March 20
Template:Pittsburgh Penguins Owners
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NHL does not create templates for owners, head coaches, championships, etc. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the template. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Redirect to team template. We generally put the coaches on the team template. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2019 (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).
Template:Miracle1980
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NHL does not create templates for championships, owners, head coaches, etc. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the template. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The 1980 US Men's hockey team was an historically significant championship team in hockey history. And to respond to Sabbatino, every NHL seasonal team article has both an NHL seasonal summary article and the Stanley Cup Playoffs for every seasom listed via template same as it also has a template for every team's league seasonal article.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- They were significant, but that does not mean that there should be a separate template for that, because WP:NHL does not create navboxes for winning Stanley Cup, international tournaments or any other event. For example, there is no template for the Washington Capitals' 2017–18 team, because that would instantly be nominated for deletion and deleted. Same goes for national teams or any other team. I understand that you created the template in good faith, but please get familiar with WP:NHL's guidelines/rules. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would have to search for the previous tfd discussions there is plenty of prior consensus that championship teams (for hockey atleast) should be deleted. Championship team navboxes fail WP:NAVBOX and WP:EMBED in that the links found in them would not be expected to be found on each page the navbox is used in. All the players on a team would not likely be found mentioned in (completed) articles of the pages that the navbox is being used on. Pretty sure this specific one was deleted before but it looks like it must have been under a different name or I am remembering incorrectly. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The roster being listed in the parent article is sufficient for navigation. BLAIXX 13:48, 21 March 2019 (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).
Template:Salem–Mettur Dam branch line
Template:Suleiman the Magnificent
Template:Thiruthuraipoondi–Point Calimere branch line
Template:Yesvantpur–Omalur line
Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 1987
Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 1979
Template:Icelandic parliamentary election, 2016
Template:India men's national field hockey team
- 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).
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox that supposedly is current but hasn't had any substantive updates since it was created in 2014 Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:52, 20 March 2019 (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).
Template:Imperial House of Japan
Template:Indonesian Tourism Ministers
Template:Indy Racing League 1996
Template:Indy Racing League 1996-97
Template:Insular Areas TV
Template:International organisation membership of India
Template:Interstate 8 Athletic Conference
Template:Irish Nobel Laureates
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox with no specific parent article (I.E. an article specifically about Irish Nobel Laureates). The title links are broad and non-specific. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:42, 20 March 2019 (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).
Template:Italian Formula 4 circuits
- 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).
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Mdnavman has added it to articles. No reason to delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue of this being an "unused" navbox should have been resolved by someone taking the initiative to add it to the four or five articles in was linked to, which would have been more useful than nominating it for deletion without trying to correct the error as a first step. I spent about two minutes adding the template to the artiles it was meant for, so it is no longer unused. Moreover, deleting this template would ruin the navigation scheme for the monthly shipwreck lists in 1939 by making January the only month without its own template, without any clear way of making up for the loss of the template if it was deleted. (Which is why questions about templates like this need to be discussed with the Shipwrecks project before being suggested for deletion.) Now that the issue of it being unused has been resolved, please withdraw this suggestion for deletion. Mdnavman (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)mdnavman[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).
Template:Jets AFL All-Time Team
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox with no specific parent article. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Template is now fully used. Whether or not this particular award is significant enough to justify a navbox, I take no position and am Neutral there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Neutral leaning delete We've deleted such lists regarding College football before but the NFL is different. WP:NENAN is an essay However fails WP:NAVBOX 4 no parent article. We also have Template:Buffalo Bills 50th Season All-time Team, Template:Broncos50th, Template:Los Angeles Rams 40th Anniversary Team, Template:Patriots35th, Template:Patriots50th, Template:Patriots1960s, Template:Patriots1970s, Template:Patriots1980s, Template:Patriots1990s, Template:Patriots2000s, Template:Pittsburgh Steelers 50th season All-Time team, Template:Pittsburgh Steelers All-Time Team, Template:Pittsburgh Steelers Legends team, Template:Seattle Seahawks 35th anniversary team, Template:Seattle Seahawks 35th anniversary team navbox, Template:The 80 Greatest Redskins, Template:The 70 Greatest Redskins, and Template:50Chargers which could be discussed.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:NAVBOX and WP:EMBED. The links found in a navbox should be expected to be found in a the "completed" version of the page. Not every player on a team like this would be found on the pages of the others. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2019 (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).
Template:Jewish villages depopulated during the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine
Template:KK Šentjur current roster
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox. Claims to be current but hasn't been updated in over 2 years. The current roster is listed on KK Šentjur already. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:33, 20 March 2019 (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).
Template:KSA-Foreign
Template:Kali (demon)
Template:Khulna Titans current 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused navbox. Claims to be "current" but hasn't been updated in over 2 years. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:32, 20 March 2019 (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).
Template:Kocharyan cabinet
Template:Outline Indian state
Template:A Nightmare on Elm Street to-do
- 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).
The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unused in all namespaces, but also not a valid use for a template. This should have been created as a user sub-page (or project sub-page if it was meant for that). Gonnym (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2019 (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).
Template:Pakistan FH Squad 2010 Commonwealth Games
Template:Pakistan FH Squad 2006 Commonwealth Games
- 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 30. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2019 (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).
Template:2014–15 A Group table
- 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).
The result of the discussion was deleted by Fastily (Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]
no longer needed after being merged with the articles (with attribution) Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Best to delete if already substituted. Nigej (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:40, 25 March 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Aircraft specs. Almost the entirety of the opposition (despite being a numerical majority) are opposing because of the perceived "difficulty" of this merge, despite many also saying that the templates should be replaced by ((Aircraft specs)) per the existing deprecation notices. Whether or not a bot can do this merger is irrelevant, though it does appear based on the conversation that this is highly unlikely. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Aerospecs and Template:Aircraft specifications with Template:Aircraft specs.
Templates have been marked as deprecated and should be replaced by ((Aircraft specs)). See also Template talk:Aircraft specifications#Deprecation of this template. Gonnym (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the following Opposes are not in favour of a Bot carrying out the task, but are generally in favour of the nomination, if handled manually!!--Petebutt (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, over 4,000 pages still use these templates, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Aircraft_specifications, [1], Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Aerospecs, and [2]. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 14:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. Of course they will not be deleted until the many pages that use them have all been transitioned to the new one, however long it takes.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As Steelpillow said, the templates aren't going to be deleted with pages still using them. --Gonnym (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, the templates differ significantly in their input parameters and conversion between them using bots is not feasible. ((Aircraft specifications)) does not specify a prime unit and conversion to ((Aircraft specs)) will require a human editor to look up the original source and identify the original units used to avoid loss of precision. —Gazoth (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody said it was going to be simple.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, it does not need to be a bot move if it can't. Some of the templates in the holding cell, like the football ones, are being converted manually, a few at a time. Secondly, looking at the specific example you gave, that actually can be done by a bot. While the template does not specify a prime unit, looking at North American B-25 Mitchell as an example, the values entered are
|length main=52 ft 11 in and |length alt=16.13 m. By using "ft", "in" and "m" a bot can know which value is what. --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, some of the partially filled entries will be less tractable. There is also the issue of accumulated rounding errors in converting from one unit to another and then back again. I think that a bot would be able to convert a good many successfully, but would also need to back off and flag up the ones it has problems with. It would have to be some sophisticated bot! But really, this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Gazoth, just because you can't write a bot to do it, doesn't mean that someone else can't. It is a mistake to oppose just because you don't think it is possible. Discuss the merits of the merge, not the feasibility of making it happen. If you think it SHOULD happen, then let others worry about how to actually make it happen. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Zackmann08, a bot can't extrapolate data from nothing. There is nothing in the parameters of ((Aircraft specifications)) to identify the original unit used. It requires a human editor to look up the original source and input the correct unit into ((Aircraft specs)). This is not a trivial task that can be figured out after a decision is made, this has to planned for beforehand. Technical feasibility is an important part of the merits of a proposal. What is the point of deciding to merge a template when the merge might not be feasible? —Gazoth (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Gazoth, could you give an example of a page which you think will be hard to convert? Also, remember, that no one promised a bot will do this and there are multiple examples of templates manually converted. --Gonnym (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Gazoth again you are missing the point. As Gonnym stated, how the conversion will take place is irrelevant... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonnym, are there examples of manually converting thousands of transclusions after looking up the original sources, a significant portion of which are offline and hard to find? —Gazoth (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This really feels like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I've already answered that, several times here. If there is no source available then it fails WP:V. The merge is not a "also, while you do it, add new information" - it is a simple, take what template A has and move it to template B. Last time I'll explain that. --Gonnym (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? I never said that sources may not be available, I said that some sources will be hard to find. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it doesn't prevent them from being reliable. —Gazoth (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Neither of the old templates can be made to do what the Project team has agreed is needed. The new one can and does.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This will break hundreds of pages if you do it by bot, including many of the most important high visibility pages (as these tended to be written first) and will take years if it is done properly by hand, as doing it properly really needs access to the sources originally used, and many of the original editors have moved on. In the mean time thousands of pages have unsightly deletion notices plastered all over them, often conflicting with other page content.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nigel Ish, For the love of... It won't be done if anything is going to break!!! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If a bot cannot do it, it will happen manually. The notice will not be there when it happens, that notice is only for this discussion. Also, there is no need for the original sources for the replacement, if there was need and no source was available in the article now, then that content should be removed anyways as it fails WP:V. Can't believe I need to explain this in a TfD discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- One reason why ideally the person making the changes should have access to the original source is to avoid additional rounding errors - in filling out the original specs template, the editor will often have had to convert between imperial and metric units - potentially introducing rounding errors (or calculation errors - having access to the originals will help to minimse this.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll repeat myself - if there is no source, then the information should be removed per WP:V. This is irrelevant to this discussion though. --Gonnym (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You do not seem to understand my comment - having the original source will help to minimise un-necessary conversion errors - the units used in the original source aren't necessarily what we would choose as the primary units - for example a pre-metric British or American source may only list dimensions in feet and inches, even for a European aircraft where we would normally choose to display metric first (i.e. as primary units). By working from the source, we minimise errors introduced by these sort of things. Another issue is there may be some edge cases out there that may not work well with the auto-converting aircraft specs template - certainly the talk page for that template has a few examples where it recommds using the free field aircraft specifications template where aircraft specs doesn't work very well - It may be worth considering retaining the aircraft specifications template to cope with these cases. template:aerospecs is much less flexible, and I don't think there will be much using that template that can't be worked into aircraft specs by someone who understands how the templates work.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your comment, I just this it is irrelevant and off-topic. The merge is not a "also, while you do it, add new information" - it is a simple, take what template A has and move it to template B. If the current template is incomplete, then the new template will also be incomplete. If the old template has only one type of data (say only inches), then ((convert)) will handle the conversion per the template. This is an acceptable way of doing this in Wikipedia. If the original data was rounded and no source is used and no note was given, well, like I said, the current information is itself wrong/misleading, so you can't expect the merge to be different. --Gonnym (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new template idea, but we should make sure that it includes all of the many missing data categories. SFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3230:ECD0:8C2B:C5E2:E2BB:A54A (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To whoever closes, please notice that the current opposes are not actually responding to the actual issue, but to whether a bot can or cannot do it, which is irrelevant. Remember that the number of votes does not matter, but the actual reasons behind it. --Gonnym (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll second that. Despite endless clarifications, many editors are still misunderstanding the TfD process. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Support ((Aerospecs)) is deprecated, so by definition it should be merged. As Gonnym has pointed out, the only objections so far are that merging them will break the page. This argument is completely invalid. When merging two templates, the merge is not valid unless all data is merged and no templates brake. So if the decision is to merge, that means we put it in the holding cell and figure out how to do the merge. It doesn't mean we just redirect the template and break thousands of pages. ZLEA, Steelpillow, Nigel Ish & Gazoth you seem to misunderstand the process regarding merging templates. I'm happy to provide more information but please rest assured that when we merge two templates, it is not just a matter of redirecting one template to the other. Some mergers are easy, some are complicated. This is one certainly looks to be more complicated but that is the responsibility of WP:TPEs to figure out. At the end of the day, a merge WILL NOT take place if it breaks anything. Nigel Ish your comment in particular that
This will break hundreds of pages ... including many of the most important high visibility pages
. ANY edits that break hundreds of pages would immediately be reverted. That is NOT a valid case. I would encourage you each to set aside the "it could break things" part of this. For the sake of this discussion, assume that any merge won't break anything. The point of this discussion is SHOULD it be merged. Then we talk about how to actually make it happen. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A bot simply isn't going to cope with many examples unless it is hideously complicated - it will have to deal with things like fraction characters, notes and references embedded in date fields and all sorts of other work arounds that people came up with to fit things into the old templates.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nigel Ish, put aside the bot... No one said this has to be done by a bot... I've done hundreds of the these merges. Some are done with a bot, some are not and some are a combination. You continue to focus on how the merge will happen and not whether or not it should happen. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As too soon. Although both templates are deprecated and should be (in my opinion) deleted, they are each still in use on thousands of pages. The current request has come far too early in the removal process, which is likely the root cause of most of the discussion above. For now our efforts would be far better used by focusing on getting the articles switched over to the new template, rather than arguing in circles here about something that cannot and will not happen anytime soon. Sario528 (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand the TfD process. The whole point of the current proposal is to put more weight behind those thousands of page updates. As has been stated many times above, it is absolutely not the green light for immediate template removal. This is not too soon, it is years overdue.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Supportthe merge but oppose the bot, supporting conversion to Aircraft specs. This can only be done manually, but it would help if editors are unable to use the older templates for new articles.--Petebutt (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Petebutt: I think you mean "Support the proposed merge, but not the use of a bot that has been suggested in the discussion"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As one of the users that has been converting the templates it takes time and care but is not difficult, we just need to make sure the old templates are no longer used but they still need to exist while the conversion process is done. If the deprecation means we need to offically "merge" them so be it but I cant see why we cant just leave them tagged as deprecated and be left to convert them in our own time. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. As noted, the "old" templates are still used by many pages. The process of updating them is being done. There's nothing "broken" about letting depreciated templates be replaced through normal editing in editors' own time. There is no deadline. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Bushranger; the nomination is not that a bot do it. Just that they are replaced. It is widely accepted that this is only feasible if carried out manually. The issue of references is moot as there is no reason that a different, hopefully better, reference cannot be used!!--Petebutt (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point out where I said anything about bots? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:33, 15 April 2019 (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).
Template:Flag entry
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template was marked as deprecated and all uses replaced, so is currently unused. Added related templates. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - Superseded. Nigej (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, these have all been replaced by standard galleries. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2019 (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).
Major International Pageants titleholders navboxes
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These templates only have two to four individuals in each of them, the rest being links to all the other templates, or just to the competitions themselves. Complete navbox overkill. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 11:10, 20 March 2019 (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).
Miss Universe Organization titleholders navboxes
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These templates only have two or three individuals in each of them, the rest being links to all the other templates, or just to the competitions themselves. Complete navbox overkill. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 09:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with 3 different templates - one for Miss Universe, one for Miss USA and one for Miss Teen USA - while the three belong to the same orginization, for readers that information is less important. Miss Universe is much closer to one of the Big Four international beauty pageants than to a local country-specific competition. --Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonnym:, ((MissUniverses)), ((MissUSAs)) and ((MissTeenUSAs)) already exist. However, I've just spotted a similar template structure for the "Big Four" (see ((Major International Pageants titleholders 1994)), etc.), and I'm thinking these should probably be deleted too. --woodensuperman 10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, there is no reason at all for these. Delete. --Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 30. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2019 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 March 30. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2019 (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).