The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Official US website
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Official Canadian website
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:TV Guide 100 Greatest Episodes 1997
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 is a small difference between this and the other templates you mentioned. A navbox about a subject like this should have a main article that has this information. The nabox links to TV Guide's 100 Greatest Episodes of All-Time but nowhere in that article is this list. Articles show that the subject is notable. Gonnym (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance, it just has the first ten entries of each list. But that could be rectified (I seem to recall intending that, but no doubt was distracted by other things). ButlerBlog (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once the article has the list (and sourced) then the navbox will have greater validity (WP:NAVBOX point #4). Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added those tables to the article. This also exposed a small issue with the template for the 1997 list - items 11-20 are missing (which I will fix in both the article and template). ButlerBlog (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think there may be a WP:COPYVIO issue as the list would be the intellectual property of the magazine. --woodensuperman 12:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing like an Emmy template. This is a list in one of many magazines that may publish lists of this kind, not a major award. We cannot have navboxes for any magazine article that happens to have produced a list on their opinion of what were the best TV episodes. [1][2][3] etc. --woodensuperman 09:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I disagree. It's important enough to the television project that there's a request for articles for each of them (along with Emmy articles). If it were something other than TV Guide, I'd tend to agree with your assessment that it is indiscriminate. But it's not a random mag - it's TV Guide, which, when the original list was created in 1997, was still the definitive source for all things television and as Gonnym pointed out, it's a notable subject (and list), which is why the television project lists these as high priority articles for creation. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to cherry-pick, then I'll point out that AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies includes the complete list, and has an accompanying template Template:AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (1998) which also includes the complete list. Likewise, AFI's list is not a major award, and they've produced a list on their opinion of what were the best [movies]. I get it - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works both directions: you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist (emphasis added). That's why I've pointed out this is notable because it's TV Guide (as the AFI list is notable because it's AFI). It's not some random mag or somebody's blog. At the time of the original list, people didn't go to the Internet or Wikipedia for information on what to watch - they went to TV Guide. It's a recognized source for both the TV project (WP:TVRS) and in general WP:RSP, and (as already noted) it's a list of articles that the TV project has noted as high priorty. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think that ((AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (1998))) isn't a suitable topic for a navbox either, along with ((Sight and Sound Poll)). I'm not suggesting that these episodes shouldn't have articles, we just don't need a navbox for them. --woodensuperman 15:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an award navbox. This is a listing from a magazine which in itself is a non-defining for template. A simple list as it is on the main article is sufficient. The article is notable on its own and this navbox is extremely bloated to be capable of simple and clear navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTDUPEIt is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. As stated above, it's notable. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But on top of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, this also fails multiple points of WP:NAVBOX. Why would you need to navigate between episodes of completely different series? --woodensuperman 12:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid reason for deletion per WP:NOTDUPE; they are complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it is a valid reason for deletion. dozens of these have been deleted in the past for the same reason, see for example, this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The specific discussion referenced is not and apples-to-apples comparison. It is of templates that are essentially duplicative of other templates (there already was a template for the AFI article). Regarding additional similar discussions, I understand that people can have opinions that may not be in line with the guideline and they're welcome to that opinion. But that doesn't nullify the fact that a guideline exists; which in this case is WP:NOTDUPE: It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative.ButlerBlog (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2023 (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:TV Guide 100 Greatest Episodes 2009
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 This is not an award navbox. This is a listing from a magazine which in itself is a non-defining for template. A simple list as it is on the main article is sufficient. The article is notable on its own and this navbox is extremely bloated to be capable of simple and clear navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, excessive navboxing, and per prior discussion: see for example, this discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The example given is not apples-to-apples as it's a discussion of templates that are duplicative of another template. This discussion is whether a navbox should exist when there is already an article. Template/article/category overlap is not considered duplicative nor excessive per WP:NOTDUPE, and based on that guideline, using an argument of duplication is not sufficient for deletion. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2023 (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:Alignd column
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 13:11, 29 May 2023 (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:8TeamBracket-SWC
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 13:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -fuzzy510 (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2023 (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).