Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 9



Template:UEFA Europa League

 * 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) 04:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * UEFA Europa League
 * UEFA Champions League

There is no reason to put 100+ teams together in this template that have nothing more in common than playing the same season. It adds nothing to the clubs article were it is included now. Also it often doesn't get deleted from the club's article next season. Only reasonable inclusion would be the Europa League season article. But it adds no additional info there either as all info is good visible in the article itself. I also nominate UEFA Champions League for the same reason. Koppapa (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete both Completely pointless, can't see why this would be useful navigation. Number   5  7  16:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree that the size of this navbox is such that it is cumbersome to the point of being a hinderence to navigation and does nothing that a link to the current season's competition does not do. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep both - the point of these templates is to offer information about progression throughout the competition in a handy condensed format. Yes, it doesn't provide any new information but then again neither do national league templates. OGLV (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * delete, too much. Frietjes (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Templates should have some ongoing relevance to the linked topics. In barely 12 months time this template will serve very little navigational purpose for any of those articles. SFB 21:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete both per nom. GiantSnowman 14:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete both - pointlessly large; impedes rather than aids navigation. Neutralitytalk 07:18, 20 July 2014 (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:2013 Bulls Super Rugby squad

 * 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) 04:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2011 Blues Super Rugby squad
 * 2011 Brumbies Super Rugby squad
 * 2011 Chiefs Super Rugby squad
 * 2011 Force Super Rugby squad
 * 2011 Rebels Super Rugby squad
 * 2011 Waratahs Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Blues Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Brumbies Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Bulls Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Cheetahs Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Chiefs Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Crusaders Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Force Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Highlanders Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Hurricanes Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Lions Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Reds Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Sharks Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Stormers Super Rugby squad
 * 2014 Waratahs Super Rugby squad

Unneeded template. A club's squad for every individual season is not worthy of Wikipedia. I think that only current club templates should be allowed. The current squads like Template:Highlanders squad are ready for this season's squads like Template:2014 Highlanders Super Rugby squad. Sawol (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Why "unneeded"? And why not worthy of Wikipedia? Why should we not retain historical information? Just having current info should be a violation of WP:RECENT. On a player's page, this can clearly demonstrate a player's progression throughout his career (more than mere numbers in an infobox can) and allow for viewing and quickly linking to team-mates and coaches for the player. It also reduced maintenance – it's unbelievable how many articles transclude the "current" template years after the player left the club or retired. If it pertains to a specific season, then no maintenance needs to be done to ensure templates are not misused. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How does the navbox reflect the player's career better than the infobox? And if a "current" navbox is still on a player's article years after the fact, perhaps we need to work on increasing interest in editing rugby union articles. Lack of interest is not a good reason to create unnecessary templates; after all, the football WikiProject gets by just fine, which is to do with the number of their participants. Get WP:RU's participation levels up and you'll be fine. – PeeJay 19:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "How does the navbox reflect the player's career better than the infobox?" – it reflect team mates he played with and competitions he played in. For example, it could show that he was just part of, say a team's Pro12 squad for two seasons, etc., then got included in a Heineken Cup squad. An infobox can't reflect that. Navboxes can also provide a quick link to the competitions a player played in, something an infobox definitely can't do.
 * I agree that a lack of interest isn't a good reason to create unnecessary templates; but I also don't think these templates are in any way unnecessary. The opposite to yur statement is also true – a high interest in a project is also not a reason to continue with badly-designed ideas that require an unnecessary overhead to maintain, simply because there are enough people to do the unnecessary work. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to indicate that a player was only involved in the Pro12 for two seasons and then made the step up to the Heineken Cup, you do that in prose. We're supposed to be writing articles here, not merely indicating various punctuating points in players' careers. If particular players had a significant contribution to a team-mate's career, that too can be indicated in prose. As it is, these templates are totally unnecessary for the point I made below, i.e. navbox overload. – PeeJay 22:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Totally agree with everything the Mighty Peanut said. Having templates for each season in an excellent way to illustrate a player's career history.   Also, as the Mighty Peanut alluded to there is already a big problem in rugby profiles of players still carrying the current squad template years after they've left that particular side.   Removing such information from profiles will in my view devalue them by providing a less clear picture of individual players career histories. JNicol (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete all - This is the worst possible example of navbox overload. Any player with a sufficiently long career is going to have more navboxes than you can shake a stick at. And for what? Just his club career. The only club navboxes that should exist are the ones for the current season; national teams, however, should have historical navboxes for World Cup squads. If you want to illustrate a player's career history, perhaps you should focus on creating and maintaining a suitable infobox. A player's team-mates are not that important that they all need to link to each other via a navbox. – PeeJay 19:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's long since been decided that per-season navboxes for team rosters are overkill; there's no compelling reason to think differently here, either from first principles or the comments made in support. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with the comments raised above; however, I honestly think the advantages of having it significantly outweigh the disadvantages. Please read the following with a clear and open mind and see if it in any way changes your minds. Personally, I do think there are several "compelling reasons to think differently here".
 * The primary usage for these templates are obviously on player articles pages. If a user would like more information on Player A and visits the page, he might notice in the infobox that he made 50 appearances for Team A in a three-year spell. If the user would like to see additional information about these 50 appearances, the whole navigation falls a bit flat. In the infobox, there are links to teams he played for, but if he click on the link for that team, the page he'll presented with will display current information (i.e. the current squad, etc.) So that's no use to the user. There are very few team season pages around for rugby union and almost none dating back more than a few years, so that's a dead end. The page that might contain more information regarding these 50 appearances would be the actual competition season articles, but there's no direct (or even slightly indirect link) ... and it would be even more difficult to find if the user doesn't know which competitions the player played in. I know a lot of footballer articles have a "Career statistics" section with links to seasonal pages, but, as was pointed out above, the number of participants in rugby union articles are significantly less than in football, so these are lacking in rugby union player articles to a large extent. Since we can't work as hard as the football project, let's try and work a bit smarter. If a seasonal squad list is added, it also adds a link to the relevant competition, which in turn allows a user easier access to a relevant article where he might get additional information pertaining to the player. At the same time, the user can get an idea of team-mates and coaches that the player worked with during his entire career (which is obviously relevant to the player, otherwise squad navboxes wouldn't have existed in the first place!), rather than just getting an idea of his current team-mates, as it is at present (a violation of WP:RECENT?). Having links to all his team-mates is probably not a major advantage, but an extra minor benefit.
 * To address the concern of a navbox overkill – the way these are currently presented on player article pages is that they are all contained within a collapsed navbox group, usually called "Squads". So it is pretty unobtrusive, but if the user would like to see more information regarding this, it is easily accessible. So, the user can gain easy access to additional information without being bombarded with it is not required. More important squad listings, such as the player's current squad and World Cup squads he was involved in, could still be listed outside the collapsed navbox group.
 * However, one of the major benefits of templates is reusability and that is where having historical templates are really of major benefit; something that current templates can't provide. Firstly, the team squads can also be included on the page for the competition season. A number of competition pages have links to other articles called "List of [competition name] squads" or the like. However, by merely including the historical squad navboxes on the competition page, you can easily present exactly the same information in the main article without dedicating several screens to it. Obviously players taking part in a competition is very relevant to the competition article, so it would make perfect sense to include this information.
 * Next up are team season pages. This template is absolutely ideal for a team season page, containing all the pertinent links to the players that played for the team during the season.
 * Lastly, articles pertaining to player transfers for teams between different seasons. At the moment, a big list of "in"s and "out"s are being listed. These templates can be included to show the effective "before" and "after" squads; i.e. it can show the 2013 squad, list all ins and out and then the resultant 2014 squad. In that case, it might actually prove helpful in the articles to identify missing transfers too.
 * So, anyway, in conclusion, I really think there are a vast amount of benefits to retaining these templates and the value that they could add to four separate types of articles would far outweigh the negatives associated with retaining them. They are navboxes and would aid navigating to pertinent articles (and, admittedly in some cases, less pertinent articles), but they also provide additional information that can be useful to several articles. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with TheMightyPeanut's points. The templates are collapsed and unobrusive and provide useful information about seasons prior to the current one. -- Ham105 (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * TheMightyPeanut hit the nail on the head and I can't really add anything more other than that as the Naboxes are contained in a collapsed menu they don't clutter the player's pages and I fail to see what harm they do. In fact I only really see them as being beneficial and don't see why we are wasting time making a fuss over this.  Finally   I've done a lot of work over the past 3 years updating and maintaining rugby pages and I'm only arguing for what I think the best way forward is, so please don't talk to me like I'm a child. -- JNicol (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * delete/merge with the respective articles, e.g. 2014 Blues season assuming it will be created like 2012 Blues season. Frietjes (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nominator and PeeJay and Chris Cunningham. The idea that these nav boxes are needed to provide information on a player's career is wrong. We have infoboxes that provide the same team/season information, and better than that, we have prose of an article that can tell you much much more than a hundred nav boxes every could. Right now the Richie McCaw article has nine navboxes. But if all were added for his Canterbury and Crusaders squads, it'd be well over 20. Brian O'Driscoll's article is the same. Having them for current squads, Rugby World Cup squads, Lions squads is plenty. Delete these domestic season-by-season ones. -- Shudde  talk 02:46, 12 July 2014 (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:Messenia constituency May 2012 Election Results

 * 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) 04:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Messenia constituency May 2012 Election Results

Orphaned template for static article content. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * delete as it appears to be replaced by Template:Messenia constituency June 2012 Election Results Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2014 (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:Achaea constituency May 2012 Election Results

 * 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) 04:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Achaea constituency May 2012 Election Results

Orphaned template for static article content. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2014 (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:A1095/A145

 * 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) 04:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A1095/A145

Orphaned template that I'm not sure of the value of an article that describes the cites on various roads. I can imagine the city templates would explode if that became standardized. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition the two roads are not part of the same effective route - the original design decision seems to have been that the A1095 is too limited to have it's own template. Very small settlements in the main and essentially not a template that's particularly useful. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Sawol (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SUBPAGE/MOS:SLASH avoid using slashes when unnecessary, this is not a subtemplate of A1095, so should not exist if it isn't. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * delete Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2014 (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:City of Naga
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 the bolded title version. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 21:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * City of Naga
 * City of Naga

Propose merging Template:City of Naga with Template:City of Naga.

The contents are largely the same but the minor differences can be fixed via a merger. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to City of Naga and make sure that Template:City of Naga  is deleted afterwards. This format hides the true name of the template, making it look piped. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Merge both to Naga City per Sawol. Make sure the Template:City of Naga  is deleted afterwards. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all: Template:Naga City is original. Sawol (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That template is for the Metro Naga area as opposed to the city itself. There's a number of differences. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2014 (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.