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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Picaroon (t) 04:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this template is useless, it is only in use for 30 or 60 minutes in most cases anyway. — Ctjf83 ^talk 20:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Nom; Varies between timezones and user might not retract it. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • excellent point, I never thought of the timezone thing! Ctjf83 ^talk 19:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete various "future" tv templates exist; should be used until the show actually airs. Given multiple venues, this could never be realistically used. SkierRMH (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rephrase. I am going to rephrase it a bit so that it means that it is currently in progress and details may change as the series goes on. ViperSnake151 15:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Right now, it looks like this template is being used on series articles that are currently in mid-season, not just series that are currently (as in this precise moment) airing a new episode. --- RockMFR 05:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • well now that the wording on the template is completely changed....Ctjf83 ^talk 17:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - now that this refers to currently ongoing TV series rather than currently ongoing episodes, it's considerably more appropriate. There has been something of a trend recently for deleting templates like this (see for example Template:Recent film and its deletion discussion), but I don't see anything particularly problematic about this one, and it's useful to distinguish articles about TV shows that will be updated from those which won't. Terraxos (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (t) 04:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Chalets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template has no, and is apparently not designed for, navigational value. It is used on two articles only, which link to each other, and only link to one further article, which is just a band of a similar genre who have toured with the band in question, or whatever. None of the other things on the template are linked, nor do they have articles, nor indeed should they. Given this, I don't see a whole lot of point in this template. — Jdcooper (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessary template. There's generally no need for a template to link only two or three articles. (Unless there's a very significant link between them.) Terraxos (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Looks like a template, but fails to quacknavigate like a template. JPG-GR (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "see also" would work just as well. SkierRMH (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftmain7 (talk • contribs) 17:33, December 24, 2007

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (t) 04:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK Christmas No. 2s in the 1950s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:UK Christmas No. 2s in the 1960s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:UK Christmas No. 2s in the 1970s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:UK Christmas No. 2s in the 1980s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:UK Christmas No. 2s in the 1990s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:UK Christmas No. 2s in the 2000s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:UK Christmas No. 2s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Excessive templating: records from one country which hit number 2 (not number 1) at Christmas. Imagine if we did this for every country! (See Wikipedia:Avoid template creep).

To make matters worse, these templates are being applied not just to articles on the records but the performers also. (I'm currently reverting those). kingboyk (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Christmas No. 2s are relevant and have a page. They aren't relevant in other countries and they don't have pages, Christmas number-threes and onwards aren't relevant and don't have pages. --Philip Stevens (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ATC -- ALLSTARecho 17:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --John (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:TCREEP. JPG-GR (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nomination. Qwerty (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, Xmas No. 2s (or the 'Christmas runner-up' as the tabs call them) are notable, they have their own page. And all those who say its TCREEP, the Xmas No. 1s have the same templates but those are being kept. Also, I don't think you should be removing templates from pages before the end of the discussion Kingboyk. --Hera1187 (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? They don't belong in articles on performers, end of story. It's not the performers which have any sort of connection with each other because they were #2 at Christmas, it's the records. Let me say that if this template were plonked on any musician article I maintained it would be insta-removed, as indeed it was from several of the key musician articles. It's called being bold, if we discussed everything nothing would ever get done. You really think readers will be at the John Lennon article thinking "gee, I'd like to click through to other artists who hit number 2 in the UK singles chart at Xmas"?! Get a grip! --kingboyk (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article explains why this is a more notable distinction in the UK than it is in other countries, but the article also already contains a list of them. Delete the templates per WP:TCREEP; the existing lists are the more appropriate way to handle this. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Garion96 (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Useless, with notability and template creep issues.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:33, 28 December 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (t) 04:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Schutzstaffel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused and misleading: Death's Head is not the coat of arms of SS. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencyclopedic Third Reich-cruft. --John (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused, unencyclopedic, and uncorrect. JPG-GR (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused, as well as incorrectly imaged. SkierRMH (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (t) 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Mississippi Import (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. No links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 07:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If enough interest is shown for "keep", userfy. JPG-GR (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy if he wants it kept. SkierRMH (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.