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. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Looney Tunes Cartoons episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of Template:Infobox television episode, I don't believe there's any reason that the articles that use this fork cannot use the primary episode template. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on, it’s used as the Infobox the shorts of Looney Tunes Cartoons, get it through your skull!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelynkwapong539 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I know what it's used for. Why can you not use Template:Infobox television episode? Template forks should not exist without a very good reason other than "it's used". -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Tried it in editing mode, and it just did not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelynkwapong539 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That does not support the creation of a fork. This template is causing pages to be listed under Category:Pages using infobox television episode with unknown parameters. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no need for this template, it's essentially a duplicate. Ed6767 (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Duplicates a template that can handle anything this template does. As an aside, this template was forked with obvious lack of intention for taking care of the template (no documentation) or even understanding of how templates work (based on the parameters used). --Gonnym (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Brojam (talk) 01:26, 10 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).

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 June 11. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Renaissance_music_manuscript_English_sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:English_Virginalist_School (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 per this and prior discussions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Joanne tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant – all tracks with articles are already included in the navbox Template:Lady Gaga songs, and Template:Extra track listing states that this template should not be used if a navbox is already on the page that lists the songs. Richard3120 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Template:Extra track listings should only be used if a majority of the tracks are linked to existing articles and if the songs are not linked in an exisitng navbox (see Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples). This template falis both. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ojorojo. - Brojam (talk) 01:27, 10 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).

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 per this and prior discussions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Artpop tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant – all tracks with articles are already included in the navbox Template:Lady Gaga songs, and Template:Extra track listing states that this template should not be used if a navbox is already on the page that lists the songs. Richard3120 (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Template:Extra track listings should not be used if the linked songs are already included in an existing navbox (see Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ojorojo. - Brojam (talk) 01:27, 10 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).

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 per this and prior discussions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Born This Way tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant – all tracks with articles are already included in the navbox Template:Lady Gaga songs, and Template:Extra track listing states that this template should not be used if a navbox is already on the page that lists the songs. Richard3120 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Template:Extra track listings should not be used if the linked songs are already included in an existing navbox (see Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ojorojo. - Brojam (talk) 01:27, 10 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).

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 per this and prior discussions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The Fame Monster tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant – all tracks with articles are already included in the navbox Template:Lady Gaga songs, and Template:Extra track listing states that this template should not be used if a navbox is already on the page that lists the songs. Richard3120 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Template:Extra track listings should not be used if the linked songs are already included in an existing navbox (see Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ojorojo. - Brojam (talk) 01:27, 10 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).

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. per this and prior discussions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The Fame tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant – all tracks with articles are already included in the navbox Template:Lady Gaga songs, and Template:Extra track listing states that this template should not be used if a navbox is already on the page that lists the songs. Richard3120 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Template:Extra track listings should only be used if a majority of the tracks are linked to existing articles and if the songs are not linked in an exisitng navbox (see Template:Infobox song#Track listing examples). This template falis both. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ojorojo. - Brojam (talk) 01:27, 10 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).

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:Infobox reality competition season. Primefac (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox reality talent competition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox reality competition season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox reality talent competition into Template:Infobox reality competition season, because both are infoboxes for a season of a reality competition and per WP:INFOCOL. TheTVExpert (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, the merging of the "talent competition" infobox into the "competition season" infobox. The latter is a module within the normal television season infobox, so we should maintain that functionality and add in whatever other parameters would be necessary from the former. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: See no issues with the merger of the two. GUtt01 (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: They're both "reality competition" for a reason and mostly sharing the same parameters. TVSGuy (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: To alleviate confusion over which one to use. werldwayd (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Favre1fan93. Only a few new paramaters need to be added; judges/coaches, num_tasks, and mentor_winner/coach_winner. All the extra parameters about the winner (image, origin, song, genre) are not needed. - Brojam (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Also cohost/copresenter, and finals_venue would have to be added. Agreed that all the extra winner parameters are unnecessary. We should also make sure we have down what old parameters correlate to the new ones. Like the only "logo" will have to become "image" in the new instance and replace the existing "image" (see it'll be a bit confusing). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Shouldn't cohost/copresenter use the presenter/host parameters as well? We don't have that differentiation in the main television infobox so I don't think we should have it here either. Also, seems like (from my quick check) shows are incorrectly using this "co-" parameter for the presenters of companion shows, which should be listed in their own article. And yes, forgot finals_venue. - Brojam (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thinking about it more and I agree with Gonnym that we don't need the finals_venue parameter. - Brojam (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that partner_winner parameter can also be counted or included, in the case of Strictly Come Dancing, Dancing with the Stars or I Am a Singer (Chinese TV series). Just to make an improvement, and I think keeping the extra parameters about the winner (except for the song, unless if it is an original single, such as in the case of The X Factor (British TV series), the song parameter instead called "Winning_Single") would still be fine. What do you think, @Brojam:? TVSGuy (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Some series if I not wrong, have multiple premiere or finale dates depending on the broadcast and the channel; I think can we also agree on using multiple start_date and end_date as early_start, actual_start, early_end and actual_end, where 'early' refer to the earlier premiere date, and 'actual' refer to the televised premiere date. What do you guys think? TVSGuy (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @TVSGuy: partner_winner perhaps, but definitely no to the others. Just stick to the existing parameters. We do the same for regular television series that have split air dates. Also, this is not the place to really discuss adding anything. Let's get the two merged, then discussions can be had if there's a need to add anything new. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Strictly Come Dancing and Dancing with the Stars do not use either of these infoboxes, but simply ((Infobox television season)) with the parameters |celebrity_winner= and |professional_winner=. - Brojam (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, those parameters were placed there before the multiple reality templates were merged (I think there were 4 that merged). Once this final one is merged, articles using those parameters can be switched to this and those parameters removed from the regular season template, creating consistent usage. --Gonnym (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Works for me! - Brojam (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have to somewhat oppose the proposal as proposed. This template is an example of a badly formatted template. The image of the winner in the middle of the infobox is completely unnecessary as are the |copresenter=, |finalsvenue=, |winner-origin=, |winner-genre= and possibly also |winner-song= parameters. I do support replacing the usage of ((Infobox reality talent competition)) with ((Infobox reality competition season)). --Gonnym (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Gonnym on this one. I honestly don't see the need of having the image of the winner (or even the runner-up) in the infobox to begin with. Those images are better suited for the body of the articles. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 02:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gonnym: as you can see a bit above, Brojam and myself were beginning to discuss this too (with both of us agreeing with you that those parameters you listed are ones we shouldn't keep). If the result of the merge is just to do a straight implement the old into the new without adjusting first, then yes I'd oppose that. But my support above was under the assumption we'd merge in the appropriate parameters and leave the unnecessary ones out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah that's fine, just made sure to put my vote clear here, as from experience sometimes that is the difference from a good merge and a bad one. --Gonnym (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I thought in the interest of making sure this merge goes smoothly, here's what I'm envisioning happens with the parameters:

@GUtt01, TVSGuy, Werldwayd, Brojam, Gonnym, and Alucard 16: let me know if you have any additional thoughts on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me. My only question is if |finalsvenue= is really important to the series? If it is then sure, keep it. --Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine, but |celebrity_winner= and |professional_winner= could also be added as proposed above. TheTVExpert (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same |caption= parameter in the Infobox reality talent competition is being used for both the logo and the winner's image. A mess. - Brojam (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: I believe |finalsvenue= is worth noting for the specific season but am would be fine either way for it. @TheTVExpert: yes, eventually those can get added, but this table is strictly dealing with what currently exists and would be part of the merge. Those two are not part of the the reality talent infobox currently. @Brojam: oh I know. I realized that when I was creating this. So perhaps caption actually won't want to be retained, if it is be used for the winner image and not the logo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Pretty good job on the changes, but I think I have other suggestion; maybe include a |third_place= parameter (though only some competition does; |other_finalists= is not needed/necessary FYI since this can be tedious); keep the |season= parameter however, because that would be an clear indication on which season the show was at; coaches and mentors are the same right?, so this should be fine. Other than that, i'm OK with the new format.

And I would like a new section reserved for the Season Highlights (as I saw in the award ceremony templates), that would be placed for the information for the finals and who won the competition (along with name of winning mentor or something), who is runner-up etc. This can also improve as well, but it's similar to the old format pre-merger.

And one more note: in the event for I Am a Singer (Chinese TV series) however, each singer had a partner so will this falls under which parameter, such as |partner_winner=? Let me know. TVSGuy (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TVSGuy: Once again, this is not the place to request anything new to the templates, simply if they should be merged. Once they are, then new discussions can be had about further changes including any new parameters. So please wait until then, and then begin a talk page discussion at the template for all of these. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to address keep the |season= parameter however, because that would be an clear indication on which season the show was at. Per the coding of Infobox television season, this parameter is depreciated and not necessary in 90% of articles as the template automatically pulls the season number info from the article title and its disambiguation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 10 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).

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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The Legend of Zelda chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per recent discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Unnecessary templates, this template should be hardcoded and live at The Legend of Zelda series page, not duplicated across every game article. Its width also interferes with accessibility on mobile and read-aloud devices. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 00:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Consensue is already pretty strong on what to do here, this is borderline WP:G6 really. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JOEBRO64 00:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Zelda chronology is complex enough to merit a visual aid, but it's best suited to a single, hard-coded inclusion on the series page rather than included on every game's page, since the individual games rarely have connections to more than one or two others— which makes including the full chronology unnecessary. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kawnhr. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:19, 3 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).

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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per recent discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Unnecessary templates, the fictional "chronology" of DK video games basically duplicates the release order in real life and therefore, this template does not add any value when on articles that already have the main DK navigation template, which should be all of the linked articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Absolutely nothing "chronological" about this. Donkey Kong is not a plot-centric franchise by any means, and this "chronology" is quite literally just a list of DK games by order of release. This serves no purpose. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 00:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fictional chronology of a video game series with almost zero plot present. Wikia-like cruft. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JOEBRO64 00:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Donkey Kronology. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:19, 3 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).

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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per recent discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Unnecessary templates, this template doesn't really show a chronological relationship between three video games that take place in three separate continuities. It's also not really necessary to navigate between so few articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Axem Titanium: Small correction: Xenoblade Chronicles and Xenoblade Chronicles 2 chronologically happen at the same time across two different dimensions, and in-game events are linked. Xenoblade Chronicles X however, is in a different continuity, as already noted on the template. The fact that editors (and hence readers) keep getting this wrong just illustrates the need to have the containing sidebar in the series' article. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 00:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this “chronology” is useless. There’s only three video games and one can’t even be connected to the others. There’s not even enough to call it a chronology. There’s no flow, just some names in white space. And all that isn’t even taking into effect that these WP:INU chronologies are generally discouraged anyways, even without its glaring conceptual flaws. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sergecross. This template is utterly pointless, there is nothing "chronological" about this whatsoever and comes of as WP:FANCRUFT. This series has three games, and the plot of them can easily be explained in the text. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 00:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JOEBRO64 00:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As said, four games across three separate continuities do not merit a visual or navigational aid. I understand that XB 1 and 2's worlds have some story connection, but I do not think this this table makes that apparent to anyone who doesn't already have knowledge of the series, nor that it cannot be covered just as well by prose within the relevant articles. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm a huge fan of this series, and looking at this template I can't even understand what it is trying to say. The issues Arkhandar mentions would be more appropriately addressed in prose, and would be much easier to understand in that form as well.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:35, 8 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).