< October 31 | November 2 > |
---|
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 00:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 22:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 00:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
merged with the parent article. Frietjes ( talk) 22:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 00:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
unused and hard to imagine how this would ever be used outside of a single article. Frietjes ( talk) 22:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 00:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Entirely redlinks. Since the results of this event haven't survived the test of time, it's unlikely that these pages will ever be created. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
practically each country has its own template for navigation between its minorities. Adding this secondary template is cumbersome
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Only one article in navbox. Not necessary. Thegreatelgrande ( talk) 14:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant template. It is merely a navbox version of the List of the most subscribed channels on YouTube article (and to make things really circular, the list article is wl'ed in the title of the template), and in fact had duplicate entries when a channel retook the #1 position (since removed). The only connection/relation between the channels is simply that they are #1 per some metric; they aren't even necessarily in competition with one another. An SA link to the list article in the various subject articles would fulfill the same purpose as this template does. MSJapan ( talk) 05:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
< October 31 | November 2 > |
---|
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 00:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
unused. Frietjes ( talk) 22:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 00:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
merged with the parent article. Frietjes ( talk) 22:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 00:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
unused and hard to imagine how this would ever be used outside of a single article. Frietjes ( talk) 22:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 00:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Entirely redlinks. Since the results of this event haven't survived the test of time, it's unlikely that these pages will ever be created. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
practically each country has its own template for navigation between its minorities. Adding this secondary template is cumbersome
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Only one article in navbox. Not necessary. Thegreatelgrande ( talk) 14:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Redundant template. It is merely a navbox version of the List of the most subscribed channels on YouTube article (and to make things really circular, the list article is wl'ed in the title of the template), and in fact had duplicate entries when a channel retook the #1 position (since removed). The only connection/relation between the channels is simply that they are #1 per some metric; they aren't even necessarily in competition with one another. An SA link to the list article in the various subject articles would fulfill the same purpose as this template does. MSJapan ( talk) 05:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)