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 after splitting portions of the navbox that aren't redundant to another navbox into their own navbox. (non-admin closure)Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what this catastrophe of a navbox is supposed to be navigating. I think the only option here is WP:TNT. --woodensuperman 12:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps, the music template was created after the symbols template. Lol. I think a split would be reasonable, or maybe the template can be redesigned to be akin to these types of templates. Soulbust (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the non-links as those should not be in a navbox. The flags and links to events should also be removed as they aren't the topic of the template and the years should be moved in the style of Template:FIFA World Cup anthems and songs (and most other templates on Wikipedia). Now the question is if those two templates should be merged, of it the duplicates from this template be removed. No point in having both templates with duplicate information. --Gonnym (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the flags and the years should be definitely removed and unlinked. The instruments are not specific to the tournaments, so they should be removed, and none of the mascots have articles, so they should also be removed. That leaves us with the music, which has its own navbox, the films (only two), the balls (not sure how specific these all are to the tournament, and some don't have articles), and the video games. Perhaps the video games (and maybe the balls) should be split to their own individual navbox(es), and this one deleted. --woodensuperman 08:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good candidate for separate navboxes. The music off in its own template is a good start. Delete after separation. (No opinion on specific template topics.) --Izno (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:S-Japanese episode list and Template:S-Episode list
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).
Previously nominated these templates for deletion, but there was no consensus due to the confusion of nominating it with a number of other templates for another reason, and thus the reason for deletion was unclear.
These two templates provide an unnecessary sorting feature, typically only for episode numbers that can be provided in other manners. ((S-Episode list)) has zero transclusions in the mainspace, and ((S-Japanese episode list)) only has ten, all of which can be replaced with ((Japanese episode list)). Also, neither of these templates provide the accessibility checks and categories provided by the module used by ((Episode list)). -- AlexTW 11:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't believe templates should be forked if they have a small amount of additional params/features. Either those params aren't valid and the new template basically bypassed consensus to create its own style, or they are valid and can be easily integrated into the main template. --Gonnym (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a strong support to merge a "sortable" parameter into the template, it can easily be done. I don't, however, see this occurring, as I've never seen the strong need for a sortable episode list. -- AlexTW 12:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being able to "sort by prod code" would be a very useful feature indeed, and I would fully support implementation of that feature, if it's technically feasible to implement (I always just assumed that it was not "technically feasible to implement"). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's another bridge we could cross after this discussion. Honestly, sorting by air date, prod code or the "default" number/number in season might not be a bad thing, but at this moment, we shouldn't be forking off separate templates like Gonnym said. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a beneficial idea, but I'm not sure how it would be implemented. See my sandbox - I've added raw wikicode as the episode table header so that I could add the "sortable" class. Click on any of the headers to see how it does sort, but completely messes up when it comes to the column spanning episode summaries. However, as Favre said, that's a bridge to cross at another time. -- AlexTW 02:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: I've asked and it seems we can fix this issue. class="expand-child" should be added to the "ShortSummary" row (see the example here). --Gonnym (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and my reasonings in the previous discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - while rare, the two different airing orders for the articles that use these templates are significant. They are not simply listing something by production code. Technical limitations have further limited the use of this template, as most shows are broken into seasons, but this is not an issue for most Japanese/anime productions (hence why it showed up there first). The nominator has misunderstood the significance of the alternate airing orders. The prime example of this template is the Haruhi episode list, where the original aired order was a specific and intentional reshuffling of episodes to change the impact of the story. It is meant to be viewed in either order, with each viewing order having a different artistic impact on the audience.
The template itself is a bit of a mess, and has a lot of technical limitations. I don't oppose a verifiable alternative that can do the same job, built into another template or otherwise. However, most of the arguments presented in the previous discussion focused on the significance of the sortable feature, and so I feel it is important to defend that functionality. -- Ned Scott 23:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed understand the apparent "significance" of it, and still do not believe there to be any requirement for it. As stated, there are zero transclusions of ((S-Episode list)) in the mainspace. As an opposing example, List of Futurama episodes seems to have done quite well listing episodes out of airing order and not requiring any sortable feature. Any other alternate airing or production order can be noted in prose. The template itself is indeed a mess, and thus should not continue to exist when far more verifiable and accessible versions of exist, the features of which you may not be aware of given your extremely infrequent editing habits. -- AlexTW 00:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I haven't heard of enough of a technical limitation here to suggest that merging would be a prohibitively bad idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorting should now work for Template:Episode list/sandbox - it still needs proper testing to see that nothing breaks. If that was the only issue from the opposing editors, this is a non-issue. --Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:DecadesBC
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. Not used on any pages post-AfD so only keep argument has been made invalid (non-admin closure)Matt14451 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Currently only used on disambiguation pages with an average of 0 views per month. Redundant to ((Centurybox)) on articles. – BrandonXLF(t@lk) 02:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
((centurybox)) is arguably less useful on those disambiguation pages. I would be inclined to keep. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: I'm saying we shouldn't have any templates on the pages, not for ((DecadesBC)) to be replaced. – BrandonXLF(t@lk) 20:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused, no potential uses that don't appear redundant to other templates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Jason Karaban Discography
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).
This artist's navigational template currently consists of zero links and the only link that could be added is the artist's, so this navigational template navigates nowhere. Aspects (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Infobox Rome episode
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).
There are not going to be any more episodes of this series, I suggest that we "Susbt" every instance of this box (there are just 25 of them), which is a wrapper for ((Infobox television episode)), and then delete it, in order that we can more readily benefit from upgrades to the parent template, while at the same time reducing the overall maintenance overhead.
The list of individual episodes is not needed, as the template also links to List of Rome episodes, and has "previous" and "next" links, so I separately propose that we remove it before the template is Subst. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
substitute and delete, if the list of individual episodes is removed, otherwise, move the list of episodes into a subtemplate before substituting to avoid duplicating code in every article. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete - no need for the separate infobox. Agree with pigsonthewing about possibly making the list of episodes into a subtemplate. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete - There are currently 3 other Television episode infoboxes other than Template:Infobox television episode which are almost exactly the same, with the exception that these templates (2 wrappers and one stand-alone) haven't been updated in over a year with any new fix or feature update that the main infobox had. This one for example does not have |image_size=, |alt=, |running_time=, |awards=, |editor= or |photographer= and does not have any documentation at all about the usage of fields it does have. Regarding the unique fields this one has - none of the articles using the standard episode infobox (over 13k) use it, and as Andy said, there is a link to the list of episodes article anyways. The other parameters |setting=, |time_frame= seem a bit trivia, but it might be useful, however, if we start allowing such parameters for one series, good or bad, others will follow. |link= seems to not even be used in these articles. Finally, ignoring all these faults this infobox has, I cannot see any logical reason to have separate TV series have any individual infobox, wrapper or not, as that will mean that there will be no reason to object to one being created for any other TV series. In addition, keeping them separate means maintaining these and keeping them up-to-date, which evidence shows is not something that is happening. --Gonnym (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it doesn't need instructions because it's not going to be added to any more articles and the missing parameters aren't really needed. Because the infobox is a wrapper for Infobox television episode, any missing parameters could easily be added if they were needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree with your first and second point. I fail to see how running_time, or alt, or editor, or photographer aren't needed here. This is just pointless maintenance (which isn't happening as can be seen by the lack of updates). --Gonnym (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that the missing parameters apparently haven't been needed in the 13 years that this template has existed demonstrate that the parameters aren't essential. While alt is desirable let's face facts - very few editors use it in Infobox television episode or the much more widely used infobox television. Many actually delete it and I've had to restore it to hundreds of articles. As for "pointless maintenance", what maintenance? There is none. Rome aired a mere 22 episodes, the last of which aired 11 years ago. It's one of the many series where no updates happen for months or even years. Even if the "missing" parameters were added, I can't see anyone going around to each article to populate them. As for the template itself, the only time anyone goes near it is when Andy nominates it for deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't agree and I'll leave it at that. --Gonnym (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"the only time anyone goes near it is when Andy nominates it for deletion". Utterly false: [1]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, you can't disagree that nobody normally bothers with this infobox. The example you gave was one extremely minor instance. After your first nomination we saw this then nothing until you nominated it again. That resulted in this and then in the following 3.5 years there were only 3 fairly minor changes. Otherwise, nobody really seems to care. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions closed as "no consensus" here and here. At the first discussion Frietjes actually voted keep because the substituted version is a mess, especially the repeated large episode list. Has anyone tested to see what the effect would be now? What has actually changed since the last two times it was nominated? --AussieLegend (✉) 19:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
which is why I said if the list of individual episodes is removed, otherwise, move the list of episodes into a subtemplate before substituting in this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And it should be removed as no other TV series using Template:Infobox television episode uses that (those were removed during this discussion). --Gonnym (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that's not what I asked though. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete per above editors, especially if it's a concluded series and no longer necessary. If the template can be substituted with the parent template, and minimal changes occur to the display of the infobox, then a separate one is not required. I see no reason why there should be a separate template for this specific series - if it's required for this series, why not most or every other series? -- AlexTW 10:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have ((Infobox Doctor Who episode)) so this isn't the only series with a custom infobox. If it's good enough for Doctor Who... --AussieLegend (✉) 11:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's good enough for every other show? Is that what you're saying? I didn't say it was the only series with a custom infobox. Doctor Who has currently airing episodes (airing over the span of 55 years rather than 2), a lot more than 22 episodes (try closer to 850), and a much more customized infobox than Rome does. Do you plan to reply to every future opposing comment? -- AlexTW 12:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You said I see no reason why there should be a separate template for this specific series - if it's required for this series, why not most or every other series? and that goes both ways. If if it's required for Doctor Who, why not most or every other series? Other infoboxes have been deleted recently so why does Doctor Who deserve its own and not this one? That Doctor Who is still airing is really irrelevant. We should be consistent, which you've argued for elsewhere. I'm not saying this infobox shouldn't be deleted, in fact I'm reserving my opinion for now, I'm just questioning the existence of that other infobox that could be replaced by ((Infobox television episode)). --AussieLegend (✉) 13:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just detailed my answer to all of that in my previous reply; questioning it doesn't change the answer. Does the parent template have links to The Doctor, or Companions, and subsections specifically for them, to accommodate for its unique format? No. Does the Doctor Who infobox template even use the parent template? Nope. The level of customization required for the Doctor Who infobox for over 800 episodes makes the requirement for a separate template obvious, especially when it actually serves the episodes of four separate series (DW, Sarah Jane Adventures, K-9 and Class). However, we are not here to discuss that template (I'm curious as to why you raised only that one, and not the Simpsons or Futurama ones... yet another editor basing their arguments solely upon my name), but we're here to discuss this one. A custom template is not required for a mere 22 episodes - I myself have recently nominated an episode list template that's used in only 10 articles. -- AlexTW 14:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:Benn Jordan
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).
After removing the redlinks and non-linked entries in this musician's navigational template, it was reduced to the artist's link (which I just added) and five albums that redirect to the artist, therefore there is no need for this navigational template that navigates nowhere. Aspects (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this navbox does not aid in navigation. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The 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).
Template:LilyPond source
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).
Delete, not needed now that Lilypond is supported inline. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above Hhkohh (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Template:ZGS Communications
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 company folded earlier this year, after the stations were sold to NBCUniversal. The station's articles are now replaced with the NBCUniversal template, thus making the ZGS template unnecessary. Csworldwide1 (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).