Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 22

June 22

Template:Infobox Simpsons episode

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 to delete. After a month of discussion there is no sign of consensus here. This clearly represents a borderline case of where a use-case-specific template may be useful, but is not unambiguously so - a significant number of the arguments simply state subjectively that it is or isn't fancruft, and don't really touch on whether this template is actually helpful to the encyclopedia or not. A potential way forward is for someone to make and implement a more specific example as to exactly how this template should be merged into the standard episode infobox, as one of the primary concerns is the vague overall complexity of the task. ~ mazca ^talk 19:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Simpsons episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fancruft fork of Template:Infobox television episode. I suggest merging the chalkboard and couch gag parameters in to the main template on the precedent provided by Template:Infobox Wrestling event that allows specific parameters such as these. Or creating blank parameters in to the syntax that allows these to be added as needed. The episode list is better off as a navbox, as is the season list. As for the DVD commentary parameter, it's trivial and belongs in either the "Production" section of the episode's prose and/or in the season's article. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 21:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• If you delete it, you might have to edit over 500 pages. 202.160.16.203 (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete (after replacement/orphaning) - The "Chalkboard gag" and "Couch gag" fields seem to be the only thing {{Infobox television episode}} can't handle. I don't like to use the word "fancruft", but those fields are almost certainly based on editor original research descriptions of the primary sources. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really. Secondary sources are used in most Simpsons FAs to support those fields (Lisa the Vegetarian, Cape Feare, The Joy of Sect, etc.) That said, I don't have a strong opinion on the use of this template. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Neutrality^talk 07:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Decision settled: just create the templates for the couch gag and chalkboard gag, the season episodes, and the DVD commentary goes to Production. Delete and edit 500+ pages.
• Delete as above. It is pointless fancruft and editing 500 pages is a task that can be left to bots. Furthermore, the Simpsons is one of the TV shows that has probably too much attention. How many other shows have a page for each episode of each season AND a dedicated template? As for as I know, almost none (if not none). Furthermore, again, the season/episode list IS better as a navbox. The DVD commentary is useless for most and should be left in the "Production" section If included at all. 69.196.172.227 (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm curious, how is a template fancruft? If you're referring to the chalkboard gags and couch gags, then you obviously have no concept of true fancruft. For example, some sites that summarize Simpsons episodes include such important details as the number of times Maggie falls down. The two recurring gags are an important part of The Simpsons, moreso I'd argue than the details in templates for other shows like minor guest stars or songs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Fancruft is something only hardcore fans of said TV show will care about. Most people very probably don't care about the couch gag => it certainly is fancruft. Period. (Do you have sources to support your claims about those sites that summarize Simpsons episode?) Now I don't see the point of continuing this argument: my vote is final and I certainly won't change it. 69.196.172.227 (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
      • That's the problem. This debate is NOT over the notability of couch/chalkboard gags. Those are just two entries included in the template. The template exists for a lot more than just that. So saying the entire template should go because you dislike those two aspects is silly. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Right now I am not saying I dislike those 2 things (yes, I do, but that's of no importance to this debate), I am just saying that since those 2 things are not notable, we should delete the template as everything else (except if I'm missing some other little detail) is included in {{Infobox television episode}}. As for your claim that the template exists for a lot more than that, I don't believe it and even if it is true I don't really care because of what you just read in the sentence before this one. 79.101.253.108 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• So, delete or let it stay? 202.160.16.203 (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant template. Koala15 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The only thing I'm worrying about is editing over 500 pages. 202.160.16.203 (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Its has so many special categories./AleWi (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• To clarify my earlier comment, i would only be in favor of deletion if we add the "couch gag", "chalkboard gag" and "showrunner" fields to the regular template. Koala15 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "showrunner" is just an alternate name for the executive producer, and the TV episode infobox has {{{Producer}}} and the documentation says "it is advisable to just include the show runner(s)" so it directly correlates.
  • I'd rather see the "couch gag" and "chalkboard gag" be the first two lines at the top of the Plot section, because they aren't important TV production information for the infobox, but are somewhat trivial. Perhaps we could re-purpose and rename this template as a simple message template format that has only those two parameters and is transcluded into the Plot section. -- Netoholic @ 23:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• either merge by adding a couple blank fields to the television episode template, or perhaps rewrite this one as a module that can be used with the television episode template. Frietjes (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The Simpsons is a pop culture behemoth, and the chalkboard/couch gags are very significant parts of pop culture. This isn't just some fancruft; couch gags and chalkboards are noted quite often in media. wirenote (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "I like it" is not a reason to keep. Also, where are your sources that these two items are that important to pop culture? I know this quantifies as original research, but as an American, I don't really hear these two items talked about outside the show and the fan base. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 19:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep template. And why? The template is supported by the American animation work group. Edited ~~ And the Episode Coverage Task Force.202.160.16.203 (Talk2me)
  • <edited again> I thought they did that years ago; it's also used in over 550 articles; and to prevent another "edit war". Decision: Keep. 202.160.16.203 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete As pointed out in the nomination, couch gags are fancruft. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You know I don't like to use "fancruft"... Did you see the previous delete threats already??? Super-duper-over 9000 times strong keep. Couch gags are not fancruft; just talk to the show's creators. Totally strong and snowball keep. 202.160.16.125 (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• We've worked for years to clean up our Simpsons content so that it isn't 100% fancruft garbage and we've still a long way to go. The couch and blackboard gags are not notable in the general sense of a television show episode: they're merely hangovers from the days when we allowed Simpsons nerds to treat Wikipedia as their primary information dump. If notable they should already be mentioned in the respective article bodies. There are plenty of third-party wikis for this junk to be covered in more details than a general-purpose encyclopedia should permit. Time to go. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The Template:Infobox television episode is missing nearly all links which the Simpsons has. The next episode is broken (if the next episode doesnt has an article), and its missing showrunners too. Why isnt DVD commentary important? Christian75 (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  Nearly all? It's only missing three, two of which I'm proposing merging in to the main template and it becoming a part of the articles prose. The episode list is better off as a navbox just like other shows, no special treatment. And neither the showrunner, nor the DVD commentary participants are important to the episode itself. If they're notable at all, they belong in the production section of the prose, not the infobox. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp

• I'll take no part on this dicussion (so don't argue I'm using WP:OSE). But if you conset to eliminate it, you should take a look on Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That's WP:WAX. Dozens of show-specific episode templates have already been deleted on the same grounds as this nomination; the existence of others is simply an indication that the work isn't complete yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per others, or make it a wrapper for {{infobox television episode}}. It's mainly a debate about whether the chalk/couch gags are fancruft or not. I would say not, per wirenote. I dispute the suggestion by CR90 that wire note was merely saying "I like it"; as for me, I certainly don't "like" or "dislike" the gags being in the infobox, but simply believe that they are not fancruft. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Why delete this? You might check out Family Guy's, and Doctor Who's episode templates. That's the thing; it's used on 500+ pages! Why demolish this? 202.160.16.125 (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

    Why do you keep !voting? Once is enough. Family Guy uses the generic template and I am considering a TfD for the Doctor Who one on the same grounds. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 08:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

    Allright, I will stop voting. 202.160.16.245 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

    Any competent administrator will disregard your multiple "votes" anyway, but it is annoying. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

    Who's the creator of this template? Talk to him about the delete debate first, then maybe keep or delete. 202.160.16.245 (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and ban the next guy who tries this "The episode list is better off as a navbox, as is the season list", says who? You, someone who rarely uses them? I personally hate that other TV shows don't use this format. It's far more useful as it is now because it's very visible, and the season list was a suggestion of numerous editors that was worked in years ago. "As for the DVD commentary parameter, it's trivial and belongs in either the "Production" section of the episode's prose and/or in the season's article." Actually, it spares us having to mention it in the production section and since many Simpsons episode pages are GAs that use the commentaries as sources, it makes sense to list them.
• In all of these discussions, nobody has ever given a valid reason why a show with 200+ episodes (500+ in this case) all of which episode pages can't have its own template. Wikipedia is not paper, and the specialized template ensures that the most succinct coding is used and that it's specialized for the show in question, especially when we're talking about a show like The Simpsons that has many different recurring elements. What it all boils down to is either a) Whining that "the templates for my favourite show were deleted" or b) Someone is aiming for an adminship run or c) Someone is hungry for edit counts. Either way, in most cases, it's not the nominator who has to worry about implementing his stupid ideas, it's the Simpsons editors that have to. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  How civil of you. You have the audacity to assume my reasonings for nomination. Well here they are hotshot. People like you who think they can ignore WP:NPOV because a TV show is long-running or popular. This is an encyclopedia not a fan wiki. There's a fan wiki on Wikia for that. Don't be a dick. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 00:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Wow, a civility lecture and you called me a dick in one paragraph? So you're one of those. How does having a template for The Simpsons violate NPOV? It's like this: There are 500+ pages for episodes and there are several specialized entries. It simply makes sense to have a template for it. And I would argue the same thing for any show. It makes things easier on the editors and also allows us to control what things can be added (which is pretty important). So why the hell should this be changed just because some random user thinks this means Simpsons pages get special treatment? Oh, and one more thing. I searched WP:NPOV and it doesn't even mention infoboxes. If a template is specialized and used on a lot of pages, then it should still be used regardless of silly interpretations of policy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

    • It's not a "silly interpretation of policy". It's a perfectly cromulent application of the same policy used to merge dozens, if not hundreds, of show-specific episode infoboxes to the main TV one. The Simpsons pages are getting special treatment at present, and there's no valid reason for this to continue. "Ban the next person who tries this" was such an overreaction it's difficult to accept any further assertions from you to the contrary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

      • Then your policy is broken. I don't care if it's The Simpsons, Family Guy, Dr. Who, Star Trek, wrestling ppvs or anything else. If there are 100+ pages that use a template and it involves special entries, then it should have its own template. The usefulness (special entries, specific coding, being able to control what IPs can add) far outweighs the negatives (to be honest, nobody has given a great reason to delete other than "The Simpsons shouldn't get one when others don't" or the tired old "IT'S FANCRUFT!" argument). I should also point out that the episode list used by this template is far better than the system used in other templates. I say this as someone who has used it for navigation many times. As for my comment that the next nominator should be banned, the nominator isn't the first to try this, nor will he be the last. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The nomination says "...Or creating blank parameters in to the syntax that allows these to be added as needed." Is this actually possible and if it is, why isn't it an automatic thing for all templates? While I have no strong opinion over the deletion of the template, I am in favour of the "couch gag" and "chalkboard gag" parameters being included in the infobox in some form, so "Keep" and "Merge parameters" both look like valid options to me. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Custom additional attributes are easy to add and can be very useful, but they're prone to abuse. When you've got a subject as prone to fancruft as our Simpsons coverage, that's not something that should be done lightly. Nonetheless, if there's broad support for a plug-in approach to be taken here I'm happy to do the required work myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• A Question: Could someone please give me a reason why this template should be deleted that doesn't involve the fallacy-based arguments of "It's Fancruft" or "The Simpsons isn't special"? To me (and this is just me), the usefulness of the specific entries and the episode list trumps both of those arguments. So is there anything else? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Those two non-fallacies are more than reason enough. However, for the sake of assuming you're capable of changing your mind, another critical point is that when these two templates are independent it introduces a significant barrier to editing for editors who haven't previously edited articles on this series, as they have to learn an entirely new infobox (they cannot rely on any of the fields present in the general template being there). This also applies to those making tools that parse episode articles (they have to write new code to deal with a different infobox), those making bots to update articles (same reason) and if any improvements are made to the master template (most notably in recent times making it more friendly to mobile browsers). The sole reason to maintain a separate template is to placate a shrinking community of fanboys, the vast majority of whom have long since moved to dedicated external wikis which don't share Wikipedia's perspective on trivia, in-universe content and original research. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I don't think fanboys care about such things. The ones who do are the dedicated editors who have spent many many hours improving these pages. I don't buy any of your arguments. Your first assumes that Wikipedia editors are so stupid that they can't figure out how to edit a slightly different template. As for your argument about bots updating articles, does that even apply here? The template is rarely changed and the episode pages don't have to be updated all the time. Your final statement proves your ignorance because many reasons have been given. Let me recap. 1) We're not talking about a few pages, we're talking about over 500. 2) There are several specialized entries not present in any other template. Are those entries "fancruft"? Who knows, but that's for a different discussion and it shouldn't have any bearing here. If you want couch and chalkboard gags removed, take it up with WP:DOH. 3) With a specialized template, we can control what IPs add. This is extremely important because they often add entries not present elsewhere and can lead to edit wars (this was more of a problem with the character template, which lead to several entries being removed). 4) I may be biased, but I think the format used with the side episode list is better than any other episode template. Doing away with the template robs Wikipedia of this highly useful feature. 5) WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST. In short, we need to do what is best for the articles that would be effected by this change, and you haven't said a single thing that even remotely convinces me that a FA like Cape Feare would be better off with a generic template. In the grand scheme of things, Wikipedia readers care about such things as efficient summaries and navigational usefulness. They don't give a damn about the issues you keep crying about like Fancruft or "my favourite show doesn't have one". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I can understand the rationale behind this and find it sound. I would also like to think we have moved beyond the point of covering various minutiae for pop culture subjects with the advent of fanbase specific wikis such as those on Wikia. That having been said, I don't think it's worth it to go through hundreds of articles (whether it's through a bot or AWB or whatever) and change things (move episode/season lists, DVD commentary out of navbox) as well as change the TV infobox just for this one show. And also, I think it's a huge overreaction to suggest banning anyone who brings this up again. There's good reasoning behind this and the last time this was debated on TFD was five years ago so it's not like there's a gang of editors with torches and pitchforks continually marching on Evergreen Terrace. So I don't care either way and I certainly don't find it worth the time to write an impassioned treatise to save or delete an infobox for but a single television program. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • For the record, it's been about five years since I was last really active. At one point we had two tfds within a few months of eachother. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• Merge or rewrite to use the more general template, possibly moving the gag fields to the plot section as mentioned above or as fields or a module in the infobox. —PC-XT+ 00:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Family Guy uses the generic template? So, let me change my nomination to rewrite as generic template. 202.160.16.13 (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • P.S. make sure you edit the template to comply with Family Guy's

• Obvious merge with Infobox television episode. Blatant fancruft. Couch gags and chalkboard gags, when notable, can be discussed in the body of the article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that elitists such as yourself want to discard a useful template that has great features not available in the generic template (ie. The episode list) because of your disdain for fancruft. If those entries offend you so much, campaign to have them removed. I should also point out a big problem that the deletion of this template would create: Fans would feel the need to make sure those two items are included, so they'll add them, and probably give them their own sections, which is unacceptable. The Simpsons articles aren't as heavily patrolled as they used to be so we can't always catch this. Content should always (ALWAYS) come first, and this template is far more helpful and useful than the generic one. It should NOT be deleted for the reasons that have been given so far ("It's fancruft!" "This Simpsons isn't special!"). These issues do not matter to the common Wikipedia readers and switching to the generic template will be a huge step down. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You're not getting yourself very far in this discussion with your bad faith name-calling, nor are you changing my mind. As for your points:
      • The seasons and episodes lists in the infobox aren't essential. That's why we have the templates at the bottom of the page, and of course, List of The Simpsons episodes and the individual season articles. The standard TV episode infobox has an episode chronology with the episodes immediately before and after a given episode; I'm not sure why The Simpsons needs to be an exception.
      • If the info is notable, it needs to be in the article. If it's mere trivia, it doesn't. Simple as that. If Simpsons fans add these gags as their own sections and you find it to be unacceptable, then take it upon yourself to incorporate the info in a more appropriate section. If you ask me, if it were to temporarily be in its own section due to a lack of patrolling, that wouldn't necessarily be the worst thing in the world. At the end of the day, if it's appropriate, the info should be in the article anyway; it doesn't matter specifically where it is. One particular TV series doesn't need its own infobox just because it's hard for an inactive WikiProject to keep up with the articles.

At the end of the day, this comes off very fansite-like and is more reminiscent of a Simpsons Wikia than Wikipedia. Other TV shows have unique and notable aspects about them just as The Simpsons does, and they don't demand their own infoboxes. Find ways to make the perfectly fine standard infobox work - I'm sure they exist. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

People who say this is "fansite-like" mustn't visit a lot of fansites. They would be MUCH more detailed and there would be another two dozen entries. To be honest, Wikipedia's template standards are far too strict. If a show has 100+ pages, then there's no reason why it can't have its own template. The bottom templates aren't very helpful and I tried fighting the editor who insisted on creating versions for The Simpsons. The chronology things also aren't very good. The full list is far more handy, and I speak as someone who used to navigate between episodes frequently. Are the couch gags and chalkboard gags "fancruft" and not suitable for inclusion? Possibly and it's certainly a debate worth having. But, this is not the place for that debate. Personally, I like being able to put it in the template over the article because it's much more succinct and doesn't interrupt the flow of any of the sections. Believe it or not, most shows used to have their own infoboxes but then they were picked off one by one, and the fans of those shows got upset and started going after other shows. The Simpsons has survived because the template is more unique than the others and is used on more pages (500+) than any of the others. I think each wikiproject should be allowed to decide what kind of template they would like to use based on what actually works and if they want to use the generic one, then great. If not, then that's great too. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment No strong opinion with me, but I notice that the labels for the fields 'Written by' through 'DVD commentary' link to Simpsons-related articles. This is a special feature of this template that may or may not be important or worth considering. (Did someone say this already? If so, sorry. The discussion is pretty long.) Cathfolant (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The next season would be broken without a episode template! 202.160.17.31 (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC) (P.S everybody is talking about this debate for almost a month) (P.S 2 and Scorpion0422 participated in the last 2 TfDs)

• Delete and use Infobox television episode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Go convert every other animated TV series' episode info boxes into a module first, then do this (converting this template into a module) It would be tiring (...in case if Scorpion0422 agrees, keep)-- 202.160.16.155 (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC) (P.S Can this debate get any longer?)

• Keep because couch gags have no place in the main text. Maybe just modify the template itself and make it to be like "Infobox television episode" with additional fields and Simpsons season/episode lists. Anyway, editing 500+ pages and getting many people dissatisfied doesn't worth it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Максим Медведев (talk • contribs)

• Keep as above. This debate is getting even longer. I agree that the couch gags have no place at all. Or modules. 202.160.16.155 (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC) (p.s who wrote the post above?)

When will evevone close this.92.251.167.129 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2014 (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:Lowcountry

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) 03:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Basically a less-used duplication of Template:LowcountryTemplate, which was created by the same editor at almost the same time. The current transclusions can easily be replaced with the other. Kennethaw88 • talk 20:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - also rename Template:LowcountryTemplate to Template:Lowcountry. --Netoholic @ 07:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• delete, I renamed Template:LowcountryTemplate as Template:South Carolina Lowcountry to match the article name. Frietjes (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2014 (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:Motorcycling2

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) 04:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Motorcycling2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I propose that we delete it in favour with Template:Motorcycle member and since Template:Motorcycling is a redirect of the WikiProject and this may get confusing. Moreover, Both member tags have very few transclusions. Which style is better can be discussed on template's talk page. Magioladitis (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. --Netoholic @ 07:00, 24 June 2014 (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:Hwypeerreview

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; deleted as G6 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Unused. We have general peer review tag anyway. Magioladitis (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• G6—this should have been deleted 18 months ago when the process ways marked as historical. A TfD is a bit overkill in this situation, so any admin willing to CSD it now as housekeeping is just saving us time. Imzadi 1979 → 04:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per above, process died. --Rschen7754 17:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Netoholic @ 07:00, 24 June 2014 (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:ComicsCollab

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) 03:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Unused. Part of an inactive project collaboration. Magioladitis (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. --Netoholic @ 07:00, 24 June 2014 (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:Be more civil than the others

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) 01:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Be more civil than the others (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused except as a demo, and I'm not sure we should encourage just being "more civil than the editor(s) you're disagreeing with":Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Should also say "its rude to spam huge, impersonal templates when things get heated". --Netoholic @ 07:00, 24 June 2014 (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.