- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:English, Scottish and British monarchs. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:English monarchs with Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs.
All but two of the entries on Template:English monarchs are on the other template. DrKay (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe you should add Template:British monarchs to the proposal as well? Because that also appears to be a duplicate. Keivan.fTalk 21:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Or delete Template:English monarchs, because those two extra links aren't actually monarchs, so there's nothing to merge. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nomination. I would add the British monarchs to the merge pool as well since English, Scottish and British monarchs has the same listing. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if English and British are merged into this, perhaps the template should also be renamed to include Irish, and add a field for that? (the British monarchs were the Irish monarchs for a period and are still for Northern Ireland)-- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- English and Scottish monarchs became relatives through marriage, and eventually the two crowns were merged. The monarchs listed at Template:Kings of Ireland are not related to the English or British monarchs who claimed the crown of the Kingdom of Ireland later on and those English/British kings who were also King of Ireland are already listed in the template. But, I think adding footnotes such as those used on Template:English monarchs could be an option. Keivan.fTalk 19:14, 22 March 2023 (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).
Finland ice hockey team roster templates
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
single-use templates which can be merged with the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2023 (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:Big Ten Conference Women's Basketball Defensive Player of the Year navbox
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:CREEP and WP:CRUFT. Per WikiProject College Basketball, we're also afraid of allowing conference-level mid-level award navboxes from springing up; we need to stop this precedent at the onset. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2023 (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:Uw-afcnc
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This template appears to be obsolete since AfC has a separate approval process. Vozul (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Had never been used anywhere, and is unlikely to ever be used anywhere. Someone who has so few edits that they cannot move pages should not be reviewing AFC creations at all, and in the rare event this issue occurs a custom message is probably going to be much more useful. The advice given here is also wrong/contradicts policy, no-one at WP:PERM is going to give a complete newbie confirmed user rights so they can get involved with AFC, the confirmed permission is basically restricted to alt accounts and the like. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom. – robertsky (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. While you don't actually need the AFC script to review drafts (as it is possible to do so manually), it's practically obsolete at this point since most people won't know how to do it manually anyway. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have no idea what this template is for, probably because it isn't for anything any more. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2023 (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).