Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 12

< March 11	March 13 >

March 12

Template:Brazilian presidential election, 2006

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 ⚡ 02:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brazilian presidential election, 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election template. Table is already present in the article: 2006_Brazilian_general_election#President Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a redirect, in order to preserve the revision history. --Checco (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Checco: redirect it to what? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously to 2006 Brazilian general election. --Checco (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Checco: there is nothing obvious about that. You don't redirect from a template to an article... That's a cross namespace redirect which is not done... Additionally, there is no reason to preserve the revision history. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect if that is the consensus) - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:41, 19 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:Brazilian legislative elections (Chamber of Deputies), 1982-2006

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 ⚡ 02:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brazilian legislative elections (Chamber of Deputies), 1982-2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a redirect, in order to preserve the revision history. --Checco (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Checco: redirect it to what? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - To Elections in Brazil (and I would restore the template there). --Checco (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Checco, you don't redirect a template to an article... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect if that is the consensus) - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. can't see the point of the revision history argument. Nigej (talk) 17:42, 19 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:Brazilian legislative election, 2006

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 ⚡ 02:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brazilian legislative election, 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election template. Table already present on 2006 Brazilian general election in much cleaner format. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a redirect, in order to preserve the revision history. --Checco (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Checco: redirect it to what? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously to 2006 Brazilian general election. --Checco (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect if that is the consensus) - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:43, 19 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:Bosnian presidium election, 2010

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 ⚡ 02:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bosnian presidium election, 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election template. Duplicate table already present on 2010 Bosnian general election Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a redirect, in order to preserve the revision history. --Checco (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Checco: redirect it to what? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously to 2010 Bosnian general election. --Checco (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Checco, you don't redirect a template to an article... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect if that is the consensus) - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:43, 19 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:Alberta provincial by-election 2002/Wainwright

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 ⚡ 02:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alberta provincial by-election 2002/Wainwright (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a redirect, in order to preserve the revision history. --Checco (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Checco: redirect it to what? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously to Wainwright (provincial electoral district). --Checco (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Checco, you don't redirect a template to an article... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect if that is the consensus) - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:43, 19 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:South African provincial elections, 2004

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 ⚡ 02:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South African provincial elections, 2004 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election template. Duplicate table already present on 2004 South African general election Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a redirect, in order to preserve the revision history. --Checco (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Checco: redirect it to what? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously to 2004 South African general election. --Checco (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Checco, you don't redirect a template to an article... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect if that is the consensus) - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:44, 19 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:Slovak parliamentary election, 2012

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 User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Slovak parliamentary election, 2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election template. Information has already been placed directly on 2012 Slovak parliamentary election. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a redirect, in order to preserve the revision history. --Checco (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Checco: redirect it to what? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously to 2012 Slovak parliamentary election. --Checco (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Checco, you don't redirect a template to an article... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect if that is the consensus) - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:44, 19 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:Slovak presidential election, 2004

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 ⚡ 02:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Slovak presidential election, 2004 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election template. Information has already been directly placed on 2004 Slovak presidential election. No need for the template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a redirect, in order to preserve the revision history. --Checco (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Checco: redirect it to what? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously to 2004 Slovak presidential election. --Checco (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Checco, you don't redirect a template to an article... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect if that is the consensus) - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:45, 19 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:US Virgin Islands governor election, 2006

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 ⚡ 02:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Virgin Islands governor election, 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election template for which there is no article. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a redirect, in order to preserve the revision history. --Checco (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Checco: redirect it to what? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's start 2006 United States Virgin Islands gubernatorial election and redirect the template to that article. --Checco (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Checco, you don't redirect a template to an article... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect if that is the consensus) - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:45, 19 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:Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter nogallery

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. (For reference, it is used for User:DumbBOT/CatCreate.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter nogallery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Category template. Appears to have been used for categories at some point but is currently unused. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? Seems this is a subst template used in sub categories of Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source. --Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 12 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:WWE personnel

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WWE personnel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too large to perform a useful navigational function. --wooden superman 14:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've never particularly liked this being a navbox. Too big, and far too loose of a connection between entrants. We don't use navboxes to list performers in films for that reason. While to a certain extent it could be argued that this is akin to a sports roster, we don't have current sports team roster navboxes, either. Also, it's a maintenance headache and a source of editing disputes are everyone tries to update it after minor changes that don't need to be noted at this level. Navboxes shouldn't change that often. This is best served by a list article, which already exists. oknazevad (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Oknazevad it does not serve a purpose. We use roster navboxes for items that are static, such as Template:Israel roster 2017 World Baseball Classic. We list rosters on pages like 2018_New_York_Yankees_season#Roster but that would be just like List of WWE personnel. There is no need for this stand alone navbox. If deleted as should Template:Major League Wrestling personnel, Template:Impact Wrestling personnel, Template:Ring of Honor employees, Template:New Japan Pro Wrestling personnel, Template:Lucha Underground personnel, Template:Pro Wrestling Noah personnel and the wrestlers should be removed from the Template:All Elite Wrestling. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the other roster navboxes should be deleted as well. oknazevad (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wait, we don't have current roster pages for sports articles? What about football articles, such as all of these: Category:English League One football club squad templates? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We do, see Category:Sports team rosters navigational boxes. I don't see how wrestling rosters are any different. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have plenty of roster templates for various sports. just click through the lnk provided by NotTheFakeJTP and there are PLENTY of examples. if its "Too large" then it needs to be transformed, but that's not a deletion argument. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or split - the templates refereed to in Category:Sports team rosters navigational boxes are nowhere near as giant as this one and are for a much smaller and precise scope. If this is to be kept, it should be split per rooster (Raw, Smackdown, etc) and placed on their relevant pages. Producers and writers should not get a navbox, as those do not get added to other television navboxes for their series. No idea what "Broadcast team" or "Off-screen personnel" refers to, but if it is for production people then that again does not qualify for a navbox. --Gonnym (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning above. It does aid in navigation as I have used it myself. I am not against splitting it up by roster if the problem is that it's too big. StaticVapor message me! 21:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I still find it to be useful. If needed, you could split up the wrestlers, brands, or other personnel. This WWE navbox is different than other wrestling promotions because of the amount of people WWE has signed. Originalchampion (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the above keep reasons. Just because a navbox is too large doesn't mean it has to be deleted. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 08:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – Per keep reasons above. This is a template that can easily look and find for. If this template gets deleted, it will use the article and it gets harder to find it. So, my decision is "Strong Keep". Movies Time (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I've decided to make my decision into 50/50. It's up to you whether it will delete this template or not. But my original decision is still "Strong Keep". Movies Time (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - It's better to keep the template intact without splitting it or deleting it. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 11:42, 16 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:WWE United Kingdom Championship

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WWE United Kingdom Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two articles. WP:NENAN --wooden superman 13:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far WP:TOOSOON. We really need a guideline on when to create championship navboxes. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question is there a general guideline for how many articles are needed before an info box makes sense? THis has 3 in total, but what is the cut off point? MPJ-DK (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NotTheFakeJTP: @MPJ-DK: It's an essay, but WP: NENAN says five and I have always seen that as a good guideline. Four linked articles might be okay, but anything less then that is too soon. StaticVapor message me! 00:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as a rule of thumb that makes sense to me, I appreciate the linkage. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not necessary at the moment. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Too soon. StaticVapor message me! 00:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
50:50 - Stuck between keep or delete. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 11:44, 16 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:Rishi Rich

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rishi Rich (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With one album and one single with articles, this navbox is pretty pointless. The "related artists" are just filler. WP:NENAN --wooden superman 10:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a line for artists signed under Rishi Rich Productions which is not a filler but a worthwhile navigating group. I'm tempted to also add "Artists with The Rishi Rich Project", but this will be a repeat of the some of the same names (notably Jay Sean and Juggy D). --Muhandes (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Record label rosters are not acceptable in navboxes. --wooden superman 09:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you reverted it, here is the version I proposed for this template. I'm sorry, I don't edit in this area often, so can you please point me to the relevant guideline or to the discussion where this consensus was reached? I see where a nabvox for hundreds of artists wont make sense, but I think a navbox for this small group of performers seems very reasonable. Of course if there is consensus that no rosters are ever allowed that is another thing. In that case I would propose a version which includes only "The Rishi Rich Project", which is a group that included Jay Sean and Juggy D. The rest are indeed "Related artists". --Muhandes (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_28#Record_label_templates --wooden superman 12:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I read that discussion and the reasoning is that templates for records labels listing all artists signed to the label and their related articles (band members, albums, songs) is excessive and potentially unwieldy. This clearly does not hold in this case, where the roster includes five artists. If this ever becomes "excessive and potentially unwieldy" I would probably agree with you. --Muhandes (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many other navboxes have been deleted on the same grounds. The record label isn't even notable enough for an article. There are two pertinent articles here, the others are just filler. "Related artists" is a bit loose. Let's face it, all we have here is a navbox for its own sake which should be deleted. --wooden superman 12:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are using an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which in itself is not valid. The consensus is that excessive and potentially unwieldy rosters should not exist, and this is not such a roster. If there are other argument to delete small rosters, lets hear them. You are repeating the argument that these are "filler", to which I do not agree. This state of the navbox does not seem to me like a navbox for its own sake but as a reasonable group to navigate upon. --Muhandes (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just two real links. The related artists section is not useful. If we followed this to its logical conclusion every article would have hundreds of templates in every article - we have categories for this. Nigej (talk) 17:49, 19 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:Julia Roberts

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) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Julia Roberts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless. Someone had created this with executive producer roles which we have a long-standing consensus not to include (see WP:FILMNAV --wooden superman 10:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 17:46, 19 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).