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) 21:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox WCG project (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only used in one article, where the sections are so short, that it would be better to just put the launched/completed information in the prose in each section. Frietjes (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not appear to add anything meaningful to the page besides clutter. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 05:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox century (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to {{infobox image}}. Frietjes (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: undocumented, unused, unnecessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:40, 14 February 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 21:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hidden content dispute (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Collapse top}}. Only used on two talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37 am, Today (UTC−5) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Replace the other ones with {{Collapse top}} or some other hidden template. Ryan Vesey 12:57 pm, Today (UTC−5)
• Delete obsolete. NE Ent 18:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Orphan and delete, not serving any unique purpose. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Fails WP:NAVBOX #2–4. Ruslik_Zero 19:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yugoslavia U21 Squad 1984 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not a champion squad and unused (see also German U21 Squad Euro 2009). Frietjes (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The German U21 Squad Euro 2009 template did not meet the WP:Football criteria as the German team never qualified for the actual tournament, where as the Yugoslavian team reached the semi-finals of the competition.

• Keep - navigates between 15 articles, clearly useful. Should be re-named to {{Yugoslavia squad 1984 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship}} as standard naming convention. GiantSnowman 13:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the template is no longer unused, after GiantSnowman added it to the 15 articles, and now it serves as a useful navigation between those articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • so we have navigational boxes for every single squad from every competition? this squad lost in the semi-finals. if there is no article listing the squad, then seems like overkill. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, we have templates for many, many, many football tournament squads, regardless of whether or not they are a champion. What is important with navboxes is whether ot not they link notable articles - which this one does. It serves a purpose & is useful, ergo should be kept. GiantSnowman 16:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • so, FOOTY is not in sync with most other professional sports (see Pro Bowl MVPs, NFL Pro Bowl navigation boxes, and All-NBA teams)? these clearly link notable articles, but were deleted as navbox overkill. it seems as though you changed your mind from this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • every WikiProject has their own guidelines/beliefs/consensus. WP:FOOTY holds that these kind of navboxes are more than acceptable. GiantSnowman 17:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see, so per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Frietjes (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well no - the TFD discussions you link to above are based on WikiProject consensus - "per consensus at WP:NBA" they say etc. GiantSnowman 17:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • yes, then per this consensus. Frietjes (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • From 3-and-a-half years ago?! Consensus changes, as evidence by this discussion so far. GiantSnowman 20:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • this is a more recent consensus. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we should really re-examine the assertion that "what is important with navboxes is whether ot not they link notable articles - which this one does". This is not the wider consensus concerning navigation boxes, which is why navigation boxes for non-notable awards are deleted all the time. In particular, this fails WP:NAVBOX #3 and #4 and #5, since there is no article on the subject, and we would not want to list the members of the squad in the see also section for every player's article. This also fails WP:NAVBOX #2, since in most articles there is simply a span of years for participation on the national squad, and not a section describing the player's participation on that particular national squad for a particular year. The problem here is the shear number of squads on which many players have participated. By the "whether or not they link notable articles" logic, we would have a navbox for every national squad for every year, and wind up with dozens of non-notable squad navigation boxes at the bottom of many articles. We really need to draw the line somewhere, and I think we should start with eliminating navboxes for youth squads that did not win any championships. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1984 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship squads may not exist - yet - but the topic is certainly notable, see Category:UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship squads. Just because we have not got around to starting it yet is not a valid reason to delete a related template. Bushranger, this is not a list of all players who played for the team in one particular year, this is the squad list at the highest-level youth continental tournament. It is a notable tournament, the players are notable, and therefore I feel the navbox is notable. GiantSnowman 10:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. We do not need to link everything to everything. That is, simple linking existing and article on notable subjects is not a reason to keep; there must be a reason to directly link the said articles. We should not link, by navbox, every tournament team that ever existed. Most notable players have been in tens of notable competitions. the Word Cup, the European/African/... competition, a lot of Champion League, Sudamericana, etc., 10 to 15 years of notable national leagues on notable teams (Real Madrid season 2010-11, Sporting C. P. 1950-51, River Plate 1978-79, etc. etc. etc.) played at u-21, u-19, u-17, u-15, ... We shall not have navboxes for all of those. We certainly can, and shall, have for a few really outstanding cases Quite surely, a non champion youth team is not one of those cases. The resultin navbox pollution - ultimately eliminating their usefulness - would be (or is) huge - Nabla (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But we don't have - and shouldn't have - navboxes for every tournament for every age group. This is the top-level national tournament at the highest level of youth football. There is clear reason to keep. GiantSnowman 11:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Youth football", my emphasis. - Nabla (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also propose getting rid of the "youth football" Olympics templates then? They are restricted to under-23. GiantSnowman 11:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point :-) Do "Olympics" trump "Youth"? (and you could not know but I love the Olympics, it is THE sports event) Is 23 'youth'? There were at least one 17 y.o. World Champion I can recall of... Still, probably those are also too much (1928 and before are a different case, evidently). I think football/soccer has a low threshold for navboxes, resulting in things like the bottom of the article on Jupp Heynckes (yes, I watched SLB 1x1 BL). But that is something else, as to this template, as similar ones, I simply think we need to keep, or eventually raise, the bar, not to lower it. - Nabla (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have requested input from WP:FOOTBALL as this discussion, regardless of outcome, will have a great affect on that Project's work. GiantSnowman 11:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this navbox is unnecessary because most players at youth tournaments are not notable (and the redlinks encourage creation of articles on non-notable youth players). Even though each player in this squad has an article, it is because of their future endeavors, and their performances in this tournament are hardly notable. Jogurney (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Under our current guidelines (i.e. WP:NFOOTBALL) winning the tournament is no more notable than playing in it. So we should either delete all youth templates, or keep all. GiantSnowman 16:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer to evaluate each on its own merits, but I wouldn't be upset if someone were to nominate them all. Jogurney (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - delete all. As has been mentioned, taking part in a competition is no more notable than winning it. However, tournaments at youth level do not grant automatic notability to the players playing in them, so a navbox full of redlinks about players whose pages should never exist is not desirable. Players with articles are notable for something else, generally achievements at senior level or non-football criteria. The reason a corresponding article for these templates/navboxes doesn't exist is due to this lack of notability. As was also mentioned above, everything does not need to be linked to everything, and categories such as subcategories of Category:Association football players by youth national team provide ample navigation for such players in my opinion. C679 09:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We aren't talking about templates full of redlinks, we are talking about templates that provides navigation between existing articles on notable footballers. Those footballers doesn't become notable by Wiki-standards by competing in such a tournament, but atleast the U-21 tournament is a notable event in a footballers career. Category:UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship squads lists 10 articles from 1994 to 2011, and I believe the reason 1984 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship squads doesn't exists is rather because of the internet-era then lack of notability. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So your argument is any navbox containing notable footballers should exist. I disagree. I also feel that such squad lists should be deleted. Per Nabla I think we should be looking to raise the bar, not give cause to create even more navboxes of negligible use. "Highest level of youth football" is more "youth football" than "highest level". C679 07:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't see that being in an U21 squad is sufficiently notable to be worth a navigation template. Number 57 10:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We should also delete all squad templates for clubs that do not play in a FPL then - Ireland, Scottish Div2/3 etc. GiantSnowman 10:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be in favour of that as it would save a lot of problems. Many seem to be irregularly updated, some have only two or three links on them, and I think their existence only tempt inexperienced editors into creating articles that will almost certainly be deleted. Number 57 10:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The template is a clearly useful navigational aid. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GiantSnowman rationale and all his following explanations. I also support his renaming proposal as per standard naming conventions. FkpCascais (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm afraid I don't agree with the assertion that we need navboxes for youth tournament squads. Navboxes for current club squads have a demonstrable purpose, and historical navboxes for World Cup and continental tournament squads are useful because they represent the pinnacle of the international game. Under-21 squads do not. – PeeJay 01:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with PeeJay, don't really see why it is useful, sure it links to relevant players from a partuicular youth international squad, but I am not sure how many people would read the article on Ivan Pudar and then logically want to read an article on Darko Pančev simply because they played, though did not win a youth competition nearly thirty years ago. I have no overriding issue with such navboxes in general but this seems like overkill to me, despite the fact that the late 80s crop of Yugoslav players were very highly rated, keeping this would also mean allowing navboxes for OFC / CAF / CONCACAF U-21 teams which are likely to be much more hevaily laden with red links. Fenix down (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vndb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The VNDB is editable just like Wikipedia. This template is wholly unnecessary. I have also noticed that the website is being used as references (two are used on 11eyes: Tsumi to Batsu to Aganai no Shōjo). A massive revision on anime articles is recommended. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 01:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a valid template to be used for external links, like {{GameFAQs}} and the {{IMDb}} templates. If it's used as a reference and it's not a reliable source... well that's hardly a problem that should be solved at TfD. Treat it like any other unreliable source used as a reference. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 06:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Used for ELs, and not referencing. We don't delete imdb and youtube templates for this reason either. If people are misusing the template, fix the issue on the relevant page. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• While it's true that this is symptomatic of the generally egregious quality of our coverage of this subject, so long as this is being used as an extlink and not a reference it's probably not going to help anything by deleting it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have to agree to keep. If it is being used as a reference that is indeed a problem but since it is clearly marked as Category:External link templates, it should not be deleted as it has use there. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the other keep votes. It's a valid EL template similar to Template:ANN and the others listed by Salvidrim. If it's being used improperly, the solution is education, not deletion.--Atlantima (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This is an external link template so there's no real reason to delete it as it is not used for RSing just formatting ELs. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above. Templating multiple external links to the same site helps with monitoring, and in cases where their URL structure changes. Snowball? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the large amount of unanimous support I'd agree with a SNOW close, but since I was the first !voter I will refrain from enacting it. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep No reason to get rid of this template, work should be done to fix the issues not just throw everything out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep - Like IMDb, which is also editable by users, use as an EL is appropriate, even though use as a RS wouldn't work, but this template is intended as an EL. ZappaOMati 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing as per discussion. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 23:32, 14 February 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 05:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USA Today All-Joe Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Virtually a navbox with only links to redlinks besides the main page. Until at least a few of them get created, there'd be no point in having this. ZappaOMati 00:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If articles can't be created for the red-linked items in four years, it's probably not going to happen (if it does, recreate it at such time). Transcluded in only one article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not even sure the underlying award is noteworthy, but with 20+ red links and no live links, I'm not sure we can even call this a navbox. Fails WP:NAVBOX guidelines on virtually all points. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.