The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused and redundant to {{ 16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis5-Byes-with-third}} Frietjes ( talk) 23:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
this is actually a 7-team bracket, and now replaced with {{ 7TeamBracket}}, so it's no longer needed Frietjes ( talk) 21:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 21:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 20:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I merged this with the article so it is no longer needed as a stand-alone template Frietjes ( talk) 16:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I merged this with the article so it is no longer needed as a stand-alone template Frietjes ( talk) 16:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 15:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 15:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 13:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Three links... not enough to navigate per WP:EXISTING. Could easily be be merged into {{ Georgia Tech}}. Corkythe hornetfan (ping me) 02:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete for now. It is clear that these templates were created in good faith and to correct what the creator felt was a serious error in the way series colours are handled. Examples were given of similar templates/situations (e.g. {{ rail color box}}) that could be implemented as a coding alternative and as a minor point of precedent.
However, the sheer scope of WP:TV needs to be taken into consideration, and if this sort of template is to become bog-standard for all television series then it needs to be done (properly) for all series; articles can't just randomly be chosen for one colour box scheme while others are chosen for a second or third variation because individual editors feel their way is "right." WP:TV has done a fairly good job in standardizing articles in their purview, and they should continue to do so. In other words, I encourage an RFC to be held to determine the future of episode list colouration. Should that outcome be that the colours should be put into a template, then these templates can obviously be undeleted and/or recreated without prejudice.
In the meantime, though, the overall consensus is that these templates should not be used at this particular point in time. Primefac ( talk) 02:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
While I understand that the template was created in good faith, it i completely unnecessary, given that the colours are not set to change at all with accordance to MOS:TV (bar Season 7), and it introduced technical jargon such as this that newer editors may not be familiar with. -- Alex TW 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
it is completely unnecessary
it introduced technical jargon [...] that newer editors may not be familiar with
the colours are not set to change at all
Once established, colors that meet WP:COLOR should not be changed arbitrarily without discussion, which my statement of "the colours are not set to change at all" is based on. There is absolutely no need for templates such as this with that fact in place. I will also be linking the WikiProject Television here to add their views on this unprecedented activity for television series' articles. -- Alex TW 07:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
This is opposed to WP:BRD, where they made a WP:BOLD edit that has not been required in the many years that the television series' articles have existed, they were reverted, and they should have waited for this discussion to conclude and to gain a WP:CONSENSUS for their own edits." Does that ring a bell? Unless you are unfamiliar with editing here on Wikipedia... In which case, welcome to the site, we hope you enjoy your stay! See how the editor refuses to discuss the disputed content, but wishes for their forced edits to remain in the article with absolutely no consensus to do so. Seems like the very definition of uncollaborative to me. -- Alex TW 12:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm restoring articles to a usable state
do you not think that it would have been created years ago?
why not turn every bit of information into a template and transclude it
One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." If anything, seems to me like using NFC —that qualifies as fair use— more than once, is something to be encouraged. To the adminstrator who will decide on the future of these templates: please sort out this dispute as well, as i wish to revert to the previous edit. __ Radiphus ( T • C )__ 15:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions.This is actually what you were pointed to ( [1] [2] [3]). It's also interesting how you won't revert the above editor after they reverted you, and yet you did for me ( [4]), after having no consensus to perform either edit. -- Alex TW 15:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It's also interesting how you won't revert the above editor
If anything, seems to me like using NFC —that qualifies as fair use— more than once, is something to be encouragedthis content isn't fair use and a very concerning statement from yourself. Using the same piece of non-free content is definitely not encouraged. Also, both you and Alex can be viewed as trading personal attacks, so please remain civil to each other and other editors. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
you added the season posters to these templates for a simply visual element without a purpose
Colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD artwork, or for other reasons.I think it makes sense to have both the poster and the color next to each other, so users can make sure those guidelines are being followed. After reading your response, i am not sure i can support the claim that this consists fair use, although i'd still like some clarification from an administrator, as this is a template we are talking about and not an article. __ Radiphus ( T • C )__ 16:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused and redundant to {{ 16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis5-Byes-with-third}} Frietjes ( talk) 23:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
this is actually a 7-team bracket, and now replaced with {{ 7TeamBracket}}, so it's no longer needed Frietjes ( talk) 21:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 21:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 20:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I merged this with the article so it is no longer needed as a stand-alone template Frietjes ( talk) 16:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I merged this with the article so it is no longer needed as a stand-alone template Frietjes ( talk) 16:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 16:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 15:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 15:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
unused Frietjes ( talk) 13:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Three links... not enough to navigate per WP:EXISTING. Could easily be be merged into {{ Georgia Tech}}. Corkythe hornetfan (ping me) 02:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete for now. It is clear that these templates were created in good faith and to correct what the creator felt was a serious error in the way series colours are handled. Examples were given of similar templates/situations (e.g. {{ rail color box}}) that could be implemented as a coding alternative and as a minor point of precedent.
However, the sheer scope of WP:TV needs to be taken into consideration, and if this sort of template is to become bog-standard for all television series then it needs to be done (properly) for all series; articles can't just randomly be chosen for one colour box scheme while others are chosen for a second or third variation because individual editors feel their way is "right." WP:TV has done a fairly good job in standardizing articles in their purview, and they should continue to do so. In other words, I encourage an RFC to be held to determine the future of episode list colouration. Should that outcome be that the colours should be put into a template, then these templates can obviously be undeleted and/or recreated without prejudice.
In the meantime, though, the overall consensus is that these templates should not be used at this particular point in time. Primefac ( talk) 02:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
While I understand that the template was created in good faith, it i completely unnecessary, given that the colours are not set to change at all with accordance to MOS:TV (bar Season 7), and it introduced technical jargon such as this that newer editors may not be familiar with. -- Alex TW 00:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
it is completely unnecessary
it introduced technical jargon [...] that newer editors may not be familiar with
the colours are not set to change at all
Once established, colors that meet WP:COLOR should not be changed arbitrarily without discussion, which my statement of "the colours are not set to change at all" is based on. There is absolutely no need for templates such as this with that fact in place. I will also be linking the WikiProject Television here to add their views on this unprecedented activity for television series' articles. -- Alex TW 07:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
This is opposed to WP:BRD, where they made a WP:BOLD edit that has not been required in the many years that the television series' articles have existed, they were reverted, and they should have waited for this discussion to conclude and to gain a WP:CONSENSUS for their own edits." Does that ring a bell? Unless you are unfamiliar with editing here on Wikipedia... In which case, welcome to the site, we hope you enjoy your stay! See how the editor refuses to discuss the disputed content, but wishes for their forced edits to remain in the article with absolutely no consensus to do so. Seems like the very definition of uncollaborative to me. -- Alex TW 12:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm restoring articles to a usable state
do you not think that it would have been created years ago?
why not turn every bit of information into a template and transclude it
One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." If anything, seems to me like using NFC —that qualifies as fair use— more than once, is something to be encouraged. To the adminstrator who will decide on the future of these templates: please sort out this dispute as well, as i wish to revert to the previous edit. __ Radiphus ( T • C )__ 15:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions.This is actually what you were pointed to ( [1] [2] [3]). It's also interesting how you won't revert the above editor after they reverted you, and yet you did for me ( [4]), after having no consensus to perform either edit. -- Alex TW 15:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It's also interesting how you won't revert the above editor
If anything, seems to me like using NFC —that qualifies as fair use— more than once, is something to be encouragedthis content isn't fair use and a very concerning statement from yourself. Using the same piece of non-free content is definitely not encouraged. Also, both you and Alex can be viewed as trading personal attacks, so please remain civil to each other and other editors. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
you added the season posters to these templates for a simply visual element without a purpose
Colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD artwork, or for other reasons.I think it makes sense to have both the poster and the color next to each other, so users can make sure those guidelines are being followed. After reading your response, i am not sure i can support the claim that this consists fair use, although i'd still like some clarification from an administrator, as this is a template we are talking about and not an article. __ Radiphus ( T • C )__ 16:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)