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 as too large to navigate, largely redundant to the corresponding list article, and not a useful grouping due to the weak relation of the shows listed. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fox Kids (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This massive template is impossible to navigate. The original formatting set things up by the type of program (live action vs animated) and the production company behind the program. My attempt to reformat it into a list by year of debut was undone until I discovered the template today and fixed it, again (on 06:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC) this was undone). I do not think this massive block of text that takes up most of a page is redeemable in any way unless there is some way to make it even more compact in either the current or previous form. —Ryulong (竜龙) 21:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify There really is no relation between these programs. The subject matter is diverse, but other than that, the only thing that they may be related is that they are enjoyed by the target audience.Curb Chain (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to debate what sort of exact criteria merits a list of network TV shows "related" to ex-other, then we're going to be in for a very long and perhaps confusing debate. While we're on this, you might as well argue whether or not sitcoms that have aired on one particular network are actually related to each other (i.e. shot with in a multi-camera or single camera format or shot with or without a laughtrack). BornonJune8 (talk) 11:36 p.m., 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• • It already exists. I used the content there to reformat the template into its current listed-by-year format.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per TonyTheTiger's comment, I don't think there is a common theme, so I have changed my !vote to delete.Curb Chain (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't these all kids shows?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a simple explanation. They are all multifarious and diverse. They have no theme linking them together.Curb Chain (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're really, really overthinking this one. Of course stuff like this is going to be "diverse" if they aren't going to air shows from one particular animation studio/production company. The bottom-line is that at the end of the day, they fall under the Fox Kids umbrella. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:31 p.m., 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Other than that, there is no theme. This is adequately covered by the list, unless, it should be renamed List of Fox Kids programs or as my original suggestion listify into the separate article List of Fox Kids programs.Curb Chain (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, again. It's an article in badly formatted navbox form that exists for a network no one has thought about in eight years. How many times does this have to go here when it's a clear-cut case of fancruft which embarrasses me as someone who edits in television topics often? Nate • (chatter) 22:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is already a list, and we don't need a clone of the list in the form of a navbox. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like everyone is going to immediately find or know where the list of Fox Kids programs is at on Wikipedia. The template (keep this in mind) is or should be for a casual user first and foremost. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:38 p.m., 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, categories do that.Curb Chain (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories sometimes if not often, aren't as "simplified" or well organized per se than a potentially easily accessble navbox. Sometimes, depending on the topic, one particular category could last for pages and pages at a time. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:13 p.m., 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is what happens.Curb Chain (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Templates like this serve to link articles with a common theme. It puts them one mouseclick away from each other.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navboxes are for moving about pages within a single subject, such as a single television program or an annual event. Navboxes are not for gathering several hundred links to articles that are only related because of the channel they were broadcast on or what time of day they aired on that particular channel.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly in Wikipedia is that sort of thing the official rule/mandate!? And how isn't a template about Fox Kids not about a "single subject" (I'm confused by that particular remark)? What's not to say that there can't be "both"!? And what is so wrong with wanting to focus on a specific time of the day/genre that a network airs programming like late at night or during the day (when morning news shows, game shows, and soap operas are on)!? This is very, very different that simply focusing on virtually every single program to ever air on one particular network regardless. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:28 p.m., 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: Again, Ryulong shouldn't or can't speak for every single Wikipedia user in regards to what is or isn't "navigable" (and by the way, I didn't restore the template to the look from prior to Ryulong's changes). Also, it seems very ironic that one would at one end, try to "improve" said template while at the same time, figuring that it's completely useless. And just because there's a list of programs, doesn't necessarily mean, that finding where shows that aired on Fox Kids are at is simple, just like that. And that's a total misnomer that just because Fox Kids is no longer on the air (for the past say 8 years or whatever) that, it's forgotten other than from one particular user's claims. Fox Kids at its peak (during the mid-1990s) was the most successful children's television block around (with shows such as Batman: The Animated Series, Animaniacs, Tiny Toons, X-Men, Spider-Man, Power Rangers, etc.). It's not my fault that you apparently (Mrschimpf) never seemed to educate yourself about Fox Kids' history. And how exactly is this "fancruft" exactly rather than a documentation of a particular segment in TV history (not just of the Fox network, but children's/animated television in general)? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:41 p.m., 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories allow readers to navigate between Fox Kids shows. Such a nav box is not necessary, as navboxes should link to related content, but these shows are not. Fox Kids is not a significant part of TV history; if anything, it was a commercial enterprise.Curb Chain (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We get it. Fox Kids is important. That's why we have an article on it. But this template is impossible to navigate in either the form I put forward or the one you want to use which organizes the items by whoever owns the copyright on the program. I frankly don't care what the template looks like. It just doesn't work for Wikipedia in either of its forms. If you so wish, I'll go back to the version prior to my edits and we can delete that one instead.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless a template for Fox Kids is really no different than templates devoted to other divisions (i.e. news and sports) of the Fox network or any other major broadcast TV network like ABC, NBC or CBS. And of course Fox Kids was also a "commercial enterprise" (I never said that it wasn't at all), that doesn't necessarily make things less important or informative. And how can you sit there and say that navboxes for the exact TV network that first aired said shows isn't important within itself!? With that being said, would you prefer there to solely be categories (which aren't right in front of you unlike a template, thus you can't see the years that they were on the air, the production studios and what not) devoted to those particular divisions too. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:20 p.m., 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take a different direction with our side of the argument:

If you are including years that they were on air, this information should be on a list, as navboxes (as this template is for use as a navigational implement) should be used to navigate. If you insist on including years in the template, is content forking information that should be in an article (in a list in the case), instead duplicating on the template.Curb Chain (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This category listing of TV shows is important + useful to the scope of this encyclopedia (in my opinion), similar to other fox network categories, and should be improved [i.e. for navigation, for those who do not like the status quo] or split into smaller [live-action, animation, by subject, etc, etc] categories templates. I'm sure there are many ways of customizing this template, before considering deletion. ;-)
  This is not a personal web site. Personal preferences such as "I can't navigate", "templates are for single subject", "I don't like Fox", "ugly colors", etc, etc are not and should not be accepted or even discussed as arguments for deletion or anything else for that matter. Please keep your personal opinions to yourself. Usefulness and degree of importance, on the other hand, are.
  I have no problem navigating this template. Those who do, may wish to consider (some of) these solutions: maximize their browser window, reconfigure their OS/desktop for higher desktop (screen, display) resolution [higher pixel count], installing a modern (free) web browser (Firefox and Chrome come to mind), customize their browser to display more web content as opposed to allowing toolbars/tabs to clutter screen/menus [uncheck (browser internal)/disable/uninstall (3rd party, external) unnecessary toolbars, which take too much screen space], hit F11 for maximum available web content on screen, upgrade to larger computer monitor/display/screen, they are very cheap nowadays.
  HTH [Hope This Helps]
  MDGx^☹☺ 12:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too broad of a topic and containing far too many links. According to WP:NAV, navboxes shouldn't be overly large and the articles should be closely related. This template would benefit from being split up into smaller, more specific templates. A link to the list could also be used in a "See also" section instead of a navbox. — Bility (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too broad of a topic and kind of inconsequential, per Bitily. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The template is too large and not needed, that's what the categories are for. Vincelord (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is "broad" about the template (would you prefer to essentially "cherry pick" shows for the sake of making the template smaller). If this was strictly speaking, about just about any and every animated program to ever air on Fox (including prime time programming like The Simpsons or Family Guy) then I could see your point. And why is it inconsequential (just because isn't necessarily watched beyond a certain niche demographic) all the while. You don't think that Fox Kids isn't important or noteworthy of a subject to warrant such a template in the first place. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:16 a.m., 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Each sub-section would be make a fine navigational box because each has a directly-related theme, if they do not already exist. This does not have a unifying theme, and the inter-relationships are just too broad. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't have a strong keep/delete opinion one way or the other, but I definitely think the box was a lot easier to navigate "at-a-glance" when it was formatted by year. Either revert it back to the way it was, by year, or else just delete it, because it's absolutely useless the way it is now. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2011 (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 Withdrawn by nominator. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Included in this TfD are all pages in this list that are subpages of:[reply]

• ((Latest preview software release))
• ((Latest stable software release))

These templates are often not deleted when a user removes the template from the infobox. Like my previous TfD on S-line subpages, there can be an age minimum for deletion. But because of the rapid-changing nature of software, I propose that the age limit be 6 months, not one year. And soft deletes only, not hard ones. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all of these are "orphaned" just because they are not currently transcluded. I just had one such template which you tagged as CSD G6 restored. It and many others from the same group are not currently transcluded because of a long-going edit war. As has been discussed in this recent TfD and other similar TfDs, these templates are often transcluded in comparison articles outside of their use in infoboxes. This sort of mass-nomination TfD can result in quite a lot of disruption for other editors and I would strongly discourage doing this again in the future. I'm also speaking as someone who is intimately familiar with the internal workings of ((Infobox software)), ((Infobox OS)), ((LSR)), ((LPR)), ((LSR/syntax)), ((LPR/syntax)), etc [1] [2] [3] [4] as well as the Template: namespace and TfD in general. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm willing to withdraw this TfD. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (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. Various editors are advancing arguments that apply to only subgroups of this nomination. It has become impossible to untangle a consensus for individual templates in this debate. Clearly, this was an unsuitable group to nominate for mass deletion. Closing without prejudice to future nominations for a smaller group or individual items. SpinningSpark 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CBSNetwork Shows (current and upcoming) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ABCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:U. S. Network Shows footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:USANetwork Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TNTShows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TBSNetwork Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Starz Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Showtime Network programming (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:OWNNetwork Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:HBONetwork Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FXNetwork Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FOXNetwork Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:E! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CWNetwork Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CWNetwork Shows (current and upcoming) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CWNetwork Shows footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NBCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FOXNetwork Shows (current and upcoming) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FOXNetwork Shows footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:HBONetwork Shows footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:HBONetwork Miniseries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:HBONetwork Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMC Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am renominating this template based on the previous precedent set and the fact that the prior TFD closed as no consensus because of the confusion set about throughout the nomination. I will be limiting my nominations to solely the individual network templates. —Ryulong (竜龙) 21:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination is clearly a retaliatory response to an WP:ANI nomination. There was clear level of support for keeping these templates even after the list in the prior nomination was finally pared down to the list of templates above. I have previously suggested that various types of templates be nominated separately. The nominator clearly has made no attempt to determine which types of template are useful. I have before stated a very strong interest in keeping the current only templates even if the rest are deleted and would request userfication of them if there is consensus to delete.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some, delete others based on the same reason as before. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Objection The nominator is clearly trying to annoy me by nominating these templates and has no intention of properly notifying all creators of the content. I reminded him of this on the prior nomination and he resisted proper notification on that nomination as well. He is just notifying me to annoy me and not even contacting other editors who have created nominated templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the other creators of the templates regarding this new TFD.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all The shows are unrelated and categorizing them by network is WP:OVERCAT and WP:NONDEFINING.Curb Chain (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The network for which a show is produced and on which it initially airs as original programming has always been considered defining and rightly so. (Reruns and syndication are another story...) postdlf (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep - per TonyTheTiger. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 22:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no procedure that has been broken to require keeping. All original authors have been notified at this point and I am not seeking to annoy anyone. TonyTheTiger (with you in tow) is simply violating WP:AGF.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Curb Chain's reasonings, as overcategorization in navbox form that's already covered well by the category system and "list of..." articles. Nate • (chatter) 22:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. This is indeed overdoing it. Categories work well enough. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Waste of space. Categories are simpler and less hassle. Barsoomian (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin As with the prior nomination, please userfy the following so that I can do a DRV given the haphazard nomination of a variety of types of templates: ((CBSNetwork Shows (current and upcoming))), ((ABCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming))), ((CWNetwork Shows (current and upcoming))), ((NBCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming))), ((FOXNetwork Shows (current and upcoming))), ((U. S. Network Shows footer)), ((HBONetwork Miniseries))--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Has anyone voting delete read WP:NOTDUP?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTDUP is not applicable here because these navboxes are not suitable topics to provide navigation amongst. And it would be entirely unnecessary to send these items to DRV because DRV is not un-XFD. It's where you discuss whether or not the deletion debate was closed accurately.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Disused template and agree with Ryulong. Not all television network programs don't have templates on what channel they watch. ApprenticeFan ^work 14:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• My opinion hasn't changed. Keep the current and upcoming ones, delete any others, or rewrite them so they're only current and upcoming. It's time to let go of the past. Matty-chan (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you except that I believe we should also delete the upcoming shows. We should only keep the current shows on the templates.Farine (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, same as I said before. While group nom may not be the most effective way to go about this, they do all need to be deleted. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Curb Chain. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some Keep the ones that list shows currently running. AddThreeAndFive (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Per reasons given by Curb Chain and Nate.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural objection There are four totally different types of templates all merged together in one TFD. Look at the supports. I have talked to others who have mixed feelings about the nomination and are abstaining. This is the third time these templates have been nominated for deletion. Templates covering entire histories of networks, should not be grouped in with templates covering current programs nor should they be grouped in with themed shows from a network. In addition, there are a few footer templates that link various templates from a single network. These should not be nominated jointly to make it difficult to come to a single decision.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is only the second time these have been nominated for deletion because they were never added to the Fox shows by decade TFD. And the footer templates are inherently tied into the other ones so they have to go with them, instead of separately. Stop trying to stop this TFD with your nonsense.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second time officially nominated, but you certainly tried to tack these on the first nomination. This is your third try at getting these deleted in less than three weeks. That in and of itself is probably a procedural violation. You are just wearing people down.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are the only one claiming this. None of the administrators who saw this dispute you are trying to turn this into when you posted to ANI said it was a violation of any policy. I was told by the closing administrator of the first TFD to make a separate nomination. That one closed as no consensus. This one is forming a new consensus.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • My ANI was regarding your use of ANI for a first offense (if that), which is senseless. This third attempt to delete this group of templates in less than three weeks continues to group different types of templates into a single discussion. Those who see the value in the templates understand that they all serve different purposes and should not be regarded the same.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the templates with the CURRENT shows only and delete all upcoming shows from the templates. But in reality, I'm pretty much indifferent one way or another. Farine (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• BIG KEEP This is only a vindictive relist for deletion for the second time that I know of! I think this was not done in good faith because you can't do the same thing just a mere two weeks from each other. The first deletion, I assumed the editor would be doing it in good taste, but now I cannot because the editor is showing clearly the editor cannot understand the guidelines of Wikipedia NOTDUP and it comes from Categories, lists, and navigation templates page. I am beginning to believe that the nominator has a grudge with the editor that changed these templates around, and is trying to intimidate that editor into leaving Wikipedia in the first place. These navboxes serve a useful function and have a noble place on Wikipedia. I can point to a miriad of areas where we have list, categores, and navboxes on the same narrow subject matter. Just because it is on the same stuff does not mean it should not exist.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, you have violated a major guideline on Wikipedia by failing to assume good faith. I have no grudge with TonyTheTiger. In fact, TonyTheTiger unnecessarily has a grudge with me because he sought to have me punitively banned from several project areas a week after the previous TFD because of my comments during that TFD. If I was a problem editor as he accused me of being, he would have brought up those issues while I was causing them, rather than waiting to try to get me banned. Accusing me of doing things does not make your argument any stronger. I am merely seeking a consensus where none could be found before. A "no consensus" close does not mean "This should not be deleted". It means "no decision could be made at this time so I will not be deleting it". These navboxes have much too wide of a subject area and it makes them impossible to use as useful navigation aids, particularly when they take up a good portion of a page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No the guidelines clearly stipulates and mandates these must be kept as a default, and your rationale(s) hold little water in contradicting the guideline of NOTDUP! This is a vindictive redeletion request because you are clearly not understanding the guidelines. You can have all three list, categories, and navboxes all at the same time, and you cannot use one to say the other needs deleting. This is exactly what you have betrayed here. Go reread the guideline and you may find a new enlightenment.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "No consensus" is only a default keep because no decision could be made and that does not forbid me from making a new deletion discussion (WP:RELIST only suggests against it). And because of the confusion that went bout in the first debate, I felt that it was worth the time to nominate the templates for a second time with a much more precise set of templates to nominate in mind. In addition, WP:NOTDUP is not a rule that everyone is required to follow. It is merely a suggestion. There is no reason to provide our readers a series of templates that state what is on TV in the United States at any given time, and there is nothing that makes ABC, CBS, NBC, et al., any more important than BBC One, Canal+, or TV Tokyo that we need the templates to show what's on TV.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good, I will nominate all TV Program navboxes for deletion if these are in fact deleted, and cite this precedent for doing so. This will be news, entertainment, and others that are of this sort.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • What precedent would there be? These are navboxes for every single program on a single network. Not navboxes for individual programs. And if you do try to do that, I should warn you about WP:POINT or else you might find your time on this website coming to an end.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as unnecessary for this type of grouping. Shows on one network have as much relationship to other shows on the network as they do to shows on any other network. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed this appears to be overkill, unless you are in the US, watch TV by station and think that a simple mention of the station does not do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.126.54 (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as useful information that does not detract from the article. While an unnecessary profusion of template boxes at the bottom of the same article can grow confusing, these instances do not appear to approach that line. Network programming reflects strongly on the approach taken by the network in its editorial and production role, and thereby reflects upon the unifying themes that may be applicable to each individual show, as well as providing a valuable quick-look view of how the programming has evolved over time, contextualizing the programming in a historical sense. There seems to me to be no countervailing reason, powerful or not, to remove them. --Citizen Sunshine (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I browse Wikipedia through navbox templates not categories and lists, which are in effective to me because they are too burdensome to get to in order to find out the information that I need. This is one of the biggest reasons that I am so utterly pissed off with this second nomination that is trying to be POV and trying to prove a POV to a certain editor. I could say we need to delete the categories but that would not be in the spirit of the NOTDUP rule, which means I will not! I don't understand why this nominator had to do this a second time in the course of just ten days to two weeks, but it rather confounds be as being in bad taste like I said above.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop assuming bad faith. I am doing this because there was no consensus in the first discussion. And you are misuing the term "POV" here. Just because you find that these templates are useful, does not mean they are suitable for the project as a whole. Wikipedia ia not a TV guide. It is an encyclopedia. And providing a box of links to every single program currently on a single network is not encyclopedic.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely Keep all!! It's a nice template and helps users navigate. TRLIJC19 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Whether or not a television series airs on the same network is a trivial intersection for navbox purposes; that is, the chances of someone navigating from one series to another, otherwise unrelated series whose only connection is that they aired on the same network is quite slim. Especially if they aired decades apart and are not contemporaneous in any way. This information would be far better presented as lists (some of which already exist). Navboxes are for navigation purposes, and the connections between these series are too minimal to be useful. oknazevad (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. As Oknazevad said, "Whether or not a television series airs on the same network is a trivial intersection for navbox purposes". SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the templates are indeed useful in an encyclopedic sense, I use them all the time, I suspect other readers do too. The connection here is not minimal, many TV viewers have network preferences and the connection between shows airing on the same network is certainly more tangible than some of the ridiculously idiosyncratic categories we use. There is more connection in the useful navboxs than in a category like Category:2011 films for instance. Granted these could work as categories, but Wikipedia should work toward ease of use for readers, extra click throughs to our silly categorization scheme doesn't work toward that goal. These navboxes do. IvoShandor (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not here to benefit the avid television watcher. The only thing that connects Whitney (TV series) with Law & Order: Special Victims Unit is the fact that they're both on NBC. Other than that, they have nothing in common that requires them to be placed in the same navigation box together.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, because that's what I said. Wikipedia is here for readers, even if they are avid television watchers. Why does this bother you so much? IvoShandor (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Same reason as others that have said keep.--Yankees10 22:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all While categories are indeed a useful form of categorization, many readers prefer navboxes because they allow to provide further information. Unlike Ryulong's argument, I do think that everything we do is here to benefit the reader and a set of templates makes reading Wikipedia easier for some readers, then that's a valid reason to keep them. For example, if I am an avid television watcher and I want to read all articles about primetime CBS shows, ((CBSNetwork Shows (current and upcoming))) allows me to do so easily while Category:CBS network shows does not. The template (collapsed) needs very very little space in the article, does not bother any reader of those articles and harms no one - and unlike with articles, "does no harm" is a valid reason to keep a template. Unless those in favor can actually demonstrate how those templates harm the project, there is no reason to delete them. WP:OVERCAT does not apply for two reasons: a) they are already categorized by network (see example above) and noone argues against that and b) that guideline explicitly only applies to categories. WP:DEFINING is not violated (on the contrary) since those shows are indeed partly defined by what network they run on (e.g. "The Simpsons" are clearly defined as a FOX show and that fact has been used both in the show and in sources); many sources refer to a show by the network it's running on (e.g. Fox's "The Simpsons", CBS’s “How I Met Your Mother”, NBC's "30 Rock" etc.). Regards SoWhy 11:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's not a navbox for all of the primetime shows on CBS. It's a navbox for all of the shows on CBS. It might be worth only having the navboxes contain primetime programs, instead of listing The Price is Right and The Talk in the same template as CSI: Miami and How I Met Your Mother, but as it stands these do not serve any navigational purpose, in my opinion.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unlike Category:CBS network shows, which does not distinguish between primetime and other shows, the CBS template does distinguish between them, it just lists them in the same template. Imho, it's more useful to have all shows in one template and have them separated in that template instead of having multiple templates for each category. Impartially, there is no downside to having them in the current template. And as I said above, there might be uses that some people find useful. I won't deny that you think that those templates "do not serve any navigational purpose" but imho you failed to make a successful argument why noone will find them useful. Regards SoWhy 20:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A majority of the people here do not find them useful and have requested deletion, that is discounting the ABF !votes of TonyTheTiger and The Gypsy Vagabond Man and the "ZOMG KEEP I LIKE IT" of some other editors.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you are experienced enough to know that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so "majority" is irrelevant. Also, you are in no position (like myself and anyone else who participated) to judge whether some !votes should be discounted (for example, I'd prefer to discount any !vote solely based on what the !voter in question thinks is useful) so going around calling the !votes of others "ABF" is assuming bad faith as well, so please don't do that. I don't think anyone will be swayed in any direction just because you say those !votes are "bad faith". As for your main argument, even the essay cited the most in XFDs, WP:USEFUL, says "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument." So even if a majority says they don't think these to be useful, it's not a valid reason to delete them if I sizeable number of people find them useful. As such, I have yet to see any successful argument that those templates actually violate any policy or guideline (see WP:DEL#REASON); you as the nominator, given the fact that you have much experience on Wikipedia, should know better than just to nominate based on "we deleted similar pages" and "I don't think it's useful". It pains me to see that a sizeable number of people !voted with similar reasoning but that does not stop me from vehemently disagreeing; so far you have not been able to counter my arguments (the last reply I'm afraid was a classical argumentum ad populum), thus I think you have failed to make a convincing case for your proposal and the outcome should indeed be to keep them. After all, you don't have to use them, so the fact they are not useful to you is irrelevant. Regards SoWhy 21:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to cite policy because I'm sure you can do a better job of it than I. Indeed, I wasn't even going to participate in this mini-debate until your comment about "pain". To me, this is a balancing test. How many people will find them useful against the clutter of having templates coming out the kazoo. In this instance, the usefulness, in my view, pales in comparison. Every time one of these templates is created, I then see Tony adding the template to articles I happen to watch. Even though I believe their usefulness is extraordinarily limited, I can't very well remove the added template because it's obviously relevant to the article. Thus, the only way to remove the template from a particular article is to delete the template. And although I agree with you that !vote numbers aren't as important as the reasoning behind the !votes, you appear to be using numbers in your argument (i.e., "sizeable number of people find them useful"), so to some extent, in this discussion, the number of people who find them useful vs. the number who don't has more relevance than it might have in another deletion debate.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "pain" part was about !votes that are purely based on personal preference; if you manage to argue based on actual problems you perceive with the templates, as you did in your comment, then that part does not apply to you. I might still disagree with your argument but at least there is some argument to disagree with. Speaking of which, I do think you need to point out policies saying that usefulness should be measured on what the majority finds useful. I cannot find any rule that says so. Yes, I admit I used numbers as well, because it's impossible to argue about usefulness in any other way (we can't obviously keep everything that only one person finds useful but encumbers everyone else); but that does not mean that we have to remove something that 10 people find useful because 15 people disagree. For example, I personally don't find categories useful and I almost exclusively navigate using lists and navboxes. But I don't go around nominating categories for deletion because I don't find them useful. As said above by both sides, the only guideline covering this particular area is Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates and I simply cannot find anything in that guideline that would justify deleting those templates. Regards SoWhy 22:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bbb23 put this very nicely. The utility of these templates is outweighed by the fact that they are collections of links that are tenuously connected. There is a reason we never had templates that contained every single television show that is currently or will be airing on any particular TV network until late September, which is because the community as a whole clearly did not think they were necessary. It was only until TonyTheTiger made a dozen of these templates and created a whole separate template to link between them (you can go from ABC to CBS in one click thanks to Template:U. S. Network Shows footer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) that we had them. There were other deletion debates on this page that cited WP:NENAN, which clearly holds for these boxes. If this was a useful navigation box, we would clearly have a box for each and every major television network around the world. We don't have ((BBC One Shows (current and upcoming))) and we don't have ((TV Asahi Shows (current and upcoming))), so why should we have ((ABCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming)))?—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So is Category:CBS network shows for example, yet you and others do not object to its existence. Yes, I know, "other stuff exists" is generally not a valid reason in XFDs, but I think it can be when the argument is "let's delete those collections of links that are tenuously connected in favor of automatically created collections of tenuously connected links". Sure there are reasons why we did not have those templates before but I can easily assert that the reason was that noone thought about creating them before; just claiming that the "community as a whole" didn't think them necessary is not sufficient. That's like saying the reason MP3-players did not exist until the late 1990s was because the customers didn't think they were necessary. I don't think WP:NENAN holds anything, it's an essay and does not reflect any community consensus - I can easily cite WP:NBFILL supporting my view but what's the point? As for the last "argument" (another fallacy I'm afraid), let me ask it this way: If we have ((ABCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming))), why don't we have ((BBC One Shows (current and upcoming))) and ((TV Asahi Shows (current and upcoming)))? You argue that the lack of similar international templates is a reason for deletion, I can (and will) just as easily argue that this lack is a reason to create them. Regards SoWhy 09:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh wonderful, another NOTDUP excuse. Categories are a software function. Navboxes require active creation beyond adding [[:Category:Category]] to a page. No one had any sort of inkling in their mind to make a template that lists every single TV show on a single network without any sort of discrimination between program types up until TonyTheTiger's Fox Network templates were put up for deletion. And that didn't deter him from making others. It would be fine if there was a template just for "Fox Primetime" or "CBS Daytime" or "Late Night Talk Shows". But these massive boxes that sometimes are not collapsed are entirely unnecessary for the project. No one wanted them until TonyTheTiger made them late last month and I nominated them for deletion, making me a terrible person and someone to ban from this and any other deletion process.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please explain why citing NOTDUP, a guideline based on consensus, is an excuse. Just because categories are part of the software and navboxes are not, does that make categories automatically better? Again, the categories do not make any discrimination between program types (quite the contrary) but the templates, at least some of them, do. In the CBS example I mentioned, primetime shows are indeed separated from other shows, so that argument is not really based on facts. Also, at the risk of sounding condescending, please avoid bringing up the person of the creator or the person of the nominator (in this case yourself); if you and Tony want to have some kind of grudge match, do it somewhere else. My goal was to have a sensible discussion about whether those templates should be deleted based on policies and guidelines; I don't care who created them when or for what reason - and neither should you. Regards SoWhy 11:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • NOTDUP is not an end-all-be-all rule. And these templates would be fine if they were not all inclusive. What has been done to several of them has made them better. But several of these templates appear to be beyond repair, in that they feature every single program that has ever aired on a particular network without any sort of division between what type of program they are or when they air on the network (any template not defined as "current and upcoming" are the worst, atm).—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, go ahead, SoWhy, and nominate categories for deletion. Please start with the most controversial (all categories related to religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and criminal conduct) and then move on to the remainder (are there more categories than articles?). :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should I? As I said above, just because I find them useless, does not mean that they have to be deleted. I have many faults but thinking what I think should be the rules is not one of them. On a more serious note though: I don't see why some people in favor of deletion think "delete navboxes, categories are enough" is a valid argument but would not think "delete categories, navboxes are enough" to be one. As I said above, as long as those templates don't actually cause any harm, I see no reason to have a peaceful coexistence, so everyone can use what fits their personal reading style. Regards SoWhy 09:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All They are useful, which in my mind is an argument enough. Secondly, and most importantly, claiming that being on the same network does not make the shows in any way relate to one another is false. There are plenty of ways in which such grouping makes sense. Made up real life examples of proper use of those templates: (1) "I read somewhere that NBC is having financial problems. I wonder what programs they are broadcasting (are going to broadcast) that makes that so. I want to read about them"; (2) "So supposedly The CW oriented it's programming towards young women. What kind of programming is that?"; (3) "I read that more and more viewers are switching from broadcast TV to cable TV. E! Online said that USA Network and TNT are taking advantage of that with original programming. I wonder what kind of stuff they make?" In some context it makes sense to search for information regarding TV shows, while categorizing them by the channel they are on. That's a good reason for keeping them, isn't it? SWojczyszyn (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: The ones who are saying that we have categories for the navbox templates are making a OTHERSTUFF argument in a deletion debate, which means it is not enough to advocate for the deletion of these quality navigational aids in the first place.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality of these templates have been in question since the beginning.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. But only the shows currently on the air. We don't need future shows on theses templates. We can always add them when they start.Farine (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You "voted" above at 18:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, There's nothing wrong with the templates. Just keep them. --Rayous (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All as these are useful navigational tools that serve a different function that a separate list or a category cannot. The deletion rationale presented is thin to non-existent so rebutting directly is futile. - Dravecky (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All as per Curb Chain's response Gsingh (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All; until somebody comes up with a better way of doing this (grouping the info conveniently), & superceeds the current practice(s), these make sense as info-grouping for ORDINARY END-USER-TYPE-PEOPLE who are trying to research/find-something. & all the petty in-fighting/arguements/debates over this kind of trivial stuff is a giant sucking WASTE of our time & resources. -__- Lx 121 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All. I would agree to keep them if they only included the current programming. This kind of information should be included in the individual article of the network. I guess my point is that, twenty years after they are aired, there's no sensible navigation to be done among article of tv programs only because they happened to premiere on the same network.--RR (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. And I'm not a huge fan of these types of templates, but they're harmless and occasionally interesting/useful. I admit some of these are a little daunting - like the Template:FOXNetwork Shows template for example - I haven't looked at each one, but I would suggest the longer templates (like the FoxNetwork template) could possibly be split up by decade. By the way - I'm not sure if there is an "official" policy, but I don't like this business of nominating 20+ different templates all at once like this. Just for that alone this should be an automatic "keep". --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with splitting it by decade is that those kind of templates were already deleted at TFD.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well navboxes by "decade" would definitely have been better than this FoxNetwork navbox we have now (which expands to almost twice the width of the page on my browser). I have a feeling if people had known that the result would have been that all the navboxes would simply be merged into one, then people would have voted differently. Since this has obviously been previously debated (in depth) - then what we should probably have is one definitive discussion about the creation/use of navboxes by network, period - instead of going through endless noms/votes about each template which ends up with what we have now - people voting to delete because navboxes are "too big", only to have the end result be even bigger navboxes. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2011 (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) 01:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ruatoki School Teachers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

doesn't navigate, and I merged the list with the parent article, so no information lost. Frietjes (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is nothing to see here. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2011 (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) 01:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Albany Patroons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

defunct, so no current roster. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete defunctCurb Chain (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2011 (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) 01:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aerial Combat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template:Aerial warfare is used, this one isn't. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unusedCurb Chain (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2011 (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) 01:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFI 100 Years... 100 Movies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems all of this is covered by the article.Curb Chain (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obsolete against ((AFI 10 Top 10)).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:50, 26 October 2011 (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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Joe Dante 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A separate template for a director who directed a few episodes is highly abnormal in Wikipedia standards. QuasyBoy 14:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as redundant to ((Joe Dante)). I merged the actual articles into the main Joe Dante template, so I think it serves as a one-stop shop for Joe Dante works now. It should be noted that only three of the original 14 links on Joe Dante 2 go to an article—the rest go to the series article or a list of episodes. — Bility (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2011 (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 RELISTED 10/29/2011 log SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:49, 29 October 2011 (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) 01:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dexter's Laboratory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating myself for deletion per WP:NENAN. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not particularly helpful. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if the creator wants it deleted, and it really serves no purpose, let's get rid of it. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh well, I've should have G7 myself. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:45, 26 October 2011 (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) 01:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Titanic officers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is redundant to ((RMS Titanic)). Lugnuts (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ((RMS Titanic)) was intended to replace this one. Brad (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant per Brad.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:40, 26 October 2011 (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) 01:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods of Mashhad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's only one article from this template that actually has an article. The rest are either other neighborhoods outside of the region or redirects. I suggest deleting the template. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not useful at this time. Recreation would be O.K. when half of the articles have been created.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:42, 26 October 2011 (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) 01:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Strexplode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Boom! Unused :) 76.113.124.50 (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delte - seems to be an unused, blank template. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, not blank, but it is unused, and there is no documentation to indicate how it should be used. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2011 (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.