August 23
Template:OCN Saturday-Sunday dramas
- 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:OCN original series. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:OCN Saturday-Sunday dramas with Template:OCN original series.
Both templates are the same. However, the newer one is better cause it carries the full info and has the correct brand/series/collection name. Moreover, the newer one is linked to the Korean template. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merging Both templates are not really different to each other and serves same purpose. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, but also merge ((OCN Pick)). --woodensuperman 15:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Nominator moved and reduced one of the templates while this discussion was still taking place. Have restored the status quo until discussion is complete. --woodensuperman 15:29, 31 August 2018 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating because:
- it's currently 1 April on this hemisphere
- this template has only 3 transclusions, and none use its intended advanced functionality. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, useful. It's a shame that people fell out of their tree about this in the past, but that doesn't obviate its usefulness. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as clearly useful. If the small number of current transclusions is seen as a problem, then the solution is not to delete it, but to promote its use. I'm not sure what the reference to 1 April was in the nomination, if this is relevant, then some elaboration would be welcome. – Uanfala (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a tradition of nominating deletion-releted pages for deletion as an april fool. The problem is not the number of transclusions, but that none are using the template as intended. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I've missed that joke. As for the transclusions: I can only see one and from what I can tell it appears to be used as intended. So far, the only problem with the template appears to be its obscurity: last year when I suggested that the deletion of templates is usually counterproductive (none of the major reasons for deleting articles apply here, the gains were tiny and the losses tangible – as in the breaking of old revisions), I wasn't aware of the existecne of this template, which provides a rather neat solution. And neither were the people who commented then. It seems that this template needs promotion, not deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, someone has made the effort to add one actual use of this template after i have nominated it for deletion. Check the history. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- On a second thought, I'm withdrawing the nomination. Clearly User:Primefac is making a good faith attempt to establish actual use of the template. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2018 (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:Miss Portuguesa
- 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. The template can be un-deleted/recreated when more bluelinks exist (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only has one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The template (as well as the article is links to) were just created 12 hours ago and seem to be in progess, I'd say give it some more time to see if the other items get created. -Sonicwave (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There seems scope for it to fill out based on similar competitions, so I'd keep. Probably should be renamed to match the parent article at Miss República Portuguesa though. Le Deluge (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not perform any useful navigational function. --woodensuperman 14:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would for the recreation until it is developed enough. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2018 (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 delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The event has only been held once, making this template unnecessary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2018 (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 2018 August 31. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:43, 31 August 2018 (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 redirect to Template:RC patroller topicon. Primefac (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:RC patroller topicon with Template:RCP topicon.
This top icon is substantially identical to ((RCP topicon)). They have the same picture and say almost the exact same thing. I would like to see these two merged. funplussmart (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2018 (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 2018 August 31. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:36, 31 August 2018 (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:National anthems of Serbia
- 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 2018 September 2. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:28, 2 September 2018 (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:Agent
Template:Ateneo de Manila University Blue Eagles
- 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⚡ 07:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template, possibly a too narrow subject. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 23 August 2018 (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:2019 Stanley Cup playoffs
- 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 2018 September 3. Primefac (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2018 (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).