Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 20

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 19 March 21 >

March 20 edit

Template:Begin-stub-templates edit

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) 22:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Begin-stub-templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used to separate stub templates from the content. Same as {{clear}} but adds a horizontal rule— this violates the guideline at Wikipedia:Layout#Horizontal rule. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. {{Clear}} does the same thing, only better. Airplaneman talk 02:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not even clear that this is advisable, given that the sole reason for stub templates being put after all article content is a technical issue with categories always being presented in alphabetical order. When that's eventually solved there should be no problem with adding stub templates above navboxes and such. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I learned something new :). Thanks, —Airplaneman— 02:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:De and others edit

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 Deprecate, and delete once the revisions have been appropriately imported. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:De (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:German (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:EsTrans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Frenchtrans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ITsource (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Italian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Polish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Polish2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 13#Category:Interwiki translation templates (participants notified)

Thanks to bugzilla:20280, we can now import revisions from the German, Spanish, French, Italian and Polish Wikipedia. These templates should be deprecated in favour of importing the revisions which provides a much better and more direct attribution.

Keep in mind they should not actually be deleted until all the articles have had their other language revisions appropriately imported. –xenotalk 14:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how "importing the revisions" looks? Where will the imported revisions be visible?--Kotniski (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The imported revisions just become the earlier revisions. See special:Log/import. User:Graham87/Import provides some useful information and caveats (not necessarily all applicable, because Graham is importing from the nost.wiki, but still good background reading nevertheless). –xenotalk 14:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what happens if the imported revisions are mixed up chronologically with the existing revisions? Are the imported ones treated as "earlier" in the list, even if they don't have earlier timestamps?--Kotniski (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In theory only the revisions prior to the translation date should be imported. Most articles using these template used it from their genesis, so only earlier revisions than the first edit would be imported; those that have it somewhere in the middle of the history may indeed have confusing diffs, chronologically interspersed. –xenotalk 14:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And is there any community consensus to allow such confusion? I would suggest that importing diffs for a different article that are going to be interspersed with existing ones is bad practice, and therefore if there are such cases, then the templates (or something equivalent to them) ought to be retained.--Kotniski (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that should be discussed elsewhere, and I agree that until we have an answer only the ones that will import only earlier revisions should be targeted. –xenotalk 15:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So isn't this delete nomination a little premature? I'm voting keep for now; even if the templates will eventually be redundant, they're clearly not redundant yet. (And I hope the community will be consulted before people start importing revisions from foreign articles in a way that will make the page history illegible.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is to deprecate, not delete. Even if these are deleted, {{iw-ref}} can be used to achieve the same purpose (in fact these are all just calling iw-ref). –xenotalk 16:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Though this says something different (and the two people voting "delete per nom" have obviously been confused as well).--Kotniski (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that change also makes it say "this template is being considered for deletion" wherever it's transcluded. Can you undo that (if only for the sake of the appearance of the target pages)?--Kotniski (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "for deletion" stuff is vestigal from before the rename of this venue. I'll try to sort that a bit later. As far as noincludeing the tfd template, someone objected to that last time. –xenotalk 16:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I think the duplicated information is necessary . The import function moves the material and provide the full attribution. That it moves the entire article including the references is a major step forwards , and will help prevent what appear to be unreferenced articles from being introduced. But the tag here indicates that the translation was actually done. Considering the rather low quality of most translations, it is useful giving an immediate warning that the material is likely to have other than the standard english grammar and idiom, and will generally need a good deal of editing. I do a certain amount of this editing from German, French, and occasionally other languages--not that I really like to translate a complicated article from scratch in most of these, but I know enough of the characteristics of literal translations from those languages to adjust the results to more acceptable english--and, if it's in one of my subject fields, I will generally know the correct equivalents of the technical terms. Therefore, when I see such a tag I try to look at the article with these things in mind if I have the time. I rather doubt that the importing is being done is such a way that the translations will necessarily be of such high quality that editing will never be needed. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What if the template were made invisible, and added a hidden maintenance category? Would this serve the same purpose while remove the self-referential line from the "References" (where it is a little but malplaced - other wikis are not an appropriate reference). –xenotalk 15:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clear that importing history would be very bad in the way it works today, since it would mix the article histories, going from German version to English, German, English and so forth, blurring the real contributors to each language, bringing also as contributors people whose work was never contributed to. When it will be possible to import from a specific point backwards, it will make sense.
    What, however, does not make sense is the iteration of an issue that has been voted for, even if it is phrased in a different way. --FocalPoint (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Importing was not available when we had the previous discussion. –xenotalk 16:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Citing another Wikipedia as a source would be inappropriate, and whilst I agree that credit should be given to the original authors, this would be better accomplished through the page history. Importing seems to be a better way to accomplish this. --GW… 16:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — None of this makes any sense to me. Why would you want to import edits from, say, the German WP? They are already there on the German WP. Surely a much less mad idea would be to modify the templates already in use so that they can be linked – preferably automatically – to the place in the source-language article’s history from which the source for the translation was drawn. In this way, translations could be reviewed with a few clicks if anyone suspects a problem. “Translated” articles often aren’t full translations anyway. Sometimes they are abbreviated, and at other times they have more information than the source. Bear in mind that the “de” template only says that the article incorporates information from de:WP, not that it’s a full translation of every detail and nothing else. I do my best to provide full translations of articles about towns and municipalities in Germany, but I also routinely add things. This is notably true for the “Coat of arms” sections, for which I quite commonly consult another source for armorial history and meaning, and yet another for heraldic terminology (which is highly specialized in English, whereas it isn’t so in German). So, you can keep your Buggyzilla and we’ll keep our templates. Modifying them to point to the translation source in the other WP’s article history seems to make more sense (can it be done?). Kelisi (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, that does not satisfy the licensing requirements because it is not machine-readable. –xenotalk 17:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use but make invisible for maintenance purposes, per DGG & Xeno discussion above. The category in particular would be important. NB: I say this as someone who has actually done article translation between Wikipedias, so I'm not talking out my, eh, navel. I agree that the underlying code changes are a major step forward, but they do not obviate every single purpose and function of these templates. Actually deprecating seems unwarranted, though I don't see any reason not to consolidate all of this into {{iw-ref}}.— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 18:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When there is one prominent page on another wiki that is not only a source, but also has more information, it is useful to have this template to call attention to the source page as being important enough to be a source (not just one of 5 links in the left hand corner). I have no clue how to operate Bugzilla, and I still use this template occasionally.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We have {{Expand German}} for just that purpose, to point out where more detailed information from another language version should be pulled over, with proper categorization. Amalthea 12:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — after all histories for the articles that use this template are imported (if someone is willing to do it). As I understand it, importing will give the option of merging histories, therefore allowing proper attribution. This is tedious, but if someone is willing to do it, then delete it is. It will definitely encourage importing over copying when translating articles. If someone is not willing to import all of the histories for the articles that use this template, then I'm voting keep. Airplaneman talk 02:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not and has never been required for attribution to retain an in-article notice, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Amalthea 13:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean that importing histories was the only way for attribution, just that I support the deletion if someone is willing to import. Airplaneman talk 16:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how you can claim that importing revisions solves the problem. That only works if the article did not exist before creation of a translated version. If the article already exists then WP:Parallel versions means that no such importation should be done, unless you do it to a history subpage. There are many articles, where material is added from a non-English Wikipedia. 65.94.252.177 (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What problem, exactly, is this template solving? Amalthea 12:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this template helps us to keep the terms of the GFDL, which all language Wikipedias operate on. If I translate something from the French Wikipedia that was written by someone else, this template helps everyone realise that the French Wikipedia is where it came from originally. --Malkinann (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Amalthea 12:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I don't understand - how does this not help us keep the terms of the licenses of Wikipedia? It highlights where the source of the text came from, which helps with attribution. --Malkinann (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Complying with license terms is pretty much black and white in this case: Either we do what's been found sufficient, or we don't. If we do, we don't need to "help" it any further. I'm very open to find or create replacements for other functions this template has, for some editors, but in my opinion a permanent in-article notice like this has no benefits, and it has only been used very sporadically anyway. Amalthea 12:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really 'sufficient' for attribution to hide away the attribution on the talk page or in edit summaries, when all other sources being used in the article (references) must be on the mainspace? --Malkinann (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Attribution is a separate matter from sources. –xenotalk 20:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was using the term 'sources' a bit more broadly than you're interpreting. If I translate something for use in an article here, the material's source is the other-language Wikipedia. It is as much a source of information as a reference is, although to a lesser degree of reliability. I don't feel it's sufficient for attribution to hide away the sources of an article on the talk page or in the history, which is why I've used these templates in the past. --Malkinann (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everyone seems to have a different understanding of what this template is supposed to do. Let's list some:
    • Required for attribution: No, and it's not, and it has never has been. We aren't placing any in-article markers after local splits and merges – that's the same situation license-wise. Our core guideline for this case is Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, authored by among others Moonriddengirl, and it doesn't mention any such template as required.
    • Tagging poor translations: This should be done by some maintainance tag instead like {{Copy edit}}, which could properly categorize those pages, and I don't see that this template is used with that intention. It's very often placed in the references section, for whatever reason.
    • Point out other languages with more information: We have different templates dedicated to that.
    • Importing is a mess: Importing revisions is not a required substitute, and should not have been highlighted in the nomination. It can be the best way for translating a whole new article, but it's neither required nor recommended if you only translate one section, and it's not required if the template is removed. It really has no impact on the usefulness of this template.
    This template supposedly has many functions, but it performs neither well, and I don't see that it was ever intended to. If one of those functions is important, let's make a dedicated template, I'm all for that and will gladly help with the transformation. But if we can't even point out how and when this self-referential template is supposed to be used, and when it can or should be removed again, we shouldn't continue to use it at all. Amalthea 12:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are often used as a reference item, in the same way as {{Catholic}} or {{1911}}. (Indeed, as far as I am aware, this is their only purpose.) They are not only used to mark where an article has been created by translation from a foreign-language wiki. The proposer's solution would not meet all the needs of current uses of these templates. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't referencing another Wikipedia violate WP:RS? --GW… 20:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you detail why it's important to point out that an article was based on a other-language version of Wikipedia, in-article? To avoid allegations of WP:PLAGIARISM, it's quite sufficient to make notice in the edit summary. If this template (and {{Catholic}} and {{1911}} as well) is used in the spirit of a maintainance tag, shouldn't it follow those conventions, with proper categorization and style? I see there's been discussion on at least Template talk:1911 about it.
      My main concern at this point is finding out what function this template has, in the eyes of the editors here, so that we can either clarify when and how it should be used, and possibly split out functions into separate templates. So if you say it's used the same way as {{Catholic}} or {{1911}}, can you detail what the function of those templates is, and why it is important? Amalthea 12:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found this discussion while checking what links to my page about importing old edits to the Nostalgia Wikipedia. I don't have an opinion about the template in question, but I think it's worth pointing out that it's still possible to make article histories look sane without the dreaded parallel versions after importing edits. This is achieved by importing to the MediaWiki talk namespace, then history merging the revisions that you want to import. Graham87 07:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until this proposal is better explained by its proponents. I have in the past used the above templates when translating information from other-language Wikipedias. Mostly, if not always, this has been a case of translating some information from an existing article, and placing it on an also already existing english article. The proposal implies I should now be doing something different (merging the histories) but I've followed all the links and I can find nothing that tells me how I (as a non-administrator) should do this, or even request it. I'm not averse to the change if it is properly explained, but so far that has not been done. Perhaps the proponents of this change should write a decent help article on how to merge histories for the various translation cases (new en article from translation; info translated into existing en article; editor has admin privileges; editor does not have admin privileges) and link it here. Then we could discuss this from a more transparent basis. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have you been using it? See above for reasons of other editors, but I'd be interested in your reasons. I've seen some editors only use it to follow convention, but I've yet to find out what exactly was the reason for that convention. {{ITsource}} says it should be used instead of reliable sourcing in some circumstances, but that's one way we cant't use it. Amalthea 12:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Principally for reasons of attribution. I don't see edit summary as being sufficiently accessible for this (when was the last time you read beyond the first 100 'rv vandalism' entries in a history) and in any case it doesn't let me link the text I'm actually attributing in the way sticking a de template inside ref tags after that text does. I have no idea how to import edit history or what the result looks like (hence my original comment), but I still wonder if the result may not suffer from the same issue as using edit summaries. And whilst {{translated}} might fit the case for a bulk translation of a whole article, it doesn't really work where you are simply trying to attribute a few lines. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You say attribution (in the legal sense of CC-BY-SA compliance), but what you write reads more like referencing (in the sense of WP:CITE).
    For attribution, it is definitely enough to use an edit summary hyper-link, which sure works fine in edit summaries ([[:de:Foo]] → de:Foo, if you want to point out a specific revision you need to do so textually, but that's rarely important). You've asked for a guide before, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is our guideline to attribution and mentions various cases. It's been worked on and pushed to guideline status by User:Moonriddengirl, who is very knowledgeable in that area.
    If you say you're sticking it into a ref tag, I'd again ask why you do that, or think it's necessary. Not for WP:V, you'll be using the actual references for that. Do you also do that if you copy English text from one article to another (for merges, splits, DAB taglines, ...)?
    There's nothing extraordinary with imported revisions: they look like normal revisions, but were actually created in a different project. For an example, see the German version of Joe the Plumber. That is certainly not appropriate or useful if you introduce one translated section into an existing article. As I said above, importing revisions is not the magic bullet to make these templates obsolete. My main problem with the templates is that they apparently fill a whole lot of functions, depending on who you ask, and are consequently being used inconsistently and often superfluously.
    Amalthea 17:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia postdates the last time I did a translation, so I obviously couldn't have taken it into account back then. Having looked at it, it certainly suggests a different approach to the one I took. So I suppose the basic answer to your original question is because it seemed like the best practice at the time, but best practice has now moved on. I'm still uncomfortable about relying on edit history and talk pages for attribution, because I would expect 99% of our readers never to look at either; they are both principally aimed at editors and administrators. I take your point that using ref tags could lead to confusion between attribution and citing sources (and looking back I can see that in pages I edited). However there is no other way (that I know of) of automating footnotes, and ref tags get (ab)used for all sorts of other note-but-not-authorititive-source uses). I don't really see the issue here. Readers will see the reference and just like any other cite make their own call about whether it is authoritative or not. Administratively within the WP community we will see it references another WP project and know it is not authoritative by our standards, and if there are no other cites recognise the text or articles needs to be improved. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I was trying to get at, we don't do attribution for our readers, and for project-local edits, all of our attribution is in the page history already. I don't see why interproject attribution should be misplaced there, or why readers would ever care where a particular piece of copyrighted content comes from, as long as it is compliant with local policies and guidelines. Re-users might care, but they already have to look into the history. Amalthea 13:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - attribution is not meant to be a "pat on the back" for who wrote the material - it is to fulfill a legal requirement. And the template doesn't actually do that - it's not machine readable like a proper attribution statement in the history. –xenotalk 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm really confused. If attribution is a legal requirement, why does it need to be machine readable (I've not met many robot lawyers)?. And what pray do you mean by a proper attribution statement in the history and why is that machine readable when a template in the text isn't. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate This is the worst way of doing attributions. We have edit summary, importing edit history, and {{translated}}, which are all superior because they do not give the impression that the other wikipedia is a source of facts as opposed to a source of language. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep other language wikis are a tertiary source, which need to be referenced on the article page, a template should include a link in reference section. Pohick2 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're using unreliable tertiary sources as references, you're doing something wrong. From WP:TERTIARY: "Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, [...]". And in any case, the templates under discussion would be the wrong way to go about it, for both content and formatting reasons. You don't want an indented, italicized reference without access date there. Amalthea 10:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BS: a translation of a foreign language wikipedia article is perfectly acceptable, and the template allows an access date and link to the version, are you going to change all the templates to Template:Translated page? are not the templates the same as "  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)"? i see a proposal to delete references. Pohick2 (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak deprecate. As pointed out, copying within en is recorded in edit summaries and with Talk page templates, particularly {{Copied}}. I don't see a difference that justifies these article templates. The pre-translation revisions should be imported where appropriate and the others tagged with {{translated page}}. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with User:Calliopejen1. There are much better ways to attribute an edit. --bender235 (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate and delete, it's not needed anymore. Garion96 (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Teletoon Retro edit

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. Garion96 (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Teletoon Retro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Not the worst idea for an template. This has got to be the widest template I have ever seen though. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Adding my comment up here, as I was the original nominator; not sure why the rationale never posted here.)This template is not necessary and only serves to add clutter to articles. Teletoon Retro doesn't actually originate any of these programs; they are simply a rebroadcaster of older series. If we were to create templates for every station that carries (or carried) a series, we would end up with a long line of templates at the bottom of series articles. This would contradict the established conventions that we are not here to act as a viewing guide or station directory. The list mentioned below is a far better solution thatn this template. --Ckatzchatspy 02:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok since the discussion is not over. You may put it back on there. The reason why it was gone is because the discussion seemed to be over. If you feel it shouldn't be kept, then put the deletion nominator back on there. Thank you. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wideness could be fixed by breaking up the members properly with middots rather than unspaced commas... This template appears to be a work in progress, so I would say keep, for now. –xenotalk 15:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I"m striking my vote which was based on this nomination which didn't present a reason. Ckatz rationale makes some sense but I'm going to reserve judgment for now. –xenotalk 18:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously I just used that rationale about the list article. Anyways if I had to vote I would say Delete the only reason I changed me saying delete is Xeno made sense at the time and I did not know about the article list yet. By the way I was wondering when the nominator was going to comment about this. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have; it's beneath your initial post at the top. (I think there was a glitch on the main page - a missing heading perhaps - that affected the script that posts TfD notices, which kept the original rationale I created from being posted.) Again, my concern is that this template is contrary to our customary practice and prone to creating massive problems with respect to article size. For example, the article on the Flintstones series lists ABC, NBC, and CBS as broadcasters, along with the Cartoon Network, Boomerang, and distribution through syndication. (And that's just for the US.) Would we, even for a second, consider adding templates listing all of those networks' present and past programming to the article? --Ckatzchatspy 03:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as it is redundant with the list mentioned above. —Airplaneman— 02:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is OK for a navbox to have similar content to a list (see WP:CLN). But Ckatz has a very legitimate concern about the fact that Teletoon is just one of several broadcasters for these shows. With syndicated reruns, network jumping, and broadcasts in different countries, a show can easily be distributed on a dozen networks. We would not want to bloat the articles on every show with numerous network navboxes. The company that produces a show is a good basis for a navbox. The companies that air it are not. --RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_20&oldid=1138694414"