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) 01:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FOXNetwork Shows (1980s debuts) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FOXNetwork Shows (1990s debuts) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FOXNetwork Shows (2000s debuts) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FOXNetwork Shows (2010s debuts) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Trivial templates that could lead to one for every network (or other channel) for every decade. Adds no value to articles. --Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are part of a larger network of templates for U.S. television programming. Most networks link all shows. The larger networks need separate templates to do so. It haven't done this for ABC, CBS or NBC. In fact, I have yet to put ABC and CBS current templates on the current articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would lead to every single channel getting these templates. Excessive and trivial.Curb Chain (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete " Most networks link all shows." They really shouldn't. Airing on the same network is an entirely too trivial link for the basis of navboxes. It's fine for a list article, but, even if separated by decade, it's too bloated and tenuous a connection to be useful. And "current" navboxes are no better, as they also have issues with the whole not a TV guide thing. We already removed programming grids from the network articles; doing the same in navbox form is no better. oknazevad (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all subject matter is trivial; current links are unrelated to the subject matter of the templateCurb Chain (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Destroy them with fire, per nom. This really is overkill, and not necessary by any stretch of the imagination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecesary. Itxia (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above as unnecessary. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and take ((CBSNetwork Shows (current and upcoming))), ((ABCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming))), ((U. S. Network Shows footer)), ((USANetwork Shows)), ((TNTShows)), ((TBSNetwork Shows)), ((Starz Shows)), ((Showtime Network programming)), ((OWNNetwork Shows)), ((HBONetwork Shows)), ((FXNetwork Shows)), ((FOXNetwork Shows)), ((E!)), ((CWNetwork Shows)), ((CWNetwork Shows)), ((NBCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming))), ((FOXNetwork Shows (current and upcoming))), ((FOXNetwork Shows footer)), ((HBONetwork Shows footer)), ((HBONetwork Miniseries)), and ((HBONetwork Series)) with it (all but ((E!)) created by TonyTheTiger).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 pre-existed me (((USANetwork Shows)), ((Starz Shows)), ((E!)), ((AMC Shows)) ((TNTShows)) and I created the rest to go along.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete all of these submitted by Ryulong as well.Curb Chain (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I believe that the additional ones are different in that those proposed are for cancelled/discontinued shows and the rest include current shows. They should be a separate consideration. Additionally, if you want to delete the rest, the other five authors who created templates before I did should be contacted before this discussion has rolled all the way down the hill for the AFD to be proper procedurally.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - all shoule be deleted. I just ran across this group today when Tony added one to one of the articles I watch. What really scares me are the templates I don't know about that have been created. As for notifying the creators of the five Tony mentioned, I have done that so we can still !vote on all of these.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)s[reply]

No you didn't. You told them to go discuss the deletion at a discussion that does not exist. You are just gaming the system. You are trying to delete templates without notifying people by pretending to be trying to notify them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your comments, Tony. It's bad enough that we have to discuss and delete so many useless templates you create, but for you to accuse me of "gaming" the system is unwarranted. The notice on the Talk pages of the creators points to this page. It names the template. It just doesn't point to this section of the page. They'll figure it out. If you want to clarify the pointer (you were the one that said they should be notified - the rules say it is a "courtesy"), knock yourself out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, honestly, use common sense. If you create a section named Nomination for deletion of Template:E! with a notice to participate in a discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page, you are probably trying to confuse the person. He will end up on a page where the section he is being directed to does not exist. Then when he searches for "Template:E!" and does not find a discussion what do you think he is going to do? I guess if he is smart he will go to the template and look for a discussion notice on the template (only to find that one does not exist). It is the nominators responsibility to tag all nominated templates as well as notify all authors and the additional templates have not been properly notified. None of the templates have deletion tags that would tell an author where to discuss the issue and none of the notices on the talk pages could be interpretted as giving them any indication of an actual discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, Tony, but, in your comment above, you seemed to think it was okay ("Additionally, if you want to delete the rest, the other five authors who created templates before I did should be contacted before this discussion has rolled all the way down the hill for the AFD to be proper procedurally."). It's not easy creating multiple-template deletion discussions. This one here took me some time to do. I'll let others decide how to handle this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What an incredibly artificial concept for a template. There is no theme. These should be categories, not templates. Varlaam (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not American. My notion is that those 5 original ones are for smaller speciality networks where the outcome is going to be a little more modest than we see in the FOX case. Is that correct? Varlaam (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, per nom. AstroCog (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, per the numerous comments above. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: I think this might be partly my fault. I'm the one that originally created ((USANetwork Shows)), after seeing a similar template for NBC. It wasn't a completely original idea, I just saw the NBC one and assumed this was okay. That may or may not be Tony's reasoning for creating the others. Whatever the case, I find the majority of these templates very useful, though I can't really see anyone else using them as much as I do. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, including Ryulong's additions. None of these are needed; the category system certainly suffices just fine to categorize the shows, and these are really just regular 'list of...' articles in clumsy template form. I'd also like to add to the nomination the Template:Fox Kids (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) template, which might be one of the most bloated uses of the template concept I've ever seen on here (and for crying out loud, the block ended eight years ago! It's time to let go of Fox Kids and the cruft that comes with it). All of these were inexplicably placed in the Weekend Marketplace article (an infomercial block nobody watches and I edit mainly to remind the 5 readers every six months it exists) without any rhyme or reason. Nate • (chatter) 05:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, horribly bloated templates. BillyBatty (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, It's too large, it takes up far too much space and it adds nothing to the pages.Vincelord (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR Rewrite with current shows only, just to take up less space. Matty-chan (talk) 21:30, 6 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) 02:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox University Provost (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This isn't an infobox. In any case the appropriate infobox would be found under ((Infobox officeholder)). This should be redirected there. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not used anywhere, not useful, so why bother with a redirect? SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A redirect would have been useful for me. I found the template because I typed in Template:Infobox University Provost, a redirect to ((Infobox officeholder)) would have sent me where I wanted to be. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as test page. Or Delete as it is not a template just a picture.Curb Chain (talk) 07:51, 29 September 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) 22:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems to lead people down the wrong path. If an image tagged as replaceable fair use is challenged, then it is apparently more controversial than the tagger believes, and needs to have further discussion. That discussion is best had at FFD, since it will reach a wider swath of the community in order to gauge consensus than it would on the file talk page. Let's admit - in six years and 80,000+ edits here, I still have less than ten file talk namespace edits, including deleted ones, and have almost no files on my watchlist on English Wikipedia, and I have a feeling that this is the case for more than just me. Thus I propose two things. First, let's delete this template entirely, since if there are opposing factions about whether something needs to be deleted, a deletion discussion needs to happen to determine what the community thinks about a file (particularly for a contested matter relating to WP:NFCC#1), and that is what FFD is there for. Second, if this template is gone, then Template:Di-replaceable fair use needs to be reworded to eliminate it, and make the way it is handled closer in form to the way we handle it with PROD. That is, if it is challenged, simply remove the tag, and if someone still wants to delete it, then it needs to go to the full deletion discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds sensible. I agree that we really want all discussion of whether an image is appropriately kept under fair use should happen centrally on FfD given the relative lack of activity on individual pages in filespace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion. I am the original creator of this template. I agree with ShuminWeb's proposal. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Removing the tag simply removes the option of protecting an image from being deleted if there's no discussion at FFD. ----DanTD (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No tag anywhere protects anything from deletion. Nothing right now prevents someone from removing all of the deletable image tags and listing an image at FFD for a full discussion. The proposal provided here provides for a rewording of the parent template as well to turn this into a process that more closely resembles proposed deletion. Your comment, first of all, indicates that you failed to completely read and understand my proposal. Your comment also indicates that you misunderstand this tag's purpose, and provides a good argument for getting rid of this tag, because its function is misguided, and that if you think this tag protects anything from anything, there are likely others who similarly misunderstand this template, and actively demonstrate why it needs to go. File talk pages are no substitute for an FFD discussion in a contested case, and so the idea in deleting this template is to shift that discussion to FFD, where it belongs. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DanTD, this template simply doesn't do what you think it does. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I support deletion. Images are not often a magnet for user activity and disputes can be dealt adequately with at FFD. Hekerui (talk) 21:21, 7 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) 01:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The European Chemicals Bureau does not exist anymore, the website is down. Leyo 14:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This also isn't how we should be doing links, anyway. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Only 23 transclusions, and this isn't really appropriate for a domain root anyway (we use templates for high-use websites which accept a parameter to get to a given sub-page, but not for the domain root itself). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I checked the history and it's nothing but the link, which if anything could be archived. ----DanTD (talk) 21:56, 2 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) 01:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redlinked navbox. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unused navbox with no blue links. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 12:01, 28 September 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. The template has been rectified, and some articles have been created. Thanks must go to Dr. Blofeld for doing this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hsi Hseng Township (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A terrible navbox: a severe case of redlink fever. No evidence that the linked articles (sub-regions of the township?) are notable - as an example, searching the Web for "Hpihsengna" confirms that the town exists, and possibly where it is located, but tells us absolutely nothing else. Some blue links go to other towns in Burma which share the same name, while others go to completely unrelated topics (an Italian artist, some Central American languages, etc). So essentially entirely redlinked. Unused, to boot. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• They are awaiting development, Hebrides said he is compiling sources to start them. As for assuming they are all non notable go visit this part of Burma. You ought to be ashamed of yourself from judging the notability of Burmese topics by using the Internet!!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered that. But the fact that I could not find any information on what these settlements actually were (either on the template, the WikiProject, the internet) meant I could not judge notability on those grounds. (And I would like to visit remote parts of Burma some day, but now is not the time.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a reason why I created township templates for Burma as the intention of course is to get them started and build a greater coverage of Burma. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Must we go through this process so often with geographical navboxes? There is firm consensus that navboxes are navigational aids for existing articles, and *not* development maps for editors. If an editor wishes to create articles on several dozen towns then he is welcome to keep track of this work in his userspace until there is some practical requirement for an articlespace navigational tool. Otherwise, we are implicitly encouraging people to fabricate new wholly redlinked navboxes en masse based on theoretical future editing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your tone.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 28 September 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, but preserving the entire template as per Varlaam's request. The preserved template with history is at Talk:List of lost settlements in the United Kingdom/Lost settlements template if anyone still wants to do anything with the content in it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lost settlements in the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox which attempts to duplicate the content of List of lost settlements in the United Kingdom. As you can see, it is absolutely huge, and full of redlinks. There's a reason why we have the list. The navbox is unnecessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have it replaced by the original list, but the original list is full of incorrect links, while the links in the navbox were carefully corrected from the start. For example, some of the links in the List of lost settlements in the United Kingdom led to articles on people etc., instead of to geographical locations. And some of the locations in the original list led to current settlements with similar names, but not to the proper lost settlement location, which in many cases are in Wikipedia under an umbrella location-name - because lost settlements no longer exist. This is not a simple matter, and a number of academics have worked on this. So if you delete the navbox you must correct all the links in the original list. Some of those links in the Wiki article should now be red links as they led to the wrong place. --Storye book (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why anyone would bother to duplicate and correct, rather than simply correcting. That is irrational.

Copy the contents of the (corrected) navbox into the Talk page of the List, and merge them over time.

A modest navbox on a per county basis would be reasonable in instances where a substantial no. of articles exist. Lost settlements in Kinrossshire.

Varlaam (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion of the template, and creation of county-level templates, if desired. The template has got quite out of hand. Also, I question that the links were "carefully corrected from the start", as I have had to correct a number of them myself. I also feel it causes problems where it is applied to articles such as Thorpe Constantine, where the template has been added simply because the article contains a section on Syerscote. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 11:16, 3 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 redirect per BOZ's suggestion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Greyhawk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WikiProject Forgotten Realms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WikiProject Dragonlance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. The WikiProjects no longer exist, having been consumed by WP:D&D. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. TFD templates added/fixed. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 11:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per BOZ. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 15:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for fixing the TFD tags. Much appreciated. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Template:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, in case one day users want to restore and resurrect any of these. They all have the fanbase and enough material to be worthwhile, but supporting users dwindled away to practically nothing; the tide could just as easily turn the other way in time. BOZ (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• While I'm somewhat less sanguine about the possibility of resurrection than BOZ, he's right on the money regarding the outcome. The most user-friendly approach here is to redirect, as was done with the WikiProjects themselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a very vague possibility - I don't expect it to happen, but since my crystal ball is broken, I can't say what may come in the months and years ahead, and it would be more convenient for interested parties to have ready-made stuff than to have to start from scratch. :) BOZ (talk) 14:03, 28 September 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.