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 discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EmmyAward ComedyLeadActress 1976-2000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:EmmyAward ComedyLeadActress 1950-1975 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:EmmyAward ComedyLeadActor 2001-2025 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:EmmyAward ComedyLeadActor. There are duplicates for nearly every category in Emmy Awards. I cannot figure out why there is a need for break-down templates when there is a main template for each award. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete as redundant, I think, and replace with the complete template. The breakout templates and the complete one are used in a somewhat scattershot fashion. My initial thought was that perhaps someone had complained about the combined template being too big, but all the templates were created around the same time, and there are no talk page links to any of them to indicate any concerns being expressed. (Perhaps there is a discussion somewhere that is not linked?) So absent any other justification, one template seems better than three. It might be a good idea to edit the complete template to make the sections collapsible, because it's only going to get bigger. --RL0919 (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Update: Withdrawing my !vote per comments by Zzyzx11 below. If these are the standard, someone should nominate Template:EmmyAward ComedyLeadActor for deletion instead. --RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -possibly used to avoid crowding--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it is much better listed by era (however loosely defined) than to shovel dozens of names into one template that ends up overtaking the article. --emerson7 23:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, RL0919's initial thought is partly correct. It really all started in March 2006 when someone complained that Template:AcademyAwardBestPicture was "too big and cumbersome". It was eventually kept, but a few users in that deletion discussion also suggested creating separate smaller variations that listed the winners by decade or by two decades. And so that eventually became the guideline for not only the Academy Award templates, but the Emmy templates, the Golden Globes templates, Tony Awards, Grammys and many of the other major award templates as well. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2009 (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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kenny Smyth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non likely to be populated any further -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Two items for a fictional character isn't a useful template. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. Could always be recreated later if/when there are more relevant articles. --RL0919 (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2009 (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 discussion was speedy delete per author request (G7). JamieS93 16:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adrianne Leon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The subject's body of work is too small and majority of the links are just redirects. Greene Leigh Online (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Does not aid navigation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the articles are only tenuously related to the subject (e.g., articles on other members of bands she was in) and don't even mention her. --RL0919 (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2009 (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 discussion was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Lebanon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)), with which instances should be replaced. Used only 112 times. This is part of a large-scale operation to merge similar geographical infoboxes into the generic parent, to reduce maintenance overheads. Conversion will be carried out before deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate per nom. Actually I did some work on Lebanon in the past and one of the editors was not opposed to me adding a standard template, so I think this could easily be converted without major problems. I'd think twice though about nominating the Israel and Palestine infoboxes... Himalayan 14:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please read Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion#Local area infoboxes. –droll [chat] 19:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep regionalised templates are more effective, countering WP:BIAS. Gnangarra 06:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be canvassing, based on a false premise ("globalised templates using terminology and spelling that isnt consistant with the region"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am not convinced that use of a massive generic template will be an improvement of over the use of tailored and streamlined specific regional templates. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ((Infobox settlement)) is used for a number of Lebanese cities, and I can't see any advantage in the localized template. Happy to reconsider if someone can explain a benefit to this specific template beyond the generalized arguments above. --RL0919 (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but possibly backend for Settlement. Orderinchaos 03:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RL0919, and yes I am willing to help with the conversion to make sure no information is lost. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants ((Infobox settlement)) to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using ((Infobox settlement)) is also invalid per WP:POINT. older ≠ wiser 14:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To show the result of the conversion process, I have created a backend based on ((infobox settlement)) and the result is show here. The actual code, which is much shorter than the current template code (and with more options) is in the sandbox. I see no significant advantage to using the regionalized template in this particular case. In fact, the current template uses redundant information, in that it requires both the specification of the coordinates and the specification of the pushpin location. The location of the pushpin should be determined from the coordinates. Infobox settlement does this automatically. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I noted that the arguments given above for keeping this template are 1) generally preferring regionalized templates over the generic one, and 2) not liking the overall way the settlement templates have been nominated for individual TfDs instead of having a centralized discussion. Neither argument seems to say anything specific about why this particular template is a good one to keep. In contrast, there have been particular arguments made as to the deficiencies of this template (see Plastikspork's comments about the redundant fields above). --RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate in favour of ((infobox settlement)), and censure the users who insist on disrupting the debates with arguments about procedure, arguments about the names of templates, and unsubstantiated arguments about some template being subjectively "better" than another. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate and then delete. ((infobox settlement)) is much better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Refactor into a wrapper using Infobox Settlement. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:45, 27 September 2009 (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 discussion was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Taiwan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)), with which instances should be replaced. Used only 12 times twice. This is part of a large-scale operation to merge similar geographical infoboxes into the generic parent, to reduce maintenance overheads. Conversion will be carried out before deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate per nom. Limited use, no need for it.. Himalayan 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please read Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion#Local area infoboxes. –droll [chat] 19:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep regionalised templates are more effective, countering WP:BIAS. Gnangarra 06:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be canvassing, based on a false premise ("globalised templates using terminology and spelling that isnt consistant with the region"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This id the problem with your process is the lack of WP:AGF, I havent canvassed I advised people that process is under way, that process is the replacement of localised template in favour of a globalise template which uses US terminology/spelling this process occurred without prior discussion. oh and you seem to be stalking me. Gnangarra 16:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no evidence that use of a generic template is any better overall than use of the specific, tailored regional templates. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I checked articles on various cities. Some used this infobox, others used ((Infobox settlement)), and a number had no infobox at all. So on the face of it there doesn't seem to be any strong preference for this template among the editors of these articles. Is there any specific reason why this particular template is preferable to ((Infobox settlement))? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RL0919 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Not having gotten any satisfactory answer to my question above, I'm going to go with delete and replace with Infobox settlement. --RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The template appears to have features which are specific to Taiwan. If there is inconsistency in use, that can be addressed. Orderinchaos 03:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which features? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and convert the dozen or so uses to ((infobox settlement)), given the very low number of transclusions. I am willing to perform the conversion to make sure no information is lost. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants ((Infobox settlement)) to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using ((Infobox settlement)) is also invalid per WP:POINT. older ≠ wiser 14:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Did you notice that this template is only transcluded twice and there are certainly more than two Taiwanese cities, so why again is this particular template necessary? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate in favour of ((infobox settlement)), and censure the users who insist on disrupting the debates with arguments about procedure, arguments about the names of templates, and unsubstantiated arguments about some template being subjectively "better" than another. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2009 (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 discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Road Rules Castmember (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is currently unused and redundant. The six or seven Road Rules contestants with individual articles use either ((infobox model)) or ((infobox journalist)) or ((infobox person)) or something else. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unused and redundant. Robofish (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2009 (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 discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American broadcast television (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently a wrapped template that transcludes four other templates in an attempt to cover all aspects of American television broadcasting. Used this way, and with its attempt to include every American channel, this template is just too big and too bloated. It does not aid in navigation in any real sense, and I can not see how it could be refactored to try to make it any more useful for its namesake. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP I found this tool very useful in my research on various networks and navigating to other channels available over the air. If it covered all of the cable/satellite channels, I'd say yes. But since this is limited to over-the-air networks (and the new digital sub-channels that local stations are adding all the time) I'd recommend keeping this template. CKStark (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)CKStark[reply]
• Keep. Powergate92Talk 04:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per CKStark. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is what categories are made for. Garion96 (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep All in one template that makes navigation easier rather than digging through a category. Mr Radio Guy !!! 15:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CKStark also. FMAFan1990 (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per MrRadioGuy and CKStark. Gage (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Far more useful and managable as a navbox than a cat, and limited in scope to broadcast networks, of which there are a limited number. Maybe eliminate the the regional/rural nets, which are of limited intrest.oknazevad (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2009 (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 discussion was keep with modification.  Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American broadcast television (English) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template trying to cover every American broadcast channel is just way too larger to control, and does not aid navigation in any meaningful sense. I just can not see what value this template adds at all, particularly when it consists of both a plethora of links and another template, Template: American broadcast television (English) defunct for defunt channels, and is itself transcluded in Template:American broadcast television. There are 150+ channels in the US...that is just too many to cover in a template like this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Powergate92Talk 04:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 69.178.194.49 (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with modification. I could see the defunct networks removed from the template and added to a separate page. Keep the rest as I have found it very useful. CKStark (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)CKStark[reply]
• Delete - This is what categories are made for. Garion96 (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with modifications such as deleting the regional networks (which are for the market templates) and moving/deleting the defunct networks. Mr Radio Guy !!! 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per MrRadioGuy's suggestion. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for same reasons as above entry FMAFan1990 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my reasoning at above entry. Note, nom's description of this as "every American broadcast channel" is a mischaracterization. There's a distinct, major difference between a channel and a network, which have far fewer entries. oknazevad (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2009 (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 discussion was delete. T3 could also be used for this one. Magioladitis (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Chilean Political Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with ((Infobox political party)). Few uses. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 00:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to provide a more helpful reasoning? 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate in favour of ((infobox political party)). 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in favour of ((infobox political party)). Removing redundant templates such as this reduces the maintenance overhead. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reason for a specialist template here. Robofish (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2009 (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.