Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 11#US miniseries decade 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|R to other namespace}}

This template is deprecated and not used on any pages. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure maybe its a simple template that can be refined by replacing with one of the cross namespace ones (as we do with {{Tlx|Stub}}). Maybe the cross-namespace ones should be maintained by a bot in which case this is useless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC).
  
• Delete. This template has been replaced by all of its more specific cross-namespace rcats. I still monitor its old {{cat|Cross-namespace redirects}}, which is now a container cat and can be kept. If an editor were to place that cat "hard" on a redirect, as in {{code|Category:Cross-namespace redirects}}, I can catch it and put the redirect into its correct subcat. This template's only subpage is its /doc page, which can be deleted along with this old rcat. Be prosperous! Paine  06:28, 13 November 2015 (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).

: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 merge. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Doctor Who actors|type=merge}}
• {{Tfd links|Doctor Who navbox|type=merge}}

Propose merging Template:Doctor Who actors with Template:Doctor Who navbox.

There's a lot of repetition here. Although I'm personally against having actors in the navbox as it sets a dangerous precedent, if this has to stay the actors may as well be included in the other navbox. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support, does lessen the separation and makes it easier to see the overall arc. Maybe a list of companions added as well? Randy Kryn 13:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

::The companions have their own navbox at {{tl|Doctor Who companions}}, which is already pretty unwieldy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Merge. Perhaps replace the link in the See also section of the DW navbox that now goes to List of actors who have played the Doctor with the List of Doctor Who companions? Be prosperous! Paine  06:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• If it's a choice between merging and leaving them separate, merge, but I'd prefer to do away with the actors entirely per Rob Sinden. I assume the consolidated template will include parenthetical links to each series lead after the link to their respective incarnation, but will that also apply to John Hurt, Michael Jayston, Richard E Grant, and Peter Cushing? And are we going to continue ignoring Richard Hurndall? —Flax5 20:10, 22 November 2015 (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).

: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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Cartoon Network pilots, films and specials}}
• {{Tfd links|Cartoon Network video games}}

In the same vein as {{Cartoon Network programming}}: The navbox for pilots, films and specials is so gigantic, full of red links that aren't in the process of creation, and linkless entries that it's useless. Its purpose is better served by the categories Cartoon Network Studios animated films and Cartoon Network television films.

The function of the navbox for video games is also made redudant by the category Cartoon Network video games and list of Cartoon Network video games. (I created this template.) 23W 16:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've created himself the template "Cartoon Network pilots, films and specials", but only to solve the problem of a too exaggerated former template (Cartoon Network programming). Then, I am not at all agree on their inclusion of all titles in the above categories, because the template in this way is more comprehensive, functional and orderly. So keep it officially. Luigi1090 talk 23:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: I Think " {{Tfd links|Cartoon Network video games}}" could remain created. With respect to "{{Tfd links|Cartoon Network pilots, films and specials}}" you could also stay ... just what it would take to make some changes and remove redirects.--Philip J Fry (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As creator of this template, I had written it before and I write now: "Keep" the page. Luigi1090 talk 23:03, 3 November 2015 (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).

: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 userfy. The main concern seems to be that the user using this template will attempt to recreate it despite it's near-duplicity with {{tld|busy2}}, thus it makes more sense to move it to their userspace for their own personal use. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Busy3}}

This was part of a recent batch nomination of templates. I'm renominating this one (per WP:NPASR) because it's easily the worst of the lot; it's basically a fork of {{tld|Busy2}} that has got slightly out of sync, with the only substantive difference being the mention of consensus reality (via an interwiki link, for some reason) rather than real life. As such, it's most comparable to a WP:POVFORK, or perhaps an idiosyncratic equivalent to a userbox, but I doubt this change is going to be sufficiently commonly wanted to be templated.

The only current user is User:MECU. If a template with the diverged wording is wanted, I can understand userfying this (so as to save having to rewrite the template every time the user in question comes on and off busyness), but it's not going to be a sufficiently generally applicable template to hang around in mainspace. If nobody wants to userfy it, just delete it (and replace existing transclusions, likely just the one, with {{tld|Busy2}}). --ais523 22:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I see no harm in letting users have these little decorations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC).
  
• Keep. User will just recreate it or something similar when needed. Be prosperous! Paine  06:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Merge with {{tld|Busy2}}, as these are almost the same, with the difference being that it says "consensus reality" instead of "real life". --TL22 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: deleting or merging will only encourage the user to recreate their preferred style. This template does not appear to be a maintenance burden. Who cares if a user wants a personalised template? BethNaught (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Agreed with Beth, if users or a user wants this template then let them have it, I do not see this as a huge issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2015 (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).

: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 merge with {{t|James Bond characters}}. The navigation between bond girls should be between the characters, not the actresses, and so the latter should be added to the characters template in parentheses (if at all). Evenon the Bond girl page itself, the girls are listed by character (and only occasionally by actress). Primefac (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Bond girls}}

As the article Bond girl shows, it is very difficult and perhaps impossible to come up with any consistently applicable, verifiable criterion for Bond girls - certainly the list given in the template is in no way canonical, and picking exactly one character from each movie seems flawed. Moreover, it's unclear which films should be included - the template seems to arbitrarily limit itself to Eon productions, for instance, omitting several other notable Bond films. Samsara 07:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also, we shouldn't be categorizing people by their performance or a character they may have played. Nymf (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• It's not a category, it's a template. Categories and templates have different uses. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• A navbox is still categorization, e.g. the template equivalent of :Category:Actors who have played Bond girls. Nymf (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• No, it is not, WP:CLN they are different -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep and expand Bond girls that do not have articles do not need to be considered. If the Bond girl is a non-notable actress they will never appear on the template, so is of no concern to us in regards to the template. Being a Bond girl is a major event in an actresses career, and they are ever more identified as having been in a Bond film. As such, many people in the world at large (ie. outside Wikipedia) are interested in them and would like to follow information about them, thus making the navtemplate a good idea. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• {{tq|Bond girls that do not have articles do not need to be considered.}} This seems to be a propos of nothing. (1) The template lists actresses, not characters. (2) If one were to follow the list given by Bond girl, there would be a whole string of additional actresses to include, all of whom have articles. However, as per that article, it's also ambiguous what exactly makes a Bond girl. If you look at Bond girl#Eon_Productions films, you see that there are a whole lot of different classifications of women that appear in Bond films, and Judi Dench as M does not even appear in that list, but as per the lede is by some suggested to now be a Bond girl as per her pivotal and historically unusual role in Skyfall. So we seem to have a whole string of characters for whom it isn't clear whether they should be listed. That seems to be the stake through the heart of this particular navigational template. Samsara 19:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• I do not see this as a good reason to delete a useful navbar. We keep this template, we go to its talk page and decide by consensus just what constitutes/defines a Bond girl, then we add the result to the documentation. Isn't this how it's done on Wikipedia? (rhet.)  Paine  07:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Please read the article - there is no such consensus. Experts are completely divided on the issue of who is a Bond girl (second paragraph of the article). WP:NOR. Samsara 12:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• I see consensus in the article, and I read the second paragraph as merely a prelude to the article's excellent stab at defining the Bond girl. Below you say, {{gi|No definitive list can be given in either a category or a template or any other format because no such definitive list exists,}} which can be seen in the article to be patently in error. There are tables with many names of Bond girls, so it appears that somebody has already taken the time to exhibit both characters and actors (many of whom are not notable and, unless one or more are potentially strong enough to have an article here and so red linked, would not be suitable for this template in question). So are you so sure that such is WP:NOR? The article appears to be fairly well sourced, so I don't see how you could consider the article or this template as "no consensus among experts" and "original research". Please explain.  Paine  18:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't generally allow actor navboxes. And as the nom points out, what defines a "Bond Girl"? Best left for the article to discuss. Fails WP:NAVBOX. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• :I'm not sure what "fails WP:NAVBOX" means - I don't see a list of tests in that guideline - apart from the 1-5 numbered points, of which some I think are met, per the rubric "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC).
  
• Delete Even the article has grappled with the definition of a "Bond girl" and a template cannot capture the subtleties of such a black and white divide. Also, the purpose of a navbox is to facilitate navigation between a set of articles and I am not convinced that a one-off appearance in different films is a strong enough relationship to provide a navigation route from Halle Berry to Eva Green, for example. Like so many templates/potals, they sound like a nice idea but in practical terms not much use. Betty Logan (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per IP 70.51.44.60 – and since a Bond girl could be either a character or a person/female actor, then notable characters like Pussy Galore and Xenia Onatopp should be included, perhaps in a separate "Characters" section of the navbox. Be prosperous! Paine  08:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• :Already covered at {{tl|James Bond characters}} --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• ::Not all JB characters are "Bond girls", so if this template is kept and it's going to be a template to aid navigation to all the Bond girls, then the notable characters that are Bond girls should be included.  Paine  23:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. The "Bond girls" are a thing, a recognizable societal meme. Expansion per above may be the way to go on this. Robsinden is correct that the characters are covered in the James Bond character template, yet in my understanding, after careful study and/or appreciation, the actresses themselves are known as "Bond girls" as much, if not more, than their named character, and so this template thus covers a topic which the Bond character template excludes. The template could be expanded into sections, as the documentary film Bond Girls Are Forever should have a place in a See also or Legacy section. Randy Kryn 10:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

::Which we have categories for. We also have a list which puts them into a proper encyclopedic context. The real question posed by the navbox is do we need a navigational aid to navigate between them? How likely is it that someone would look up Honor Blackman and then want to navigate to Eva Green? A good rule of thumb for navboxes is that the articles in a navbox would appear in the "see also" sections of all the other articles if not for the navbox. Basically the navbox picks up the slack when the "see also" section does not adequately serve its purpose. That clearly isn't the case here, since I see no compelling reason why we need an Eva Green link at Honor Blackman's article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Aren't they connected by the fact that they are both Bond girls? While cats help sometimes with navigation, they are not nearly as easy for general readers as navbars are. Moreover, there are rules for See also sections that might not allow other Bond girl names in that section, for example, if they are linked for any reason within the content of an article or in any navbox on the page, then they should not be listed in the See also section – see MOS:SEEALSO. Be prosperous! Paine  06:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

::::Grouping articles together is done by categories, while navboxes are functional: their purpose is to provide navigation between a group of articles. All I am seeing is an argument for a category. Nobody in favor of the navbox has explained why it is necessary to add a navigation aid to this set of articles. Neither is there an evident demand for such an aid either; usually these links already pre-exist in some form in the article and the navbox is just a tidier and more efficient way of providing the same set of links, but this group of articles do not seem to interconnect with each other at all. Betty Logan (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::You may be correct that {{gi|Nobody in favor of the navbox has explained why it is necessary to add a navigation aid to this set of articles.}} However, you just explained it very well! {{gi|...the navbox is just a tidier and more efficient way of providing the same set of links,}} yes, it's an efficient navigational aid for our readers who want to visit one or more of the other Bond girls' articles (and not have to "hunt" for them). Be prosperous! Paine  11:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::See also and categories are not templates, a template presents a map of a subject. This map, the Bond girls, would be used by those interested in the topic (and it is a real topic) "Bond girls". The items on the template interconnect, and actually the template needs expansion to include both the characters and the actors, plus the documentary. Randy Kryn 13:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Your comment does not address the problem at hand, which is that there is no consensus as to what constitutes a Bond girl. No definitive list can be given in either a category or a template or any other format because no such definitive list exists. Samsara 12:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::::That can be worked out in section divisions, it doesn't have to be a problem that sinks a template but one that further builds and refines it. Randy Kryn 12:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per my comments above - "Bond girl" is a loose term without a solid definition that can be used to determine inclusion in this template. Samsara 19:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Please see my suggestion in response to your comments above.  Paine  07:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Replied. Samsara 12:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• delete, better to just use a category. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2015 (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).

: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. Although there strong arguments both for and angainst, I believe those who argued for deleting presented stronger arguments. Those supporting deleting argued that such templates (a) are redundant to categories and/or lists, (b) are arbitrarily broken by decades, and (c) link together subjects that have very little in common. None of those three major points was adequately refuted by those supporting keeping. The main arguments for keeping is that such templates help navigation, but it was not proved that navigation between articles arbitrarily grouped together is useful at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|1990s US miniseries}}
• {{Tfd links|1980s US miniseries}}
• {{Tfd links|1970s US miniseries}}

The templates seem to be an arbitrary aggregation of content best suited to categorical presentation. I don't understand why a template is necessary for this subject.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• I recently nominated these, but closing admin inexplicably called "no consensus", which I brought up on their talk page. I meant to take this further, but went on holiday and forgot about it. Anyway, strong delete all per previous nomination. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• #Rob Sinden I'd agree that categorizing by decades isn't very useful, but these templates organize additional characteristics that aren't already categorized. The category at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_television_miniseries categorizes miniseries that were produced for American television. The category at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Television_programs_based_on_works categorizes programs (not limited to miniseries nor to American television) that were adaptations. Both categories intersect in these templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootsmusic (talk • contribs) 00:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, as last time, my reasoning being that the templates create an interesting overall look at the television interests of the decade and make an easy guide to this particular classification of television shows. The creator of the templates was an active participant in the previous discussion as to why they should be kept, but might not know about this one. Randy Kryn 13:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - I have made good use of these templates when reading articles. One can also argue that miniseries tend to share many common traits that differ them from longer TV series, such as themes, tone, etc. As there aren't many miniseries to begin with, I think this is relevant enough to warrant more than a simple entry in the categories list at the bottom of the page. Besides, converting this into a category would make it less accessible, as the miniseries wouldn't be ordered by years, and you'd have to open each subcategory to see what series are in there. Daß Wölf (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

::But you could all this and more with a List of U.S. miniseries, which is far more appropriate than these navboxes, and you wouldn't be restricted by the arbitrary splits between the decades. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

:::The list has the problem that you always have to go back to the list to find the next item, whereas with the navbox you can browse freely among the items. Besides, the splits aren't completely arbitrary; there are big thematic differences between the miniseries of various decades. Can you imagine Roots being filmed in 1990s, for example? Daß Wölf (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

::::You mean like Alex Haley's Queen? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::I could go on about differences between those, but yeah I'd probably end up deep into WP:OR. It's a shame nobody with credentials has covered this either, judging from Google Scholar results. Still, I stand by my decision to keep, as a navbox in this case is more accessible than a list. Daß Wölf (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• delete, the decade splits are arbitrary, and we can just use categories and/or list articles. the connection between the entries is far too loose. Frietjes (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, categories work better. Being a TV show of a certain length is too loose a connection and the splits, being arbitrary, don't serve a navigational purpose in my opinion. You wouldn't put these links in a See Also section. BethNaught (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2015 (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).

: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. No objections after having been listed for almost a month. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Massively multiplayer online strategy video games}}

Template's subject is a video game genre, too narrow for a navbox. There's already {{tp|Multiplayer online games}}. Template is mainly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Massively_multiplayer_online_strategy_video_games used] on video game articles, failing WP:NAVBOX. Soetermans. T / C 14:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• There's also the sidebar {{tp|VG Strategy}}. --Soetermans. T / C 14:12, 27 October 2015 (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).

: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, and the number of links increased after the initial nomination. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Creighton Bluejays women's basketball coach navbox}}

Navbox with just two links and no mother article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete; this is what succession boxes are for one entry doesn't justify a navbox, since there's nothing to navigate to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

:*{{Ping|SMcCandlish}} Actually, Mac, most of the sports WikiProjects (and a number of others) replaced the clunky and graphically hideous succession boxes with navboxes four to five years ago, and the use of navboxes for this purpose has been upheld in multiple TfDs in 2010–11. The question here is whether there are an adequate number of linked articles to justify a navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

::*Ah OK, as long as they don't do both, it should work either way. (I co-founded a sports wikiproject, and we never had such a discussion, so I'm not sure that preference is universal). In this case, there's just one article, which wouldn't seem adequate. It has a number of redlinked entries, but I'm skeptical that being a coach at a private university (i.e. being an "athletics professor") is notable in and of itself, per WP:ACADEMIC. So it may not be likely that any of those redlinks will ever be articles [for long], except where the subject is notable for some other reason. As with the case below, there is no article about being a coach at this university, so this fails one of the navbox criteria. This is just like having navboxes for films' actors and crew members, basically. Who worked on a team, like who worked on a film, is better handled in article text.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

::::SMcCandlish, which sports WikiProject did you found? The consensus about preference for navboxes over succession boxes, which Dirtlawyer mentioned above, and which I also mentioned below in the discussion about Template:San Jose State Spartans athletic director navbox, applies to most North American teams sports at the pro or college levels, and has also been adopted for a number of sports outside of North America; see :Category:Sports coach navigational boxes. Also, your analogy for having a navbox for a film's actors and crew is inapt here. That would be analogous to having navbox for the roster of every team each season, e.g. a navbox just for the members of the 2014–15 Creighton Bluejays women's basketball team. Generally, such navboxes only exist for league champions. The navbox in question denotes an succession over time of one office. Finally, I'm not sure WP:ACADEMIC is applicable here. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is better. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::WP:CUESPORTS (and, yes, there are collegiate-level team pool competitions; I competed for the University of New Mexico in the ACUI southwest regionals back in the day, and the Billiard Congress of America was running university tournaments for decades before ACUI got involved). But whatever; I'm not challenging whether or not any discussion ever took place, it simply does not appear to have been as inclusive as some think it was, and probably only involved "big-time collegiate sports" projects. Anyway, I don't see anything at WP:ACADEMIC that suggests "immunity" to it based on the subject area that a university faculty member is an instructor of. Meanwhile, WP:NSPORTS does not appear to be applicable, since it addresses pro not collegiate/amateur sports primarily. See wording such as (under American football): "players and head coaches are presumed notable if they have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues [list elided], or any other top-level professional league", followed by a note that it doesn't even apply to pro-league assistant coaches. And similar wording under other sports. University coaches and athletic directors do not appear to be encompassed, except in a very short amateur section, that assumes notability only for hall of fame inductees, major award winners, and those who are independently notable aside from their am/college sports connection. Back at the notability guideline on university faculty, it does not specifically draw some circle around athletics departments and exclude their faculty. Perhaps it should be clarified to mention them specifically and remove all doubt that it applies to them as well as to physics professors and university presidents. It's not problematic that two guidelines can apply in a non-contradictory way to such individuals. Notability for leadership of a sports team and notability as an academic or university administration figure are not identical (a coach might be non-notable, due to lack of major coaching awards, in the first case, but notable under the latter case as an oft-cited expert in sports psychology and phys-ed pedagogy journals, for example). Similarly, a physicist could be notable as a science writer (i.e. as an author) and notable as an academic (theoretician); or a theatre figure might be notable as both a playwright and an actor; or an attorney notable as all three of a solicitor, a businesswoman, and a politician (or, in an actual case I can think of, a prosecutor, a fashion model, and an activist).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a "mother article," Creighton Bluejays women's basketball, which included a list of head coaches by season. That said, I am skeptical of the navigational value of a navbox with two links, but I am mindful that navboxes that represent a succession series are one of the possible exceptions for navboxes that are mostly red links. Can someone stub out another couple of articles for some of the more prominent coaches in the succession, so we can have a clean "keep" vote? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• keep for now. useful for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Navbox denotes a notable position. Now has three blue links to bio articles of notable people. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." A list that satisfies WP:LISTN would avoid the banter about whether these entries are actually notable; WP:NCOLLATH says college coaches generally are not presumed notable. It seems these navboxes are circumventing the more stringent requirement for pages, which would not take to kindly to a list of red links without demonstrated notability as a group.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep This class of template should be kept as long as there are sufficient notable subjects in the body of the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 12 November 2015 (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).

: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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|San Jose State Spartans athletic director navbox}}

Navbox with just three links and no mother article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

:*Comment - The "mother article" for this navbox is San Jose State Spartans, the intercollegiate sports program of San Jose State University, of which the listed persons are the executive directors. A separate list should not be required. Whether three links (and a relatively small percentage of the listed persons) is adequate for a navbox is a separate question. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete; this is what succession boxes are for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [Changed to weak delete, below, for different rationale.]
• Creating a succession box is just kicking the can down the road. It dosnt deal with the real issue of determining whether the subject it worth the clutter of any box, succession or navbox. It seems like needless churn to convert just because succession box may be less stringent.—Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep this navbox captures the succession of San Jose Spartans athletic directors, who—perhaps, aside from some of the interim office holders— are presumably notable. Generally speaking, an athletic director for an NCAA Division I school like San Jose State is going to be notable. We have 189 other navboxes of this class; see: :Category:NCAA Division I athletic director navigational boxes. Is there minimum number or minimum percentage of blue links that would obviate the nominator's complaint above of "just three links"? Also, per SMcCandlish's comment above, this is actually not what succession boxes are for, certainly not in practice. There is a broad, stable consensus among an number of sports-related WikiProjects that navboxes are preferable to succession boxes to capture the succession of office holders in the footer space of articles. We have several thousand of such navboxes; see the category tree at :Category:Sports coach navigational boxes and elsewhere. Navboxes are dynamic, easily standardized, collapsible, and contain comprehensive coverage of a succession, whereas succession boxes are static, more susceptible to irregular formatting, clunky and space consuming, and provide limited context. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX No 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". Create a list that meets WP:LISTN would clearly demonstrate the notability of this subject. Accepting the broader subject of San Jose State Spartans as the "mother article", is a bad precedent to invite cruft navboxes under the guise that an article of a more broader topic presumes notability of any list even remotely related. No prejudice to recreate once LISTN is met.—Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:*Bags, we have never required list articles for coaches, and have accepted main team articles that included the lists as the parent articles for these navboxes. I don't see the AD succession navboxes being much, if at all, different in that regard. That said, I would like to see at least one more live blue link to satisfy what has been considered a reasonable minimum in the past (see my comment below re Tom Bowen). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:::"{{tq|we have never required list articles for coaches}}": I don't see a compelling reason to go against an editing guideline in this case. It's not like SJSU is a Power 5 school.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per Jweiss11. Clearly part of a well-established class of navboxes. At the very least, this is valuable information that we should WP:PRESERVE somewhere, and it's probably best, easiest, and most logical to just keep it right here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Weak delete: While three entries is enough to serve a navigational purpose, just being a university faculty member does {{em|not}} auto-confer notability, per WP:ACADEMIC, so we can expect some of its entries to remain redlinks indefinitely. And the navigational purpose can be served by "preceded/succeeded by" entries in the infobox. Not every template that could possibly be used on a page should be.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - If someone will create a stub article for Tom Bowen (athletic director) (or retask the present Tom Bowen redirect for that purpose), who is a Bill Walsh protege and a former NFL executive and was the SJSU AD for 8 years, that would give us four blue links and presumably satisfy the minimum number for a succession navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - With Jweiss11's creation of a new article for Tom Bowen, here are now four blue links to existing articles about notable individuals who have served as the SJSU athletic director. That's plenty to support a navbox for a succession, especially when successions are listed as one of the possible exceptions to a 100% blue link navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• I question the wisdom of creating a one-source micro-stub on a probably non-notable minor figure simply because he's connected to American sports, when the result is essentially not really an article, but a trivial biographical index entry, the sole seeming purpose of which is to have a place to hang three navboxes. Having been employed by a university doesn't make someone notable, just presumptively competent enough to find work in that sector.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

:::SMcCandlish, NCAA Division I athletic directors are clearly notable. Apologies for not taking the time to expand the Tom Bowen article beyond a short stub, but my focus here on Wikipedia is on cleaning up thousands of other articles and establishing standardized formatting for all them, including navboxes like the one in question here. Frankly, it's time to admit you're wrong here and move on. If you're truly intent on whacking some American sports navboxes, I can point you in the right direction. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

::*SMcC, Tom Bowen is highly notable for his roles as AD at San Jose State and Memphis, as a simple Google News Search will reveal. The initial one-reference stub did not accurately reflect the depth of media coverage for Bowen, and I've started to build out the article with quality sources. That said, even the article in its now-present condition (@10:25 a.m., November 2) is sufficient to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per GNG. It's not an accident I suggested Tom Bowen for stubbing; I looked at the coverage before I made the suggestion, because I remembered his association with the 49ers and Bill Walsh. Bowen got a lot of good ink for turning the SJSU sports program around, and he had been rumored to be a candidate for the Stanford and Cal AD jobs before Memphis made him the highest paid university employee in October 2015. We can argue about the proper role of sports, etc., in American universities and academics, but Bowen is legitimately notable. I won't go so far as Jweiss11 to say all Division I athletic directors are notable, but most are. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per Jweiss, Ejgreen and Dirtlawyer. Cbl62 (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: with the creation of Randy Hoffman, we now have five bio articles linked from this navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

: My searches indicate that Chuck Bell, who was also AD at other institutions, would pass GNG, if and when someone decides to create an article. Cbl62 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

:: There's plenty of coverage about Tom Brennan as well. I'm confident that we'll find that all of the permanent ADs here are notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep This class of template should be kept as long as there are sufficient notable subjects in the body of the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:05, 12 November 2015 (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).

: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. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Cal Poly Pomona presidents}}

WP:EXISTING -- It is used in only one article, making it hard to navigate. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". Corkythehornetfan 06:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:EXISTING with nothing to navigate to at this time. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4 with no standalone article on this topic. These are all signs of a crufty navbox.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - One-link navbox serves no valid reader navigational purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per Dirtlawyer1 and Bagumba. This is useless for navigation. Daß Wölf (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2015 (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).

: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. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• {{Tfd links|Characters}}

I have no idea why this template exists. It is transcluded to a single user page, and linked from two pages that probably refer to a different template with the same name. Also, Template:Spider is nominated for the same reason. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete spider, userfy characters. Samsara 07:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Subst and delete {{tl|characters}} personal use single use template. Looks like testing, so possibly DB-test -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete {{tl|spider}} -- unused useless template that is not template content. Probable DB-test -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Subst if possible and delete both - I can't guess what this is supposed to stand for. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2015 (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).