The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Infobox Korean name. ✗plicit 23:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Korean name/Mountain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Think this should be redirected to {{Infobox Korean name}}. It's not differentiated enough from that parent template and there aren't many uses of it left. seefooddiet (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to {{Infobox Korean name}} per nom. Vestrian24Bio 05:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 23:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Gaelic football Team of the Century (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No article on the subject, not clear what this actually represents. Is this some kind of poll or fantasy team or something? Either way not a suitable subject for a navbox. --woodensuperman 16:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: An article already existed on the subject (GAA Football Team of the Century) but there was no link in the navbox. I have made the necessary change to the navbox. --CorkMan (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Still not an appropriate navbox, this is not an actual team, just the results of a poll from 40 years ago so it's not even relevant. This list itself may even be a WP:COPYVIO. --woodensuperman 21:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could the same argument be made for this template - Template:World Team of the 20th Century - and it's corresponding article so? The GAA Football Team of the Century wasn't a poll. It was chosen by an adjudication panel of sportswriters, broadcasters and GAA officials. It remains the GAA's official Team of the Century. It is not just some random competition or poll in a newspaper. Therefore, I believe it should be kept.--CorkMan (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Banner talk 16:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It sure does! Regardless of my highlighting of "other stuff", the point I made afterwards in the hope that it should be kept still stands.--CorkMan (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not an actual award. Just a list from a sports organization. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the list (GAA Football Team of the Century) doesn't seems like it meets WP:GNG at all. Vestrian24Bio 04:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: At the time of the nomination there appears to have been no link. Then, if my reading of the above is correct, the previously existing link was included. Then came an unfounded copyvio claim ("may even be"). I do not understand from the above how a list of people on a template would be a copyvio. Or at least I find the explanation of what is meant by this somewhat lacking. Is it the case that people who have been grouped together by sources cannot be grouped together anywhere else without causing a copyvio? And how then are such groups of people to be referred to without introducing some other violation of policy? If listing the names of different people together in the same template is a copyvio then we have big problems. Everywhere. We'll have to delete everything. --Gaois (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like sour grapoes again. But fact is that the emergency edits to that article is effectively unsourced as none of the sources is working properly. The Banner talk 11:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. It's not. You're misunderstanding or misrepresenting again. I really don't understand why so many comments lead to a response of "sour grapes". I'm not even sure what definition of "sour grapes" you're going by. What exactly do you mean? Please explain.

Even the deletes seem to provoke a response that appears (to me) intended to close off any discussion (I never once suggested I wanted people to die, and was actually agreeing with your "claim that there are not enough players with articles to warrant a navigation template").

If the nomination was on the basis that there was no article (as this one was), but then an already existing article is found, does that not solve the problem? If it is a copyvio then that is a different problem. But when it is only a suggestion of a copyvio, and no evidence exists to verify this, what is wrong with wondering what is meant? And doubting that, in the absence of anything further, it can be used as an argument for deletion? Since, in that case, anyone can write "copyvio" and have whatever they like deleted.

You seem (to me) incapable of accepting that another editor might have a different opinion (and, going by the previous delete response, not willing to allow me even to have a same or similar opinion). --Gaois (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Mexican Drug War. ✗plicit 23:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox Mexican drug war (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Mexican Drug War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Campaignbox Mexican drug war with Template:Mexican Drug War.
The sidebox template is redundant as the navbox already hosts most of the links present. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge to navbox. Vestrian24Bio 05:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.