Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 18

< February 17	February 19 >

February 18

Template:Bill Paxton

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bill Paxton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There may be enough coverage to talk about Paxton's direction of the music video "Fish Heads". If template is deleted, please ensure that the film articles have Paxton's other works mentioned in the "See also" section. Erik (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the first film. Loved the second film. Really like the actor.
Delete. Why do we need a template for 2 bloody films? Varlaam (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough films directed by him to make a good navbox. Can recreate if/when he has directed more. --RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Toshiya Ueno

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep now that the template has been expanded. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Toshiya Ueno (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one and all the ones below from same editor. 2-4 films does not warrant a nav box. Further, most of these folks are barely notable in their own right and many of their works are either barely notable or not notable at all and have no articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This and all below-- Time-wasting stupid nominations. Notable directors with many notable films. Templates were started for the additions of those film articles, which will come. Deleting them is only a waste of your time, because they will return. P.S.-- didn't notice the comment above. Asserting that directors like Yasuharu Hasebe, Kan Mukai and each of the rest of these directors are "barely notable" is a statement which combines phenomenal ignorance with phenomenal arrogance. Dekkappai (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stupid? Some of these directors are redlinks, they are certainly not all notable. If you want to call of these stupid, you might want to review how "stupid" they are. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral though I think it is simpler to have a "See also" section linking to the director's one other work than to resort to template coding. Erik (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What harm are the templates doing? (E.g. what resources are they unconscionably wasting?) -- Hoary (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every template adds load time and processing time to an article as they have to be translated before the article is served. See the lengthy arguments about references for the full technical details on how templates impact articles. Excessive and unnecessary templates just bogs down the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the lengthy arguments? I could understand situations where there are a half dozen templates, all with many links, but for a template like this, the impact has to be minuscule. It seems to me to be more an argument about aesthetics, like whether or not we need such a formal setup for a set of articles. Erik (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I've heard of this. I don't recall ever having read anything on the matter by somebody who did calculations or timings, but of course either it is an issue or it isn't one. If it isn't, then we have nothing to talk about, so let's assume for a moment that it is. The first of these templates, Template:Toshiya Ueno, appears on two pages. One has a title for which the term "NSFW" might have been invented; the other is Ambiguous (film). When I am about to edit the latter, I see a list of templates within it. There are 29 of these. For comparison with a page under the control of somebody I might expect to be concerned about these matters, I now turn to User:Koavf (and more precisely, this version thereof). I set about to edit it, and thereupon see a list of templates including:

Template:-
Template:!
Template:·
Template:Boxboxbottom
Template:Boxboxtopalt
Template:Cat handler
Template:Cat handler/blacklist
Template:Cat handler/numbered
Template:Days in month
Template:Fullurl:Template:
Template:If pagename
Template:IsLeapYear
Template:MONTHNUMBER
Template:Namespace detect
Template:Navbar
Template:Navbox
Template:Navbox with collapsible groups
Template:Public domain release
Template:Transclude
Template:User bass guitar
Template:Userbox
Template:Userbox-2
Template:Userboxbottom
Template:Userbox-level
Template:User css-2
Template:User current age
Template:User current age/days
Template:User current age/months
Template:User current age/years
Template:User degree/BA subject
Template:User en
Template:User en-us-n
Template:User en-us-N
Template:User es-2
Template:User free speech
Template:User html-4
Template:User HTML-4
Template:User Indiana
Template:User Indianapolis
Template:User indianau
Template:User instrument
Template:User instrument subcategory/1
Template:User nws-0
Template:User pd
Template:User Publicdomain
Template:User serial comma:Yes
Template:User simple-4
Template:User trumpet-1
Template:User United Nations
Template:User WikiProject Bahá'í Faith
Template:User WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy
Template:User WikiProject Indianapolis
Template:User WikiProject Western Sahara
Template:User xhtml-1
Template:WSWP-Member

That's a total of over ~~eighty~~ fifty. Would Koavf care to comment on what seems to be a contrast between (a) his lack of enthusiasm for the templatifying of articles and (b) his enthusiasm for templatifying his own page? -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC) ........ Amended -- Hoary (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain precisely how that's of any relevance whatsoever to this discussion? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent question. Much of it was indeed irrelevant, and I've just now removed that. We've been told that the invocation of templates adds to server drain. Assuming that this is indeed a matter of concern, I'd like to know why the user who seems keenest to delete templates from Wikipedia articles (where they may or may not be helpful) is so keen to put them on his own user page. I do not presume to suggest that the answer would interest everybody here, but I'd guess that it would interest other people beyond myself, which is why I pose it here. ¶ But of course it wasn't Koavf but User:Collectonian who wrote above Every template adds load time and processing time to an article as they have to be translated before the article is served. On her page, Collectonian too transcludes over fifty templates. Perhaps she too would care to comment. -- Hoary (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone wants me to take off a template or two or thirty from my userpage, that's fine. My argument was never about server load; it was the superfluousness of some of the templates. A template that "navigates" between two bluelinks and thirty redlinks is useless and should be deleted. Server load is a significant issue for a site with as much traffic as Wikipedia and I would be willing to do my part to cut down on it if someone informed me of this being some critical matter. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also makes it more difficult for users to navigate categories if they are filled with essentially superfluous and unnecessary templates. Keeping them also encourages the creation of more equally ephemeral templates that don't actually serve the function of navigating users between sets of articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two arguments, of which the second seems logical enough (though I wonder about its premisses). As for the first, I suppose that you're talking about navigating around template categories. Correct me if I'm wrong there; but if I'm right, wouldn't an easier solution be the more careful categorization of templates? -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone wants to make more specific categories, that's fine with me, but it's hard to think of a more simple category than some of these and having them flooded with basically useless templates serves no one's interest. In fact, if they were more specifically categorized, that would simply make a more Byzantine and difficult categorization scheme of unnecessary templates... It seems like that would only compound the problem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template now has ~~three~~ ~~four~~ five films. Note: the "barely-notable" shlubb Toshiya Ueno won the Best Director prize at the first Pink Grand Prix, he's had two films win the #1 prize, and had a career retrospective at Tokyo's Athénée Francais. All the directors listed here which are under my watch are of a comparable standing at least, and all have articles. If the "some of these directors are redlinks" statement refers to some of these Japanese directors, then perhaps we have a color-blindness issue? Dekkappai (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The redlinked directors may be great and notable, but they don't have articles on en.wp, so there is not much to be navigated yet. I am nominating these templates with no discrimination against them being remade if there is enough substantial content in the future, but as it stands, a template with a redlink director, four redlink films, and two bluelink films is simply not useful enough to exist; it does not aid a user in actually navigating between articles, which is the entire purpose of this type of template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oh dear me, such titles for moving pictures! But if Wikipedia must present such horrors, let it do so in a nice little template that persons of a delicate sensibility may safely ignore. -- Hoary (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough films to warrant a template. Garion96 (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How many is enough? The template currently has ~~three~~ ~~four~~ five and it will be easy to add more. In fact, given this director, more are bound to come: HERE is a list of 27 films the director made until 2003. And he's still active, and "notable" enough to have had a career retrospective at Tokyo's Athénée Francais. Dekkappai (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to lack of answer...Yeah, that's what I thought... Dekkappai (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough links have been added that this is now a useful navbox. By the way, for those who think Justin might be nominating these templates based on the directors' nationality or the movies' content, you obviously haven't noticed the numerous other director and film series templates he has nominated. It's all about the number of links in the template at the time he nominates it. --RL0919 (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think anyone has implied that these nominations were in any way based on the subjects' nationality. (I may have pointed out that they're Japanese, but only because being so makes their "notability" more difficult for non-Japanese speakers to determine.) The subject matter of the films was brought up by an ISP, but that was just silly. And then, of course, "delete everything ever written by this editor" (I paraphrase) was mentioned in all good faith ;) ...In about 12 hours I hope to have another film or two done to address the one template below you haven't voted "Keep". Hoping the decision isn't closed before then (either way), as I do want to have the filling-out of these templates well under-way by the end of this process. Regards. 18:50, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Tetsuya Takehora

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep now that it has been expanded Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tetsuya Takehora (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ because while two films is too small a set for a template, there needs to be an approach to connect them sans template. If the template is deleted, please ensure that there is a "See also" section mentioning the director's other work. Erik (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that navigation has been boosted and has potential to be boosted further, thanks to Dekkappai's efforts. Erik (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now has ~~three~~ ~~four~~ five films. Director is currently active, and besides winning Best New Director and Best Director, already has ~~five~~ four more films (in addition to the ~~three~~ four with articles started) listed at the Pink Grand Prix (the "Academy Awards" of pink). Dekkappai (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - underpopulated, and in porn three films is nothing. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The genre being pornographic should not have any bearing on navigation. The point of the navigation template is to show related articles, in this case films directed by the same person. How else do you suggest that readers navigate from one film article to another? Erik (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pornographic nature is relevant here. Porn is produced in vastly greater quantities than mainstream cinema, typically on a lower budget, the vast majority of which is not notable, and there are typically no relations between most works to justify navigation. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have some references (sic!) to support that pornographic pictures are produced in vaster quantity than non-pornographic pictures (the comparison merely with cinema pictures, when TV pictures are notable enough, documentaries etc is aimed to give a false view on the situation, no bad faith assumed), your opinion is just that: Original research. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, this is "porn" lite. These Pink films are films with softcore erotic content. They come in all genres-- drama, horror, comedy, sci-fi, etc. They just have a nude or sex scene every 15 minutes or so. These are not porn videos. Dekkappai (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Normally I would defer to the superior knowledge of 81.111.114.131, but I am unable to resist the promise of "sexy thighs". Keep, dammit! -- Hoary (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough links have been added to make a useful navbox. Doesn't matter what the content of the movies is, as long as the articles exist and meet the minimum requirements to not be deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Yūji Tajiri

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep now that it has been expanded. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yūji Tajiri (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ because while two films is too small a set for a template, there needs to be an approach to connect them sans template. If the template is deleted, please ensure that there is a "See also" section mentioning the director's other work. Erik (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since set of three films is enough of a threshold for me and since Dekkappai says that more works by this director exist and can have articles. Erik (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually three films. Just located a film article I'd started but forgot to include in the template. Many more can be started on this notable director. Dekkappai (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - three films for a porn director is not a high output. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The genre being pornographic has no bearing on navigation. Why does the navigation template not benefit the reader? It is a formal setup of films directed by a person. Like Dekkappai said, more articles can be started, making the template even more invaluable. Erik (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a syntactician in the house? I would like a labeled tree diagram of the determiner phrase "office lady love juice". -- Hoary (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now has four films... "Office Lady Love Juice?" Isn't that something like Pocari Sweat? Dekkappai (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Toshiki Satō

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep now that it has been expanded. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Toshiki Satō (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Erik (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - underpopulated, porn films rarely need navigation. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should they need navigation less than films of other genres? Please do not discriminate. Erik (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that though the Japanese use the term "porn" for these films, "erotic" is probably a better translation. They're soft-core productions similar in the amount of erotic content to those shown in US drive-ins and grindhouses during the '60s and '70s, but with-- according to some-- often higher artistic value, and cinematic interest. Many very accomplished directors have started in this genre and gone on to other areas (such significant people as Yōjirō Takita-- last year's winner of the US Academy Award for best foreign film, Kiyoshi Kurosawa and Shusuke Kaneko for example). Other highly respected directors have worked in the genre almost exclusively-- Tatsumi Kumashiro, Noboru Tanaka, Kōji Wakamatsu... Others, like Teruo Ishii have looked at it as just one more genre to work in occasionally throughout their career. In any case, the clear separation between "adult" and mainstream entertainment which exists in the US is not the same in Japan. Simple porn-vids, these are not. Dekkappai (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Four~~ Five films now. Again, a prolific (over 40 films as of 2009, and still active), and high-profile pink film director-- three films in the #1 spot at Pink Grand Prix, and several other films awarded. Dekkappai (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough links have been added to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Kōyū Ohara

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep now that it has been expanded. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kōyū Ohara (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Erik (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - underpopulated, and porn films rarely need navigation. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should they need navigation less than films of other genres? Please do not discriminate. Erik (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come come: perhaps our numbered interlocutor is lucky enough already to be very familiar with such films and thus does not need additional navigatory aids. -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Four~~ ~~Five~~ Six films now. Ohara was a prolific high-profile director at Nikkatsu, the oldest of Japan's major film studios. To dismiss him or his films as "barely notable" is ridiculous. As with all the other Japanese directors on this page, many more films can be added to his template. Dekkappai (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Haven't the nominator's concerns about all the Japanese director templates been addressed? Will these nominations be withdrawn, or should I continue populating these templates? This is productive work, and I don't mind doing it, but I was in the middle of another project when these deletion nominations came up, and I don't want to lose track of where I was on that one... Will continue for now anyway... Dekkappai (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough links have been added to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Kan Mukai

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep now that it has been expanded. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kan Mukai (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral because while two films is too small a set for a template, there needs to be an approach to connect them sans template. If the template is deleted, please ensure that there is a "See also" section mentioning the director's other work. Erik (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - underpopulated. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now has ~~three~~ four films. As a producer, Kan Mukai helped start the careers of such filmmakers as cult horror/shock-meister Hisayasu Satō and US Academy Award-winner Yōjirō Takita. As a director, he made nearly 200 films, and Kinema Junpo calls him, "the only genre director who could rival Kōji Wakamatsu". So, yeah, more films can and will be added to the template. Dekkappai (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, let it grow to include almost 200 items, whereupon somebody can nominate it for deletion a second time, on the grounds of excessive bulk and confusingness, and all the denizens of this happy place can continue to enjoy themselves. -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current number of links is marginal, but I'll take the other commenters' word on it that he has a number of other notable films that are likely to be added. --RL0919 (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oddly enough, though he's probably the most significant figure in the genre among these nominations, Mukai's template is proving the most difficult to fill out-- probably because he's the oldest of the group. I've got a lot of information about a lot of his movies, and I've got a lot of posters of his movies, but I don't have both for very many of his movies, resulting in things like using a Spanish poster for Deep Throat in Tokyo. Anyway, I hope to have another film on the template in about 12 hours-- poster image or no. Dekkappai (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Yasuharu Hasebe

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep now that it has been expanded. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yasuharu Hasebe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Erik (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Four~~ ~~Five~~ Six films now. Many more can be added easily. Dekkappai (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - underpopulated given it's porn. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the template is to aid readers in navigating among related articles, in this case films directed by the same person. How is this not helpful? Erik (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Presuming the closer of this debate is not a sphincter-clenching Puritan, s/he might want to take a glance at what is being dismissed as "eww it's porn!" here: Female Convict Scorpion: Grudge Song, Black Tight Killers ("wild, decadent fun" according to Allmovie, and author on Japanese cinema, Jasper Shapr: "this simply magical film is a hoot from start to finish"). Dekkappai (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we please not talk about sphincters? Please? But thank you for the recommendation of Black Tight Killers; I look forward to watching it. Ditto for Female Convict Scorpion: Grudge Song. I warmly recommend the earlier works in the series (as does my wife). -- Hoary (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A most elegant template, and one that is certain to help the discerning cinematic connoisseur "navigate" among "pages" on today's "world wide web" that are about a selection of superior films. Dekkappai should be applauded for his lucubrations. -- Hoary (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why do I get the feeling I'm being appeased so I won't go through with the threatened sequel article... (And yes, Black Tight Killers does look like something I'd enjoy too.) Dekkappai (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sphincter-clenching lucubrations? It sounds like a Keeper. Varlaam (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough links have been added to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Deva Katta

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deva Katta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films, broken. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral because while two films is too small a set for a template, there needs to be an approach to connect them sans template. If the template is deleted, please ensure that there is a "See also" section mentioning the director's other work. Oh, and "broken" is not a reason to delete. If a template with ten films was broken, you wouldn't put it up for deletion, would you? Let's worry about the numbers game here. Erik (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - underpopulated. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough links for a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Koushik Ganguly Films

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Koushik Ganguly Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if an editor can be bold and change at least one of the three red links into a blue link. Otherwise, please ensure a "See also" section for the other blue link (the section should not have the red links, though). Erik (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless all of those links turn blue. Most pressingly of all, the head article itself. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should all links be blue? Red links are appropriate if they have potential, but they may not necessarily be able to become blue links in the course of this TfD. Erik (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two items does not make a case for navigation. Neither does a template for a directior lacking an article himself. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough working links to make a useful navigation template. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Kabeer Kaushik Films

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kabeer Kaushik Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral because while two films is too small a set for a template, there needs to be an approach to connect them sans template. If the template is deleted, please ensure that there is a "See also" section mentioning the director's other work. Erik (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - underpopulated. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough articles linked to make a good navbox. Can always recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Footer Movies Jyothi Krishna

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Movies Jyothi Krishna (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral because while two films is too small a set for a template, there needs to be an approach to connect them sans template. If the template is deleted, please ensure that there is a "See also" section mentioning the director's other work. Erik (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - underpopulated, and head article is red. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Pramathesh Barua Films

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete as there are only two working links, the rest were to disambiguation pages with no existing correct link target Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pramathesh Barua Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Looks incomplete and has a significant portion of redlinks. If this is to remain, it must be cleaned up. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep because the notoriety of the director seems to indicate that these works should be covered, just hard to locate the coverage. On the other hand, though, a better way to organize the director and his films is to have a table at Pramathesh Barua with each row having information about each film, since it may be that there is not much to say about them. Erik (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up. First order of business is to fix the misleading blue links (I assume Maya would be about neither of those films). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough valid links for a useful navbox. This template looks like it has a lot of good links, until you follow them and realize the articles are not about the films indicated. Can recreate if/when there are enough articles about this director's actual movies to make a navbox helpful. --RL0919 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Rabi Kinagi Films

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rabi Kinagi Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redlinks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are at least a half dozen blue links in the template to aid navigation. Presence of red links is not a valid deletion argument when there are this many blue links available. Judging from the other nominations of director templates, nominator seems to consider five or more works to be sufficient. Please at least be consistent. Erik (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has enough good links to be a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Filmography of C. V. Sridhar

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Filmography of C. V. Sridhar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redlinks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another valid navigation template overshadowed by nominator's unhelpful dislike of red links; there are enough blue links to aid navigation. We should be trying to turn red links into blue links, not disposing of entire templates because of the color red. Erik (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has enough valid links for a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Anjan Das Films

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anjan Das Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are five possible articles to have in this navigation template. A review of the two blue links strongly suggests the likelihood of being able to create articles for the three red links. Deletion would be destructive here. Erik (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough working links for a useful navbox. Can be recreated if/when there are enough articles. --RL0919 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Lu Chuan

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lu Chuan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Erik (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2nd is well regarded. As for the 3rd, let me watch this copy sitting on my desk ... Varlaam (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Abdul Razak Mohaideen Films

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abdul Razak Mohaideen Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redlinks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral; only one true blue link in the template. Initial search engine results seem to reflect poor likelihood of turning the red links into blue links. May be better to give an overview of each film at the director's article. Erik (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough working, relevant links to make a useful navbox. Looks like three links, but two go to unrelated articles, so really it is just one. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Joe Wright

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Joe Wright (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. In addition, strong likelihood of Mr. Wright expanding his body of work into the future, so template would become even more useful. Erik (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 films is enough.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 3 films of consequence. There will be more forthcoming. Varlaam (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per 3 previous comments. - BilCat (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. LMAO @ "only three films." What, like you've made more, Koavf? PM800 (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, I haven't, but no one's creating any navigation templates for my films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 26 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Tom Hooper

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tom Hooper (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Strong likelihood of number of works to grow, too, so template will become even more useful. Erik (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Career looks promising. Varlaam (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a tv movie that can be added, and possibly the two miniseries that he directed (not sure how those are typically handled in filmogrpahy templates), so this one seems OK to keep. --RL0919 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Mike Lehan Films

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mike Lehan Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't navigate anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to low likelihood of his works having their own articles. Erik (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's Le Han. A template for him is really premature. Varlaam (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navbox with no navigation. --RL0919 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Stephen Daldry

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stephen Daldry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Erik (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 films is enough.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not prolific, but he has a respectable track record. Varlaam (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. There was another film (a short, but an award nominee) listed in his article that wasn't on the template (I just added it), and apparently he has one in the works, so although the number of links is marginal, I'll say keep. --RL0919 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Stuart Baird

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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stuart Baird (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Erik (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 films is enough.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the first one. 3 adequate genre films but over a lengthy stretch of time. Varlaam (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Stephen Norrington

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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stephen Norrington (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Erik (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 films is enough.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shite, and not a lot of it. That last is a notorious abortion. Varlaam (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Pierre Morel

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pierre Morel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Doesn't seem like we've seen the end of the director's career, either, so there will likely be additional articles to navigate. Erik (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has potential. Varlaam (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Jean Rollin

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jean Rollin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates one film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after reviewing search engine results and judging low likelihood of article creations, but make sure that the template is converted into a proper list for the article Jean Rollin. Erik (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. French films are my favourite; I know none of these. Presumably this template is active over in French WP, so let's leave it active over there, not here. Shame to see someone doing so much work however. Varlaam (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough working links to make a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Michael and Peter Spierig

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Procedural close as recent renomination Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michael and Peter Spierig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The last TfD was not even a month ago. It is too soon to revisit this due to the appearance of gaming the system. Erik (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Vicky Jenson

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vicky Jenson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since set of three films is enough for the formal arrangement of the template. Each article is not going to mention the other articles so readily. In addition, Jenson has a 2003 film called Family Tree. Judging from search engine results, there may be some precedent for at least a stub article. Erik (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 films is enough.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Adrian Sitaru

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adrian Sitaru (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates one film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral; a quick search engine test indicates that we should be able to have an article for Waves, but it would probably be better to use "See also" sections to tie the two works' articles together. Erik (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough working links to make a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Corneliu Porumboiu

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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep Magioladitis (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Corneliu Porumboiu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the red links have potential (just difficult to get coverage due to non-English status) and it seems likely that there will be additional works by the director with the recognition of Police, Adjective. Erik (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough working links to make a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep as the red linked ones have won some notable European awards, so are likely to be stubbed at some point in the future. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Plastikspork. The films are enough in number and important enough to warrant an infobox, and the redlinks promote creation of the articles. Airplaneman ^talk 23:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, links three films now, plus the director's article makes enough for a navbox. Robofish (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2010 (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 section.

Template:Lau Lauritzen Sr.

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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lau Lauritzen Sr. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redlinks —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral; hard to judge the potential of red links due to the age and non-English nationality of the films. I think stubs are possible; Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs), who created the blue links, may be able to create more. Erik (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the large number of redlinks, there are still enough working links to make a useful navbox. If the sea of red is a distraction from the working parts of the template, the better solution is to edit the template to remove those links, not to delete it. --RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Sergiu Nicolaescu

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sergiu Nicolaescu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redlinks —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; references and content at the blue links suggest potential for the red links, only hindered by lack of online coverage. Erik (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable director and actor, films are also notable. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nicolaescu is a major figure in Romanian filmmaking. He happens not to be well known in English. But he likes to make films on all sorts of interesting historical topics. I would like to see more of the Romanian WP film articles translated to get rid of the red from this template. Is the purpose of WP to educate us about things we already know, or about things we complacent English speakers do not know about? There is an entire world out there we never get to hear about. Varlaam (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Cristian Nemescu

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cristian Nemescu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough working links to make a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Cristian Mungiu

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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cristian Mungiu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigate three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Erik (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I've seen none. I am aware of a good reputation for the 2nd feature. Varlaam (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Footer Movies Hasse Ekman

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Movies Hasse Ekman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redlinks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough working links to make a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Nae Caranfil

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nae Caranfil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates one film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough working links to make a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Footer Movies Þráinn Bertelsson

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Movies Þráinn Bertelsson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates one film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough working links to make a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Georgi Yungvald-Khilkevich

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep per discussion below Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgi Yungvald-Khilkevich (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four now. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 19:40, 19 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Aleksandr Tatarskiy

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aleksandr Tatarskiy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Erik (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four now --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 17:52, 21 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Fyodor Bondarchuk

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fyodor Bondarchuk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now since existing works can be interlinked easily; if he winds up making three or more feature films, no problem with recreation. Erik (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oh, come on! Next template here is Template:Juan Carlos Fresnadillo with only 3 films in it!.. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 17:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... Airplaneman ^talk 23:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough links for a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more article to navigate. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per RL0919; the infoboxes of the articles in the template can list "preceded by" and "followed by" easily with just 2 films to deal with. Airplaneman ^talk 23:24, 27 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Jesus Franco

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 section.

The result of the discussion was merge with {{Jesus Franco2}}. I 'll keep onlz the blue links. Navboxes navigate though existing articles. Anyone can help me with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jesus Franco (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only actually navigates a handful of articles. If this survives, it should definitely be cleaned up and merged with {{Jesus Franco2}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and combine both templates; Category:Films directed by Jesus Franco shows a large enough number for navigation. Effort should be made to see what other films can become blue links. Also suggest revising templates to list films by decade rather than by specific year. Erik (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The two templates seem obviously redundant, and between them have enough links to make a useful navbox. They just need to be combined. --RL0919 (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RL. Airplaneman ^talk 23:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the other template, and cut down the resulting template to include only the bluelinks. A complete film list can be included in his article, but it isn't needed in a navigational template. Robofish (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2010 (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 section.

Template:Antonio Serrano

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Antonio Serrano (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles (including title) and two redlinks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough working links to make a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Luis Estrada

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Luis Estrada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost entirely redlinks —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough working links to make a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more valid links. --RL0919 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Guilherme de Almeida Prado

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete with no prejudice against recreation once a few more articles are created and this template actually navigates Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Guilherme de Almeida Prado (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redlinks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep because this shows blue links for his works on another Wikipedia. Seems to indicate potential for red links on the English Wikipedia. Erik (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough working links for a useful navbox. The template has been around since October; plenty of time for translated articles to be brought over from another wiki if that was the plan. Can recreate in the future if/when more of the articles are created on en-wiki. --RL0919 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep as the other wiki shows that the articles have potential here, and the more redlinks at more articles (where this template is used) will promote the creation of those articles. Airplaneman ^talk 23:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until some of the redlinked articles are created, it's not useful. Create the articles first, then recreate the navigational template. Robofish (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2010 (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 section.

Template:Denis Cviticanin

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denis Cviticanin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost entirely redlinks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So? --Cinéma C 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a navigation template, so there should be links to navigate through. We need to look into if the red links have potential to become blue links or not. This investigation would determine if there is a set of articles to navigate through or not. Erik (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough working links to make a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to navigate. --RL0919 (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RL0919. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:53, 26 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:James Wan

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:James Wan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles (plus title.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships, that they are all made by the same director. Erik (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - underpopulated, not enough links to justify navigation. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be opposed to "See also" sections at each film article linking to the other films directed by James Wan? Erik (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 films is enough.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: is useful. Airplaneman ^talk 23:15, 27 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Mr. Bean

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mr. Bean (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates five articles, which could be navigated from one another fairly easily. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it formerly navigated a longer list of articles, but was trimmed down to remove mention of the writers and main performers, which explains its current brevity. I don't really mind if this stays or goes, but it isn't really doing any harm, and does tie them all together. Bob talk 19:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because a set of five related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. Erik (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Related articles are perfectly findable in the prose. No need for this template. Garion96 (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Erik's reasons. Super Mario Man 13:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Five articles is enough to satisfy me that this is a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Billy Elliot

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Billy Elliot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only really navigates three articles related to the media of Billy Elliot and then three related phenomena from real life. This seems like it is too weak to be a template to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there are only two relevant links in the template, the film article and the musical article. The inspiration articles do not have a strong relationship to the Billy Elliot topics, and the cast article is just a sub-article of the musical article. Erik (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A minor cultural phenomenon. Varlaam (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough closely related links to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Epicfilmlist

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Epicfilmlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost entirely redlinks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this was created not even a week ago and deserves more time. Please contact the creator and find out about forthcoming lists to occupy this template. Erik (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I started this template less than a week ago and intend to finish it over the course of the next two weeks.TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as it appears to be a work in progress. Can renominate a few months out if nothing is being done to create the links. In general, however, the best advice to editors is to create the articles first, and only create the navbox once there are several live articles to navigate. --RL0919 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Selena Gomez

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Selena Gomez (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant of {{Selena Gomez & the Scene}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redundant template to the one the nominator mentions. Erik (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but replace the occurences of it with {{Selena Gomez & the Scene}}. —Iknow23 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of redundency; please replace the places it uses it with {{Selena Gomez & the Scene}} before deleting. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:30, 24 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Lists of people

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete as too broad in scope Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of people (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Either expand to include several more "lists of" (and consequently make it too broad to be useful) or delete. There are scores of "lists of people by X" articles on Wikipedia and the inclusion criteria for which appear on this template are not clear. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom.-- Quiddity (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep. That's awesome. Really handy. Varlaam (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A look at Category:Lists of people should indicate that the scope of this template is far too broad for a navbox. This is what categories are for. --RL0919 (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Eric Brevig

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eric Brevig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two articles (and title.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, but please ensure that the other work is mentioned on the particular work's article. No problem with recreation of template if he makes a third film; seems enough for a formal setup. Erik (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why was this created in the first place? 1.5 films. Varlaam (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough articles for useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to navigate. --RL0919 (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Films inspired by Jogi

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Films inspired by Jogi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because a set of three related articles is enough for a formal arrangement in a navigation template. This way, the related articles are more discoverable for purposes of navigation, as opposed to reading the prose of one topic for links to other topics. The template essentially highlights the relationships. I do suggest renaming the template to something like "Jogi and remakes"; "inspired by" sounds too weak. Erik (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a See also section, not template material. Varlaam (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough articles for a navbox to be particularly helpful. See Also and in-body links should do for now. Could recreate in the future if the number of remakes or sequels increases to the point where a navbox is a better way to organize the links. --RL0919 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Films inspired by Mungaru Male

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Films inspired by Mungaru Male (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since set of three is sufficient for navigation. Also suggest renaming template to something like "Mungaru Male and remakes" because "inspired by" has different degrees. Reading the articles, "remake" needs to be used for clarity. Erik (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all of those people who speak Bengali and a Dravidian language. Both of those people. Varlaam (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough articles for a navbox to be particularly helpful. See Also and in-body links should do for now. Could recreate in the future if the number of remakes or sequels increases to the point where a navbox is a better way to organize the links. --RL0919 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Film series

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Totally arbitrary inclusion criteria. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being until we see what happens with List of film series with two entries. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is an integral part of the "film series" articles. LA (T) @ 16:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable way to organize film series with x entries. How else would one centralize navigation to these lists? Erik (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless information, well-organized. Varlaam (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are watching a James Bond flick. You suddenly realize that there are 89 James Bond flicks. So you automatically say to yourself, not "Which other great James Bond flicks are there?", but "I wonder how many other film series have precisely 89 elements in the series?"
  These lists serve to group together an assortment of disparate information that is entirely unrelated other than for the purely random coincidence of having a series of the same length. At least until that time (next year) when somebody releases another film. When would I ever consult these lists? Never. Varlaam (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several "List of film series with X entries" articles that this helps to navigate, and what is included doesn't seem at all arbitrary. --RL0919 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RL0919. Airplaneman ^talk 23:10, 27 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Ukrainian Film Studios

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ukrainian Film Studios (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles with three red links and the only defining characteristic is that they are all located in the same country. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete because I doubt there is precedent for grouping studios by nationality into templates. It does not seem to me to be particularly useful navigation. The mentions at Cinema of Ukraine seem enough. Erik (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom. Besides, there are four out of six studios in the template that were active and primarily associated not with Ukraine, but another country, USSR. Now they are mostly in decline. Garik 11 (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am of Ukrainian ancestry. Why do we need this? Varlaam (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Neil Young filmography

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neil Young filmography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Arbitrary inclusion criteria. Some of these are films about Neil Young (e.g. Heart of Gold), others simply have a Neil Young song in them (e.g. Almost Famous). It should be replaced with {{Neil Young}} in the few appropriate articles and removed from the others. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The template is missing the documentary Deja Vu which he directed and which has a Young soundtrack.
It might be more reasonable if categorized into films he directed, and films with partial soundtracks. Varlaam (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consensus (with good reason) has been to restrict filmography templates to movies a person has directed, not ones they appear in, wrote music for, etc. --RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Cinematic depictions of dyslexia

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cinematic depictions of dyslexia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too arbitrary of a quality for a category. May work as Category:Cinematic depictions of dyslexia or the article listed in the title. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too arbitrary, the most notable exception being the presence of Pearl Harbor (film), which is barely about dyslexia. Better to have an article that highlights notable examples through reliable sources. Erik (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Unconventional, but I kind of like it. Probably better as an article. Is there now a general article on films about various conditions, ailments, and illnesses?
I want to see the athlete's foot template. Varlaam (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a good basis for a navbox, because a movie could contain depictions of a variety of different conditions and situations, leading to a proliferation of navboxes connecting movie articles on the basis of what may be a small element of the work. This is better handled as a list article or maybe a category. --RL0919 (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Film series key

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film series key (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Part of {{Film series}}, which is itself TfD. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being until we see what happens with List of film series with two entries. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is an integral part of the "film series" articles. LA (T) @ 16:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in relation to my argument to keep the {{Film series}} template. Erik (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent. It is integral to all of those utterly pointless lists. Varlaam (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the list articles themselves get deleted, then of course this should go as well, but for now it is in use on several articles and seems to be a valid use of a template. --RL0919 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is needed for film series articles. As RL said, delete this if the articles on which this template is used are deleted. Airplaneman ^talk 23:09, 27 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:For2

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Since relisting the clear weight of the discussion is for keeping, and it seems unlikely that descending into arguments about editors' behavior will alter that. RL0919 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superceded by {{for}}. (Also, I apologize for not tagging the template because (as I requested on the talk page) I am an IP and the template is semied.)174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose {{for}} is formulaic, while {{for2}} is not restricted in its presentation of where to look for information, so they are not equivalent. You can use for2 to link to a section, and present it in an easily readable manner, which is not possible with for. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you ever use an article hatnote for a section?174.3.98.236 (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have SO many other templates for that. And even with {{dablink}} (which would supersede this purpose), it would be more useful: you type whatever you want. This is just cluttering templatespace and making much confusion.
- I went back and checked the template and it is just {{dablink}} with a bunch of text.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is up with you and the need to delete templates? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ALL of the hatnote templates could be described with that (just "dablink" with a bunch of text tagged on) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not true. Most of the templates have original syntax. This one is a template within another template.174.3.98.236 (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) is systematically going around and replacing {{for2}} even while this discussion is going on. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~update There are only 2 articles that use this template:~~

~~Falloutboy, I can not edit it because I am ip.~~

~~The hatnote in The Co-operative Bank refers to a section in its own article. It is not established weather this section is notable.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)~~Neither of these articles use this template.174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for its low use is because you keep removing it even after your removals have been reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In cases that I have seen, the template has been replaced by {{main}} which changes the nature of the link to imply that the destination is the primary article about a topic. This was not the case and generated a large number of inappropriate links. The documentation states that 'main' is not to be used for these purposes. This has created a lot of unnecessary work for editors. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- according to its talk page, this template was in use on over 500 articles back in July 2008. -- EdJogg (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The {{For2}} template is more versatile than the {{For}} template. So I agree with the first opposer that deleting {{For2}} would be a restrictive error.

— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 05:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For2 is different from For. I for one like it better. Debresser (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful application of {{dablink}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- this is the ONLY variant of the 'for' templates which allows an anchor link (ie to an article subsection) to be hidden using the pipe trick. This allows editors to provide the neatest formatting with the most appropriate wording for each situation. I was not aware that we were in danger of running out of template space, so I cannot see any reason why this should need to be deleted. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- wp:hatnotes will tell you that this hatnote is not supposed to be used for sections.174.3.99.176 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly where does it say it should not be used for sections? Perhaps that is result of a too literalistic reading of the guideline. The page also lists {{selfref}} and {{Otheruses-section}} and {{See also}}-- all of which can be used in locations other than at the top of a page. Perhaps there is a mistaken assumption that because a template is listed at WP:Hatnote that it can only be used as a hatnote. older ≠ wiser 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - {{seealso}} is not a hate note.174.3.99.176 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is included on the list at WP:Hatnote. How are you determining which template listed there is or is not a hatnote? And regardless, the guideline describes the use of hatnotes as hatnotes -- it does not presume to prohibit other uses. older ≠ wiser 23:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no such list at wp:hatnote. Yes, your argument is irrelevant.174.3.99.176 (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Brilliant argumentation -- ignore a direct question and make a spurious assertion. older ≠ wiser 18:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is much more flexible than the normal {{for}}. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis template no longer occurs in wikipedia space.174.3.99.176 (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- KEEP -- The template is in use at Major characters in The Railway Series and will be restored to several other pages where its use is more appropriate than any other available template. The template only 'no longer occurs' because this editor has been on a single-handed crusade to eradicate it, replacing it with any template that happened to fit. In the case of Railway engines (Thomas and Friends), this user first incorrectly replaced it with 'main', when the subsections are NOT summaries, and he has now replaced those with 'details', which does the same job as 'for2' but in an untidy manner. 'For2' allows the editor to hide the anchor of an anchored link. This is recommended practice (see WP:LINKING). I hate to think how many hundreds of articles he has damaged through his disruptive approach to editing. EdJogg (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2 -- also, just to note that, judging by the articles edited, the editing style, the obsession with this template, and the sequence of comments on my talk page, 174.3.99.176 (talk · contribs) is the same editor as the poster 174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs). -- EdJogg (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:User WikiProject Artix Entertainment

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WikiProject Artix Entertainment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is for a WikiProject that has since been deleted. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:WP ARTIX welcome

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP ARTIX welcome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is for a WikiProject that has since been deleted. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2010 (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 section.

Template:Boston Celtics 2008-09 Roster

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boston Celtics 2008-09 Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

useless, it is essentially a duplicate of {{Boston Celtics current roster}} in that particular season—Chris!_c/t 00:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this template, because it's about the NBA defending champions, and it's important. -- Al Horford--Center of Atlanta Hawks 03:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of the other defending champions have their own roster templates, only the champions should have their own templates, see Category:NBA Championship templates. The argument that defending champions' roster is important is absurd. For example, do we need to make a template for 1998–99 Chicago Bulls which also was a defending champion but ended up finished last in the East. — Martin tamb (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Also agree to delete makes no sense to have it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamrhein (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 February 2010 (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 section.