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).
Reasons #2 and #3 of WP:TFD#REASONS apply here. We already have the templates for Template:Godzilla and Template:Ishirō Honda. Having an extra temp for media related to Godzilla seems more like WP:FAN and WP:OR. Additionally, I checked every single article listed on the temp and none of them use the Godzilla-related media temp. So there doesn't seem to be any use for it. Armegon (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, you yourself supported making of this template and now you want it to be deleted? Reasons for not deleting:
Not bloating Template:Godzilla.
Not all Ishirō Honda films are related to Godzilla.
Not all Godzilla-related films were made by Ishirō Honda.
Minds can change, and mine clearly has. There's no constructive or beneficial reason to keep the temp. It hasn't been used since its creation. It feels more like synthesis trivia and fanboy appeasement. We can add most of these articles to the "miscellaneous" part of the Godzilla temp. Armegon (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then past it to respective pages. Godzilla is a huge franchise and it has many of important related films, needed for understanding the whole shared universe. For example, Scooby-Doo has not the only one template as well, however I would not be against deletion if someone changed Template:Godzilla to something like Ultra Series has (many template inside one template). --Дейноніх (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pasting the temp was not my responsibility to begin with. I didn't create the temp prematurely before there was concrete consensus. Scooby Doo has templates that are actually related to the show. Template:Godzilla-related media has content that is original research mixed with fancruft. Every single film listed in the Showa column did not start off as Godzilla-related content. They began as their own independent films unrelated to Godzilla. Elements from those films were added to Godzilla films much later. Again, the temp merits deletion because the Godzilla-related content can simply be added to the "miscellaneous" part of Template:Godzilla. Armegon (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if Template:Godzilla will be transformed to something like Template:Ultra Series, then it would be the best. I'm not against deletion of this template then. Just saying they should be mentioned, together they form a shared universe. Mothra (1961) is needed for understanding, who Mothra is, Radon is needed for understanding, who Radon is, etc.--Дейноніх (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Template:Ultra Series would be an excellent reference point. I'm embarrassed we didn't go in that direction to begin with. We can add a related media section so it doesn't interfere with the Godzilla section. Armegon (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My read of this discussion is that "Godzilla-related media" should be merged into Godzilla. Is that correct? Izno (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2021 (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(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).
Propose mergingTemplate:Olympic Channel with Template:IOC profile.
Two platforms (www.olympicchannel.com and www.olympics.org just merged into one olympics.com). However there's complication as new platform uses Olympic Channel IDs which are not always the same as IOC Profile IDs. Proposal is to merge these two into one Template:Olympics.com profile or Template:IOC profile. VLaiquendi (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created both of these templates and I agree articles with both now only need one of the two (or a new replacement) since both generally redirect to the same page. But, as previously mentioned, the old Olympic.org ID is not always the same as the Olympics.com ID (former OlympicChannel.com ID), so the templates themselves cannot be merged prior to updating the articles using them. For example, the following links are for Patrick Stevens, an athletics competitor from Belgium:
If the Olympic.org ID was used in the Olympics.com template, it would link to a page for Patrick Stevens (taekwondo), a taekwondo competitor from the Netherlands:
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(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 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(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 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(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).
No evidence that a distinct written standard of 'Bermudian English' exists, nor that any article is written in such a variety. I therefore propose this template for deletion. RGloucester — ☎14:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article, Standard English is used in professional settings and in writing, while vernacular Bermudian English is spoken on more casual occasions. Wikipedia is a professional encyclopedia, so we should use professional language. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto{{Commonwealth English}}. All of these templates are dumb, but since we have them, {{Countrian English}} is the pattern newbies will be expecting for countries where English is an official language, which is probably why this template exists in the first place, so redirect the smaller countries when an appropriate target exists. As a bonus it can be done quickly and efficiently without taking up any community time like TFDs do, and if it turns out that there's some minor difference in for example typographic conventions it can be easily restored later to make the MOS types happy. Really all of these need to be reduced so they just populate some hidden maintenance categories or possibly we should be rid of all of them as redundant to the superior but still flawed family of {{Use Countrian English}}. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2021 (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(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).
No evidence that a distinct written standard of 'Sark English' exists, nor that any article is written in such a variety. I therefore propose this template for deletion. RGloucester — ☎14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto{{Commonwealth English}}. Maybe I'm not as firm in my assessment here as this is less likely to be tried by newbies as Sark isn't a full country. On the other hand odds are it was created because someone tried to place it and was surprised to see a red link. In cases of obvious redundancy redirecting is convenient so people accomplish what they intended, and further such redirections can be done quickly without drawing on the communities time through additional discussions. See above for longer rant on this family of templates. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto{{British English}}. The Channel Islands use British English, with very few differences- all spellings listed on that template are exactly the same as British English spellings of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2021 (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(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).
Nav box that serves no navigational purpose in it's current form. Apart from a strangely located link to the main star wars article in the header every link here is a redirect to the same article. This is used on two pages: Star Wars: X-wing (book series) where it simply loops readers back to the article they've already read, and Star Wars, where it just adds to the already enormous amount of template clutter on that page, as a link to the article on the book series is already included in Template:Star Wars Legends novels. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a navbox that doesn't actually navigate anywhere. If at some point the individual novels get articles it can be easily recreated. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:50, 11 May 2021 (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).
