Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 22

< October 21	October 23 >

October 22 edit

Template:Plotnote edit

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is actually against the article guidelines for film articles. The guidelines explicitly state that the ending is to be explained in full, but the template warns against doing so. Accordingly, it is to be deleted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Article_body Vaergoth 23:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Girolamo Savonarola 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Girolamo. EVula 23:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Girolamo. Supernumerary 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you don't want to know what happens at the end, you should just stop reading. Rosebud is a sled. The box contains Gwyneth Paltrow's head. Jack IS Tyler Durden. See! I warned you.... TheMadBaron 07:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia contains spoilers. Nehrams2020 08:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia doesn't protect the self-destructively curious. Mallanox 21:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. -- NORTH ^talk 20:15, 28 October 2006 (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). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:TrevorMainPageBox edit

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Uses defunct Wikipedia:hiddenStructure method. Name of template hints that it might have better placed in creator's userspace. I suggest userfying and deleting the remaining redirect if creator wants to keep it. Ligulem 22:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no apparent use. Punkmorten 07:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for above reasons. Shanesan 06:53, 29 October 2006 (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). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:TrevorMainPageBox2 edit

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Uses defunct Wikipedia:hiddenStructure method. Name of template hints that it might have better placed in creator's userspace. I suggest userfying and deleting the remaining redirect if creator wants to keep it. Ligulem 22:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no apparent use. Punkmorten 07:33, 27 October 2006 (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). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Batmanmovies edit

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template that is no longer in use. Template:Batman in popular media has replaced it. Doczilla 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, obsolete template. EVula 23:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla's statement. Shanesan 06:55, 29 October 2006 (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). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Mario developers edit

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More navbox creep. What constitutes a Mario developer is somewhat iffy -- the development of one Mario game, or a continuous relationship with Mario? Besides, it doesn't make much sense to group these companies without context. Andre (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Horrible use of a template. EVula 23:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does anyone realistically care who makes a game as long as it's a good one? Besides, if kept, would lead to developer templates about all games and franchises. Toomai Glittershine 02:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "does anyone care?" argument is a slippery slope (as I could say that Pokémon articles should be deleted because "nobody cares"). The developer of a game is important, but to bunch several largely unreleated companies together in a single template is, in my opinion, a poor use of the template namespace. EVula 02:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, we're talking about templates here and their usefulness in navigation, so the famed Pokemon test wouldn't apply here. Hbdragon88 06:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. Combination 21:52, 23 October 2006 (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). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Nintendo Wi-Fi edit

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a serious case of navbox creep. It's a small group of services and products with similar functionality but no concrete links between most items. The chances of this being a useful template are rather low. For example, someone on a Wii page is not really going to want to navigate to the DS Browser page, and someone on a DS page won't want to go directly to the Virtual Console page. Really the problem is, the DS component of the template is DS, DS Browser, and Wi-Fi connector, all closely related items, and the Wii component encompasses the rest. Yet, these items are wikilinked normally in the articles, and it doesn't make sense to provide cross-navigation between the two separate console implementations of Wi-Fi connection. Andre (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. EVula 21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. Combination 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{Nintendo hardware}}, since they are important, and would fit in with this template, although it may require a name change, depending on the results. JQF 18:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with category. Category:Nintendo Wi-Fi connection would be a perfect replacement for the template and not require the addition of yet another show/hide enabled infobox. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 19:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with category per above--A c1983fan^{(yell at me)} 12:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{Nintendo hardware}}, as tjstrf. --Johan Tenge - /spit 13:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with category per tjstrf. --Anas Salloum 03:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with category per tjstrf. Shanesan 06:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with category per tjstrf. --huntersquid <°)))>< ^{Calamari Cove} 16:35, 29 October 2006 (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). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Cost of living by city edit

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in template format, but rather it is an article with a table that is in the template namespace. I tried to nom it as an article but the AFD template doesn't work on it. Additionally, this "template" is only being used in a few articles that will soon be deleted. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Improper use of the template namespace. EVula 17:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Details of this kind do not belong here. Pavel Vozenilek 03:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless, similar articles are on AFD right now (but they are articles). Punkmorten 20:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per above. —dima/s-ko/ 02:34, 26 October 2006 (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). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Audrey Hepburn edit

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a template listing all of Audrey Hepburn's films and is intended to be put on each film article. A consensus was reached not to have categories for films by actor as this would lead to an enormous number of categories for each film, especially on films with an "all-star" cast. This template is doing the same thing, only its even worse because a template takes up a lot more space on an article. If each actor gets a template with all of their films listed it would quicky become unworkable. There would be dozens on an article like The Longest Day (film) or A Bridge Too Far. JW 14:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that such tables for actors would be overkill, and Wikipedia film articles would quickly fall to templatecruft. EVula 17:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 03:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Those templates in the bottom are less obtrusive than category clutter. And I don't see why one would necessarily lead to another. We can keep tables in the bottom and not have those cats just fine. --Irpen 02:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One wouldn't necessarily lead to another. But you can't really argue that big templates like this are less obtrusive than a category which only consists of four words at the bottom of the screen. JW 08:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But ... I created such a category and it was DELETED!!! (:Category:Eleanor Powell films). Make up your minds. 23skidoo 15:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it will get crowded if we put a template of "so-and-so's works" on every single movie with many actors, we can make it less obtrusive by formating the template to have a ^[hide] button. —dima/s-ko/ 02:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far worse than categories!! Xtifr _tälk 09:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Definitely worse than a category. Postdlf 13:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are useful for directors, but as mentioned above, it's not practical to have either categories or templates for actors. Prolog 23:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this gets deleted, then we might as well put up the director templates, novelist templates, and every template for deletion. Come on, people! The actor categories aren't being allowed, so let's at least keep the templates, huh? 23skidoo 15:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far worse than categories, which are also a bad idea. Can only lead to useless clutter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:34, 29 October 2006 (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). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Nintendo franchises edit

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated once before for deletion. However, I seriously think everyone needs to reconsider. First of all, it's just not useful -- the chances of someone on the Kirby page wanting to make a jump to the Mario page are very low... it doesn't make any sense to provide direct navigation between essentially unrelated things, even if they share one or two common characteristics. It's a slippery slope from this template to a Template: Shoot-em ups, or Template: Video games starring talking mammals, or Template:Fictional characters whose names start with Q. Also, what is considered a "franchise" worthy of inclusion in a list of franchises apparently is something of a bone of contention among editors, and the list on the Nintendo article itself is often changing -- which means this template and that article need to be synchronized, and it's sort of annoying to not only change the template, but remove it from the respective articles. And aside from that, determining what merits a franchise is difficult. One game is not a franchise, and yet people are adding things like Ice Climber and Mach Rider to the list. Two games really shouldn't be a franchise -- certainly Wave Race is not, but some seem to think Pilotwings is, yet Pikmin and Super Smash Bros. seem to be clearly franchises. What about Punch-Out!!? Can this really be considered a franchise? How about games developed by other companies yet published by Nintendo a la Golden Sun? Is Brain Age a franchise? How about Nintendogs -- which only has several variations of one title on the market? Doesn't a franchise have to bear some resemblance to the usual definition of franchise? How does POV play into this? Sorry for the ranting, but I think it's clear there are a lot of problems with this template and it needs to go. Andre (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not actually useful even if it had sane, well-described criteria. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original nomination reason. The games linked here are extremely far-flung and are only linked by the fact that Nintendo published it. Hbdragon88 06:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ ~~Keep~~ Delete I wasn't aware the fact that a template is subject to change is a criteria for a successful TfD nomination. Is that all that's wrong here? Aren't all wiki pages subject to change? Perhaps it would be better address these concerns about content by discussing them in the right place instead of via a TfD nomination, or being bold and splitting the template over two rows in a table (labeled Major and Minor) based on hard statistics about each series. The latter of these is my preferred suggestion. C'mon guys, we can do better than this! --DavidHOzAu 07:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where have you been? An anon did split it [1] but I reverted it based on my belief that it was WP:POV and WP:NOR to distinguish what was major and minor. The issue at hand here is that this template doesn't aid in navigation in any way, so the TFD is going to decide that. Hbdragon88 07:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I see where you are coming from, but I don't think it's original research when things are grouped by statistics—pure math has no grammatical person or point of view; numbers are just numbers. As for what this TfD is about, I thought we already decided that the template is relevant a little over a month ago? I'm still of the opinion that the rationale behind this nomination is highly irregular, although I might withdraw the speedy bit if I'm adequately convinced otherwise. --DavidHOzAu 07:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What statistics? Nintendogs is a massive seller, but hardly a franchise; it's one game that comes in several flavors. On the other hand, Pikmin is clearly a franchise, but neither game sold particularly well. Sales statistics favor recent games greatly; the industry has grown and sales info is more readily available for recent games. (And this doesn't once address the problem that all of these various games and franchises are rather far-flung.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I never said that franchises should be sorted on the amount they sell alone—of course the number of games would also be a factor, or else the result won't mean anything because it is missing data. The fact is that statisticians compare unequal samples in a neutral fashion all the time, especially in court cases. The important thing is to use our heads here; a statement of the obvious backed by hard stats is not original research. However, feel free to delete the template if you don't think it is worth the bother to do that.
      
      Note too that as far as I can tell, no attempt has been made to clean the template up; there were only three edits in the past month. (four if you count the tfd notice.) I really think any issue you're having in the main article is separate issue. Bear in mind that deleting this template won't solve anything on the main page because it won't address the underlying problem. If the template is deleted because of it, this will be a very good candidate for recreation when the issue is solved.
      
      On the other hand, all these games do have Nintendo in common, so it might be best to reconsider this nomination. --DavidH Oz Au 08:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem raised is that there's no way to tell what's a franchise or which ones are worth mentioning and which aren't. You suggested statistics; that only solves the latter problem, not the former, and there are often no statistics whatsoever available (and the ones we do have tend to be extremely poor). It's difficult to establish reliable sales numbers for best-selling, recent games; establishing sales numbers for less-successful games or older games is often impossible (or at least impractical).
      
      In fact, what definition of "franchise" are we using? Some of these franchises are defined simply by the appearance of a single recognizable character (Mario), some of these franchises are typical game franchises with largely similar gameplay/premise/setting (Zelda, Kirby), some of them are marketing franchises with little in common as far as design aspects goes but shared promotion/packaging/etc. (Game & Watch, Mario sports, Touch Generations).
      
      These games may all have Nintendo in common, but Nintendo is a large company with a 20+ year history, publishing games from developers on at least three continents. A sufficiently broad definition would include dozens and dozens of games; a sufficiently narrow definition will frustrate expectations and lead to constant fluctuation in inclusion (the latter seems to be the case at the moment).
      
      This would be a problematic category or list. As a nav template, it's useless. We don't do nav templates like this for large publishers of popular works for just these reasons, and they're not problems that can be solved by cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      You've convinced me; I've changed my vote to Delete. It will be hard to discuss anything more about any way to fix this template, suggest that it gets deleted promptly. --DavidH Oz Au 09:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      
      According to Princeton, the definition of "franchise" is "a business established or operated under an authorization to sell or distribute a company's goods or services in a particular area." To my knowledge, everything under "Nintendo Franchise" is exactly that - all the way down to Animal Crossing and Nintendogs. I'm missing your "math" vs "english" debate. Shanesan 06:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Then we have a template with dozens and dozens of links, often linking "franchises" of one game and a remake of that game. It would be so huge as to be useless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and change to a cat, seems better suited to this style. H ig hway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 11:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Combination 13:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Theoratically, you can access most notable Nintendo franchises by going through the Super Smash Bros. template. Toomai Glittershine 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I always thought it didn't do much besides take up space. Also, can I point attention to Template:Square Enix franchises? It seems to be the same thing and if this debate results in delete, I would find it hard to justify this one's existence. Axem Titanium 01:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the above reasons. 68.162.176.250
Delete, while I don't find it to be that far fetched that a person may want an easy link to other Nintendo franchises from the one they are looking at, the problem lies in deciding which are worthy of being included, or even what truly counts as a franchise. Going slightly off topic here, I agree with Axem about the SE template. Someone should put that up for deletion. Xubelox 01:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete, you can't just say "delete" because the title is wrong. Change the title, perhaps, to something more legit. Break it down into pieces - don't ...oh, screw it. Delete it so it can be made again better.
Change, I am against deletion of this template. I suggest changing it to a list of whatever is considered a franchise. Remove Ice Climbers, Mach Rider, Wave Race, Punch-Out!!, Pikmin, Nintendogs, and Brain Age from the list. The Super Smash Bros. template does not show the Nintendo franchises anyway. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 22:17, 29 October 2006 (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). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:TV3 (New Zealand) Primetime Schedule edit

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and this is a copyvio. "3's listings are copyrighted and CANNOT be used without permission. We can supply you with our listings for a fee of $2,000 per month," from TV3's FAQ section. It's also a recreation of Template:TV3 New Zealand primetime which was deleted about five weeks ago for the same reasons. I'm taking this to TFD rather than speedy deleting to give the creator(s) a chance to argue their case.-gadfium 03:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that many articles on television networks have such a program listing in them, so I request that people who agree to deletion of this article explain whether their reasoning is solely based on copyright grounds, or whether a wider precedent should be set.-gadfium 03:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule, which ended as Keep, indicates that such articles are acceptable as historical records.-gadfium 05:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio only delete. Any wider precedant should be set as a result of a wider discussion than a single AfD debate. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 04:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the TV3 programming list was created due to the fact that many other television networks had the same, and had not been deleted. It is not something that is to be updated every week, but more for visitors to see how this New Zealand network sets out their schedule. Jake971 17:16, 22 October 2006 (NZST)

These are not TV3's full listings, but merely a table advertising the dates of some of their primetime shows. There are many other websites which do the same, just perhaps not in a table form. eg www.throng.co.nz

Jake971 17:25, 22 October 2006 (NZST)

Comment - I can't see a schedule on there, they have articles on TV shows and a list of TV shows showing on New Zealand TV (which are both fine, Digital Spy in the UK does the first one for UK shows), but not a listed schedule on there. A wider debate does need to be done, with the notability of schedules within Wikipedia. Historical articles could be fine, but for current schedules (i.e. schedules covering programming on a TV channel at the present time) is too dodgy to place in Wikipedia for legal reasons. I have been told by one editor who placed a schedule in an UK article that it was removed soon after for legal reasons. --tgheretford (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some schedules on Wikipedia are on dodgy legal ground, regardless of the fact they are unencyclopedic as per section 1.7.3. of WP:WWIN (Particularly UK ones. I am having to seek advice on the GMTV article because the schedule on there may be illegal). In regards to TV3's legal stance, it would be best for this template to be deleted in my opinion. As well, due to the dynamics of schedules changing all the time, Wikipedia may not be able to keep up with changes, specific TV listings websites (who have paid for the royalties to use schedules) are better for schedules. --tgheretford (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Australian copyright law, but I don't believe television schedules qualify as protectable expression under American copyright law (that TV3 claims they are is cute, but irrelevant). What is the basis, if any, for thinking that such schedules might be copyrightable? Postdlf 17:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of thing - at best it'd fit on wikisource, but I suspect they'd have the sense not to take it there either. --Improv 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Firsty, New Zealand and Australia are completely different countries Postdlf. And this has been relabelled as an example of a TV3's primetime schedule, which will soon become outdated and classed as "history". This is not something which anybody has plans of keeping up to date. It is entirely suitable for wikipedia, as I myself have in the past found it interesting to learn about the primetime schedules of other countries on here. Oh, and my point about www.throng.co.nz was that while it doesn't have a tabled schedule, it still has the dates on each of the pages of the shows, which in essence, the same information is being displayed, just in a different format. --User:Jake971 (talk) 20.35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:DoNotAdjust edit

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). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this in my early days here, and now I'm not sure why. Unused - Do Not Adjust Your Set cast-members have this on their articles, but not in the form of a template. The information is already there, so the template is pretty redundant. riana_dzast a 11:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is a valid use of the template namespace. Odd that it isn't used... It appears that it was just substed into the Eric Idle article from the get-go.[2] Given that the template is still in use (albeit in spirit only), I'm going to restore all the instances of raw code with a link to the template. EVula 17:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, when I made it, I wasn't sure how to actually use it :) If you wish to use it, please, do so, I'll change to keep (yes, even though I nommed). riana_dzast a 01:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused template per nominator/creator. If even its creator agrees the unused template is useless, then it's useless. Doczilla 22:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was unused because it was improperly implemented (subst:ed into the articles, rather than transcluded). I've fixed the articles in question, so the template is no longer not in use (er, double negatives make no sense...). EVula 23:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It wasn't subst'd, it was just like that when I found it! I made the template based on the coding I found in the articles. If the template links somewhere now, that's great - keep it. riana_dzast a 01:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless navigational template; this one uses real actors. Actors and directors star and direct in dozens of TV shows; to make a navbox for each show's actors would soon become overwhleming and crufty. Such navigational templates should only be used for fictional characters that are only tied to that single show, or a few shows at most. Hbdragon88 07:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question This actually existed previously on the actors' pages, albeit in subst'd form. Is your concern the fact that the template exists, or that there is the navbox on the pages? riana_dzast a 09:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Both. The navbox IMO doesn't aid in navigation. 17:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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). No further edits should be made to this page.