- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Bonnie Tyler songs with Template:Bonnie Tyler.
I believe that the contents of Template:Bonnie Tyler songs could be more concisely listed in Template:Bonnie Tyler. The former template lists songs from all of Tyler's studio albums, but I believe many of these articles fail WP:MUS (such as Where Were You, Sayonara Tokyo, I'm Just a Woman, Louise, Love Is the Knife, What You Need from Me), so Template:Bonnie Tyler songs may soon be superfluous. Both templates also contain lots of duplicate imformation (namely links to Tyler's studio albums). Skyrack95 (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Both templates are large and have different scopes. While there still these articles, the templates do a good job of linking them and separating the two things. Comments on the notability of the articles should be discussed elsewhere.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The songs navbox is much too long to be merged into the artist navbox. If many of the songs don't meet notability requirements, they should first go through AfD, then we can see if there aren't enough for a songs navbox. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is a certain point where there are too many song/singles to justify having a single template and splitting it into two makes for better navigation. With over 70 song links vastly outnumbing the number of other links in the combined template, so in this case it makes for better navigation. Aspects (talk) 23:12, 22 June 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).
Template:Elendil family tree
- 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) 14:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This template is unused in the articlespace. There seems to have been a general consensus that the use of these elaborate family trees in Middle-earth articles crosses the line into WP:FANCRUFT, given that they have largely fallen out of use. While four of the members of this family tree still have articles (Earendil/Elwing, Elrond, Aragorn, and Arwen), this unused template doesn't seem to add anything that editors deem necessary. Hog Farm (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I agree these are FANCRUFT and, more importantly, they're unused so they're not providing any benefit on those four pages. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:09, 18 June 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).