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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Jack London (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:White Fang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:The Sea-Wolf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:The Call of the Wild (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:The Call of the Wild, Template:White Fang and Template:The Sea-Wolf with Template:Jack London.
All adaptations could be included in an "Adaptations" section (or sections) on the main ((Jack London)) navbox, rather than having four navboxes for this author. --woodensuperman 16:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as long as all items are added to the main template, Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I oppose merging individual works templates into mass templates that are less useful. When adaptations have different names from the source work or when their are variously named sequels or parodies, the reader is unable to assess the connection to the author without clicking through. Also, this causes many unrelated links to be on pages of articles. Why does an adaptation of one work need to have a template with adaptations of other works on it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TonyTheTiger. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Templates should not get excessively large. Agreeing with TonyThe Tiger's reasons. AtticTapestry (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2018 (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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

No notable original material. Only one member has an article, all the songs linked are standards or covers, so as navboxes go, this is pretty useless. --woodensuperman 15:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2018 (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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:EmptyMonths (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ThisDateInRecentYears2006Rev (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ThisDateInRecentYears2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"Delete" No reason to keep unused historical templates, esp if they are redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @UnitedStatesian and Tom (LT): The second and the third is a redirect, so it should go to WP:RFD, not here. Hhkohh (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Both taken to RFD, thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2018 (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 on 2018 November 30. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. And a note that templates shouldn't be deleted/tagged for deletion until they are orphaned (which is usually done after listing at TFDH). (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Heroes and villains (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not necessary Matt14451 (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This navbox is located at the bottom of all the list articles in Lists of superheroes and Lists of villains and was created for ease of navigation and to tie them all together. The categories and search feature do not do this adequately. This navbox is therefore useful and serves visitors well. That is the good reason to keep it. What is the good reason not to keep it that outweighs this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the categories be used for navigation? This is just a list of links. Infoboxes don't typically use pictures. Matt14451 (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning delete here. This template seems to fail all 5 points in WP:NAVBOX. These articles aren't related to each other at all, but to a very broad subject, which isn't really what navboxes are for. --Gonnym (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You make good points. If it can be modified or renamed somehow to save it, great. If it ends up deleted, I'm fine with that too. It didn't take me long to make and I've even AfDd my own pages. So, if the community wishes it gone, Anna abides. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per Gonnym. Bsherr (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gonnym. --woodensuperman 12:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as the lists are not broadly related to each other. I did consider rearranging the template but it would be better to use the categories to navigate between the lists if one is looking for other lists - but the main reason for someone to look at one of the lists is because they're interested in a particular TV show or comic or whatever, rather than villains or heroes in general. The two lists of lists that were also created are another potential form of navigation and the template in this case would be the least useful of the three types, so should be deleted. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 18:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - So, what you are saying is that it is so good that it makes other navboxes look useless, so for the good of Wikipedia, it should be deleted. Fine. I'm on board with that. Okay, I asked for an argument that outweighed mine, and you provided uranium to my hydrogen. Well played, well played. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for @Anna Frodesiak: I've seen this template in the speedy deletion categories for days with a G7 tag that you did not add though you were the one who wrote it. Are you asking for deletion or not? – Athaenara ✉ 11:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And it's transcluded on more than 50 article pages, why request deletion without removing it from the articles first? – Athaenara ✉ 11:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged by someone else for speedy while the discussion was just a few days old. I did not want to delete it myself. I thought another admin would come along and decide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: If you didn't request deletion, User:Woodensuperman should not have added the ((db-g7)) tag. – Athaenara ✉ 11:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it was a suggestion for me or someone else to delete it before this closes to save resources. I don't know how things work at TfD, so I didn't know if deleting it was appropriate. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: if you don't think it should be deleted, why did you change your !vote to delete? @Athaenara: does the fact that Anna Frodesiak !voted delete not mean this is "author requesting deletion"? — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 12:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I agree with the delete !votes, it doesn't mean I should interrupt the process and delete it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, could this thread trail off any further? Frodesiak !voted Keep, took the Change My Mind position, then followed up with Well Played and struck it. The discussion starts to look like an exercise in futility when all it's about is whether or not a template is useful. If it's not useful, why is it still in more than 50 articles? That's a rhetorical question: it's obviously useful and in use. – Athaenara ✉ 12:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is in use doesn't make it useful. And the "author requests deletion" tag I added was because the author changed their !vote to delete along with everyone else, so this was a perfectly valid speedy delete, as the author has requested deletion. Not sure why it was declined, as this is perfectly normal practice in these cases! --woodensuperman 11:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Really, is there no way to title this or modify it to be useful in tying together the articles? This could really be useful if set right. How about grouping the content into sections and having a catch-all title? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lists of lists you created tie them together in a much more helpful and organised way. Not everything needs a navbox. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 09:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is reasonable, AnemoneProjectors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2018 (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; deleted as G5 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The One (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No reason for this to be a template. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless the purpose can be explained. --Bsherr (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2018 (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).