobelPrize Physics footer
 * NobelPrize Chemistry footer
 * NobelPrize Literature footer
 * NobelPrize Peace footer
 * NobelPrize Economics footer
 * NobelPrize PhysiologyorMedicine footer
 * Nobel Prize winners footer

Template:BAFTA Best Film

 * Ugh! What a mess.  This needs some serious unpicking.  The arbitrariness of the date ranges are bizarre, considering there are clear delineators when the awards changed (1968 for example).  I'm thinking three different navboxes - One for Best British film, one for Best film (including Best film from any source) and one for Best foreign language film.  Thoughts?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are these all in one article? IIRC, I was just following the article structure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * go ahead and spin them out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:31, 29 June 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:Pseudo-Gnostic apocrypha

 * 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) 05:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pseudo-Gnostic apocrypha

Google search for "Pseudo-Gnostic apocrypha" reveals no hits outside of Wikipedia - it appears this is a term a Wikipedia editor has invented, rather than a classification used to describe these works in the scholarly literature. These works appear to have not much in common other than all having claimed authorship which is not accepted by current scholarship, and hence the Pseudo-X naming format. Several of them don't appear to be Gnostic. It's also questionable if they are "apocrypha", since that term is generally reserved for texts from the Biblical period, or which some have accepted as part of the Bible. Many of these texts are much later than the Biblical period, and for several of them it is doubtful that anyone has ever accepted or proposed them as scripture. SJK (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to notify the creator of the template,, per the usual courtesy. I discovered however, that he has been banned for disruptive editing (Requests for comment/Paul Bedson) and abusive sockpuppetry (Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson), so I decided it was likely pointless to do so. This has no direct bearing, of course, on the question of whether a template he created ought to be deleted. SJK (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Just more fringe garbage created by Bedson that needs to be cleaned up. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I was unaware of the backstory. This is not, has not been and will never be a useful template. It may be appropriate to be AFDing some of the articles transcluding it. So I suppose it has some sort of use. Thincat (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As should be obvious to anyone familiar with Paul Bedson's history on the project, these are at best wildly optimistic guesswork and at worst complete fabrications. This TfD should be accompanied by the deletion of all of the Bedon-authored articles linked by it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:55, 18 June 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:Pandora Radio

 * 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) 05:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pandora Radio

Navbox with only one link. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * delete, it doesn't appear Pandora owns more than one station. of course, there may be more in the future, but recreating the box would be trivial. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 13 June 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:Argentina squad 2003 South American Youth Championship

 * 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, which is probably due to the massive un-targeted nomination. I would suggest renominating a smaller well-defined subset. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a youth competition squad only. It is not necessary.

Template about squad of regional competitions, football tournament at the regional and continental multi-sport events, including senior competitions, are not neccessary. Banhtrung1 00:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Youth competitions (delete template and similar at the same level per this deletion discussion and this one):


 * Portugal Squad 2010 Euro U-19
 * England squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * England squad 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * France squad 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Ghana Squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Egypt squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Paraguay Squad 2013 South American Youth Championship
 * Paraguay U-20 2001 South American Youth Championship
 * Paraguay U-20 squad 2003 South American Youth Championship
 * Peru Squad 1930s Golden Generation
 * Peru squad 2013 South American Youth Championship
 * Poland Squad 2007 U-20 World Cup
 * Poland U-18 Squad Euro 2001
 * Portugal squad 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Portugal Squad 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Scotland squad 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Spain squad 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Spain squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Spain squad 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Sweden Squad 1999 Euro U-18
 * South Africa squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Tahiti squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Trinidad and Tobago squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Argentina U20 Squad 2007
 * Argentina squad 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Czech Republic squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Argentina squad 2005 South American Youth Championship
 * Argentina squad 2007 South American Youth Championship
 * Argentina squad 2011 South American Youth Championship
 * Australia Squad 2006 AFC Youth Championship
 * Australia squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Australia U20 Squad 2001 OFC U-20 Championship
 * Algeria Squad 2011 African U-23 Championship
 * Honduras squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Argentina squad 2003 South American Youth Championship
 * Brazil squad 2013 South American Youth Championship
 * United Arab Emirates squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Uzbekistan squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Venezuela squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Croatia Squad 2011 FIFA U20 World Cup
 * Costa Rica Squad 2009 CONCACAF U-20 Championship
 * Costa Rica Squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Costa Rica Squad 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Colombia squad 2013 South American Youth Championship
 * Colombia squad 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Brazil Squad 2007 South American Youth Championship
 * Brazil Squad 2009 South American Youth Championship
 * Brazil squad 2011 South American Youth Championship
 * Brazil Squad 2005 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Brazil Squad 2005 U-20 World Cup
 * Brazil Squad 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Brazil Squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Brazil squad 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Brazil Squad 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * New Zealand squad 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * New Zealand squad 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Nigeria squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Italy squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
 * Hungary Squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup

Friendly, minor competitions:
 * Algeria Squad 1991 Afro-Asian Cup of Nations
 * Brazil Squad 2010 International Tournament City of São Paulo
 * Nepal squad 2012 Nehru Cup
 * Tuvalu squad 2008 Oceanian Futsal Championship
 * Tuvalu squad 2010 Oceanian Futsal Championship
 * Tuvalu squad 2011 Oceanian Futsal Championship
 * Algeria Squad 2011 World Military Cup
 * Algeria Squad 2011 African Nations Championship

Football tournaments at the continental and minor multi-sport events (including senior competitions):
 * Argentina Squad 1955 Pan American Games
 * Argentina Squad 1959 Pan American Games
 * Argentina Squad 1963 Pan American Games
 * Argentina Squad 1967 Pan American Games
 * Argentina Squad 1971 Pan American Games
 * Cuba Squad 1971 Pan American Games
 * Bermuda Squad 1967 Pan American Games
 * Trinidad and Tobago Squad 1967 Pan American Games
 * United Arab Emirates men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Uzbekistan men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Turkmenistan men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Thailand men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Qatar men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Singapore men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Kyrgyzstan men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Kuwait men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Bahrain men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Bangladesh men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * China PR men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * India men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Pakistan men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Palestine men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Iran men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * North Korea men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Japan men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Jordan men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Japan women's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Oman men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * United States Squad 1959 Pan American Games
 * United States squad 2007 Pan American Games (Men)
 * Chile Squad 1963 Pan American Games
 * Colombia Squad 1971 Pan American Games
 * Brazil Squad 2011 Pan American Games
 * Brazil Squad 1959 Pan American Games
 * Brazil Squad 1963 Pan American Games
 * Mexico Squad 1967 Pan American Games
 * Hong Kong Squad 1954 Asian Games
 * Hong Kong Squad 1958 Asian Games
 * Hong Kong Squad 1990 Asian Games
 * Hong Kong Squad 1994 Asian Games
 * Iran men's football squad 2006 Asian Games
 * Iran men's football squad 2010 Asian Games
 * Iraq men's football squad 2006 Asian Games
 * Indonesia squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup
 * Indonesia squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup
 * Indonesia squad 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup
 * Tuvalu squad 1979 South Pacific Games
 * Tuvalu squad 2003 South Pacific Games
 * Tuvalu squad 2007 South Pacific Games
 * Tuvalu squad 2011 Pacific Games

Regional competitions:
 * Laos squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup
 * Laos squad 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup
 * Thailand Squad 1996 Tiger Cup
 * Thailand squad 2000 Tiger Cup
 * Thailand squad 2002 Tiger Cup
 * Thailand squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup
 * Thailand squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup
 * Thailand squad 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup
 * Hong Kong Squad 1995 Dynasty Cup
 * Hong Kong Squad 1998 Asian Games
 * Hong Kong Squad 1998 Dynasty Cup
 * Hong Kong Squad 2003 EAFF Championship
 * Cambodia squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup
 * Philippines squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup
 * Philippines squad 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup
 * Malaysia squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup
 * Malaysia squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup
 * Malaysia squad 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup

Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - none of the templates have been tagged as being under discussion for deletion, this nomination should be procedurally closed. C 679 07:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Partial keep - Template:Tuvalu squad 2007 South Pacific Games is for a competition that is not a youth competition and was in fact the OFC first round of qualifying for the 2010 World Cup. I think this applies to all the Tuvalu templates, they appear all to be for non-youth tournaments. Also, there is nothing I can find in the relevant articles to indicate that the following were youth tournaments:
 * Template:Peru Squad 1930s Golden Generation - This seems to be a template covering a whole decade so doesn't seem like a youth template to me, although I am not sure of the specific usefulness of it.
 * Template:Thailand Squad 1996 Tiger Cup - Is ASEAN Football Championship a youth competition, I can't see anything in the article to suggest specifically that it is? Can anyone confirm for all Tiger / Suzuki Cup templates?
 * Template:Bermuda Squad 1967 Pan American Games - Is the Pan American games a youth tournament? There is nothing Football at the 1967 Pan American Games here to confirm. Can anyone confirm for all Pan American Games templates?
 * Template:Algeria Squad 2011 World Military Cup - There isn't even an article on this, so not sure how it can be said to have been a youth tournament?
 * This is little-known competitions so it is deserve to be deleted. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Here is the article with plenty of details: Football at the 2011 Military World Games – Men's tournament. The competition received significant coverage from plenty of different sources. Just because you didn't hear about doesn't make it a "little-known" competition. Different people have different interests. TonyStarks (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Hong Kong Squad 2003 EAFF Championship - Not sure that EAFF East Asian Cup is a youth tournament either, nothing in the article says it is.
 * As I have said, this is a regional tournament only. All regional tournament squad template should be deleted. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Other than the Tuvalu ones, which I am certain are not youth tournaments (particularly the 2007 Pacific Games one) I am unsure about these. Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional Keep - Also this template - Template:Kiribati squad for 2011 Pacific Games has been tagged with the discussion being this link, but it does not seem to have been added tothe list for some reason. Again, I do not believe the 2011 pacific games was a youth tournament, especially since the football tournament was originally intended to be the first round of qualifying for the OFC Nations Cup and the next World Cup, neither of which are youth competitions. A quick look at the squad lists here shows so many players over 23 that this couldn't have been a youth tournament. For transparency's sake, it should be noted that this is a template that I created myself. Fenix down (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a continental multi-sport event's football tournament, so it is not necessary. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any consensus that states this, this seems very much like your own opinion (which is kind of backed up by your comment below). It would be better if you could point to previous discussions which establish consensus. I'm also not aware of any discussion at WP:FOOTY (although I may well be wrong) where any consensus has been established. You also don't seem to understand, or ignore the point that the Pacific Games in 2007 were part of the FIFA world cup qualifying process and so are not just "multi sport" competitions and that the 2011 competition was intended to be but was changed due to timing issues. Fenix down (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think regional football tournaments, football tournaments at the regional and continental multi-sport events are not neccessary including senior competitions. I'm sorry for the rush! Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep with no prejudice to the templates being re-nominated in the near future. The nominator has gone about this the wrong way, he has bundled far too many templates, of numerous different tournaments, together and it is near-impossible to properly look into their merits (or lack thereof). I suggest this be closed and the nominator bring them all back to TFD over time, in smaller and better-organised bundles. GiantSnowman 10:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all youth templates per recent consensus that they are not notable. No real opinion on the others. GiantSnowman 09:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * procedural keep, we should be more careful about how these are lumped so we can have a reasoned debate about each type of navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - nominator is also adding new templates even though the discussion has already begun. GiantSnowman 15:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Template:Japan women's football squad 2010 Asian Games and Template:United States Squad 2007 Pan American Games (Women) (another one nominated but not listed above). There was no age limit at the women's tournament at these competitions. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have not foud which one of the Tfd criteria is being violated in any of this templates, and others not listed here. Osplace 03:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - We can understand that why some Europe U21 squads are keep and squads above also. Each squad have its own role! hoising (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all – Regional tournaments, youth tournaments, football tournaments at the regional and continental multi-sport events (including senior), regional, minor multi-sport events are minor tournament so their navboxes are not notable. Banhtrung1 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment one !vote per user. As the nominator, you already !voted in creating the discussion, so this one is not valid. C 679 05:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Vote orderly, please. Everyone can vote once only.hoising (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - "football tournaments at the continental (including senior)". I disagree. The squad of a European Championship is notable, or any other senior continental tournament which defines the continental champion. --Threeohsix (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I wrong. I want to say that the "continental competition" means "continental multi-sport events". Banhtrung1 (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Keep them as squads above have notabilities to have a page in Wikipedia. The kinds of tournaments should not be the rule and only rule to manage templates in Wikipedia and we should follow the general rule of notability.hoising (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep templates for All-African Games, Asian Games, European Games, and Pan American Games. Their multi-sport events are most representative by each continent. But delete others. Sawol (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If templates in Category:Asian Games football teams navigational boxes and Category:Pan American Games football squad navigational boxes are deleted, all templates in Category:Asian Games teams navigational boxes and Category:Pan American Games squad navigational boxes should be deleted. I oppose it. Sawol (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep all populated notable squads for tournaments. Ian Pissford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.232.222 (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If you read the discussions cited (this deletion discussion and this one), you'll see that they were voted as DELETE on a basis that the ONE squad template for Yugoslavia U21 Squad 1984 did not meet WP:NAVBOX #2-4. There is no way you can ASSUME that every squad on these mass lists don't meet the criteria set forth by WP:NAVBOX. These navboxes are useful for facilitating understanding and providing detailed context of the history of football/soccer throughout the world as well as individual player development and should be kept. See also: WP:TFD Hmlarson (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable squads playing in notable competitions. The squads in question all have stand alone articles and all the competitions have stand alone competitions. Absolutely no reason to justify their deletion. TonyStarks (talk) 22:00, 20 June 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.