Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 25 - Wikipedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 June 3. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This template is an inappropriate use of the template namespace and a potential copyright violation. It was not transcluded in a single article (though it may have been c. 2014 and prior) but instead was linked to in the "See also" section of several articles about radio stations, though the link is piped to hide the "Template:" namespace. I removed these see also references because that's not an appropriate way to send readers to extra figures in a table somewhere. In addition, this table may be a copyright violation -- there is no way for us to know without more information about how these numbers were generated. If they are estimates reached using the author/creator's expertise, they are copyrightable. If someone sat down and counted the number of hours of programming for a month in each decade, they aren't. (See Wikipedia:Copyright_in_lists#Copyrightability_of_content for more info.) But there is no way for us to know which it is--so I would err on the side of caution and delete, particularly given that this data is not particularly useful. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2017 (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).
U.S. television navboxes
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, with a general consensus to keep most of them. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:U.S. tabloid television shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:US Newsmagazine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:US Sunday Talk Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:U.S. overnight television news programs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:U.S. evening news programs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:U.S. daytime talk shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:US morning news shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Late night television in the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The shows are largely unrelated other than genre. There are a lot of inappropriate links to networks, etc. Not suitable for a navbox, better for category navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The series are grouped together entirely because they're related by genre. Absolutely appropriate for navboxes. Cleanup templates, don't delete. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's no justifiable reasoning for deletion. The navboxes are organized by genre; the templates may need to be tweaked, though. TVTonightOKC 17:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Could use some cleanup, but most certainly not delete. TonyIsTheWoman (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Categories are not used by the majority of Wikipedia readers; needing some cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Daylen (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to all of the above. They fail nearly all the points at WP:NAVBOX. They do not refer to each other, you would not mention them in see also sections, etc, etc. Genre is not reason enough for a navbox. We do not have {{U.S. sitcoms}} for example, or {{U.S. science fiction television programs}}, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason we do not have sitcoms is because of quantity. As WP:NAVBOX says, "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles." The articles in the templates above are certainly related to a single coherent subject, the subject is mentioned in every article, and they definitely refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. As NAVBOX says, only "some of these guidelines" are generally expected; meeting every single particular is not required. Also, don't see any mention there that navboxes related to genre are forbidden. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above comments. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all but the tabloid template The others are definitely justified, but there's so few tabloid shows (which is a questionable title anyways) the category system easily covers that. Nate • (chatter) 04:41, 2 June 2017 (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).