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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pakistani animated films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The scope of the navbox is too broad as there are no similar templates. List of Pakistani animated films and Category:Pakistani animated films should suffice. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this will tend toward unwieldy, but I do generally think the other mechanisms are sufficient for navigation. Delete. --Izno (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Election box candidate France party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Election box hold France party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, probably replaced by standard election box templates Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2020 (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. Izno (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Verylongtalk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We currently have four templates for notifying users that their talk page is getting very long. This is the least used one with it not being used since 2010 base on this insource search. I think the entire practice of having templates for this purpose is dubious since it is always templating the regulars since newcomers won't have overly long talk pages and if you have to do it you should probably use one of the better options such as ((Uw-archive)) or ((Utverylong)). --Trialpears (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the simultaneous discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_8#Template:Archiveme CapnZapp (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also possibly relevant: WT:Template index/User talk namespace#update Uw-archive CapnZapp (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As nom pointed out, in the userspace we have better templates that should be used. --Gonnym (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  But do we really? Have better templates that should be used? (I don't think it's appropriate to delete anything until we agree what the answer is, lest we end up with divisive options only) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've given you two templates I believe are better (((Uw-archive)) and ((Utverylong))). If you disagree could you please explain why? --Trialpears (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In the case of ((Uw-archive)), I've provided a link detailing potential issues with that template. Can I ask you to familiarize yourself with these issues before suggesting we rely on it? Thank you kindly CapnZapp (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In the case of ((Utverylong)) I would be happy to detail any reasons of mine. After you detail yours. That is, so far you have only said you think it is better, but no why or how. That's not a very compelling reason to delete someone's work, don't you agree? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm in favor of ((Uw-archive)) with ((Utverylong)) being deleted (but both are better than ((Verylongtalk))). ((Uw-archive)) uses the a much more similar style we use to our other user notifications. --Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You too, Gonnym - please follow my link and let's (there) discuss the wisdom of relying on ((Uw-archive)) before deleting its alternatives, shall we? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any real issue on the talk page. You mention that the link should be changed from one section to the section right after. Ok. Is that the whole reason you're attempting to stall these TfDs? Just open an edit request and get the link changed. --Gonnym (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  First off, please assume good faith and quit accusing people of stalling. Thank you. Secondly, I don't see this TfD ending in a quick delete (not with two deletes, one hold off and one merge) so what's the rush? Thirdly, please discuss the update template I added to Uw-archive at the appropriate place, i.e. not here. Fourthly, I'm assuming you read my argument in detail, and thus you have realized the reason I'm bringing it up here as a possible issue is the potential that Uw-archive might be deleted. In other words, that any argument made here "delete this or that" needs to be examined for the possible assumption Uw-archive will be there to take over. Since this is not a given, such an argument might lose its weight. Note the hypothetical. Have a nice day CapnZapp (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold off. Based on discussion (above) it's clear to me the first step should be an open-ended discussion of how to deal with a) long article talk pages and b) long user talk pages. In other words, I believe this TfD to be premature (or at the very least based on incomplete arguments). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for a number of reasons. There is no need for a template, it is to express an opinion that could just as well be written in plain text. There is certainly no need for four such templates. It is WP:POINTY. Additionally if the page does need an archive, WP:SOFIXIT. I disagree with CapnZapp, such open ended discussions are likely to be long-winded, and for this multifactorial and complex issue, fruitless. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Template:Archiveme. The two banners perform the same function. --Bsherr (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_16#Template:Uw-archive before making any final decisions. Again, let me suggest we end these TfDs as inconclusive. Again, the ground has shifted, and just deleting these two templates might not be what you want. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2020 (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 no consensus. Izno (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Archiveme (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We currently have four templates for notifying users that their talk page is getting very long. This is to me the worst of them with it being placed as a banner on the top of the page not in a section giving the templated user a natural place to reply and is more agressive than the other templates with it becoming bright red if the page is over a certain size. If we have to template the regulars we should use better templates such as ((Uw-archive)) or ((Utverylong)) and not slap a banner on the top of their talk page arguably going against Wikipedia:User pages#Ownership and editing of user pages. --Trialpears (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the simultaneous discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 8#Template:Verylongtalk CapnZapp (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note that the nom is solely talking about its use in user talk space. However, AFAIK, this template is not confined to that space. I'm not sure any of the current arguments for deletion apply once this is held in mind? CapnZapp (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As nom pointed out, in the userspace we have better templates that should be used. In an non-user talk page however, I think this should never be used. If someone thinks it's too long and needs archiving and is already placing a template, then the template that should be placed is the archive one. What's the point of this extra step? --Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What "archive one", Gonnym? And what do you think of the way the nom's arguments aren't applicable outside of a single namespace? CapnZapp (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Help:Archiving a talk page#Choosing a bot. Table comparing the 2 main bots. To your second question, I answered that. In the user namespace, he pointed out what to use and in other namespaces, this should never be used. If a user thinks a page needs arching, then WP:JUSTDOIT. --Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm. Let me try to unpack this. First off, you're linking to a help table that I don't see as an answer to my question - surely you're not suggesting we put that table onto talk pages instead of Archiveme or its three cousins? To the second question, I'm not sure you registered my observation - this TfD is based on arguments that aren't valid outside of a narrow scope: shouldn't we ask the nom to provide arguments for the comprehensive situation before making a decision? As for your final observation: you seem to argue we should not have any templates like this at all. If so, don't bury this argument. Myself, I don't agree - the policy on archiving clearly tells us to first achieve consensus, and not simply to go ahead without warning. And I think we agree JUSTDOIT is entirely inappropriate on user talk pages. As you can see, I mostly want you to clearly separate your arguments, so each one can be discussed separately. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The same argument, "just do it", could be made for any maintenance banner, and would be equally weak. --Bsherr (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Also worth noting that the template currently is only used on User talk: pages. --Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  To me, the template, and specifically its escalating color scheme, is clearly meant to be used more broadly than that. Perhaps you should offer an opinion of Delete based on this argument - that the template simply didn't see any of its intended usage? Anyway, I'm maintaining that both the nom and the sole proponent of Delete is currently based on arguments that don't quite hold up to scrutiny. The nom because all arguments relate to user talk space only. Gonnym because "In an non-user talk page however, I think this should never be used." which AFAIK goes directly counter to the template writer's intentions. CapnZapp (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold off. Based on discussion (above) it's clear to me the first step should be an open-ended discussion of how to deal with a) long article talk pages and b) long user talk pages. In other words, I believe this TfD to be premature (or at the very least based on incomplete arguments). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for a number of reasons. There is no need for a template, it is to express an opinion that could just as well be written in plain text. There is certainly no need for four such templates. It is WP:POINTY. Additionally if the page does need an archive, WP:SOFIXIT. I disagree with CapnZapp, such open ended discussions are likely to be long-winded, and for this multifactorial and complex issue, fruitless. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If there's no need for a template, why not delete all four of them? Please specify a rationale for deleting this template. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Of the 4, only two are banner style, and there is a need for a banner for long talk pages in any namespace to propose archiving. The contention that a banner is not needed when a talk page discussion will suffice is misplaced. We have lots of maintenance banners on Wikipedia, and it could be argued that a talk page discussion would substitute for any of them. However, banners call attention to important issues, are simple and timesaving to use, communicate the issue consistently, and make it easy to find the issue across pages. The simultaneous deletion discussion of the other banner template is unfortunate, because one discussion would have been best, but I think this template is preferable in design to the other, and so I will suggest merging the other into this one. --Bsherr (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_16#Template:Uw-archive before making any final decisions. Again, let me suggest we end these TfDs as inconclusive. Again, the ground has shifted, and just deleting these two templates might not be what you want. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2020 (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 on 2020 July 29. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ABS-CBN_comedy_shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABS-CBN_current_affairs_shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABS-CBN_documentary_&_magazine_shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABS-CBN_drama_anthologies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABS-CBN_drama_series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABS-CBN_game_shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABS-CBN_informative_shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABS-CBN_kid-oriented_shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABS-CBN_newscast_shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABS-CBN_reality_shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABS-CBN_talk_shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABS-CBN_variety_shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ABS-CBN_youth-oriented_shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 on 2020 July 31. Izno (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:American_Music_Award_for_Favorite_Pop/Rock_Album (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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) 13:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Welsh National League Premier Division teamlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Proposing deletion as league disbanded in 2020 and clubs have moved to other new Tier 3,4 and 5 leagues Zanoni (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2020 (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 to Template:Cerebrum labelled map. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cerebrum labelled map/inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cerebrum labelled map/framed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cerebrum labelled map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Cerebrum labelled map/inline with Template:Cerebrum labelled map.
These are three templates of an identical image. Two subtemplates are called by the parent template which already has parameters. I propose merge into the parent template for simplicity. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Redrock Broadcasting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of this broadcasting company's radio holdings are in St. George, Utah, for which ((St. George Radio)) exists. Redundant to that template. Raymie (t • c) 06:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And an embedded external link smh. Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2020 (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. Izno (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dispatch Printing Company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The company's holdings (this is actually all broadcasting articles) were sold to Tegna in 2019, so this has been essentially superseded. Raymie (t • c) 06:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree and Delete--Shortride (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:01, 23 July 2020 (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. Izno (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uzbekistan NFT results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This has been merged into the Uzbekistan national football team template which makes this redunant now. HawkAussie (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:49, 22 July 2020 (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. Izno (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ESPN Deportes Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While this template has enough links to survive on that rationale, the network went defunct in 2019 and we do not typically have navboxes on defunct radio networks. This template has been reduced to a handful of transclusions and I'm shocked it's not zero, as it's been removed from most station pages. Maybe worth substing on the main topic article, ESPN Deportes Radio, and deleting. Raymie (t • c) 02:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The effect of it going defunct is that the navbox's topic is no longer a defining characteristic of the navbox's members. --Bsherr (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a defining characteristic of any of the navbox's members. As far as substing on ESPN Deportes Radio's article is concerned, the info in the navbox would be better conveyed to readers through a properly sourced table, complete with the dates each station affiliated with and disaffiliated from the network. At present, the navbox does not have all of the network's affiliates at the time of its closure, and includes one station that disaffiliated from the network three years before to its closure.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2020 (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).