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).
Unused sidebar, parent article has been redirected Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep, used in 7 articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete moot vote above. used only in 2 "south ossetia" articles. the parent article that User talk:TenPoundHammer refers to is literally the political entity rendering this template misinformative and uninformative.68.151.25.115 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Creates a link to a site that does not seem to be reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Premature—let's update the articles now to use other sourcing. It's better to at least acknowledge that the article is sourced to something than nothing. The template already tags the citations with {{verify credibility}} (and maybe that should be switched to {{sps}}, but I digress) so it's not like we aren't already acknowledging the deficiencies of the source. Once the source is no longer in use, then we can delete the template. Imzadi 1979→ 14:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to What Links Here, this template is not used in mainspace. So I do not think its deletion is premature. VC 01:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Thanks for letting me know about this discussion. The cut-off period of 1922 isn't arbitrary. That's the date of Irish independence, so the courts listed on the template are those used while Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and before 1801, a subsidiary kingdom to Great Britain. There was a whole other set of courts established under the 1922 Free State Constitution, and then under the 1937 Constitution if Ireland. However, I accept that it's unused. I created it last year, and had obviously intended to add it to the relevant pages. Could you put a stay on this for a period of two weeks to allow me to get back to this? —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add it to the linked articles. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The 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).
Essentially it is a {{Technical lede}}-template, and should be used to tag articles where the lede is too technical, but the level of the text in the body is less problematic. Carl Fredrik talk 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Comment: this is a /sandbox. I don't think TfD should be filled with these. (I mam the creator). -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't look like the page was ever actually used for test edits outside preview mode, and was a copy of the original with one left brace missing. There is also another extant sandbox for testing purposes. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The 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 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. after replacing Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 02:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only 34 transclusions after 11 years. Redundant to {{Plain image with caption}}, which is more modern and matches the font of regular image captions. (Note that I am proposing to replace the template, not to remove its uses from pages.) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Keep - Per docs, that template is used in the PageCuration toolbar (New Pages Feed). It is always subst'd. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoTemplate:MFDWarning, then. PageCuration does not need a separate fork of every warning template. Pppery 19:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, no need for a fork. Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was move to project space Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 17:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that if it were "The Committee for Getting Things Deleted". All the best: RichFarmbrough, 20:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete, or move to project space. Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Redundant to List of sandwiches and Category:Sandwiches, and there's no way this navbox can contain either a comprehensive list of all sandwiches or a balanced, representative sampling. Ibadibam (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete, better to use the category and the article. and, futhermore, the definition of a sandwich is controversial, with arguments over things like hot dogs. Frietjes (talk)
Delete. Better navigated by category and list. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – a valid template per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Sandwiches, which helps to aid in navigation for users interested in various types of sandwiches. The template consists of notable sandwiches, and is not intended to list all sandwiches in the world. If the template becomes too lengthy, it can be WP:SPLIT into sub-templates by sandwich type. North America1000 09:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have performed some copy editing to the template to organize content. This has served to present a more balanced and representative sampling. North America1000 10:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if it changes the underlying issues, which are structural: these are all pages linked by being types of one thing—members of a set (read: members of a category). There's not much interrelationship between the articles, which is what WP:NAVBOX guidelines #3 and #5 suggest for navbox membership. The other issue is that, even exercising your best judgement to make an appropriate sampling in the navbox, a navbox isn't supposed to be a sampling; it's a comprehensive collection of a discrete set of related links. Presenting an arbitrary subset, as much as it was chosen in good faith, is subject to bias, and is going to give rise to endless disputes over what deserves inclusion. Ibadibam (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP. The template does seem too big, though, but it's really because the topic is unnecessarily split into too many articles. Merging some of these articles (for example, Obložené chlebíčky with Canapé; Grilled cheese sandwich already redirects to Cheese sandwich) would help condense the template. — Kpalion(talk) 11:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Keep. Meets WP:NAVBOX recommendations. Parent subject is a game dev who is still making works and whose existing works might also be independently notable. Sufficient for four articles and potential to expand. czar 06:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep, connects four articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The 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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The 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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The 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 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).
Keep. TFD is the wrong venue. As per this protection templates's instructions, this is used to temporarily tag templates and images that have temporarily been protected because they are linked from the main page. The template may appear to be unused most of the time, as such protection may not need to be applied every day. A discussion should instead be made on Talk:Main page or some other policy page regarding the fate of this protection template. If memory serves me, this was frequently used when it was created in 2006, when many of the intermediate protection levels like template protection did not exist yet, and there were vandals that specifically targeted such images and templates. I am no longer active in protecting areas regarding the main page, so I do not know if this is frequently used in 2017 as it was eleven years ago, so discussion should be made elsewhere than here on TFD. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keepbecause although we tend to use a Commons bot to protect images hosted there, this is part of the system for protecting images when the bot falls over (as often happens) or when we don't want to wait for the bot. Hmm, this is for protecting images or templates in articles that are linked to from the main page, not for images or templates on the main page. I don't know how often we need to do this anymore (there was a time when sneaky template vandalism was used to affect the appearance of a TFA for example without the method being obvious, but I don't think that happens these days in the same way) but it's worth keeping around just in case. BencherliteTalk 09:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The 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).
Unused from 2013, unlikely to be used Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Keep. Apparently meant to be substed [1]. – Uanfala 21:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The 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).
not sure why you say it "navigates nothing". it has 3 links. but, for three links we can use simple 'see also' and other 'in article' linking. Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The 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 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 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 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).
Keep Absolutely keep. Perhaps it could be split up, and I believe it already is with the current/upcoming hidden sections, but a multitude of articles is absolutely no reason to delete a solid and well-defined navbox. -- AlexTW 23:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A multitude of articles that ranges in the hundreds is absolutely a reason to delete a "well-defined navbox". Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates outlines the distinct purposes served by categories, lists and navboxes. The topic is well-served by List of original programs distributed by Netflix and Category:Netflix original programming, but it does not fit the purposes of a navbox if the topic is as large as this one. While I'm sure that WP:NAVBOX is intentionally vague in not defining "small", there can be no doubt that it is referring to a group more in the range of a couple dozen articles, not a few hundred.
(I would not, however, necessarily be opposed to a series of navboxes comprising sub-topics of this topic.) 142.160.131.202 (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ribbet32: That wouldn't be "pruning" as none of those articles are currently in the navbox. Despite the name Template:Netflix, the template is for "Netflix original programming" (article: List of original programs distributed by Netflix; category: Category:Netflix original programming). What you are proposing, which I don't think I would disagree with, is an entirely new navbox without a single article in common with the existing one. Why would that preclude deleting the existing navbox? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't see how this one is any worse than Template:HBONetwork Shows. if we are going to have a discussion, let's discuss all of them. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
your lack of substantive response to the suggestion that all the templates should be discussed together is telling. note that "WP:WHATABOUTX" doesn't mention templates, just articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at the very least, Split That much content is obviously a list and not helping anyone navigate anything. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Split it into three template, perhaps? Concluded series, ongoing series, and upcoming series? -- AlexTW 06:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would definitely be better, although ultimately the "concluded" navbox will get as large as the current one is (assuming Netflix stays in business). I really think the grouping of this content is better for "List of" pages and categories as these articles are only connected/related to one another given the fact Netflix is producing the series/film/documentary/comedy special. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We will need that template in case of any other Netflix original series that will come later on. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NAVBOX also tells us "templates with a large number of links are not forbidden." No specific reason for deletion. Perhaps reorganization as has been mentioned, but no violations of guidelines or policies. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need for it to be deleted, but as others have suggested, potentially move info around or split some off. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no question. Netflix is an entertainment juggernaut and its lineup of original programming meets all notability requirements. I find this template helpful personally. Break it up if it's too big, maybe fictional TV series/original movie/documentaries/standup. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Split either between "Netflix series" and "Netflix films & documentaries", or "Netflix current programming" and "upcoming", etc. I am strongly opposed to deleting it, however. That would be a disservice to readers. κατάσταση 15:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great! Seems like the best solution, really. κατάσταση 19:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a courtesy ping to all who have previously commented if they did not see my response to Katastasi above, that I have created potential alternate navboxes as a result of splitting the template. It would consists of one for original series (current and upcoming), original films and documentaries (current and upcoming) and stand-up specials (there is only current, currently, but can include upcoming). Those can be found in my sandbox. @142.160.131.202, AlexTheWhovian, Ribbet32, Frietjes, Joeyconnick, BattleshipMan, Wikipedical, LordofMoonSpawn, and Wikimandia: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Favre1fan93: Great job. I don't have any problems with it. For those who felt it was too cluttered, they too should be fine with it now.
Agreed, much better. This sort of discussion is what should have been started, the one where a consensus was formed, not straight to a deletion request. I can easily go through and replace the templates with AWB once they've been created. -- AlexTW 05:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are a great idea. We should do that then. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Favre1fan93! I think this is the perfect solution. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Template:Netflix can then feature the contents of Category:Netflix (so this would be a clean start with attribution, over than a template move). A mock up of the new Template:Netflix will also be in my sandbox shortly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "new" Netflix template is now up in my sandbox, including all articles from the category. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the consensus is clear, and the anon who started this discussion has had nothing else to contribute - shall we implement these? -- AlexTW 04:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel the consensus is clear to make these splits and convert over the existing template, and even though the IP appears to be active, we should not be hasty to close without giving them a chance to chime in. Another 24-36 hours won't hurt. If they, or another user fail to respond, then I can make the changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll add the (currently redlink) templates to my watchlist, then when they're created, I can make three lists of all the links in each new template, then run through with AWB and update the template in each of those articles. -- AlexTW 04:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: Cool. Note the stand-up one will now simply be at Template:Netflix specials, since there are two other non-comedy ones that are more appropriate grouped here than in the films one. See my sandbox for the update to all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing... What do we define as "Current"? For example,『Lilyhammer (2012–14)』has clearly concluded but is listed as Current. Should there not be three sections: Concluded, Current and Upcoming? If we had these, then the subgroups of years would probably be overkill as well. -- AlexTW 05:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Favre1fan93's proposed split – Thanks for all your work on this, Favre1fan93! As Joeyconnick, the only other proponent of deleting the template, is also open to having the template split, I think I can withdraw my nomination. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'll close this discussion as consensus to do the splits. @AlexTheWhovian: have at it with AWB to adjust the navboxes on each article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The 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 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 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 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 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 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).
czar 06:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done OK with this Ribbet32 (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
