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).

The result of the discussion was histmerge. Alakzi (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:List of people who have been considered deities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not sure what this is but we don't normally have templates for talk page discussions. Suggest that the contents of this page be substituted onto Talk:List of people who have been considered deities and the template deleted. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This does seem very unusual. Maybe make a standard "/Archive 1" with the template info. Painius  04:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've taken the liberty of creating Talk:List of people who have been considered deities/Archive index for that talk page, which includes all the info in ((List of people who have been considered deities)). That template may now be deleted without any loss of its information. Pleasant pathways, Painius  04:08, 30 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Checked by CheckUser (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is apparently a good-faith effort at encouraging transparency, but because checkusers are bound by the privacy policy and also because they do not wish to make merely being checked a "scarlet letter" it is highly unlikely this will ever be used by any actual checkusers. The user who created the template sent an email informing the functionaries of its creation and every single reply in the subsequent thread was from one CU or another indicating they would not use it. No harm, no foul, but we don't need this as it will not (possibly can not) be used. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC) (a CheckUser)[reply]
• Delete. A good faith creation, but per Beeblebrox this isn't going to be used. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fine with this being deleted if CUs are never going to use it. What's a "scarlet letter"? Philroc^{My contribs} 23:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a literary allusion essentially meaning public badge of shame.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, wikt:scarlet letter. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Thanks for the effort, but I can't imagine a situation where a CU would use this template. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I like the accountability aspect of it, but it's wide open to being used as a 'mark of shame', which will enable others to disparage editors who have been caught up in a CU, for whatever reasons. Also, not all checkuser checks are documented / handled via SPI case, and this is covered by policy. In short, as a Checkuser, I wouldn't use this, sorry. I can see where you're going, and appreciate it, but it's not the best - Alison ^❤ 01:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Alison: First off, it can't be used at a "badge of shame" because of the removal notice. Second, the SPI scenario WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE. Philroc^{My contribs} 11:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, created in good faith, and a hearty "thank-you" to the creator for trying to create something helpful. Unfortunately, there are concerns that using it may be counterproductive and possibly even a violation of the privacy policy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment About the privacy policy, I don't mean "results" like IP addresses. I mean "results" like the generalized ones you would see on, for example, SPI. Philroc^{My contribs} 11:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what ((checkuser block)) and ((checkuserblock-account)) are for. The main concern here is that nobody sees a need to tag someone as having been checked when no wrongdoing is found. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not useful; or Rename to ((not a sockpuppet)) -- change text to indicate that user was checked by checkuser and was found to not be a sockpuppet of user X; as we already have templates for other cases for checkuser, this is the only case left. No-COI isn't a case that can be templated, since a future COI can occur. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:53, 24 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 30#Template:Busy3. Alakzi (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Busy3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was part of a recent batch nomination of templates. I'm renominating this one (per WP:NPASR) because it's easily the worst of the lot; it's basically a fork of ((Busy2)) that has got slightly out of sync, with the only substantive difference being the mention of consensus reality (via an interwiki link, for some reason) rather than real life. As such, it's most comparable to a WP:POVFORK, or perhaps an idiosyncratic equivalent to a userbox, but I doubt this change is going to be sufficiently commonly wanted to be templated.

The only current user is User:MECU. If a template with the diverged wording is wanted, I can understand userfying this (so as to save having to rewrite the template every time the user in question comes on and off busyness), but it's not going to be a sufficiently generally applicable template to hang around in mainspace. If nobody wants to userfy it, just delete it (and replace existing transclusions, likely just the one, with ((Busy2))). --ais523 22:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 29#Template:GBLinks. Alakzi (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:GBLinks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete or re-code and re-scope: This template adds the following note the top of a "References", "Sources", "Footnotes", or "Further reading" section:

It is not possible to guarantee that all books cited in any section full of reference/citations will consist exclusively of public-domain (or open-licensed) works freely available in full text as described by this template. Any of billions of people in the world can add any new source at any time. The vast majority of available sources, even for topics pre-dating the copyright cutoff year, are not free, full-text sources in such archives. Generally only primary sources are available in this manner, and WP articles should not rely heavily upon these, as a matter of the policy I just linked to.

If a template like this is needed, it needs to be made more concise, site-specific (((GB link)), ((IA link)), etc., or perhaps ((Via|GB)), etc. ), and used inline in singular, specific citations, e.g.: <ref>((cite book ...)) ((GB link))</ref>. An output of "(Full text via Google Books.)" would be entirely sufficient.

I actually agree something like that would be useful (Google Books, for one, requests such attribution in return for the amount of resources it has thrown into its digitization project). It should be meta-templated so that it can be used for other forms of "via" attribution of this sort – many of the paywall keys we're given via WP:LIBRARY are granted with the expectation that the databases we're using to find these sources will be credited, but this is presently a hassle to do manually. It would be nice to be able to do ((Via|OxSch)) and to generate something like "(Subscription required. Access provided to Wikipedia editors by Oxford Scholarship Online.)", or whatever is needed for the case at hand; the WP:LIBRARY people can just update a #switch list of what the output should be.

That said, I'm not sure saving and reworking this simplistic template is the best way to do that. Given that it's already been deployed at the top of various refs sections, it may be better to simply delete it and then create a new inline meta template for this. I'll be happy to do that myself. No code in the extant template needs to be salvaged. My quote of it's output above is all it does.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with an inline template per nom. I would suggest deprecating it to make the change, but it's only used on 20 pages right now, which should be a small enough number to fix manually. I don't think it really matters whether it's done via editing the template to work differently and then moving it, or creating a new template and deleting the old one; this is going to go to the holding cell if people agree with the nom, and whoever ends up doing the work can figure out the best way to fix it. --ais523 21:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted WP:CSD#T2 by NativeForeigner. --ais523 04:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Template:Uw-nnaddition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems to contradict WP:NNC. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: factually misleading and rarely used anyway (I can only find four substitutions of it). Anyone who stumbles across this template from Template:Single notice links could be mislead or become confused—NNC clearly does contradict this message. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire. Blatant misstatement of content policy. ((Relevance inline)) among other templates can be used to flag the addition of trivia, and if it's unsourced it can be removed. We do not need a user warning template for something that doesn't violate policy to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#T2. (Or regular delete if admins think that this is sufficiently ambiguous to not be speediable.) --ais523 21:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• I'm going to T2 it, it seems to really misrepresent things, and could be mistaken. It's actively problematic. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:12, 20 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at October 27. Primefac (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:UST Global (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

provides no useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 19 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Creator even voted to delete it (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Western European colonization of Ukraine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ridiculously misleading title for a navbox. Lists some British and Spanish people who were prominent expatriates in what is now Ukraine during the Imperial Russian era. WP:OR if nothing else. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NAVBOX. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The title is bad and the navbox is incomplete and poorly designed. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why did you create the template this way in the first place? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:30, 19 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Oct 27. Primefac (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Critics' Choice Television Award for Best Animated Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All the links are to the same article, so this does not function as a navigational aid. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:50, 19 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. This is more of a procedural close, as redirects need to go through RFD. The templates they redirect to are currently being discussed at October 20 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Calabarzon radio stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Central Visayas radio stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Davao Region radio stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates. 121.54.54.170 (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

these are redirects? Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SuperAstig keeps reverting these templates to his preferred template names that do not match their respective parent article titles. See Region 4A, Region 7 and Region 11. User thinks he WP:OWN these template creations of his.--RioHondo (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Templates were only used to link to other templates from other templates, which fails WP:EGG. All now removed, so unused. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you.--RioHondo (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete above redirects including their targets: Template:Region 4A Radio, Template:Region 7 Radio and Template:Region 11 Radio. Also delete Template:Central Luzon Radio redirect to Template:Region 3 Radio and other redirects to those four templates. Now unused.--RioHondo (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the targets should be removed also - it seems User:Superastig keeps moving them around. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have nominated the targets and similar at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 20#Various regional radio station templates within templates. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:31, 20 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 29#Template:Mayors of the largest 50 US cities. Alakzi (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mayors of the largest 50 US cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox is arbitrary. Navboxes are intended to allow quick navigation between pages that are closely related, but I cannot imagine a situation where one would want to navigate from the page of the mayor of Omaha, Nebraska to the page of the mayor of Oakland, California. Fifty is an arbitrary cutoff to the navbox, and the cities that make up this navbox will constantly change as populations shift. This seems like an attempt to include the fact that so-and-so is the mayor of the Xth largest city in an article, but that can and should be done in article text. ~ Rob^Talk 20:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 50 is a cutoff that keeps the template to a useful size. The fact that the census updates every ten years is not that big of an issue. It is as useful as many political templates that span a cross-section of similar individuals.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Shrink this template is overly large. It should be top 10, which while arbitrary, is a widely used cut-off, so we are not introducing a new or rare practice. Or Delete as being too large -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Arbitrary. Fails WP:NAVBOX. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated - Nabla (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't as bad as some navboxes I see here, but thinking about it, a category (or better a list, sorted by city population) would work much better for this than a navbox would. So this is a reasonable idea but a suboptimal implementation of it. --ais523 21:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete fails to meet the standards outlined in # 2-5 of WP:NAVBOX. There is not a wikipedia article on the subject of this template, nor is the subject of being a mayor of one of the "50 largest cities" discussed in all of the linked articles let alone one of them. As much as I hate to disagree with my friend Tony, deletion is the best course action. Astuishin (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This navbox should be at the bottom of List of United States cities by population and at the bottom of such entries as List of mayors of Baltimore, List of mayors of Dallas or List of mayors of Sacramento, California. Another useful 50-entry navbox, Template:Mayors of US State Capitals (obviously, limited to only 50), may be considered its sister/brother compilation. Also, mayors of many major US cities already have their own navboxes (e.g. Template:LosAngelesMayor or Template:HonoluluMayors). All of these are convenient and helpful tools for students of governance on the top local level and provide easily navigable and accessible information which cannot be readily found anywhere else. These are very specific navboxes which are meant to be judiciously appended to appropriate entries and should not be accused of contributing to random proliferation of navboxes. The deletion of this template would deprive us all of a study (or even, simply, browsing) tool without gaining much of anything in return. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:23, 21 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Degrassi episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer needed, the show has ended. 117Avenue (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no transclusions and cannot realistically be expected to be of any use in the future. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete serves no purpose. There are other templates in Category:Episode count templates that should be deleted too. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:19, 23 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was keep for now. Renominate if/when consensus is found to redirect the articles. Alakzi (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Vojko Herksel Cup seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I just redirected all the articles on this template, so it's obsolete Pokerkiller (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Original redirects have been reverted, so relisting discussion for further input. Primefac (talk) 03:01, 19 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. A convincing argument has been made that the navbox aids in the discovery of Tracy and Hepburn collaborations, and consensus appears to be that navbox creep is not a pragmatic concern. Rename the template at will. Alakzi (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

An actor and actress were paired in multiple films, but there is no need of a template listing these films. Skr15081997 (talk) 05:20, 27 September 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. 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) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. It should be also noted that on May 1, less than 5 months before this template was again submitted for deletion, its previous deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Template:Tracy Hepburn films) was closed as No consensus to delete. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We do not have actor navboxes, and these cannot be seen as constituting a film series, so we can't make an exception on this basis. It might be appropriate to note collaborations in their related filmographies however, which would address Roman's concerns. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and put it in article prose, per Robsinden. If this is kept, people are going to want to make one for Jessica Tandy and Hume Cronyn, then another for all of Joss Whendon's recycled collaborations with [insert a dozen names here], and for all of John Sayles's collaborations with [insert a dozen actors here], etc., etc., etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see excellent points made by Roman Spinner, and if other similar templates may be used for other important collaborations, then they should be and will be created at some point. A glance at Category:Film actor navigational boxes will show that this is hardly an exception. Will ((Martin and Lewis)) be next? Painius  03:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember now that Martin and Lewis was also recently listed with no consensus to delete. There should really be more navbars of this type since we're here to make it easier, not more difficult, for readers. Painius  03:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my responsew to 烏⁠Γ, below, in regard to a template rename. Painius  11:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Roman Spinner. Although we may not have individual actor navboxes, this collaboration is cited as such in many reliable sources and is thus different from an individual actor navbox. Rlendog (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  If the collaboration is that notable, why is there no article, per item 4 at WP:NAVBOX? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, This is just silly. Wikilawyering about WP:NAVBOX ignores the usefulness of this template to anyone interested in Tracy/Hepburn. If there isn't a article already then there needs to be one. The wikiproject actor navbox advice was to stop navbox proliferation in film articles, but this is hardly going to be the the case here. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Template:Tracy–Hepburn films (note the en dash) or similar so someone unaware doesn't assume this is about one person named "Tracy Hepburn"; consider this a keep per Mrjulesd. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 05:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with a rename, and perhaps ((Tracy and Hepburn)) may also be considered on the navbar's talk page after this TfD closes, if kept. Painius  11:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree with a rename which may then lend its form to a few other such entries: Template:Eddy MacDonald films‎ — ((Eddy and MacDonald)) (or ((MacDonald and Eddy))) (in accordance with their on-screen billing order), Template:Loy Powell Films‎ — ((Loy and Powell)) (or ((Powell and Loy))) (again, in accordance with their on-screen billing order) and Template:Rooney Garland films‎ —‎ ((Rooney and Garland)). Such renaming moves would appear to be uncontroversial—a discussion may not be necessary. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments and usefulness. Randy Kryn 10:35, 24 October 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).