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) 00:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2S (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:3S (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:4S (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:5S (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:6S (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:7S (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:8S (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:9S (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:10S (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:JackS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:QS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and redundant to ((card)). Frietjes (talk) 23:47, 15 August 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) 00:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WikiProject Fair City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and the redirect links go elsewhere. Frietjes (talk) 23:43, 15 August 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 merge with Dune (franchise). Feel free to reformat it as you see fit. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dune chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used very few times, and where it is used it inappropriately emphasizes the fictional nature of the content. There's a bit of precedent for deletions of fictional chronology (though there are still a few existing templates). Am not against substing before deletion. Izno (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• merge with one of the articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• merge into Dune (franchise). I didn't even remember that I created it haha, but I imagine it was to make sense of how the newer works by other authors fit into the fictional timeline. Let me know if I can assist in implementing this.— TAnthony^Talk 14:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd agree with the location as the merge target. The Dune (franchise)#Plot arc section looks like a good target to integrate it into, since explaining the plot in the context of which books place what events where would be valuable, and would leave the book-specific plot to be commented on in the individual work articles. --Izno (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I envision a similar table format but as a sidebar to the right of the Plot arc section, it sort of summarizes/organizes the chronology which is already covered in prose in the section itself. Actually, the short/story/novel columns could just be combined into a single list.— TAnthony^Talk 16:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Go for it. I'm not sure I agree that's the best solution, but that's a matter of article quality and not of template value. --Izno (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha, appreciate the indulgence ...but hypothetically, how would you do it?— TAnthony^Talk 20:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, from a not-a-close look, it should be closely integrated into the text of the section, which goes into too much of the plot anyway. A sentence for each of the works, at most (maybe 2 for books and multiple short stories per sentence?) seems appropriate therein. But that aside, the plot section probably shouldn't exist anyway, since the development section seems to cover each of the texts in almost-sufficient detail. (I'm keeping in mind WP:WAF + WP:SUMMARY here.) --Izno (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking of a sidebar like User:TAnthony/sandbox#sidebar, but I knew that's what you might say, because admittedly the chronology of works is already covered in the prose. The only unique quality to this table is, then, the chronology of the short stories, which isn't really covered in the text of Dune short stories, the other article which uses this template. And I won't even get into it here regarding the work needed on Dune (franchise) ;)TAnthony^Talk 22:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, as I said, it's a quality issue whether this ends up as a table, or as list, or as tightly integrated, or a sidebar... etc. --Izno (talk) 20:03, 22 August 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; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cameron Mackintosh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links a lot of plays and productions that were not originated by Mackintosh. Therefore his involvement is tangential to the articles in question. If they linked to specific Mackintosh productions and not the source plays, then it would be a different matter. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, disrespectful deletionist, delete way! --Discographer (talk) 12:08, 15 August 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) 00:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Co-hosts of The View (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No cast and crew in navboxes per longstanding consensus. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, better as a category and/or list in an article. Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 15 August 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) 21:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dancing on Ice celebrities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We don't have cast and crew in navboxes per longstanding consensus. A navbox just detailing performers in a reality TV show is just an extension of the same principle. Navboxes like this just encourage WP:TEMPLATECREEP and put WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others. For the same reason we have the guideline WP:PERFCAT for categories. What would be left is redundant to ((Dancing on Ice)). Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and all the ones that redirect to it (I merged 9 templates into one). I wondered if we could listify it, but the main article Dancing on Ice contains that already. (note there is also a matching category that should be CFDed at some point.) anemoneprojectors 08:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, better as a list in an article. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nothing wrong with this infobox, to delete this you might aswell go ahead and delete all the series infoboxes for Strictly Come Dancing and Dancing with the Stars. Superdry19 (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - although deletion of this would not necessarily mean deletion of those, several of these kinds of templates are currently being deleted - Template:Celebrity Big Brother for example, was the same as this, a template with only celebrities who participated in a celebrity show, and deleted for the same reason as this has been nominated. anemoneprojectors 12:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete (edit: just saw that there is another existing template for the winners of the show, so that should be kept and serves the purpose I outline below)These particular templates serve a purpose and, much more importantly, are of interest to readers who come to the pages. That is the core of templates - would you, as a reader or fan of the shows, find the map/template useful and interesting. As for consensus on not including some participants of films or TV shows in templates, where is that? If it's not policy or a guideline then it's yet to be determined, and I would suggest that major award winning performances be included on templates (the omission of her Golden Globe winning performance for Evita on Madonna's template is baffling), and this would include individual winners of these reality shows, so maybe limit this template to just the winners. Randy Kryn 13:42, 23 August 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).