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 the ((Tv.com)) template after replacement. Although there appears to be some growing consensus to delete all the Tv.com templates and external links outright, that should be taken up in a separate nomination. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tv.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused (I'm replacing it right now...) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Opposition There are many entries to use this template.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I could be wrong, but I don't think the nominator wants to do away with tv.com links in tv show articles, just delete this template and replace it with one more specific to what it is linking to (tv.com vs TV.com show). Pinkadelica^♣ 05:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: ...and redirect to TV.com --emerson7 06:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the community is too keen on that sort of redir. I certainly am not. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I always go to tv.com to CSI because CBS is having a problem. I need it.--Anonymous173.57.37.111 (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Highly used template (5000+ transclusions). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly used" is subjective and popular does not equate to "good" (which is also subjective ((smilie))). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not unused as the nominator claims. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• replace if possible, then discuss deletion. Frietjes (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm kind of bit iffy on this. So here what I will say, tv.com used to somewhat popular, but since the unnecessary overhaul on that site, it probably cause the site of lose it's interest and it's on a decline. So some of you guys should think about what I said. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until replacement I'm the one who deprecated this template in favor of Template:Tv.com show, and this template shouldn't be deleted just yet. It is not unused- currently, 5820 articles are using it, and (for those who didn't read the explanation for why the template is deprecated) all these uses of it will need to be modified to work for the new template (as the old template was for a no-longer-in-use URL format). This template should be deleted once all the instances of the old usage are replaced, but seeing as how that number of uses has only gone down by 2 in the last 48 hours, it looks like that's not happening right now. (I can see about writing a bot to do it.) --STUART (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and no replacement - tv.com is user generated content that fails WP:EL and we should not be encouraging what appears to be official sanctioning of its use by having a template. The replacement versions at Template:Tv.com show should go too. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / NO replacement. Nothing more than a Spam template for a link that fails WP:EL and which offers incentives for the creation of content which is; Self-published, Origional Research and Questionable. Website states;

"'write reviews, participate in our lively discussions, and contribute to show, episode and person guides!...you will start getting points. Pretty much everything gives you points - even just visiting the site! - but the biggest totals come from adding episode summaries, writing reviews, posting to forums, blogging, filling out your profile and adding friends. As you get more and more points you will reach higher and higher levels. There are over 100 levels to reach, and the higher the level the more awesome bragging rights you have. Get enough points and you might even become the Editor of a show." -- tv.com/aboutus.html

TV.com links fail Wikipedias External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Equally, Wikipedia is not a repository for links----Hu12 (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, linking to a site composed entirely of user submitted reviews does not seem to meet WP:EL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RedPenOfDoom Mediran ^{talk to me!} 00:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No replacement, just delete. Per Hu12 . Garion96 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a template used to format an external link. This template is not used to verify content, so our veriiablility and reliable sources policies do not enter in to this discussion. Per WP:EL#Important points to remember, links that verify content need to be moved from the external links section in to the references section.

This is the wrong venue to have a discussion on whether TV.com is a useful external link. Please take that issue to the proper venue. This discussion should remain focused on whether a template—that is used for formatting some 5,000+ links—should be kept or not. Thanks. 64.40.54.89 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no replacement, per above arguments. User-submitted mess and not encyclopedic. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no replacement. Changed my vote as I failed to notice it's used-attributed. — WylieCoyote 15:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - SethAllen623 changed the template link at ((Tv.com)) to point to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard,[1] and has started a discussion there requesting deletion of Template:TV.com and related templates claiming that TfD is not an appropriate venue for discussing possible deletion of a template. I have pointed out the error in his thinking and have restored the link at ((Tv.com)),[2][3] but it's probably a good idea to watch the template. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and any other tv.com template, not a valuable website as content is user generated. this template just encourages people to add the link to more articles implying it is somehow endorsed by Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this fundamentally any different from the "IMDb" series of templates, such as "IMDb name", "IMDb episode" and so forth? 86.146.104.203 (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  the rationale I have heard for IMDB is that the film credit portions receive direct oversight of the content by professionals on the sight and the user generated portions are merely the "trivia" etc. portions. tv.com does not claim any such oversight over any of its content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Procedural note I would like to add ((Tv.com show)), ((Tv.com anthology)), ((Tv.com episode)), and ((Tv.com episodes)), since the conversation has shifted to deleting these all outright as not good external links anyway. I recommend leaving open this conversation for a few days more, although I honestly don't see any outcome other than deletion for them all. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep until replaced, keep others. The lumping in of the other templates is highly unorthodox and a show of bad faith, as the reason for the original TfD creation is completely different from the reasons of these added requests. Useful template for a 'widely' used external link, while widely used might be "subjective", the fact is that it is not "unused". I would hope that those that say that it's not a valid site because it's user-generated realise that one of the most linked sites from wikipedia is IMDb, a site made from user generated content, as do a number of other widely used external links. And external links fail to be a RS on many occasions, due to their very nature they are thus used as EL and not RS. And I would thus hope that whoever closes this realises that most delete opinions are based on that misinterpretation of either the guidelines or purpose of this template. In any case creating a TfD for a (not really) 'unused' deprecated template and then lumping in four other templates for a completely different reason is a backhanded move. If I could I would probably close this for abuse of the TfD process. 83.101.78.248 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — 83.101.78.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment - regardless of the outcome here, I hope it's a speedy one because it (this TfD) certainly is messing up the formatting of a LOT of pages. IIf it's not being used - why are there notices of this TfD on so many pages? Also noting in reply to one delete rational: when used in WP:EL - that's a quite different thing than WP:RS. — Ched :  ?  07:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all I feel this nomination is seriously flawed and the discussion has ventured outside its sphere of authority. Ten days into the discussion, it's highly inappropriate to add other templates to the nomination. Many of the delete votes are based on tv.com's appropriateness as an external link but, as has been highlighted above, the correct venue to have a discussion on whether or not TV.com is an appropriate external link is WP:ELN. This is not the place to do that, just as WP:ELN is not the appropriate venue to discuss deletion of templates. Only once a WP:ELN discussion has determined there that tv.com is an inappropriate link, and there is no consensus that it is, should templates used in over 9,000 articles be nominated for deletion. The nominator claims that ((TV.com)) is deprecated and unused. Can he please explain why he believes the template is unused when it is currently used in 5,738 articles?[4] That certainly doesn't seem unused to me. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Further to the above, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 29#Tv.com templates previously discussed all related templates with a "No consensus" outcome for all templates except ((Tv.com show)), for which the outcome was "Delete", and yet which has now been recreated and is used in 87 articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all templates and eliminate the links altogether as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID - and add to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites.Moxy (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've clearly explained above, WP:ELN is the appropriate venue for discussing the appropriateness of tv.com as an external link. This venue, and this nomination can only consider deleting ((tv.com)), not removing links to tv.com from articles. And just as an FYI, WP:LINKSTOAVOID doesn't mention tv.com and there is an argument that tv.com meets the requirements for an external link, which are less strict than those for a reliable source. There is certainly no consensus that it doesn't. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for repeating yourself - The site is crap in my opinion and it should be removed all over. As for WP:LINKSTOAVOID it does not even meet #1 let alone #12.Moxy (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the site is crap, then the correct venue to discuss that is ELN, not here. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep everything except the originally-nominated template on procedural grounds. There's no way that anything except for ((Template:Tv.com)) can be judged to have gotten proper input in this discussion. Nothing against immediate renomination of them, but we can't add pages to a discussion several days after it starts and several days after it starts getting substantial input. No comment on the reasoning for deletion for any of these pages. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, mostly on procedural grounds. As per Nyttend, this is a mess: adding a huge group of additional templates late in the game is inappropriate. In my view, Tv.com is a slightly lower grade IMDb, and it would be far better if there was an overall ruling on the appropriateness of Tv.com for external links before the template is done away with. Absent the ruling, they'll probably just turn into direct external links; it would be far better to say that Tv.com shouldn't be used for individual episodes, or anthologies, or for anything (whichever is decided) than to eliminate a template that's going to break hundreds if not thousands of pages without a firm ruling that the site is, in fact, inappropriate for use in the External links section. Make it one consensus-driven decision, not a piecemeal hodgepodge. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2012 (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, after replacement. There is probably no harm in adding the corresponding taskforce flag, in the event the taskforce starts up again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Harry Potter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded. 315 transclusions to replace. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by what?Moxy (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Part of a merged template used by* WP:WikiProject Novels, Template:WikiProject Novels (condition harry-potter-task-force=yes). Techhead7890 (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at Wikiproject Novels template, it seems to be simply overwritten by the standard WP Novels template without any specifics, as the task force condition doesn't even exist anymore. Techhead7890 (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2012 (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) 05:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SequoiaKingsCanyon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion would be just because the navbox has been deprecated, correct? As in, the templates into which it was separated, Template:Sequoia National Park and Template:Kings Canyon National Park, would be unaffected? –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 21:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Correct. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Basketball-reference (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded. 838 transclusions to replace. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No opinion yet, but what has changed since the same nominator posted this at TfD only 5 months ago with result of "keep for now"?—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After waiting in good faith for a response, I find no reason for having renominated this for reconsideration. The template—though deprecated—is still in use, and substitution is not straight-forward based on different parameter criteria. I would suggest replacing all usage of this template with the newer one before any future renomination.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Doesn't seem to be deprecated, and what was it superseded by? pbp 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Superseded by ((basketballstats)) per note at ((Basketball-reference)).—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2012 (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. I suggest expanding the template inside the infobox, then check to see how many transclusions remain, then consider renomination. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBA player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded. 621 transclusions to replace. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No opinion yet, but what has changed since the same nominator posted this at TfD only 5 months ago with result of "keep"?—Bagumba (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After waiting in good faith for a response, I find no reason for having renominated this for reconsideration. The template—though deprecated—is still in use, and substitution is not straight-forward based on different parameter criteria. I would suggest replacing all usage of this template with the newer one before any future renomination.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- used in multiple articles.ElectroPro (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - May be deprecated, but is still used. ZappaOMati 01:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - This is called by ((Infobox basketball biography)) and produces a link in the infobox. ((basketballstats)), its replacement, doesn't produce a link, just a line of text. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• move to a subpage of ((Infobox basketball biography)), then update the link in that template, then clean up all the remaining links or, add a |noprefix= option to ((basketballstats)) so that ((basketballstats)) can be used inside ((Infobox basketball biography)). Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template should not be moved as it is not solely used by ((Infobox basketball biography)). Articles like Ronny Turiaf use this template in its External Links section.—Bagumba (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2012 (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) 04:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBA historical player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded. 69 transclusions to replace. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No opinion yet, but what has changed since the same nominator posted this at TfD only 5 months ago with result of "no consensus"?—Bagumba (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After waiting in good faith for a response, I find no reason for having renominated this for reconsideration. The template—though deprecated—is still in use, and substitution is not straight-forward based on different parameter criteria. I would suggest replacing all usage of this template with the newer one before any future renomination.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As AussieLegend has replaced all instances with the new template.—Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Deprecated, but still used. Like User:Bagumba, we should probably remove the usage before renominating. ZappaOMati 01:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Now unused. ZappaOMati 23:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Deprecated and now unused. To answer Bagumba's question, nothing has changed but the arguments in the original TfD used to support retention of the template had some serious flaws. Concerns about how to use ((Basketballstats)) to replace ((NBA historical player)) were unfounded. Simply replacing "((NBA historical player|" or "((NBA historical player|id=" with "((basketballstats|nba_historical=" per the direction on the template page produces exactly the same link produced by ((NBA historical player)). Despite the assertion to the contrary, replacement was very straightforward using AWB, which took only 35 minutes to replace all 69 transclusions. This included the time taken to manually check many of the articles to ensure the changes worked as they should. As a result, no more articles use this template and it is therefore no longer needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:05, 4 December 2012 (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) 04:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox State of the German Reich (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 27 November 2012 (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 after replacement with ((authority control)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BPN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still in use on 300 pages! Better wait until the bot has actually run - and even then, it might be better to redirect this. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this template can be deleted, but no, it definitely cannot be deleted yet, and the comment "unused" is false - see above. The idea is to replace the template with the "Authority Control" template, and adding a Tfd link to this discussion area doesn't help (unless the user could somehow initiate the conversion with a click of the mouse, perhaps?). User Wolfbot is going to attempt to convert all of these by bot, so the idea is to just wait until that happens. There is no rush, this is an encyclopedia. I also don't see why the template needs to be deleted at all - what's the problem other than a "I want to clean up Wikipedia" motive? Jane (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The authority control template works with a series of subtemplates; this one will be replaced by ((authority control/BPN)). The templates can stand on their own if needed, eg/ for links in running text. I'd suggest just retargeting this to there. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:15, 4 December 2012 (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, after replacement. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WIMA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded. 706 transclusions should be replaced and then this deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I think it might be a bit more complicated; see Template:WIMA/doc. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, but only after it has been properly replaced. it appears the transclusion count has dropped to around 200, so this shouldn't be a serious task to replace the rest. Frietjes (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2012 (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) 03:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Universal Parks & Resorts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 27 November 2012 (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) 03:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Herschend Family Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 27 November 2012 (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) 03:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bandy seasons in Sweden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

now redundant to the |year= option in the main Template:Bandy in Sweden. Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Withdrawn by nominator, non-admin closure. Specs112 t c 19:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User yam-plrl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Evidently a joke Babel template of an obscure dialect using some eye spelling that I can't understand. Either way, other templates exist for categorizing users of this dialect that follow the typical 1 through 5 and N scheme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We don't need Babel templates for specific dialects. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as wrong venue. Userboxes are discussed at WP:MFD, not here (see the "What not to propose for discussion here" at the top of WP:Templates for discussion). Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Sorry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:53, 27 November 2012 (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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User mm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, malformed, miscategorized Babel template which is superseded. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Burmese is an important language of Southeast Asia. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as wrong venue. Userboxes are discussed at WP:MFD, not here (see the "What not to propose for discussion here" at the top of WP:Templates for discussion). Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Sorry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:53, 27 November 2012 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bill Wyman's Rhythm Kings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates the members and no additional information--every member is going to link to the band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Template has 8 links (some with long articles that do not all link to one another without the navbox), which exceeds WP:NENAN by 2. Additionally, the band has 6 albums, whose track listings should likely not all be placed within the Bill Wyman's Rhythm Kings article. I can not believe that this is going to TfD at all, as an ensemble with 5 albums will also have every album linking to the band.--Jax 0677 (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When creating a navbox, it's not about the number of albums a band has released, it's about how many of those albums have articles (and not should have articles, either). NENAN is a rule of thumb and does not mean automatic inclusion if it passes it. Neutral on this navbox. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jax 0677. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't enough material to justify a need for this template.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or userfy until the album articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even WP:NENAN says otherwise with its own rule of five. There are seven members in the navbox, and at least two can be added, if not more. Need I list which members do not link to each other in the LONG articles? Besides, many navboxes with 4-5 album links and ZERO musician links have passed TfD.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you realize that WP:NENAN is just an essay. You don't need to list the members in long articles, you simply link to the band article, and navigate in the usual way. Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - As discussed in the TfD for Template:Simon Property Group, navboxes reduce the number of steps required to navigate between related articles. This navbox now has 3 albums which do not link to one another nor the more than dozen related musicians without the navbox. If an article is long, having the navbox makes moving between related articles much easier than hunting within a long article for the same information. How was there not enough information to justify a need for this template? Given the potential of this band to have articles written about its albums, this should NEVER have gone to TfD, considering the number of musicians that already had articles.--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 album articles that are nothing more than track listings (at least put some effort into these - these are just as bad as your bare bones navboxes). I redirected Groovin' (Bill Wyman's Rhythm Kings album) because source provided only indicates existence not notability (an Allmusic listing without a review or even a rating). Album articles should have a personnel section which would then link to the musicians without the navbox. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, even you said that stub articles are permissible. Per WP:NALBUMS, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting". I think we should answer the question about whether or not we really want 6-8 album track listings in Bill Wyman's Rhythm Kings before we go redirecting albums. In the discussion about Template:Kevin Fowler, the answer was no.--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With coverage in reliable sources. Which is why I redirected only one of the three albums created because there was no coverage in the source provided only a listing. When merging info, the track listing doesn't have to be among the items merged, just the pertinent info. In the case of these three albums, the only difference is the Allmusic links, thus a merge would be acceptable for these as they are with plenty of space. If someone wants to expand these album articles to include reception and personnel sections, go for it! --20:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply - Based on your redirect of only the one article, allmusic.com is a reliable source (perhaps I am mistaken). The goal of The Wikimedia Foundation is to share knowledge, which includes track listings of albums by notable artists. While the track listings do not have to be merged, displaying the track listings of albums from notable artists at some page on Wikipedia is one goal of The Wikimedia Foundation, whether the album has reviews published about it or is notable in and of itself. As discussed at the TfD for Template:Kevin Fowler, placing track listings in Bill Wyman's Rhythm Kings for FOUR albums becomes messy.--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2012 (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) 03:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox hurricane history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is redundant to the main infobox for hurricanes, and serves little purpose. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Partial duplicate of ((Infobox hurricane)). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to ((Infobox hurricane)). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 22:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant and unnecessary. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:57, 30 November 2012 (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.