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. MER-C 13:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Naked Camera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one of this show's characters has their own article. Greykit (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only one navigable link that is listed several times in the main series article, which is also listed at the character page. Completely unnecessary. — Wyliepedia 03:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Older navbox versions had a few more links, but those were largely redundant and have been trimmed. The topic in general is just not broad enough for a navbox, all necessary links are provided in the article. GermanJoe (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article Naked Camera is little more than a stub. There is simply not enough information in the article to require separate articles and a navigation box connecting them. Dimadick (talk) 16:50, 6 May 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) 21:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:German Reich (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox mixes "real" historical countries with a fictional, fringe Neo-Nazi concept. WP:NAVBOX notes as first point: "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject." Those four terms do not form a coherent subject - no reliable sources treat them that way. Mixing such fundamentally different terms in 1 navbox doesn't work. GermanJoe (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A valid concern in past discussions has been the navigation between articles for the first 3 "Reichs", which are connected of course. In most cases those Reichs are already inter-connected via "See also" entries or Template:History of Germany (which gives a lot better overview about the historical timeline). A few missing See also-entries could easily be added, if needed. GermanJoe (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This template is a footer navigation template that redundantly and confusingly duplicates a small part of the history section of the footer navigation template ((Germany topics)), as well as the sidebar template ((History of Germany)). The current version of the template also mixes the historical periods with a completely different topic related to a neo-Nazi concept or conspiracy theory (the "theoretical" Fourth Reich). --Boson (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; I was the original creator of this template, many years ago, but looking back on it now it does seem to be completely redundant and of dubious purpose. Let's be rid of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:G7 -- the template creator Midnightblueowl requests deletion of this template immediately above. There are multiple problems with this template's subject matter, and a now-experienced template creator agrees. Let's not drag this out unnecessarily. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The template has several issues.
  • The term German Reich has its own article, that covers the German state from 1871 to 1943. It does not seem to apply to predecessor and successor states which never used it.
  • The term "First Reich" simply redirects to Holy Roman Empire. The Empire itself did not include only German areas, was multi-ethnic in nature, and covers enough historical articles to probably require its own template.
  • The term "Second Reich" simply redirects to German Empire. We already have Template:States of the German Empire and could probably use an additional template to cover its history.
  • The term "Third Reich" simply redirects to Nazi Germany. The term is relevant enough to Nazism to warrant its own article. Most aspects of the former state are covered by Template:Nazism sidebar and Template:Nazism.
  • The term Fourth Reich is currently the only one with its own article. It is not only a Neo-Nazi term, but it is currently of little historical importance.
    • In short the articles included are not properly connected and the template should be replaced by other templates. Dimadick (talk) 17:59, 6 May 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) 21:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Süper Lig top assister (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is WikiProject Football's consensus that assists are not included in articles. I'm also not aware of any other assists templates, and it's also worth noting that several of the seasons here are either linked to redlinked pages, or are for incorrect years. Taking one page at random, 2001–02 Süper Lig, there is no mention of the assists at all, so this template is apparently based off of OR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Assists are not included in articles because it is not defined what an assist is. The same reason applies here. --Jaellee (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It has all been said above. The definition of assist change from person to person and it is not in player articles for a reason. QED237 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I must also add that the editor has had Template:Turkish Super League top scorers Assists deleted a few years ago after This TfD QED237 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. GiantSnowman 07:44, 2 May 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 May 9. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:20, 9 May 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 no consensus in this series of highly similar discussions that the prior consensus regarding actor navboxes applies to acting teams. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rooney Garland films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As their navbox indicates, Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland made ten films together at MGM and it was one of the most familiar and fondly-remembered teamings in film history. If one consults, however, either the Mickey Rooney article or the Mickey Rooney filmography article, one would not be able to determine which films featured both of them. The same would be true if one goes to the Judy Garland article or the List of Judy Garland performances article. In fact, this navbox is the sole source in Wikipedia in which the full list of the Rooney-Garland films is specifically laid out in a sorted fashion and labeled as such. The titles and dates are all there, and anyone needing a quick reference for all 10 titles can find them and, subsequently, access them, one after the other, without having to search through the two filmographies which do not even list co-stars of specific films. Deletion of this navbox would only make film research more difficult without gaining anything in return. Such an occurrence would run counter to what Wikipedia stands for. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse the function of navboxes (navigation) and articles (information). It may not be there now, but this is information that belongs in an article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no confusion inherent at the center of my position. If one were to create a Films starring Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland article, it would probably be prodded or redirected, but even if it managed to survive, it would still not provide the direct access from film to film that this navbox provides. The navbox is, obviously, not intended for appending to the articles delineating each film starring Mickey Rooney or each film starring Judy Garland, but solely to the ten films which encompass their teaming. The ease of access from film to film for those wishing to compare the titles is the prime consideration. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per prior consensus. The fact that it covers performances of two actors together does not make it any different from the ones covered by the previous consensus. MarnetteD|Talk 00:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can imagine cases where actor filmography would deserve a navbox, but this would not be one. Mamyles (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does not appear to be a clear indication regarding the existence of a "prior consensus" on acting team navboxes, which focus on specific film groupings, rather than on performers' entire filmographies. All of the previous votes to delete were for individual actor navboxes, not teams, and most of those votes featured the opinions of only two or three Wikipedians and were not unanimous. If a consensus to delete navboxes for acting teams exists, it would benefit all voters to see links to such a consensus, so that we may examine the "Keep" and "Delete" arguments. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nom ignores rationale for WP recommendation, which was to stop navbox proliferation. Not applicable in this instance. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments above and my comment in the Martin and Lewis section on this page. – Paine  02:22, 12 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 no consensus in this series of highly similar discussions that the prior consensus regarding actor navboxes applies to acting teams. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bud and Terence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Among the numerous films featuring Terence Hill or Bud Spencer, it is the 17 titles in the navbox (Spencer's article states "over 20 films") in which they appeared as a team between 1967 and 1994, that are most frequently recollected. Although the filmography in the Terence Hill article does not clearly (or even at all) specify which of his films were made with Spencer, the filmography within the Bud Spencer article, does, in fact, have such a separate listing. Even with that in mind, in the final analysis, the convenience of this navbox extends, as with all navboxes, to the user's ability to access each film without having to return each time to the filmography and in having, at a single glance, the chronological layout of the two actors' collaboration. Such ease of use, especially for those unfamiliar with all the other, more detailed methods of searching through filmographies, should be kept in place, rather than deleted. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Roman Spinner. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per prior consensus. The fact that it covers performances of two actors together does not make it any different from the ones covered by the previous consensus. MarnetteD|Talk 00:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does not appear to be a clear indication regarding the existence of a "prior consensus" on acting team navboxes, which focus on specific film groupings, rather than on performers' entire filmographies. All of the previous votes to delete were for individual actor navboxes, not teams, and most of those votes featured the opinions of only two or three Wikipedians and were not unanimous. If a consensus to delete navboxes for acting teams exists, it would benefit all voters to see links to such a consensus, so that we may examine the "Keep" and "Delete" arguments. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nom ignores rationale for WP recommendation, which was to stop navbox proliferation. Not applicable in this instance. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:05, 29 May 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 no consensus in this series of highly similar discussions that the prior consensus regarding actor navboxes applies to acting teams. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fred and Ginger (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Astaire and Rogers are, undoubtedly, the most renowned musical and dancing team in film history. Having said that (no one has, as yet, submitted the Template:Eddy MacDonald films for deletion) such singing team navboxes as those for Janet Gaynor-Charles Farrell, Dick Powell-Ruby Keeler or Mickey Rooney-Judy Garland [per nomination above] are, or should be, equally welcome. As for this navbox, it encompasses ten films and anyone may visit the articles Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers plus the related articles Fred Astaire chronology of performances and Fred Astaire's solo and partnered dances, to fruitlessly search for a separate listing of these films. Unless one already knows which titles to search for, one is forced to plow through entire filmographies and scroll through listings to arrive at the titles. Furthermore, in order to navigate from film to film, among the ten films, one is forced to return to the filmographies each time in order to see what was the title of the previous film was and what would be the title of the subsequent film. Since both Astaire and Rogers (especially Rogers), made other films between their joint musicals, one loses the sense of continuity and time frame in the connective thread of the films they made together, with no indication or highlighting of their common efforts. This navbox, on the other hand, is the sole place in Wikipedia where the films are clearly laid out with easy and convenient navigation from film to film, without having to return to the filmographies. Surely, Wikipedia users deserve such convenience. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per prior consensus. The fact that it covers performances of two actors together does not make it any different from the ones covered by the previous consensus. Their fame together is not more important that any other actors singular fame. MarnetteD|Talk 00:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does not appear to be a clear indication regarding the existence of a "prior consensus" on acting team navboxes, which focus on specific film groupings, rather than on performers' entire filmographies. All of the previous votes to delete were for individual actor navboxes, not teams, and most of those votes featured the opinions of only two or three Wikipedians and were not unanimous. If a consensus to delete navboxes for acting teams exists, it would benefit all voters to see links to such a consensus, so that we may examine the "Keep" and "Delete" arguments. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nom ignores rationale for WP recommendation, which was to stop navbox proliferation. Not applicable in this instance. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments above and my comment in the Martin and Lewis section on this page. – Paine  02:20, 12 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 here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Laurel and Hardy filmography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This isn't merely an "actor" navbox, but a series, or genre, like ((Carry On Films)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per POTW, this is an act like the Andrews Sisters, or Monty Python, or The Beatles, or Aerosmith, not an actor filmography. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The act is covered by ((Laurel and Hardy)). --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per prior concensus. Looks exactly like a filmography to me. Perhaps merge into ((Laurel and Hardy)), but since that template already links to the fine Laurel and Hardy filmography article, I'm not sure even that's necessary. PC78 (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as the filmography article already gives all the information about their films. Because there's already a general navbox, anyone looking for their films can easily find that. While they might've been act, this is a filmography, while the Carry On or Monty Python templates list their work and related articles and such. If not delete, can't we make a collapsible table inside the general Laurel and Hardy template for their films? --Soetermans. T / C 13:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Unlike what Pigsonthewing stated, this is not a series nor a genre navbox. Aspects (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Laurel and Hardy are, arguably, or more likely, unarguably, the most highly-regarded comedy team in film history. This navbox, within its word "filmography" provides a link to the already-existing detailed article, Laurel and Hardy filmography and, as has been pointed out, there also already exists the other, more modest ((Laurel and Hardy)) navbox, which is undoubtedly useful for its numerous links, including one to the just-mentioned Laurel and Hardy filmography. We should take into account, however, that the Template:Laurel and Hardy filmography which is being submitted for deletion, is the sole place where the films are sorted into five groupings, 1) "Silent short films (Starring roles)", 2) "Talking short films (Starring roles)", 3) "Short films (As guests)", 4) "Feature films (Starring roles)" and 5) "Feature films (As guests)". Again, nowhere else in Wikipedia can one find such an instant tool for easy navigation. The filmographies are detail-laden and require scrolling and searching, while the navbox is, precisely what its name indicates, instant viewing and access to each Laurel and Hardy title, conveniently sorted for ease of use. Isn't that what Wikipedia should be all about? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The filmography article is the best place for this information, this template is merely duplication, confusing and difficult to navigate. I have contributed to this template, moved it to its current namespace and watched it for many years. Szzuk (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I created the Laurel and Hardy template and have just added their more well known films to that. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • And I've removed this attempt at circumventing this TfD. I think the "collaborators" should probably be removed as well, as we don't usually allow cast and crew in navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

**** Circumventing the TFD? I vote delete! So you want no films or crew at all in a navbox? You'll have your work cut out arranging that. Szzuk (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comment below for strike rational. Szzuk (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per prior consensus. The fact that it covers performances of two actors together does not make it any different from the ones covered by the previous consensus. MarnetteD|Talk 00:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does not appear to be a clear indication regarding the existence of a "prior consensus" on acting team navboxes, which focus on specific film groupings, rather than on performers' entire filmographies. All of the previous votes to delete were for individual actor navboxes, not teams, and most of those votes featured the opinions of only two or three Wikipedians and were not unanimous. If a consensus to delete navboxes for acting teams exists, it would benefit all voters to see links to such a consensus, so that we may examine the "Keep" and "Delete" arguments. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Struck through my delete vote. Logic - Stan Laurel was the film director for virtually all Laurel and Hardy films, there is no dispute about this he was simply not credited so, see the main article. Film directors are allowed navboxes containing their films as determined by the consensus rationale used in this TFD. Szzuk (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nom ignores rationale for WP recommendation, which was to stop navbox proliferation. Not applicable in this instance. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a very useful and well-executed navbox. It can serve as a paradigm for an appropriate team filmography navbox. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:49, 29 May 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 no consensus in this series of highly similar discussions that the prior consensus regarding actor navboxes applies to acting teams. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hope and Crosby (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is an act like Martin and Lewis or the Marx Brothers, not merely a listing of an actor's filmography. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per prior concensus, this template is very much an actor filmography. If the navbox consisted of something more then I might be convinced, but there isn't even a Hope and Crosby article. PC78 (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Hope-Crosby films stand out as a separate grouping and, unlike the chronologically-arranged Hope and Crosby filmographies, which are resistant to quick navigation as a result of not sorting the lengthy lists by specific detail or specific co-stars, this navbox provides instant access from one Hope-Crosby film to another, which cannot be otherwise easily achieved. The usefulness of the template is further enhanced by its additional feature, "Crosby cameos in Hope films" which is, again, unavailable anywhere else and gives not only an instant visual aspect to their collaboration, but also enables users to appreciate at a glance the one-click ability of moving from film to film without having to return to the filmographies in order to search for the next title, if one even knows what the next title in such a grouping would be. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per prior consensus. The fact that it covers performances of two actors together does not make it any different from the ones covered by the previous consensus. MarnetteD|Talk 00:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does not appear to be a clear indication regarding the existence of a "prior consensus" on acting team navboxes, which focus on specific film groupings, rather than on performers' entire filmographies. All of the previous votes to delete were for individual actor navboxes, not teams, and most of those votes featured the opinions of only two or three Wikipedians and were not unanimous. If a consensus to delete navboxes for acting teams exists, it would benefit all voters to see links to such a consensus, so that we may examine the "Keep" and "Delete" arguments. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nom ignores rationale for WP recommendation, which was to stop navbox proliferation. Not applicable in this instance. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments above and my comment in the Martin and Lewis section on this page. – Paine  02:19, 12 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 no consensus in this series of highly similar discussions that the prior consensus regarding actor navboxes applies to acting teams. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tracy Hepburn films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Tracy-Hepburn collaboration encompasses nine films and may be, arguably, considered the most enduringly legendary male-female partnership in film history. That said, if anyone decides to create a Janet Gaynor-Charles Farrell navbox, a Myrna Loy-William Powell navbox, an Olivia de Havilland-Errol Flynn navbox or a Greer Garson-Walter Pidgeon navbox, those would be equally welcome. Again, there is nothing, anywhere else within Wikipedia, which provides such easy accessibility to this joint filmography. I invite anyone to visit the Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn biographical entries and, even more to the point, the separate Spencer Tracy filmography and Katharine Hepburn performances articles which, while comprehensive and detailed, do not highlight their nine-film collaboration and require the uninitiated to search the casts of entire filmographies to even determine which are their joint titles and how each title correlates to the other in terms of the time period between them. This navbox is the sole space within Wikipedia where the nine titles are displayed for easy perusal and instant navigation from one to the other, and such ease of access is what Wikipedia should represent. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per prior consensus. The fact that it covers performances of two actors together does not make it any different from the ones covered by the previous consensus. MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does not appear to be a clear indication regarding the existence of a "prior consensus" on acting team navboxes, which focus on specific film groupings, rather than on performers' entire filmographies. All of the previous votes to delete were for individual actor navboxes, not teams, and most of those votes featured the opinions of only two or three Wikipedians and were not unanimous. If a consensus to delete navboxes for acting teams exists, it would benefit all voters to see links to such a consensus, so that we may examine the "Keep" and "Delete" arguments. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Roman Spinner, and the fact that there is no "prior consensus" for deleting such team navboxes. Rlendog (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nom ignores rationale for WP recommendation, which was to stop navbox proliferation. Not applicable in this instance. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments above and my comment in the Martin and Lewis section on this page. – Paine  02:19, 12 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 no consensus in this series of highly similar discussions that the prior consensus regarding actor navboxes applies to acting teams. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Martin and Lewis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates Rob Sinden (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per well-established precedent of WikiProject Film regarding actor filmography navboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unlike their contemporaries, if not direct competitors during the 1949–56 period, Template:Abbott and Costello, Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis had very prominent individual careers from 1956 onward and no one would reasonably expect this navbox to appear at the bottom of articles relating to those, later, lengthy aspects of their respective works. However, the 16 films (plus 1 cameo appearance) which comprise their team work represent a "series" in the same sense as Laurel and Hardy films, The Marx Brothers films, the Wheeler and Woolsey films, The Three Stooges films, the Abbott and Costello films, as well as non-comedy series such as The Whistler. There is, in fact, a Martin and Lewis career article in which the films are listed, but such is the case with all other cinematic series which have both a descriptive article and a navbox. The navboxes for these series are appended to articles primarily for ease of use --- a tool which enables Wikipedians to examine a topic with related elements without having to return to the original article in order to find and click upon the previous or succeeding element, and provides, as well, a speedy and succinct overview of the subject. Such ease of navigation within Wikipedia should be encouraged, not deleted. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per prior consensus. The fact that it covers performances of two actors together does not make it any different from the ones covered by the previous consensus. MarnetteD|Talk 00:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does not appear to be a clear indication regarding the existence of a "prior consensus" on acting team navboxes, which focus on specific film groupings, rather than on performers' entire filmographies. All of the previous votes to delete were for individual actor navboxes, not teams, and most of those votes featured the opinions of only two or three Wikipedians and were not unanimous. If a consensus to delete navboxes for acting teams exists, it would benefit all voters to see links to such a consensus, so that we may examine the "Keep" and "Delete" arguments. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nom ignores rationale for WP recommendation, which was to stop navbox proliferation. Not applicable in this instance. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per consensus concerning actor filmography navigation boxes. Frietjes (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a navigational aid in its truest sense that I consider to be an exception to the film project's consensus as per detail given by Roman Spinner above. This one should stay because it helps readers to find what they want in ways unseen in other reference works. This is a part of what makes our readers keep coming back. – Paine  02:13, 12 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 here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Loy Powell Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the most prolific leading man-leading lady teaming in American cinema [13 films, plus, in the 14th, a cameo appearance by Loy in Powell's The Senator Was Indiscreet], but the highlighting of those titles cannot be found in either the Myrna Loy as well as the Myrna Loy filmography articles or in the William Powell article. Although the titles are mentioned in those three articles, they are commingled with the totality of the two actors' prolific filmographies. The sole place where the 14 Loy-Powell titles may be found in unobstructed form is in this navbox which appears at the bottom of those films and facilitates/enables navigation between and among the films. Anyone wishing to examine and explore the films comprising this notable teaming would be all the more disadvantaged by the potential of this navbox's disappearance. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If these acting duo is indeed as notable as Roman Spinner suggests, perhaps this should be addressed in a separate article. Not a navigation box. The films seem unconnected to each other. Dimadick (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Six of the films form The Thin Man series in which Powell and Loy played the same characters (the series already has its own Template:The Thin Man). The remaining eight films, in their 14-film teaming, cast them as unrelated characters from film to film in the same manner as The Marx Brothers play unrelated characters from film to film, as do Abbott and Costello, Wheeler and Woolsey, Martin and Lewis, as well as Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy (who play different characters in different settings and time periods in each of their films) as do Vilma Banky and Ronald Colman, Janet Gaynor and Charles Farrell, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler, Walter Pidgeon and Greer Garson (although they did play Mr and Mrs Miniver in two films, 1942 and 1950), Olivia deHavilland and Errol Flynn, Van Johnson and Janet Leigh, Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor and so on. There should, indeed, be articles on each of these collaborations, and others, but, obviously, such existing and potential navboxes should only be appended to the joint collaborations, not to these actors' entire filmography. Team pairings should consist of at least four (possibly five) films, thus indicating that it is a collaborative series, but not in the same sense as The Thin Man or The Hardy Family. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per prior consensus. The fact that it covers performances of two actors together does not make it any different from the ones covered by the previous consensus. MarnetteD|Talk 00:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does not appear to be a clear indication regarding the existence of a "prior consensus" on acting team navboxes, which focus on specific film groupings, rather than on performers' entire filmographies. All of the previous votes to delete were for individual actor navboxes, not teams, and most of those votes featured the opinions of only two or three Wikipedians and were not unanimous. If a consensus to delete navboxes for acting teams exists, it would benefit all voters to see links to such a consensus, so that we may examine the "Keep" and "Delete" arguments. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Roman Spinner's arguments and the fact that the prior consensus did not cover actor team temnplates.Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittedly, the Thin Man template covers a lot of this. Rlendog (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nom ignores rationale for WP recommendation, which was to stop navbox proliferation. Not applicable in this instance. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:01, 29 May 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 here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eddy MacDonald films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep next to the dancing (and singing) team of Astaire-Rogers (Template:Fred and Ginger) and the semi-musical semi-teaming of Rooney-Garland (Template:Rooney Garland films), this is the most recognizable musical teaming in film history (a Dick Powell-Ruby Keeler navbox [7 titles] would also be welcome [there are too few titles for Mario Lanza- Kathryn Grayson (2) and for Howard Keel-Kathryn Grayson (3)]). The 8 titles in their collective filmography are mentioned in the Jeanette MacDonald and in the Nelson Eddy respective biographical entries (singled out under sub-section header "The MGM/Nelson Eddy years" in the Jeanette MacDonald article, and under sub-section "Hollywood" in the Nelson Eddy article), but are accompanied by much surrounding text, thus increasing the difficulty of clear comparison and navigation. This navbox, which accompanies each of the 8 films puts every title in clear chronological relationship to the others and enables distinct and unobtrusive navigation from one film to the other for those Wikipedia users who wish to make such comparisons. Wikipedia's very purpose is to present knowledge in the age of the Internet by making navigation tools as user-friendly as possible. The deletion of such tools does not benefit anyone. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not a filmography navigation box. It lists films loosely connected as a series. Dimadick (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per prior consensus. The fact that it covers performances of two actors together does not make it any different from the ones covered by the previous consensus. Unless they played the same characters in every film and the storyline is continuous from one to the next they are not a film series. MarnetteD|Talk 00:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does not appear to be a clear indication regarding the existence of a "prior consensus" on acting team navboxes, which focus on specific film groupings, rather than on performers' entire filmographies. All of the previous votes to delete were for individual actor navboxes, not teams, and most of those votes featured the opinions of only two or three Wikipedians and were not unanimous. If a consensus to delete navboxes for acting teams exists, it would benefit all voters to see links to such a consensus, so that we may examine the "Keep" and "Delete" arguments. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nom ignores rationale for WP recommendation, which was to stop navbox proliferation. Not applicable in this instance. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:59, 29 May 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.