< April 30	May 2 >

May 1

Template:List of Anime Ep TV

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 debate was Pretty much defines no consensus Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to previous relevant discussion: Here and here.

Unnecessary duplicate of ((Japanese episode list)) that is not endorsed or supported by the Anime and manga project. Episode lists, especially FLs, use the standardized Japanese episode list, which builds off the original television episode list strongly preferred by the television project. This template does not reflect existing consensus on how an episode list should be formatted, and lacks many of the parameters found in the real template.. Collectonian (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like little more than feature creep. —Dino guy 1000 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I heartily agree that should be deleted as duplicative, with the relevant WikiProject specifically endorses using ((Japanese episode list)), and ugly to boot. However, there's about a dozen lists that need to be converted to the better template before this can be wiped. I note, btw, that this was up for TfD before. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No harm in having more than one style, and some have stated a preference for this version. This might be odd coming from me, who started ((Japanese episode list)), but there's no real reason to limit ourselves to only one choice. There's also no official status to these templates, nothing formal, at least. We have some FLs LOEs that don't even use a template. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was nominated before. It is another flavor for the task. Users are free to choose many styles. As the author of many of the lists using this template I choose to use this template over others. Wikiproject s are merely a list of pages and has no say whatsoever in my preferred template choice. There are many arbitration ruling on style issues. let's not add another... -- Cat ^chi? 23:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a project does have say in the preferred template of choice, as they are most often the ones who will support/oppose lists going for FLC. FL anime lists show clearly that the Japanese episode list template is preferred. The only ones which have passed without it are old ones that passed before the format was standardized. Collectonian (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this belief based on? Who determines this standard? Why is it that anime templates I create get nominated for deletion the same day as Jack Merridew is going an unblock discussion? -- Cat ^chi? 12:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The project, for the most part, and the consistent formatting found in current FL anime episode lists. I came across this template while cleaning up a long neglected article. The episode list looked bad and one of the first actions was to properly template it as it should be. I have no idea what the last comment is supposed to mean, so I'm going to presume you're venting some frustration from some other part of Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an understatement. I am very frustrated. (snort) :( What you are doing is unnecessarily adding to my stress level. I wish you would let this one slip but I don't think that will ever happen. -- Cat ^chi? 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What I am doing? I haven't done anything but find this template in use in an article, realized it is badly formatted and doesn't work nearly as well as ((Japanese episode list)), so I nominated it for deletion figuring it was an older template or maybe one person's personal thing in little use. I had no idea it was "yours" (not that it would have mattered), until you left the message on my talk page asking me to remove this nomination. I'm sorry you're stressed over the whole JM thing, but it has nothing to do with me, this template, or anything else, so please keep the frustration and stress there. Collectonian (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with over twenty featured lists using ((Japanese episode list)), as well as over 90% of all other anime episode lists, I think it's fairly clear which one is more commonly utilized. Consistency is important and honestly, I can't see why anyone would prefer this template over the other one. Without such consistency, we end up with lame edit wars over which template to use, and if any list came to WP:FLC using ((List of Anime Ep TV)), then I'm sure it would have problems from the FLC regulars (who are familiar with these lists thanks to yours truly) as well as other people from WP:ANIME. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever said we had to only choose one. And while it's rare, from time to time you'll even see a fork of Template:Episode list, something that I've even encouraged (it's were some of best new ideas come from). Consistency is good, yes, but it's also not that important. It's one thing when we have something like 30 different character infoboxes, but this really isn't problematic. Like I mentioned above, some FL LOEs, such as List of Dad's Army episodes, don't even use a template, and use a very different format. For me, I feel like we tend to box ourselves in with only one option on a lot of stuff, and that can sometimes work against us. Meh. -- Ned Scott 03:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those forks, however, are done either to do a transclusion system, since we have no generic one for that, or for shows with specialized information. This doesn't provide either, it just really makes a rather unattractive list while removing basic episode data options like writer/directer, etc. Collectonian (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Collectonian, those forks are for specialized uses, similar to ((S-Japanese episode list)). Again, I see a real problem whenever any of these lists go to WP:FLC, and the lame edit wars that I really don't want to see or have. That and this template is not aesthetically pleasing at all compared to ((Japanese episode list)), which in my opinion, presents it much better. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not impose your personal style on others. Arbcom in the past has ruled many times that style based issues should be left in the hands of the person with most edits to the article. This is arbitrary of course. -- Cat ^chi? 12:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It isn't his personal style, it is what the FL process has shown to be the preferred format, and the Arbcom ruling does not mean the editor with the most articles can just go against consensus of many others who agree that anime episode lists should use a certain format. Collectonian (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is a personal style. Are you saying the two templates are 100% identical? Featured List criteria does not dictate deletion of templates. I am uncertain of your rationale. -- Cat ^chi? 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a personal style. It would be if I made the template, but I didn't. Anyhow, a list with this template goes to WP:FLC. Common FLC reviewer asks why you aren't using ((Japanese episode list)), which they are familiar with due to the twenty-five or so odd lists I've pushed through the aforementioned review process with that template, and since they care about consistency in featured lists. Numerous WP:ANIME people ask why you aren't using the aforementioned template for the same reason. Your FLC fails since you can't garner consensus. Go figure. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because first anime featured list was using ((List of Anime Ep TV)). You are saying I should have nominated ((Japanese episode list)) for deletion simply because I did not mass advertise the template I created? What you suggest isn't consensus. Merely your original research. If what you fear is a revert war on Anime/Manga episode lists, you have a very twisted approach. What you are doing is basically provoking multiple revert wars. Seems like unless I revert war my voice is never heard. -- Cat ^chi? 04:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You got your FL back when WP:FLC frankly sucked and something like that (hardly any sources, most of which fail WP:RS, crappy lead, poor prose in summaries) or List of Planetes episodes (no sources, practically no lead, poor prose) was able to pass the aforementioned process. Anyhow, no one here ever mass-advertised ((Japanese episode list)); they're using it because apparently they prefer it over ((List of Anime Ep TV)), and since nearly every list in Category:Lists of anime television series episodes is using it, that's particularly telling. In any case, I'm referring to revert wars occurring because of two redundant templates existing, and one being widely more accepted than the other. It's not original research, it's common sense. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the definition of original research. You ought to drop your arrogant attitude at once. Keep insulting my work, see what that leads to. -- Cat ^chi? 04:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you instead stop threats against other editors, much less admins. Your attitude is not helping your case at all. Collectonian (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no threats made here. WP:CIVIL violations have lead to indef blocks in the past. The tone of Sephiroth BCR is not exactly civil. Someone being an admin will not get any special treatment from me. Admins are not gods, they are mere editors just like me. So I do not see your point. -- Cat ^chi? 04:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Your remark was written in a threatening way. His tone is civil, if mildly frustrated. You're the one attacking everyone and acting like you're being abused. Collectonian (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogant attitude? Hardly. If I wanted to be arrogant and condescending, then you would know it, I assure you. Anyhow, why are you complaining about your former featured lists? Why did they get delisted? Try to get them promoted now, and they won't have a chance in hell of passing WP:FLC as they are now. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to the more versatile ((Japanese episode list)). There is absolutely no reason to have two templates that does the same job. --Farix (Talk) 12:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Past arbitration cases disagrees with you. We have many templates that does the same task in slightly different flavors including stuff like the maintenance templates. Do not dictate which template I am supposed to use on the article I write. -- Cat ^chi? 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
~ahem~ I suggest you rethink that after reading WP:OWN. And yes, the project can, and will, come in and fix an article to use an agreed upon format. Happens all the time. That's why we have a MoS, and why one shouldn't go around trying to argue against them. The Anime and manga MoS only endorses the ((Japanese episode list)) template for its episode lists, and when we are doing clean ups of episode lists, one of the first tasks is to clean up the episode list so it uses the ((Japanese episode list)) template. Any that don't are fixed, as it is seen as a flaw in the list format and to be against the MoS. Please point me to the ArbCom cases that declared that an editor's personal preference and tastes can go against consensus? Collectonian (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ArbCom case that White Cat has referred to in the past is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk. However, if you actually read over the case, you will see that it was about a dispute over a date format (AD/BC vs CE/BCE) were there was no consensus for either format and both were acceptable according WP:MOSNUM. However, since we are talking about redundant templates and a MOS has a limited role, the ruling on that case doesn't apply here. --Farix (Talk) 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...that was the sort of case I was suspecting it was. Yes, date is fairly up to whoever first used it in an article, so long as the date is compliant and being used according to to WP:MOSNUM, but also agreed that this is certainly not the same thing. Collectonian (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I very seriously doubt that past ArbCom rulings are in disagreement with my reasoning. Especially when redundancy to another better-designed template is one of the four deletion reasons explicitly recognized above. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is persuasive that Ned, who created the other template, also sees validity in this template as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above stated reasons. To me, it makes no sense to have two different styles competing with each other, when one will entirely (as far as I can tell) do everything the other will. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again thats a style issue, the two templates have differences. Neither one is "the right version". -- Cat ^chi? 09:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  - No it isn't. You have two templates that are intended for the same purpose. Only one should be utilized for the sake of consistency and avoiding edit wars. The "right version" is the one endorsed by consensus, which the over twenty-five featured lists using ((Japanese episode list)) clearly indicate. The only reason to have another template is that it fulfills a purpose the other cannot (say ((S-Japanese episode list))). This one doesn't, and even does less things than ((Japanese episode list)) can; ergo, there's no reason for it to exist. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a style issue, but one over redundant templates. ((Japanese episode list)) can actually mimic the style of ((List of Anime Ep TV)) if the editor really wanted to use that particular style. --Farix (Talk) 11:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really? Were we running out of hard drive space? You have any idea how weak that argument is? Now had the person nominating the template come forward to talk to me (boy that can do wonders) rather than brute force challenge me on a TfD, my approach would be entirely different. TheFarix you yourself have gotten many templates I created deleted probably after stealing elements of my code. I desire to be credited for my contribution. I guess you cannot understand what this is about. -- Cat ^chi? 04:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      - How weak that argument is? Go peruse through WP:TFD and tell me how many templates are up for deletion since they're redundant with another template. And you wanted to be "credited for your contribution"? Go read WP:OWN and figure out that you have no argument. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Per the GNU Free Documentation License you are legally obligated to credit me for my work. This is part of the function of the "history" link. -- Cat ^chi? 04:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        I really didn't expect to be agreeing with Cat on more than just the basic issue here, but the fact that we lose contribution history in some deleted templates has concerned me too. I made a few proposals about it, at one point, but didn't have the energy at the time to really push the matter. Which is why, at the very least, we should not completely delete these templates. I seriously doubt it would be a realistic legal issue, but it makes things easier to have access to who did what and when (and how they did it at the time). -- Ned Scott 04:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If that were really a legal issue, or an issue at all, we would never delete articles or anything else, but we do all the time. One is only "legally obligated" to contribute the work that is kept. If its deleted, there is nothing to contribute and any obligation ceases. If it is merged or used somewhere else, then it would change to a redirect, but no one is suggesting to keep anything from this template and it was not used as a basis for any other template that can be find. Also, even if there was a requirement to keep the history that wouldn't obligate keeping the template or allowing its use.Collectonian (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't hung out at WP:FLC in a while, but in the past lists were nominated and promoted using this template. Originally I really didn't like this template, and debated the use of it in several discussions. IIRC, the general feeling was that the FL status of the list was not because of the template, but because of the content of the lists (and both templates were visually acceptable/pleasing/whatever). I'm really not swayed by the FL argument. -- Ned Scott 07:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FLC reviewers treat consistency between lists as a very important item when reviewing. There's been more than twenty-five lists promoted using ((Japanese episode list)) since the last one without it. The issue here is consistency, not whether this template is aesthetically pleasing (which is isn't really), and the consistency has been clear and unbroken for over a year. Those lists you were referring to were promoted since the Japanese episode list template didn't exist or was just getting implemented. That and the FLC process back then is hardly close to the one now IMO. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, since ((Japanese episode list)) is designed to allow for at least 3 distinctly different layouts. -- Ned Scott 10:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we use the most common layout. Same consistency argument. Anyhow, only cements that this template should be deleted since a user could duplicate its format using ((Japanese episode list)) if necessary. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the page history? -- Cat ^chi? 04:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What about it? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is what Cat had in mind, but I think that even if the template isn't used anymore, the template and talk page should be saved for historical reasons.
And for the FL argument, I know there's been some recent effort to reform the FLC process, but eh, I've never really put a lot of weight on the whole FL thing. If you can make a good argument for the lists that still use this template, and get the editors there to switch over, I think that would do better for the argument of consistency. I know User:Nihonjoe made a convincing argument for it's use on a few lists. Again, I don't prefer it myself, but I don't see the need to force people to use one option when there's been reasonable arguments to have this one. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved at WP:FLC for a long time (as you know), and I don't see the argument being made for this template. Whether it's with the FLC regulars (who will have issues with the template itself for being not aesthetically pleasing and not standard) or people from WP:ANIME who will raise the issue since we have twenty-five featured lists that do use it and expect consistency. Why go through that or even before that, useless and unnecessary conflicts over people who still want to use this template over ((Japanese episode list))? I don't see why you're treating consistency as a bad thing, and if anything, we're making it clear for anyone who wants to make a featured episode list to go ahead and do it. Having two templates doesn't make it any easier for them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template format is completely different, is not formatted badly (just differently), and is used in a large number of episode list articles (unless someone has gone through changing it out to support their arguments, as happened the last time it was brought up for discussion here). Yes, similar information is presented, but this template makes it much more clear what each bit of information is, which is important. I think the most important thing is to present the information in an understandable format. This template does that, and it's used in a decent number of articles, so I see no valid reason for deleting it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of articles using ((List of Anime Ep TV)): roughly 30. Amount of articles using ((Japanese episode list)): over 500. There's no reason to have two templates that are intended for the same function and present the exact same information (the latter even presents more information). We have one or we have the other. And we're not going to change every single episode article that uses ((List of Anime Ep TV)) to ((Japanese episode list)) right now because that's a gross violation of WP:POINT and it's placing a fait accompli on this discussion that is definitely not civil. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was merely stating the fact that it happened last time. If no one is (or has done that this time, then that's great. As for the template usage, it's used because it presents the information in a format liked by the creators of those lists. Those of us using it could just go through and subst every instance of it, but then that defeats the purpose of using a template in the first place. You seem hell-bent on wiping it out, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's simply no point to keeping two templates that do the same thing. Again, I don't see why consistency is viewed as a bad thing. By your logic, someone could make a new template simply because they like the design and regardless of consensus on the issue, continue to use it. There's no reason to, especially when ((Japanese episode list)) is so widely utilized and part of the accepted format of our 25 featured episode lists. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Anime Ep TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was created on 12:16, 5 December 2005 by White Cat (me)
((Japanese episode list)) was created on 03:33, 7 June 2006 by Ned Scott - a participant on this discussion.

There is no consensus on the issue. Consensus does not mean the number of transclusions. Thats statistics. There is no single accepted format for this. We can have a diverse number of styles. Diverse styles are not banned.

-- Cat ^chi? 04:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a diverse number of styles. Why even have a MoS for anything? Because we want consistency. When the templates were created are irrelevant. And statistics do matter when there's an overwhelming disparity between the number of transclusions. This is a redundant template for heaven's sake. We aren't supposed to have redundant templates. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did Wikipedia start keeping redundant templates because of a very minor difference in presentation? Usually, redundant templates are either merged or one is deleted in favor of the other. Are we now going to go back and undelete all fifty-something character infoboxes that ((Infobox animanga character)) made redundant because someone may like the style and presentation of the old infoboxes better? --Farix (Talk) 03:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the wiki has been created we have had different styles. I have looked the other way on that incident since I agreed with the general change since measures were taken to keep the general style. However interpreting that as if I have revoked my right to object or oppose is simply ridiculous. -- Cat ^chi? 04:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia has been created, we have moved towards more standardization if anything. And no one is removing your right to oppose, we're simply contesting your argument, which so far is complaining that you're going to lose all the credit for the template that you made. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To Farix) Technically, that's what Template:Japanese episode list is when compared to Template:Episode list. It's too much of a pain in the ass to try to merge them both. We're tolerant of redundancy when there is a reasonable argument for it.

This is also a bit different from the character infobox situation, since there we were dealing with a lot of templates, and because their existence encouraged inexperienced (and even some experienced) editors to make forks for each and every show. It was a situation where leaving them alone would mean the number of templates would continue grow. That was a problem. This template, on the other hand, is just a quite little option that's not really causing much of a problem for anyone. If it were to become an issue in the future then I would probably think differently about it. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant templates cause edit wars somewhere down the road because they are well, redundant. This certainly isn't a problem on the scale of the character infobox situation, which was simply chaotic and did need to be stopped, but there's no reason to hold on to redundant templates to cause the problems you're noting may occur in the future. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We have one or we have the other." If that was really true then templates like Japanese episode list would have never had a chance to take off. -- Ned Scott 22:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You introduce a new template. Project debates on it. Consensus determines whether they like it better than the current one or not. If yes, we use the new template. That and since ((Japanese episode list)) is already so widely utilized, it's a bit of a moot point to try to argue in that direction. Again, I still don't get why people are treating consistency as a bad thing and redundancy as something to be desired. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is because we aren't robots and because wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -- Cat ^chi? 04:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I should go ahead and ignore the MoS for everything because I don't want to follow what all those people said I need to do in order to get a WP:FA and because all of it is instruction creep limiting my ability to contribute right? Obviously not. 25 FLs with ((Japanese episode list)) disagree with you as well. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)No one debated on it at first. Japanese episode list was nothing more than a copy of Template:Digimon episode, which a few editors saw and liked, and made a copy at Template:Episode list. I came in after that and helped to make it more universal. The use of the template was spread like fire. Myself and others would go to active episode lists of in-progress shows, where the template would get lots of exposure, and just started converting things. The template's mention in WP:MOS-ANIME is a recent addition, I believe. There's no real formality to this. I literally did just decide to make a template one day, without consulting anyone, and started to put it into use.

If this was an issue, like if we had several episode list templates, I might be more included to see your point of view. But that's not the situation here. There was a time when I would have loved to see this template deleted, due to the arguments I got in over it, but now I see those arguments were so painfully lame. Is this really an issue? It's one thing to not prefer an option, and another to oppose it. I see a lot of preference, not opposition.

Not to mention there are still one or two things that this template does that ((Japanese episode list)) doesn't currently do. One of those is sectional editing for each episode entry. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My example was to illustrate what could happen if someone suddenly developed a better template. Anyhow, you refer to arguments as to utilizing this template as "painfully lame." Then why keep it at all? If there's no point in using it, why have it? This is an issue because the template is redundant and frankly, not aesthetically pleasing. That and due to what I see occurring at WP:FLC if an episode list was ever brought up to par with this template. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me, the arguments about which template to use were lame, not the arguments for one template or another (as in, the debate itself was lame). It was lame because it really didn't matter which template was being used (at least after Cat converted the template to use named parameters). If the line separator was thinner then this would make the template look a lot better. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 9 May 2008 (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.

Template:Wicca portal

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created for unknown reason to replace the basic Portal template. All instances have been rolled back to previous format, and if the specific symbol used in this template is desired elsewhere, it can be included with that basic Portal template. Basically, unnecessary templating.. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is essentially a hardcoded instance of ((Portal)), and there is no need to have a separate template for each portal. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NZR member

The result of the debate was rename Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user template for nonexistent project "NZR Project". Also delete enclosing category Category:NZR Project, whose only member is this template. — DH85868993 (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused userbox. Mr.Z-man 23:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment -- The template may be unused, but Wikipedia:WikiProject NZR is by no means a nonexistent project. I took a quick look through the user pages of editors that are listed as project members and didn't see this userbox displayed. I've left a note about this discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NZR. Slambo (Speak) 10:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as one of the main participants in the NZR WikiProject, I didn't even know this existed! I personally would not have an interest in using it, but other members may have been similarly unaware of its existence and would like to use it, so I'm not going to cast a vote for deletion. I suppose I'm fairly neutral on its fate. - Axver (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from nominator). Given that the project actually exists, I'm quite happy for the template to remain, provided the link to the WikiProject and category are corrected. But I'll leave the nom, to save the Project having to renominate it if they decide they don't want it. DH85868993 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a userbox for an active WikiProject. However, after this TfD is closed, the template should be renamed to Template:User NZR member or Template:User WikiProject NZR per Wikipedia:Userboxes (all userboxes in the template namespace should be start with "Template:User"). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the category and project links in the template and have also speedy deleted Category:NZR Project under the general housekeeping criterion, as being redundant to Category:WikiProject New Zealand Railways. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in renamed form per BF - and bring back the Southerner! Grutness...wha? 01:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename as it does have a parent project. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Galveston Radio

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio navigation templates are generally created by Arbitron market area in the United States. Galveston, Texas is already covered by Template:Houston Radio in the Houston-Galveston Market (Arbitron Market #6). Rtphokie (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given that these templates are typically based around the Arbitron markets, and no reason has been given for a split (either here or on the template discussion page), such a replication of information seems unnecessary. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]