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 Not enough participation to achieve a rough consensus. A suggested merge is to a redlinked template. The other template in question is not regional. The last comment was more than 2 weeks ago. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Batangas City TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Dagupan City TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Pampanga TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Puerto Princessa City TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No useful navigation; only navigate two to three articles each. Sixth of March 00:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and maybe form Template:Philippine TV. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there is already a template at Template:Television in the Philippines, but don't know if merging to that template is the best idea, since it's individual stations, and not regions. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2016 (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. 3 votes for delete, 1 against. Despite the removal of TVGUIDE-like content, the information is contained in the section about on-air staff. The discussion has been relisted, with all votes tending towards delete. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WLS-TV On-air Staff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is nothing but fan cruft and WikiProject TV Stations does not use navboxes for local TV personalities. Not to mention this goes against WP:NOTTVGUIDE. ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 00:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is probably better accomplished by a category.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I think such a category would not be WP:DEFINE would be summarily deleted. A navbox does not have that same requirement. --Izno (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have fixed the template such that it can be used without violating NOTTVGUIDE. That leave the claim that it is fancruft--one which I find to be specious; the template is like any other navbox in listing the people working at the company--and the claim that WP:TVSTATIONS gets to decide what kind of navboxes we can or cannot have; another specious claim per WP:LOCALCON. Keep the modified template, which provides an appropriate level of navigation between the staff articles currently on-wiki. --Izno (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion is the same as my nomination – delete, even with the modifications. It's just fan cruft and isn't common with the local TV station articles on Wikipedia. ☔️ Corkythehornetfan ☔️ 00:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Corkythehornetfan: I unbolded your vote to avoid a future closer confusing it for an editor other than the nominator. There's no need for a nominator to vote in the discussion. ~ Rob^Talk 03:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasnt sure if I needed to or not. Thanks for fixing it, BU Rob13! I wanted it to be more of a response to Izno more than anything... just wanted them to know my opinion didn't change after the modifications. ☔️ Corkythehornetfan ☔️ 03:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, seems like navbox creep to me. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Csworldwide1 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2016 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Magic: The Gathering players (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is misuse of a template for a category and list which already exist (Category:Magic: The Gathering players and list of professional Magic: The Gathering players). This template doesn't provide more specific criteria (such as, for example Template:NBA MVPs does, being a template not of basketball players in general but specifically NBA MVPs); instead, this template is a generic list that is attempting to list MTG player articles on Wikipedia. There's a reason we don't have templates of such genericity as a "basketball players" or "football players" template that is just a list of basketball player and football player articles on Wikipedia: the number of people/articles fitting such a template is constantly growing over time, to unwieldy sizes better served with a category. The template will be frequently out-of-date unless constantly manually synced with every new article, and whenever it does not match up with the category, the POV problem arises of why certain players are listed on the template but not the category. Category:Magic: The Gathering players already does what this template is trying to do, and does it better (more up-to-date with less maintenance required and with more fairness). —Lowellian (reply) 02:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (and not a !vote): Per WP:CLN this is an example of a bad navbox. Maybe there is another criterion which could be used to organize this template, such as when the players started playing, were born, how many wins they have of a major tournament.... --Izno (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NOTDUP, the argument that it duplicates the list and category isn't a reason for deletion per se. I'm pretty sure nearly half of the mtg player articles aren't even notable anyways, so it's possble that we could be looking at a much smaller navbox that would be easier to organize.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Just for the record, User:Prisencolin is the creator and primary editor of this Magic: The Gathering players template.) If the player has an article on Wikipedia, then presumably, they are notable (if the player is not notable, then the article should have been deleted, per Wikipedia's standards requiring that biographical subjects be notable), in which case, it is POV and biased to arbitrarily exclude them from the infobox. That is one of the fundamental problems of this infobox: it cannot stay neutral without constant maintenance and monitoring that catches every new player article created. It is not even a fair infobox now, excluding multiple players who have articles on Wikipedia. —Lowellian (reply) 23:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, seems like navbox creep to me, especially when there is already a category. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a category makes sense. A navigation box can be done for championships or something with an inherent order. There would be no navigation boxes of this type for other, let's say more mainstream sports like baseball, or chess or soccer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2016 (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 to May 15. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Semitic topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This classification is outdated by many decades. See Semitic people for sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think its useful because there are no other templates that lists such topics in such a defined order. Ninefive6 (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; article shows that this classification is outdated and nowadays arbitrary. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 11:15, 2 May 2016 (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).