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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tyresö FF squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Out-of-date squad template for a soccer team that went bust in 2014. Målfarlig! (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No longer included in any articles. Hmlarson (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No inclusions. Smartskaft (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2015 (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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BBC Continents Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((BBC Natural History Unit)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No it's useful for navigating and it's a particular strand of programs produced by the natural history unit. I think it should stay--94.3.76.232 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As creator of the template I'm pretty neutral. Template:BBC Natural History Unit is more complete but also a tad less clear. Do what is best. - FakirNL (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, seems fine. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2015 (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) 18:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:From-To (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Word-wrapping hack; replace with ((Ndash)) or ((Spaced ndash)) plus ((Nowrap)), if necessary. Alakzi (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2015 (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) 18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Queen of the Clouds track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete per numerous precedent of similar type templates in other TfDs. The template offers little navigational value, and what there is redundant to the navbox for ((Tove Lo)). Readers interested in the full track listed of the album can simply navigate to Queen of the Clouds as this info is not necessarily pertinent to an article on one or two singles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2015 (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. Of note is that here is no article present for the content to be moved to, and content in the template about the subject has no assertion about the subject's importance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Joseph Koh sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is user page information improperly formatted in template space. Templates should not have article text per WP:TG. Unlikely to be used in any article. Note Joseph Koh previously speedy deleted. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, or move to article space, then delete. Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a legitimate template. Antrocent (♫♬) 22:10, 10 June 2015 (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) 20:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tennis event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Tennis events)) with |type=no. Alakzi (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not use ((infobox)) so is improperly constructed -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 13 June 2015 (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 on 2015 June 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:17, 21 June 2015 (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. There is general concern about the feasibility of merging the templates, while still keeping the complexity low enough to not exceed server expansion limits. Without a demonstration of a merged template/module, it's hard to say whether or not there is a complexity issue. So, I am closing this as no consensus, but please feel free to renominate these templates for merging if you are able to create a "low complexity" merged template which works on the larger list articles mentioned in the discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Japanese episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Japanese episode list multi-part (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Japanese episode list and Template:Japanese episode list multi-part into Template:Episode list.
Why do we need a separate episode list template just for Japanese shows? Instead, we could incorporate some features from those two templates into Template:Episode list.

• Some Western shows like The Powerpuff Girls and Martha Speaks do multi part episodes within a twenty-something-minute show, so the features from Template:Japanese episode list multi-part need to be incorporated.
• There are a significant number of multinational co-productions, like a French-German co-prod with English version available, a Luxembourgish-Belgian-French animated show, a Danish-Swedish crime series, and even a British-Israeli-South Korean co-production. Therefore, there should be additional fields for multiple foreign episode titles, and need more fields for air dates other than auxes.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How exactly are you planing on merging ((Episode list)) and ((Japanese episode list))? Merging the muti-part templates into their respective base templates is easy (simply replace the base template with the muti-part one, which the muti-parts were designed to do), but ((Episode list)) and ((Japanese episode list)) have different ways of formatting titles. —Farix (t | c) 20:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheFarix and Axem Titanium: Someone took it on prematurely (and not obviously as an example edit) to make the replacement. Seems like a trivial replacement. The replacement might be of an overly-simplistic case, which I can't judge since I haven't looked into the details.

  Alternatively, one could build support into ((episode list)) for one or two of those parameters, but I don't see that as necessary. Or did you ask the wrong question? --Izno (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose In the end, the nominator has not provide a plan on how to merge the two templates. Given the wide use of both and the technical difficulties involved in porting one to the other, there is to reason to support a merge. There is a reason we don't use ((nihongo)) or its variants in the title fields, it is far more difficult for the reader to distinguished the English titles (either proper or translated) form the Japanese titles, far more difficult for the editors to use, and it causes page transclusion errors on long lists because it generates a lot more code. —Farix (t | c) 10:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think elements from the Japanese list template like the multi-part could probably be added to the main episode template, but the two should remain seperate due to the differences in title format (ie. english, romaji, kanji, etc) Wonchop (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it is okay to merge Template:Japanese episode list to Template:Episode list. However, merging those templates would be somewhat difficult and time-consuming. First, we have to edit the Template:Episode list to cater the formatting of Japanese titles (Kanji, Romaji, English). I am not that familiar on editing templates, but I think it is complicated to incorporate the formatting of Japanese titles. Second, there are thousands of articles that use Template:Japanese episode list. Changing templates would be time-consuming manually, and I think it is a bit complicated for bots to do the job. So, I would say that it is much more practical for Template:Japanese episode list and Template:Episode list to stay separate. I agree with User:Wonchop that Template:Japanese episode list and Template:Japanese episode list multi-part would be merged. I'm still looking for other languages that have similar case in Japanese where they have separate templates on episode lists. We can also include those languages into the merger (if we are that desperate in unifying all of them in a single template).Srqs2994 (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The two templates have two different styles, a merger here isn't worth it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: can you provide a sandbox example of what the proposed merger would look like? I think that would address many of the concerns against the merger, including my own. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all three. Pretty clearly unnecessary duplication here. Template:Episode list has the boon that it's now being powered by Lua, which indicates also to me the template is better maintained. --Izno (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We have ongoing problems with long-lasting series pushing up against the technical design limits of ((episode list)). The conversion to Lua bought us some more headroom, but we are still having problems. Series busting through the post-expand include size limit show up in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Currently we have three articles in that category:
  • List of Ojarumaru episodes
  • List of One Piece episodes
  • List of Pokémon episodes

A solution needs to be found to get these articles inside the limit. List of The Simpsons episodes has been in-and-out of this limit several times over the past year, and requires constant babysitting. See Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes § Time for a split? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Better solution needed for "list of episodes" articles of TV series running many seasons. Also Template talk:Episode list/sublist. I'm concerned that merging in new features for the benefit of Japanese episode lists may only exacerbate this problem. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, this is going to cause more problems than it is going to fix. If it aint broke... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The Japanese language is formatted differently and the distinctions for the English, Kanji and Romaji make it easy to set up. Assuming these distinctions arent kept, it is only going to cause rendering problems when people who arent familiar with the usage of ((Nihongo)) want to contribute. —Kirt^Message 03:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Impractical, given the uses and purposes of the two templates. A merger would require large-scale changes of both the template itself, and how they're used. For instance, something would have to be done to accommodate for Japanese language tags, so that machine readers can crawl through Wikipedia pages which use Japanese episode titles, without malfunctioning. Keep in mind that in this day and age, humans aren't the only readers of Wikipedia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand both sides of the argument, but in the end I oppose the change. I oppose it for two different reasons. #1- the people creating episode lists for American shows and Japanese shows typically have completely different viewing tastes. Changing up the format by merging all the Japanese shows on the eplist format would cause all of them to have to learn a different template format. In the cases of some it'd be picked up on rather fast. In the cases of others the changeover would only cause major hassles. You'd have to create alternate fields that can or can't be used, much like on the sports templates. You'd then have to go back and add the yes= to the top of each and every Japanese show so all the parameters could be showed. The conversion, if you had just one individual devoted to it, would take years, as there are thousands of Japanese shows listed on Wiki. I also worry about it because #2- Japanese shows don't have traditional seasonal airings like they do in the US. Sure, they can go as short as 13 episodes, but sometimes a season in Japan lasts 3 to 4 years. If that series ends up being dubbed in the US, then the American dubber breaks it down into individual US seasons. What about the shows that don't have this opportunity? It leads to the problem with long-running series that has been mentioned above. Whom are we to determine what encompasses a season and what doesn't? Unless a feasible changeover can be determined, then oppose is the only smart way to go. And this comes from someone who does editing with both the episode list and Japanese episode list formats. Bigddan11 (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This just creates way too much needless work. That Japanese templates have its own unique feature.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Japanese syndication is very nuanced from its Western counterpart, you'll find that this creates more headaches in the long run. I hope this is resolved quickly because a merger is preposterous and the templates are now cluttered with <See Tfm> everywhere.Jo2uke (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EpisodeList should be expanded to allow "English Title", "Native Script" and "Transliteration title" for all languages (or we could abuse JapaneseEpisodeList for non-Japanese languages; but why not just expand EpisodeList instead of having a version for each language?) -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For foreign titles, I was thinking something like

| Title           = 
| RTitle          = 
| ForeignTitleCode1 = (Language codes like ja, de, fr, el, etc.. Will also assign appropriate punctuation for episode titles in that language (that is, the equivalent of English language's "").)
| ForeignTitle1   = 
| RForeignTitle1  = 
| ForeignTitleTranslit1 = (Transliteration of the title in Latin alphabet.)
| ForeignTitleLtrl1 = (Literal translation in English.)
| ForeignTitleCode2 = 
...

By the way, I see no template named Episode list multi-part yet. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I currently lean just the tiniest bit on the Oppose side. Comparing the two templates (Episode list and Japanese episode list) and how they've been implemented in their respective communities and locations, I do think a merge is possible, but difficult. While I may not know much of the coding behind either templates, I think it'll take a lot of work to combine the two just to get one less template off this site. I feel the anime community acts, to a certain degree, separate from the community that watches primarily Western shows, so this culd be kind of seen as an attempt to combine two separate and somewhat independent communities. On top of that, taking the time to convert all of the Japanese episode list templates over to Episode list if such a merge were to occur would be tedious work, and a notable amount of effort on many people's parts. There would be a lot of articles to get through. Again, not saying it's impossible, but I think the negative outweighs the positive a bit here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaykeBird (talk • contribs) 21:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Okay. I think we could make this merger possible by following the steps like
  1. Add the parameters for the multiple non-English titles in T:Episode list.
  2. Make multi-part titles possible either by integrating functions from T:Japanese episode list multi-part into T:Episode list, or by creating non-Japanese counterpart named T:Episode list multi-part.
  3. Make bots convert Japanese episode templates into the non-Japanese equivalent.
  4. Delete the Japanese templates.

Hope it should work. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 17:08, 21 June 2015 (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) 20:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tamaulipas Rural Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All four radio stations in this infobox are part of Radio Tamaulipas which recently was consolidated into one article. There's nothing to go here. Raymie (t • c) 00:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2015 (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.