Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 7



Template:Review-Christgau

 * 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) 00:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Review-Christgau

This has no usage. Professional reviews should always be supported with a reference, as per WP:WikiProject Albums, not a link. Also, the reviews parameter in the infobox has been deprecated. Lastly, the usage of it for products in minimal - although apparently it is used for this also - but I'm sure they'd always want to be references too...  Nik the  stoned  12:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Template creator here. It was created for use in infoboxes, now deprecated. I don't know any currently correct use for this template. / 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose another option would be to modify the template for use in Album ratings with an in-line citation&mdash;Template:Album ratings/doc currently recommends this template. However, I won't have time to figure this out tonight. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Album ratings recommends Rating-Christgau, not this template.  Nik  the  stoned  08:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey you're right. Delete then. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:03, 13 October 2011 (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.

Network templates

 * 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, defaulting to keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * CBSNetwork Shows (current and upcoming)
 * ABCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming)
 * U. S. Network Shows footer
 * USANetwork Shows
 * TNTShows
 * TBSNetwork Shows
 * Starz Shows
 * Showtime Network programming
 * OWNNetwork Shows
 * HBONetwork Shows
 * FXNetwork Shows
 * FOXNetwork Shows
 * E!
 * CWNetwork Shows
 * CWNetwork Shows (current and upcoming)
 * CWNetwork Shows footer
 * NBCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming)
 * FOXNetwork Shows (current and upcoming)
 * FOXNetwork Shows footer
 * HBONetwork Shows footer
 * HBONetwork Miniseries
 * HBONetwork Series
 * Fox Kids
 * AMC Shows
 * Prime time animated television series

Per precedent, these templates have no encyclopedic use and are just massive walled gardens, and most were created by User:TonyTheTiger. — Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As of 22:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC), only templates regarding shows on a single network are listed. Anything regarding shows across multiple channels have been removed.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 22:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I feel the templates have value to the reader, especially those containing current and upcoming programming.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agree with the concerns by Ryulong. These templates are not really necessary to be included. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all, networks change and syndication makes this all a huge mess that doesn't need to happen. The network articles should clearly list past and present programs already, not to mention the accompanying category does the same. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - These templates provide easy navigation from one article to another and some of the templates cited for deletion (the genre-based templates, for talk shows, news programs and late night series) require editing only when it is absolutely necessary (as opposed to if it was a template for primetime shows on any of the major broadcast networks, where editing would be relatively frequent as daytime, news and late night programs do not get shuffled on and off schedules as often as a primetime network show would) and are not of any real trouble. TVtonightOKC (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep one, weak delete most I'm only here because I was asked on my talk... It seems like most of these probably have little value in navigation. Just because I'm reading about one show on CBS, it's not clear to me that I want to read about all of them. That having been said, the Must See TV one seems useful to me because that's a specific block of programming that is in some way interrelated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the individual programming block templates: The Fox Kids template is too different that should not be easily put in the same category as a general/generic network template. Since this purely and strictly focuses on Fox's children's programming from 1990-2002, it's way more set in place when compared to prime time programming schedules.  Fox Kids isn't the only Saturday morning template on Wikipedia, so it would be entirely unfair to just single it out.  It was for all intents and purposes, a specific, centralized division of the Fox Network much like its sports division (or late night and news divisions if you want to go there) and what not. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:54 p.m., 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Which ones are you suggesting we keep.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete almost all, but Keep "US Sunday Talk Shows", "Early Morning" and "Late night television in the United States" as those at least have context and purpose in connecting only a few national news and comedy shows and were never touched by TtT or BornonJune8. The others are about the worst abuses of the template system I have ever seen in my seven years of editing, especially the Fox Kids template, which both takes WP:FANCRUFT to it's biggest extreme and takes up a third of the space of the network's actual article pagewise, and which has been defunct for eight years. We have categories and "list of" articles for a reason, so that if someone wants to dig further, they can without having to take so much template-cruft. And in response to your concerns BornonJune8 on my talk page, let's say you created a template on the entirety of children's programming on CBS. Or Nickelodeon. Or Disney Channel. There is no way that you could ever decode templates of that size and they would absolutely break through the 32k suggested article limit. We have enough maintenance to do when it comes to "list of" and network articles; we shouldn't have to muddle through these oversized template messes either to keep everything current.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally have added Template:Prime time animated television series to this nomination; also oversized, bloated, and covered just as well by the category system. A cull through BornonJune8's template creations is suggested, as there are many other large templates created in the last two months which do go through the animated children's blocks on each network and syndication through the decades and again, are covered well through the category system. Not everything here needs a template.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Prime time animated television series have for the most part been a rarity (at least until, Fox started their "Animation Domination" block). So in that context, they aren't as "bloated" as you want to make it out to be.  Plus, how exactly is it "bloated"!?  The point of the template is to document every single prime time animated TV series that have aired in the United States on the six (this includes UPN and WB) broadcast television networks.  It's much, much more selected and easier to follow than say a Saturday morning template per se. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:27 a.m., 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, first of all Mrschimpf, what difference does it make that Fox Kids ended in 2002 (what that doesn't make it less relevant right from the jump)!? The whole point of the template is to serve as a navigational tool for the 12 year history of the Fox Kids block (not represent the present).  Fox Kids was one of the longest running and most popular (during its heyday) children's television blocks in history.  Therefore, it's naturally going to be quite huge/bloated.  It would be unfair to leave shows out (and therefore, not include the entire history of the block just for the sake of what you're complaining about).  Also, I included the Weekend Marketplace article because it represents the end of the line for animated programs on the Fox network in general (after the 4KidsTV programs left the network)! BornonJune8 (talk) 10:29 p.m., 07 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need a template covering twelve years of history and which is basically a summary of the article and "list of" articles themselves in template form. It's not helping to "navigate" anything, but looks like a giant textwall that is of interest to only people who constantly navigate children's television articles. The shows have a space in the "list of" article. That's enough. And Weekend Marketplace clearly was the termination of the network targeting children; the 4Kids article clearly elaborates that better than these templates ever could.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: they are good navigation templates that assist readers in viewing which programs are on which networks, and at which times.  I know Wikipedia is not a TV Guide, BUT... these are still encyclopedic enough to warrant inclusion, because they list the various programs of those different types. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 07:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not need to list every single television program that has ever aired on a single television network or that fit in with a certain time block. And I am blaming TonyTheTiger for having me bring in several of these templates which he mentioned on my talk and may or may not actually be useful on this project. However, listing every single program on ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, HBO, etc. is not what templates are for, and the Fox Kids one is really an eye sore. Lists exist for this reason. Not navboxes that are so large that they become innavigable.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 08:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I have nothing to do with any of the templates from TonyTheTiger. The Fox Kids template is different because it's much more concentrated and specific.  Naturally, it's going to be much more heavy handed to do templates for prime time shows since there are way, way more shows in prime time (seven nights a week rather than say, one like with Saturday morning programs), over decades of time.  And the Fox Kids one isn't that hard to navigate (once you over look the quantity) since it's delicately broken down in the appropriate categories.  BornonJune8 (talk) 10:38 p.m., 07 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I could not tell what you were nominating. First you just notified me about one template, so I asked which ones you were nominating. Then, I was trying to figure out which members of Category:United States television series navigational boxes were related to the issue you were raising and whether you had completed your nomination. Don't blame me for your nomination. I was just trying to understand what the issue is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all This had already been discussed in a precedent nomination.  I do not know why these are still here. Sorry; upon further examination, new data showed that 5 of the templates were not created by TonyTheTiger.  It is correct to separate the tfd.  I've commented there and the same rationales apply, including the ones posted by other users.Curb Chain (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as it goes, it may be a good idea to separate the templates into two categories: the ones may be favored for keeping and those that might have to go. The ones that would likely have to get the boot would most likely have to be the network-based program templates that display all current and past programs. The genre-based templates up for deletion ("Early Morning", "Late night television in the United States", "U.S. daytime talk shows", "US Newsmagazine", "US Sunday Talk Shows" and "USOvernightTelevisionPrograming") do serve more of a purpose and are not as "bloated" as the network-based templates are, therefore taking less space in each article. Plus those templates cover only current shows of those genres, as opposed to including both current and past programs like the network-based templates do. So it may not be fair to lump all of the templates into a proposed deletion. TVtonightOKC (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to remove these templates from the TFD, leaving only the giant walled gardens. TonyTheTiger merely confused me as to their purpose by effectively telling me that they existed. I will be leaving only the templates that concern a single network on this TFD from this point forward.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 22:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I am interpreting the suggestion correctly, the templates that only cover current shows were also suggested for exclusion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also not sure why NBC must see TV is any different than many of the above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "NBC Must See TV" is a single programming block instead of every single program that has ever been exclusive on a single network.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 23:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * O.K., then how is that different from Fox Kids? Also, what about the suggestion regarding templates only covering current shows?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Must See TV Thursday was only comedies on NBC on Thursday night. Fox Kids was every single show shown on Fox between 8a and 12p on Saturdays for 12 years.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 01:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comedies on NBC on Thursday between 8-11 and Kids shows on FOX on Saturday between 8-12 deserve different treatment because...???--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the two templates, and tell me that they are not different.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 02:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument, Ryulong quite frankly, doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you ask me. The bottom-line is that unlike including virtually every single prime time network show in one particular network's history, both NBC's Must See TV block and the Fox Kids block are strictly one-day a week, genre centric TV blocks (and because Must See TV was only three hours compared to four matter because).  Again, why is one template okay but another isn't!?  And Must See TV has existed much longer than the Fox Kids block.  So wouldn't theoretically, have a fairly large quantity of programs (which you forgot to mention includes, the 10 p.m. genres) too!    BornonJune8 (talk) 09:35 p.m., 08 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One template is easy to navigate, and merely lists pertinent information. The other is the size of an entire printed page and has things organized by who created the program rather than simply by year. A children's programming block also has much higher turnover than a primetime block, meaning it will always be much more useful as a navigation aide. The Fox Kids template is just as innavigable as the Fox primetime templates and that is why it is included in this deletion discussion, whereas the Must See TV Thursday one no longer is.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 04:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You apparently missed my point that there are naturally, a bigger quantity of primetime shows (since we're talking about the entire week instead of just one). With that in mind, how exactly is that any different than a Saturday morning animation block on Fox television!?  The Fox primetime template that TonyTheTiger created unlike the Fox Kids template, focused on virtually every single show to ever air on the fox network regardless of exact format/genre or what day of the week they particularly air on.  and where's exactly you're evidence that a children's programming blocks has a much higher turnover rate than what goes on in primetime (that sort of thing is really two-fold).  Plus (unlike the other templates), the Fox Kids template, broke down thee shows in terms of which animation houses/production companies they came from and listed the years for which they were on the air.  Don't just quickly look at things at face value.  If i didn't do the things that you mentioned in regards to the Must See TV block, then the template quite possibly would look a bit jumbled and even harder to follow. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:52 p.m., 08 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your Fox Kids template is similar to the other Fox templates because of its size and its lack of usability. It does not matter that the Fox Kids template only focuses on a single four hour block of television, while the Must See TV Thursday template also focuses on a single 3 hour block of television. Its sheer size makes it impossible to use. Compare Fox Kids with ABC Kids. Both cover similar programming blocks. However, the ABC one is much more compact and easy to use than the Fox one. The level of organization you have put forth in the Fox Kids template makes it useless and it should be put in the scrap heap. Even after I massively reformatted it, it is still way too unwieldy and should be subject to this TFD— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 07:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you should be arguing/campaigning for a different organizational format. I've noticed that you're campaigning for listing the Fox Kids shows from the year that they premiered rather than the production companies that they came from/what genre they fit in (as if you're trying to have your cake and eat it too so to speak).  And still, arguing that the Must See TV template only focuses on a three hour block isn't is still missing the point.  Both are still basically (once you get right down to it) single programming blocks that focus on one day a week rather than virtually every single show to ever air on a respective network (I hate having to reiterate my points).  It seems like you're trying to make it sound like I shouldn't acknowledge every single series that aired in the Fox Kids block during its 12 year existence. BornonJune8 (talk) 02:32 a.m., 09 October 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong, now you have admitted twice to having included the baby with the bathwater on this nomination. You have yet to explain why the current shows only templates are lumped in with the entire network history templates. Also, the HBO miniseries template seems to be getting lumped in here. Look very closely at that template. Eight of those 15 shows won either Emmys or Golden Globes. That is a very important template. I may do separate WP:DRVs on both network current only templates and on the HBO miniseries template, if you don't have convincing reasons why they are the same as the entire network history templates. I don't think arguments about them being bloated or unrelated is really relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because they have no navigational purposes. It doesn't matter who won Emmy or Golden Globe Awards. The fact of the matter is that these templates have no functional use. The ones you pointed out to me have been removed. The Fox Kids is huge and a category works better. The Must See TV template doesn't have as much information in it and works better as a template. You have to realize that these are supposed to be navigation templates. Having a massive template full of every show on a particular network or every show that is only currently airing on a particular network makes it difficult to navigate with. Even after I reworked the Fox Kids template, its use as a navigation aide is still negligible. Everything else in these templates should be included in a category.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 18:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even so, templates devoted to "current" programs have a much, much shorter self-life than a more historical television template. And frankly Ryulong, you can't speak for everybody in regards to how exactly the Fox Kids template should appear.  Again, how exactly is relying simply on categories simpler or more useful than a template that's right in front (and instantly provides more info like the dates and genres and such) of you and readily made!? BornonJune8 (talk) 06:08 p.m., 09 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Explain to me why the various Must See TV shows and Fox Kids over time are more navigationally related than the HBO miniseries.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the current show templates are considered massive by templates standards or why shows currently on a network are not considered navigationally related, but shows in various decades on a network's block are.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not "navigationally related". It's utility and ease of navigation. Nothing about any of the templates you have created are usable or easy to navigate with.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 19:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, current show templates are by default going to be smaller when compared to more historical templates. If I would fault TonyTheTiger in regards to the network templates (for example, the Fox network templates by decade) that he had a hand in, I would've advised him to break things down by the year that they premiered and what kind of genre that they fit in (so that they would be easier to follow and understand). BornonJune8 (talk) 06:23 p.m., 09 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not remove everyone else's comments when you leave your own. And the point is that these templates, regardless of division by time, are not helpful as navigational aids.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 02:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When you altered the Fox Kids template (before changing your mind again), you streamlined it (by simply listing shows by the year that they debuted), but at the same time, perhaps made it more difficult to navigate simply. For example, previously, there was a group that listed all of the live-action programs to air in the Fox Kids block.  Not to mention, the programs that were based on Marvel comic books like X-Men and Spider-Man.  They weren't as clearly simplified as the one you proposed, but at the same time, they had their own individualized form of organization.  So again, how exactly is the template that I proposed difficult to navigate (and don't just say because of the large quantity of shows to air on Fox Kids)? And I don't even no what you're talking about when you said that I removed everyone else's comments (if so, then it wasn't intentional)!  It seems like by the way that you're going, navbox can never truly be useful from at the very least, an historical and archival perspective. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:49 p.m., 09 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are useful navboxes that serve to direct people amongst related articles and there are navboxes that have no redeeming qualities where categories and lists serve the purpose much better. The ones in this TFD fall under that second category, and that is the last thing I am going to say on this subject.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 07:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your whole attitude in regards to the Fox Kids template has become a bit if a contradiction. Why did you even bother to tinker (considering that it apparently had "no redeeming qualities" what so ever, you seemed to in a sense or for a while, wanted to "improve" it in your own way) with it by "streamlining it" based on premiere years if you also want it to be completely removed!?  And again, what's not to say that the template as it initially was presented, was actually useful to a majority of Wikipedia users!? BornonJune8 (talk) 01:29 a.m., 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Pure overkill. An instance where categorization is indeed the best option without the need of a template to navigate to completely unrelated shows. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Some are huge and categories and/or list articles are a better way to document the shows without bloating every single show's article. Barsoomian (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI to nominator note the creation of CWNetwork Shows (current and upcoming) and CWNetwork Shows footer--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop making new templates that belong on this TFD.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 20:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another editor made some edits that necessitated the creation of separate templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

BIG KEEP I think they are an intricle part to finding out about shows on various networks, and a navbox is the easiest most logical way to get that done! Most users utilize navboxes more than categories, when getting to content on wikipedia. You are putting an undue burden upon them, just because you don't like having many more navboxes out their. I would highly advise looking how the casual reader uses Wikipedia first and foremost. These also will allow the linkage of the navboxes all in one place instead of having to mindlessly go thru category after category to find shows on varying and same networks shows. I find navboxes to be better at getting a reader to article-by-article rather than categories in the first place. I think navboxes aid navigation, which these in fact do. So, this is my major reasoning behind keeping them, it is a worth while improvement on this wikipedia that this user had the nerve to create them, and make all our lives easier getting back-and-forth to articles. By the way, I would not know as much about new and upcoming programming on networks without these navboxes, see I would be able to easily and readily find the new shows page via a navbox but if I had to find some mere list article that would be a task that I would not easily be able to accomplish. I have learned so much more by having navboxes on various subjects on Wikipedia from Science, Medicine, Arts to History that I believe navboxes like these serve a albeit useful function and tool to readers.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Per nom and other comments. (Some of the "exceptions" I can't follow because editors talk about templates that aren't even in the list - unless they've been removed for some reason.)--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Several have been removed on subsequent examination.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 23:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all, per nom. That's what categories are for, if at all. Just because you can group loosely related things together does not mean you need to create a template for it (I'm looking at you, TonyTheTiger). --Conti|✉ 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These are not loosely related things they are related because they are programs that are affiliated on a particular network like those on the news ones below that are not even up for deletion. They share commonalities, which you have failed to see in the first place, and I just pointed out one.  If you want a list of them, I can most assuridly come up with them.  By the way, you may want to look at categories, lists, and navigation templates for some insight, just because you think categories are correct does not forbade the addition of navigation boxes, which I can just request the deletion of the categories like you all are trying to do here.  Have you all ever heard of categories for deletion!The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Overtemplating, clogging articles, not useful. Binksternet (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not clogging any articles, I could find way much worse out on Wikipedia that is not even remotely considered that. It is useful and informative to the novice Wikipedia user not editor that needs to be educated on what shows or programs were on or are on a particular network these days with so much out on the market.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all, wp is not a television guide. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a television guide it is a navigational aid to help the novice out. If you truly want a television guide, I can give you one these are most certainly not it in the least.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add these then CNN, FoxNewsChannelPrograms, MSNBC Programs, CNBC Business Day, Current TV, BBC News. I could mention more, but you get the idea that this deletion review is cherry picking and needs to be stopped. I suggest deleting all television navboxes of all channels in the US or around the globe if these are in fact deleted, which I would rather see kept.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not adding or subtracting any more templates from this TFD. And this "cherry picking" is because of the lack of use of the templates created by TonyTheTiger. These various other templates you have picked out are not tainted by his touch and are on news programs and list more than just every single program that has ever been on the channel. However, I find it extremely odd as to how you came to this discussion, as prior to yesterday it appears you have never heard of this page.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 18:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be, I was rather appaled when I saw the USA Network template that was going to be deleted because I have found out so many new shows and other great shows on that network. I said this cannot be because it was so helpful and informative to me.  The others, I mentioned are similiar in scope to the ones in the deletion attempt.  By the way the USA Network template was around well before TonyTheTiger ever edited them!  If you want to do anything go by this maxim "do no harm to the patient" and the patient is these navboxes.  I think if you have a beef with him on what his or her edits have caused to these navboxes then take it up on the navbox talk pages on them individually instead of adhoc deleting them all that have a useful purpose on Wikipedia.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is good that you are calling a spade a spade and admiting that rather than determine which things are useful, you are just deleting things I created. "Tainted by my touch". Keep in mind that my touch has produced the most articles that have passed review (FA, GA, FL) of anyone in the history of wikipedia, AFAIK. You sound like an idiot saying that stuff tainted by the touch of the person who has the most successful reviews in wikipedia history is an issue. I am like the Nolan Ryan of wikipedia. (I say Ryan because he has both the most strikeouts and most base on balls). You need to take your hood off so you can see.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The templates you have created and heavily modified are beyond repair, which is what was determined from the previous TFD. I have since removed several templates from this TFD because they have a use, and as far as I can tell, the CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and BBC templates are actually relevant and useful because they are not a means to list every single television show that is broadcast on a single channel. Perhaps I shall get to them in another TFD, but certainly not this one. And while "tainted" is a harsh word, it is clear that from this TFD and the previous, the community does not have high opinions on your ability to create navigation boxes.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 19:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are stirring the pot quite well and have a lot of people not seeing clearly. Every argument that you have made for the removed template ands the recently mentioned above apply to the HBO miniseries template. Your WP:ANI does not seem to be supporting your statement about my problematic template creations. Have a look at my list. 90% of them are good work. If I were doing WP for people's approval, you would bother me. I contribute to WP to learn and help others learn.  Have your fun deleting my templates.  Invite all your friends to join in. As you delete useful things you are doing more harm to WP than you are bothering me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all - I find them helpful. What other reason do we need to keep them apart from their usefulness? They aren't disruptive or hopelessly broken. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I agree with you wholeheartedly! I think this TfD should be closed as keep under the follow rationale:  These templates even though duplucative in nature satisfy NOTDUP guideline and they meet up with NAV properties for their existence on Wikipedia, and seeing that they have a cogent purpose of linking together shows on a specific network are allowable.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all, per nom and comments. The link between the shows included in those templates is circumstantial, sepcially years after when they have been syndicated. Also, bear in mind that in countries other than the US they have been shown on multiple different networks. Do we really want to open that gate?--RR (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep ONLY the network ones, and out of those, ONLY the ones with current or upcoming shows. Delete all the rest, or rewrite as you see fit. Matty-chan (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The network ones are part of the precedent set forward by the previous deletion discussion.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 18:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep some, delete some I say keep the tables about current shows (NBCcurrent, CBScurrent, etc) and the prime time animated one, but delete the other ones, because we have categories that serve that purpose. AddThreeAndFive (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all A category does not adequately convey the same information about years of debuts and years that series' aired. The template provides a chronology that a category does not. It also provides a navigational aid that a list does not because the list does not appear on each page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE to closing admin I will likely do separate DRVs for the five current programming only templates (ABCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming), CBSNetwork Shows (current and upcoming), CWNetwork Shows (current and upcoming), FOXNetwork Shows (current and upcoming), and NBCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming)) (plus the U. S. Network Shows footer so I can link the remaining templates) and the HBO miniseries template HBONetwork Miniseries. Please userfy these with histories upon closing if they are going to be deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep some: I use the navboxes for current programming (especially those related to NBC and USA Network) almost on a daily basis. In a collapsed state, they aren't cluttering anything up any more than navboxes that list every movie that Steven Spielberg is affiliated with, every book written by Agatha Christie, or every episode of The Office.  Therefore, I vote to keep the navboxes for current programming.  The precedent set forth by the other discussion (for the Fox shows) was mostly directed at past programming, and wouldn't entirely apply to the current programming.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This would, of course, require the removal of past programming to the templates that include both past and present, such as Template:USANetwork Shows. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel as though the templates to all five major networks really add to wikipedia. It not only gives all information on current and upcoming programming but adds a nice little extra piece of information that is very easy to read and understand. TVFAN24 (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2011 (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:Citation overkill

 * 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) 00:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Citation overkill

Duplicates Too many references which was just deleted per TFD. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 10:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * With only four transclusions I think it's safe to say that the consensus to delete too many references probably holds here too. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Yes I agree with thumperward but speedy as this misrepresents policy.Curb Chain (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Concisely and correctly identifies the problem of reference spam. There have been incidents (in the past, they've been addressed, in part because the issue was brought to light by this template), where dozens of references have been included.   The current number of aricles this is used on is a consideration but should not be used as reason for removing this template as it is and has been used effectively. Not sure what drives this, perhaps an overzealous attempt to demonstrate notability, sometimes on an article already teetering on the notability line, but it impacts readability of the article.--RadioFan (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeeees, but we just agreed that this doesn't warrant a cleanup tag. Usually reference abuse of this sort is an indicator of deeper problems which need sorted with an article, specifically POV or promotion: it is the root cause which is best tagged. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That template should have been deleted as a duplicate of this one. This template is needed. The issue it addresses is discussed in multiple essay, most notably Citation overkill, by a number of editors so it's not quite as open and closed of a case as you might think.  This template allows the tagging of articles described by .  Related issues are described in Bombardment, Fictitious references, Wikipuffery, Wikibombing (SEO),  and to a lesser degree.  This template notes the number of references and urges further scrutiny, nothing more, nothing less.  It's pretty rare to find an article with a string of a dozen or more references that are really needed, these are often newspapers reprinting the same wire report.  Sometimes it's new editors not taking care to pare things down to just whats needed, sometimes its editors trying to  mask a lack of notability.--RadioFan (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how many editors has edited that essay, it's a essay. All those pages you have cited are essays.  When we are assessing notability, the number of references do not affect an article.Curb Chain (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This template does not address notability, it addresses readability. This template isn't used to question whether an article is notable or not, it suggests that references should be considered more carefully for duplication and only those that are used in the article retained.  It also does not suggest that there is an upper bound to references only that they should be used reasonably.  If that is a concern the template can be reworded to address this.--RadioFan (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest writing another essay and linking this template to that essay, where the essay discusses not using multiple news articles from the same wire, instead of this one that is long and discusses a myriad of topics.Curb Chain (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That issue is noted in Bombardment, which duplicates the subject of Citation overkill. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 11:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, as identical in content to a previously deleted template. As for why the content should be deleted, there is no such thing as too many references and when you find yourself in a situation where that might actually be the case, the solution is WP:SOFIXIT, not slap a maintenance template on it. Maintenance templates tend to be warnings to readers that they should take an article's contents with a grain of salt, but in this case, there's no need to warn them that the article they are about to read is too well-referenced! :) Axem Titanium (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * delete as per the discussion for template:too many references. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2011 (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.