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 redirect. Airplaneman ✈ 03:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ann anime (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Ann)); I am replacing them now and can probably do that tonight and tomorrow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the succeeding Template:Ann per GFDL requirements as the newer template is derived from the older ((ann XXX)) templates. —Farix (t | c) 13:46, 21 August 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.

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 redirect. Airplaneman ✈ 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ann name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, instances can be easily fixed. I am changing them now and will probably be done tonight. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the succeeding Template:Ann per GFDL requirements as the newer template is derived from the older ((ann XXX)) templates. —Farix (t | c) 13:46, 21 August 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.

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. JPG-GR (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Language icon templates, list below:

Unless I'm missing something here, these are all redundant to ((Language icon)). What is the purpose in having these individual templates? They could be easily replaced with WP:AWB or a bot and if the task takes a while, they could be "deleted" here and ((Being deleted)) can be noincluded at the top of the template's documentation. Again, if there's some reason for these that I'm just not comprehending, I'll withdraw the nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note If these get deleted, Category:Language icon templates would become useless as well and should also be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second note ((Zh-hans)) appears broken and orphaned. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as wholly redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 21:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been convinced otherwise; I will remain neutral in this discussion. Airplaneman ✈ 00:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. The purpose in having the individual templates is evident. It saves you a lot of typing when you just have to write ((xx icon)) instead of filling a longer template with two parameters. I find these derivatives a great improvement. De728631 (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Then the meta-template can just be renamed (e.g.) ((elicon)) or something. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As De728631 says, a lot easier to type and remember how to use. If anything, nothing more redirect to the master template with appropriate parameters -- certainly not delete. (And for the record, I've never seen ((Language icon)) used in the wild, only these.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all: Sorry, but I'm with De728631 on this one. These icons are more desired, more common, and most likely to be used in the future too. I think they are less ambiguous than the language icon template with the pipe and a lot easier to type. At the very very least, I believe that if each template was to be deleted then a redirect should be left behind. Jared Preston (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If nothing else, having them separate makes it easy to find related links. If one wanted to find all the items using ((fr icon)), one could do so with what links here, which would be a lot easier than having to search the rawtext for ((language icon|fr)).
  This seems like a fairly standard meta-template usage. (?) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all: Convenient. Used everywhere. No syntax to confirm every time. It would be even better if ((ru)) and ((en)), for example, were supported generally, as they seem to be in certain other projects of WP. Varlaam (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all: Very easy to use, and are in general usage already. Why fix something that is working? Simon Burchell (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It doesn't appear that ((Language icon)) needs to have two parameters supplied for it to work, thus reducing the effort needed in using it. I was very surprised to see that Template:SUL Box calls Template:xx icon which calls ((Language icon|xx)) which calls Template:ISO 639 name xx. Some simplification could be had using a switch, as seen at b:Template:Language icon. Adrignola (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Per WP:SNOW. Thanks for your input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:43, 25 August 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.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Template list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Outputs a list of templates given their names as arguments, but the actual output is pretty crudely designed and you could definitely do the same manually and have it look better to boot. You don't need a template to do this. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Because of the complex (and faulty) structure of the template, the nominator's substitution of the template is faulty. It would need to be fixed before it could be substituted correctly. Even if one were to agree it cannot and should not be fixed, the "substitution" needs to correctly add the information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the problem. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--When used correctly, list templates like this have lots of uses. But since User:Axem Titanium seems hell bent on deleting all sorts of tools developed and used on this project, I suppose someone ought to point out that someone's fast typing abilities don't spread to those of us with "linebacker sized fingers" and typing aids aren't exactly space wasteful... I've never been able to figure out the fascination some have with deleting tools that some find useful. Having programed before macro-assemblers became available, it amuses me that some youngster can't put himself in another's place and make a simple decision to leave well enough alone... fixing things which ain't broken is silly and most times downright stupid. Basically why bother if it requires handicapping another? Makes for a hostile work environment. See my talk page for an astonishing example of how someone can misconstrue such 'busywork' with a valuable contribution... or why I no longer give hundreds of hours a month to this encyclopedia. Too many nuts like him. // FrankB 14:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you that this is a good faith nomination. I doubt that calling names is going to help your cause. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Axem, the mass of templates on Farbatus's page is not really helping the mood here, either. Airplaneman ✈ 15:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 21:00, 20 August 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.

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. If the "sister" functionality is desired, it can be added to ((ut)) using a somewhat standard "sister=" parameter. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ute (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused typing aid which simply outputs a link to your talk page... which you can type out manually, interwiki and all. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Was it used before you substituted it? You improperly substituted some other templates today. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was used about 10 times on various user talk pages exclusively by the template's creator, User:Fabartus, so I just went ahead and subst'd them. Don't worry, it didn't output a giant mess this time. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. It seems that it could be useful, if advertised, for signatures of users who live primarily on another Wiki. For example, my signature could be :
      • [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[Talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] ((subst:Ute|M:|Arthur Rubin|(meta talk)))
    • It would be more useful if it could handle other language talk pages, but that might be asking too much. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Manually typing it is not much harder. You could even say it's easier because you don't have to memorize even more code. One thing not considered in the template's argument of saving keystrokes is that you don't have you pipe your name like so: [[User:Airplaneman|Airplaneman]]. Instead, you can do just this: [[User:Airplaneman|]]. Nevertheless, I still think it saves keystrokes if you include the talk page link (in which case you can't use the shortcut I used on my username), and, if advertised, could gain some usage. All in all, I think it has useful potential. Airplaneman ✈ 01:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I think you've got this confused with ((ut)). ((ute)) outputs a talk link to a sister project. That this could theoretically be useful is not of great importance if nobody except the author has ever seen any purpose to it, and we shouldn't need to keep templates around indefinitely just because they have some established minor utility. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to recreation - per Chris Cunningham. Minimal utility. No prejudice in case Fabartus can come up with an amazing utility for this other than what I see, although I'm skeptical. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:39, 29 August 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.

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 Keep both as they can not be easily merged. If somebody wants to deprecate Template:Loc they can do this. Ruslik_Zero 16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country study (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Loc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Country study with Template:Loc.
This specific-source template is redundant to a similar, much more widely used template. BomBom (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ((Loc)) is a crappy template because you just stick it at the bottom of the article and no one knows what content in the article comes from the LOC. The ((Country study)) template I created is suited for putting in footnotes, so it attributes the source of the specific LOC text. If anything, the ((loc)) ones should be converted to ((country study)) where appropriate - but this would require a ton of work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merger, ((Country study)) is the better of the two, IMHO. The name on ((loc)) is bad, since it could apply to anything related to the Library of Congress. Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merger of ((Loc)) to ((Country study)), if there's anything to merge. Airplaneman ✈ 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate ((Loc)). While ((Country study)) is a better template they are not actually compatible as they have different functions in the page. ((Country study)) is good for use in a reference, but ((loc)) is more of an information message about the page as a whole. ((Country study)) requires a number of additional parameters: author, date, section, editor, country, abbr, not all of which are trivial to determine. The work involved with over a thousand pages using ((Loc)) would make the merging process onerous. A slow migration would be a better option. A teplate redirection might be possible but country study would have to be changed to allow for unspecified parameters. --Salix (talk): 17:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made ((Country study)) allow for missing parameters, although it still needs country and abbr so it refers to the correct page on the website.--Salix (talk): 20:43, 7 September 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.

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/redirect after performing a history merge to preserve old revisions per GDFL compliance request by author. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ann manga (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated. I am currently replacing them and it seems very straightforward and easy. It will likely be done today. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. Airplaneman ✈ 21:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the succeeding Template:Ann per GFDL requirements as the newer template is derived from the older ((ann XXX)) templates. —Farix (t | c) 13:46, 21 August 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.

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 keep. Garion96 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NOINDEX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, replaced with a magic word. There are tens (hundreds?) of thousands of instances, but many of them appear to be transclusions from about 400 templates (and most of them are simply transcluding a few other templates.) Unless I'm mistaken--which is entirely possible--it would actually be pretty straight-forward to replace instances of this template with a magic word. If I'm mistaken and this is some huge headache, then I can withdraw this nomination and mark this ((Historical)). For what it's worth, I thought I nominated this before, but I can't find any previous discussions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Template cannot be tagged for deletion, as it is protected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. –xeno^talk 18:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This was created specifically as a tracking device after the creation of the magic word, so the nomination statement is simply inaccurate. Not to mention the "visible=yes" option, which is not possible using a magic word. –xeno^talk 18:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Now I understand what you mean by replaced with magic word. The magic word now evokes the category that used to be included in the template. Still no need to delete, imo. –xeno^talk 19:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: No reason to delete it. It was implemented as a hack to track uses of the magic word prior to such a feature being available in the software. However, there are a lot of uses currently and nothing is being harmed by its continued existence. Documentation probably suggests using ((NOINDEX)) instead of the magic word directly, at least in some places, so deleting it might actually cause harm. And, as xeno notes, it has a visibility option that isn't available with a direct use of the magic word. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because there is an option for visibility, which is not facilitated with the magic word. Airplaneman ✈ 21:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Airplaneman. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 08:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Airplaneman. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why is this deprecated, then? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone marked it as such [1]. *shrug* If something is deprecation, it does not necessarily mean it should be deleted. –xeno^talk 22:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• TMTOWTDI is not best practice. visible should be hard-coded on and the template should be un-deprecated. That gives the two distinct and non-overlapping purposes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:19, 27 August 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.

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 Keep as a wrapper for ((tfd)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated template. When I last nominated it for deletion, it was kept because WP:TWINKLE employed it. It's my understanding that this is no longer the case, so this can be deleted (or possibly redirected.) Redirecting users to the main TfD template may actually result in greater usage of the inline option. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since people use and know about this template (which has been around since 2005), I'd say the right thing is simply to generate a sort of "soft redirect" by replacing its content with an invocation of ((tfd|type=inline)). That has all the advantages of allowing the code to be maintained at a central place, ((tfd)), with none of the hassle of teaching people who are used to calling tfd-inline to learn a new usage. Dragons flight (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - harmless, no need to delete. –xeno^talk 18:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think all agree that a redirect of the type proposed by Dragons flight would be completely satisfactory. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reason #3. This doesn't appear to be used in any articles.—RJH (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there's no harm in keeping it. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 09:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and replace per Dragons flight (talk · contribs). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and replace Is probably the best option, rather than an outright delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 25 August 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.

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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Qif (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• again? _→AzaToth 18:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nothing is gained by deleting. –xeno^talk 18:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for historical reasons, per the previous two TFDs. It is unused, and properly deprecated, but many templates still have historical revisions that rely on this template. If you try to examine an old version of such a template that calls Qif, then it would render as an ungodly mess if Qif is deleted. No real harm in keeping it, and at least some benefit in doing so. Dragons flight (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for historical reasons. Airplaneman ✈ 21:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - historical. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 09:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for historical reasons. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:16, 25 August 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.

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 redirect to ((PD-because)). Airplaneman ✈ 03:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated copyright template that it only used on three files (File:Gencariappa.jpg, File:Convolutional encoder recursive.svg, and File:Coorgscirca1900.jpg.) The first one is unused, the second has a contradictory license, and the third needs a new tag or else will be deleted. Deletion of this template discourages its further use (note that all three of these files were uploaded with this tag this month.)

Note Template cannot be tagged for deletion, as it is protected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. –xeno^talk 18:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - historical. –xeno^talk 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there are many deprecated/obsolete lic.tags. There is nothing special in ((PD)). Alex Spade (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - historical. While there is nothing special, nothing would be gained from its deletion. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 09:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, deletion prevents usage of it, which is good. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((PD-because)). The nominator is correct, this is obsolete. I'm not sure why "historical" is a reason to keep - however, a good reason to delete is that it causes confusion. As in image upload patroller, I can tell you people will consistently plop whatever tag on an image will work. However, if linking to PD-because, it accomplishes exactly the same purpose as the latter template. Am I clear? - if not, I'll clarify upon request. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:33, 29 August 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.

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 Keep, eventually redirect (this doesn't require a new TfD discussion). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Russia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated public domain template. Only two pieces of media use it: one of them is struck through and the other says that it doesn't apply anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The template is deprecated on Commons. But there are some files which can be uploaded on En-Wiki as free with this template. Alex Spade (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((PD-Russia-2008)). Deprecated, should not be used. Current documentation from this template can be copied to 2008. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is bad variant due to necessity of their clear differentiation. It can be redirected to ((PD-Russia-2008)) only after WikiCommons will sort out all remain inclusions of PD-Russia. Or it can be redirected to Template:Copyvio (same as Template:PD-Soviet). Alex Spade (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Per above by Alex Spade, keep until the template is untranscluded on commons, simply for compatibility purposes. Then redirect. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:17, 4 September 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.

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 keep, with no prejudice toward converting any current uses to any current (or future) agreed upon template. JPG-GR (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canada CP 2001 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Either delete this template entirely and remove references to it from Wikipedia, or combine it into something like Template:Canada census. It's entirely legitimate to use these data (e.g. the way it is presently used on Tisdale, Saskatchewan), but it's not a good idea to encourage the use of old data. If there was a new template that could use census data from any year, that we be much more flexible and easy to update as Canada has a new census. Does this make sense? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Of course, this would also effect ((Canada CP 2006)) as well, but I have not nominated it, as it has the most current data. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - in use, or convert to a wrapper for a new template as suggested in nom statement. –xeno^talk 18:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While having more up to date data would provide more value, having some historical data is better than none at all. I have been thinking about creating a template that would display multiple census years of data where it would be interesting to see the historical trends of a location. This new template would replace this one but then only after all the existing uses of the template are converted should this one be deleted. Keeping this 2001 census data around would preserve the data more easily for conversion. If one simply deletes the template data at this point, it's less likely someone is going to want to go back and search for the 2001 data again. RedWolf (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I will look into creating a general purpose template that can be used for multiple census years. When I have that working, I will convert this template to a wrapper calling the new template. Eventually once all the uses of the 2001 template have been converted, then this template (and 2006 for that matter) can be removed. BTW, does anyone know of a meta template that would allow one to build a box of a variable number of rows and columns? The infobox template does rows well but not a user determined number of columns. RedWolf (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I have started on a template but it's still a work in progress and not quite ready for general use. I hope to have a first release of it within the week. RedWolf (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I have implemented the template for general use — ((Canada census)). I suggest closing this discussion as keep but convert existing templates. Once the 2001 template is no longer in use, it can be re-listed. The 2006 version can follow that eventually. Could consider making them wrappers for now. RedWolf (talk) 04:23, 2 September 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete. However, checking the documentation on the talk page, it appears as though this template was never transcluded (only substituted). If this is indeed the case, then then there is no benefit of keeping it from the stand point of preserving old revisions. I would support renomination of this template if this is indeed the case. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AR report (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. The omnibox says that it's used in historical reports, but I don't see it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never did a back-link check when I added the template's documentation indicating that it was used by many reports... Apparently we moved all of the old reports to the new template and I didn't even realize it. Well, that was a mess a while back. Anyway it's true this template is no longer used and can actually be deleted as G6^{(stricken as this is no longer uncontroversial)}.   Thorncrag  17:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - historical, nothing is gained by deleting. –xeno^talk 18:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the template's documentation states "It has been left in place because a great many case pages still use it." I can only see a handfull of links (no transclusions) from various pages that link to but do not use the template. Since it is superseded and deprecated, deleting the template is a way to make sure it is not used. Airplaneman ✈ 21:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While it isn't in use per whatlinkshere, it may be transcluded in old revisions of a page. Deleting it would make those pages difficult to read. Not deleting it would not cause any particular harm. –xeno^talk 13:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Xeno.Acather96 (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Xeno. ANowlin ^talk 14:56, 29 August 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.

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 keep. Garion96 (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Province of China (PRC) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Autonomous Region of China (PRC) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)), which as a minimum they should call. ((Infobox Autonomous Region of China (PRC))) is now a redirect to its sibling - see the former's talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 21:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ((Infobox settlement)) does not prompt editors to include the Pinyin transliteration or the name in Chinese characters, nor does it prompt details of the ethnic composition, the origins of the name, nor tabulate the numbers of prefectures, counties and townships. Use of the global template, which really is not designed to deal with countries where transliteration of the name is required, will result in less consistency across Chinese articles, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Firmly oppose I believe only the PR China uses one-character abbreviations for its vehicular licence plates... and secretary is a unique position; provincial level administrative divisions also have governors. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Firmly oppose. Why should we delete a valid specific template in favor of a more general one? Shenhemu (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose I see no reason to delete this template as this template promts editors to fill in the pinyin transcription, the ethnic composition, the numbers of prefectures, counties and townships, and other features unique to Chinese subdivisions. Abstrakt (talk) 18:58, 28 August 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.

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 merge with ((Infobox person)). JPG-GR (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox actor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With the exception of minor variation in parameter naming and the slightly unusual handling of the URL property, both easily resolved, this template is entirely a subset of ((Infobox person)) and should, I believe, be replaced on all articles using it by that template, perhaps by a redirect. The only significant argument I've heard, for not doing so - that the existence of this template prevents the use of some fields from the other template - is, I believe not valid; we shouldn't have templates just to stop other templates from being fully utilised. The choice of parameters to use or not use should be matter for consensus with necessary exceptions decided on an article basis, under the advice of project guidelines. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom (not sure if this is a merge or a delete, but I guess the outcome would be essentially be the same either way). ((Infobox actor)) has a very narrow selection of fields while offering nothing unique, and the much wider selection in ((Infobox person)) will benefit most or many actor articles IMO. While I appreciate that some of the fields in ((Infobox person)) may be problematic, it would be smart to tackle any such issues there rather than using it as an excuse to stick with ((Infobox actor)). Consistency across a greater number of articles is a worthy goal in itself, so let's not maintain a seperate template when there is no real need to do so. PC78 (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrivia Strictly, its "delete and replace". Delete does ring unnecessary alarm bells, and in cases like this is easily confused with "delete and remove and don't have a template at all". Perhaps we need a "replace" option? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps it would be prudent to retain ((Infobox actor)) as a redirect? Certainly I think the talk archives are something worth keeping. There has been much discussion in the past regarding the subjectivity of certain fields, and it would be good to have those if we were to discuss the same things in ((Infobox person)). PC78 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've no problem with that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It could also be refactored as a wrapper around ((infobox person)) with the abby normal parameters tweaked and passed as the correct ones. This would serve as a means of maintaining functionality when viewing old revs of bios. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose or Keep the current template for actors There may be no unique parameters between the two now but it is highly unlikely that they will stay that way forever. The actor/filmmaker project could well come up with something that they would like to add/subtract from the current box and it will be much harder to gain a consensus to get that done with the person infobox. Infobox person parameters are excessive. They include several items that the WIkiproject films have removed by consensus. "Ht/wt", "notable works (which we called roles)" and "awards" (I think ours grew to about 20 different fields). We removed the last two because of both POV and endless edit warring problems. I don't think that the actor infobox had them but the "Influenced by" and "Influenced" fields also have constant edit warring and sourcing problems. There is far more flexibility (a strength not a weakness) having the infoboxes separate so I am not in favor of merging with the person infobox. Please note that this discussion began here Template talk:Infobox actor#Merge with Infobox person. Of the four editors who responded only one was 100% in favor of the merge.(see update below) Discussion there has been summarily closed and moved here. The best that can be said about this action is that it is a bit dodgy. MarnetteD | Talk 11:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Update. I see that PC78 is now in favor of the merge so it would be fair to say that two editors favor the move and two oppose from the earlier discussion. I still find it dodgy to overturn previous consensus on the fields that have been removed from the actor infobox by putting them back in with this merge. MarnetteD | Talk 12:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's usual to strike through retracted statements. Please do with yours. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your concern about bringing back certain fields, but in a nutshell I would see this as taking one step backwards in order to take two steps forward, if you get what I mean. PC78 (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please explain what the two steps forward are. IMO it is not one step but I giant leap backwards. Consensus has already been reached (more than once in some cases) on the fields that we do not want. Why should we have to go through all of that again. Sorry for any upset. MarnetteD | Talk 16:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said in the earlier discussion, there are many other parameters in ((Infobox person)) that would benefit actors, things like education, nationality, religion, cause of death -- even things like height and weight have their place for some individuals. Many actors are notable for other things (not least their private lives), so you have more options there too. PC78 (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the reply - things are so hectic at my place right now that I am having a hard time keeping up. Interestingly most of those you mention were discussed and rejected or removed, by consensus, from the actor info box for various reasons. Here is one example [2]. That is why this feels like and end run to try and get around previous discussions and consensus. IMO almost all of them need the fuller coverage that having them in the text of the article can provide. But that is just one editors opinion. As to weight who is gonna have the temerity to source that:-) MarnetteD | Talk 16:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Heh, I remember that discussion (if you look I took part in it and was indeed opposed to some of those things back then). But it's all valid information that we should be providing, IMO. I agree that things like "notable for" and "influenced" by are problematic, but we should be raising these concerns at ((Infobox person)). The other things I mention above are really just basic facts that should require no further explanation. And of course, opinions and concensus can change. PC78 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correction of false statement: Discussion has not "been summarily closed and moved here"; in my opening remark in that section, I said: "I'm prepared to run this by TfD for wider community input, but thought it best to check here first to see if this can be done quickly and without dissent.". There was dissent, so that's what I did. PLease assume good faith. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit conflict:I stand corrected. The phrase used is "Meanwhile, further comments should be added at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 20#Template:Infobox actor." which, to me, means do not post any further comments here. I should have said "seems to be summarily closed". I am confused about the overall intent of the opening. If there was no dissent there does that mean that you would not have brought the discussion here? In any event my apologies for the misunderstanding. I too am looking for wider community input which is why messages were posted on the "WikiProject Films" and Wikiproject Actors and Filmmakers" pages. Finally, as I updated my earlier post about the nature of the discussion I don't think that it was proper to alter my comments on this talkpage. MarnetteD | Talk 15:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional:My update only involved noticing PC78's comments here. I did not notice any change on the original discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  MarnetteD, you're concerned that WP:ACTOR and WP:FILM will have a much harder time gaining consensus to change ((infobox person)) than they have ((infobox actor)); that's probably correct, and that's good. WikiProjects don't own articles and they don't own templates. The discussions on such out of the way talk pages all fall under WP:CONLIMITED. There is a wider project out there that knows nothing of those WikiProjects, but does know about people. I've never met a WikiProject who's authoritah I respected. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There were enough previous discussions to show that the extra parameters infobox person offers should not be used with actors. Therefore keep the current template for actors. Garion96 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:Consensus#Level of consensus and WP:Consensus#Consensus can change. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose/Keep the current infobox actor - per MarnetteD and Garion. (Changing to support. Explained in this edit, which I've added below rather than break the chronology.) There have been discussions at WP:ACTOR that concluded that several fields that appear in the infobox person, are not appropriate for the actor infobox. The general discussions were that: 1. Children and parents are for the most part not notable, and that their inclusion in the infobox amounts to little more than trivia. Notable family members can be discussed in the article. Their inclusion makes the infobox bigger, but usually does not provide additional relelvant information about the subject. 2. Awards can be excessive for some high achievers and a comprehensive list will overwhelm the infobox. (Check out the awards table at Jennifer Aniston for one example, and imagine that inserted into the infobox. It has happened before.) 3. Notable roles are inherently POV, especially for someone with a lengthy and/or notable career. In the past it has led to edit wars and the notable role has often been "this is the film I like best". 4. Height and weight have been discussed as changeable, not usually related to the person's notability and therefore trivial. 5. Resting place and co-ordinates, trivial. To merge the infoboxes would be to introduce these fields again, and would undo a fairly lengthy process of keeping the actor infobox brief and focussed on key points only. Rossrs (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  All those arguments could be made about the same parameters in ((Infobox person)) - yet there is community consensus to include them there. we deal with such issues by discussion and writing guidelines, not by (effectively) forking templates. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hence I don't mind seperate infobox templates (within certain limits). Infobox person should be used when there is no other fitting infobox. One of the reasons why it has every parameter possible. Garion96 (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So you confirm that ((Infobox person)) is suitable for use on articles about actors. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously I didn't. Garion96 (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? You said "Infobox person should be used when there is no other fitting infobox". So, where ((Infobox actor)) doesn't fit - say, because the actor's parents are notable and relevant - ((Infobox person)) should be used. Therefore, it is suitable for articles about actors. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, really. I can spell it out if you insist "Infobox person is not suited for articles about actors". Garion96 (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Drew Barrymore is a person with two notable parents, John Drew Barrymore and Jaid Barrymore, and a notable grandfather, John Barrymore.^diff Sorry, Rossrs. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You forgot Drew's notable grandmother as well as Lionel and Ethel. Then there's the Redgraves, the Fondas and bless them, the Baldwins. There's also a bunch of siblings, who are sure to be very good and nice people, but not notable, and they'll end up in infoboxes as soon as one editor decides to go on a campaign. It's happened before, but point taken. Rossrs (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Rossrs, et al. Enough need and variation to have this infobox. Lugnuts (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — This template is redundant to ((infobox person)) and such things fall everyday for this reason. This is about standardizing the implementation of things. This is not WP:ACTOR's template and it serves no other purpose than to preclude the more robust features of the core template. It is inappropriate to use a template to arbitrarily mask-off filed in a more versatile template. The issue of the appropriateness of certain fields is separate and should be determined by discussion. I don't support the indiscriminate inclusion of things like awards, shoe-size, weight, &c. in actor bio boxes. There will be cases where it is appropriate to include something that 'person' offers and 'actor' does not. So, let Andy sort the syntactic anomalies and get the show on the road. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a question for anybody as Jack is currently not present. Andy said in his nomination "with necessary exceptions decided on an article basis, under the advice of project guidelines." If the actor project determines by local consensus that certain fields should not be used, how can that be put into practice if the fields are present in the infobox being used across the articles that fall within the project guidelines? Granted the actor project doesn't own the infobox, and likewise it doesn't own the articles. So if someone decides to add information against the consensus of the actor project, they could justify the additions as falling under the consensus that determined the parameters of the person infobox, and tell the actor project to stop trying to own the actor articles. I don't necessarily disagree with the points made by Andy, Jack, or Imzadi (although I question the word "simplification" as the application of the infobox person would be unnecessarily complex in actor articles, if a number of these fields are used). In solving one problem, I see the raising of a different problem that currently doesn't exist. Rossrs (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The actor project cannot determine local consensus. Consensus at global level can only be varied at a local (article) level by the community at large. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a merge as ((infobox person)) has a broader array of fields and can better cover actors who crossed over into other careers.—RJH (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (Keep actor infobx) - per Garion96, MarnetteD and Rossrs. There is no need for a merge, this is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: to further standardization and simplification of WP's templates. The project does not WP:OWN this template, and should not use a specific template variant to preclude information from appearing. Forking a template complicates maintenance and updates. Why update more than one template as future accessibility or style needs change when one template will do, and do it better. Imzadi 1979 → 06:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The template serves a valid purpose of limiting the parameters used in actor infoboxes. While there are special cases (like the Barrymores, cited above) where some additional parameters might be justified, those are exceptions and can be dealt with exceptionally, i.e., by using the Infobox person template.

The template is found to be useful by the WP:ACTOR and WP:FILM projects. It makes it easier for members of the projects to keep trivia out of the articles that they work so hard to maintain. This isn't a matter of WP:OWN, it's a matter of keeping tools available to continue to assist a cadre of dedicated editors to continue to work on the articles. Could these projects instead use Infobox person, and just start keeping a closer eye on edits to watch out for trivia creep? Yes, they could. Is it appropriate to force them to do so? No, it's not.

I'm not convinced by arguments for consistency on wikitext source level. This template enforces consistency on the viewer level, and that is more important. Consistency in source, just for the sake of consistency, is one of those foolish consistencies that Emerson so rightly called out as the "hobgoblin of small minds." Furthermore, this is not a fork. If it were a fork, come of the concerns about maintenance issues associated with forking would be apt. But it's not a fork; it is s wrapper. Instead of forking from Infobox person, it actually depends on it. Changes made to formatting made to the Infobox person will be reflected in articles that call Infobox actor; because Infobox actor does not fork from Infobox person, it invokes it. In short, I see no upside to removing this template, and I see added work to the projects that currently use it. TJRC (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((Infobox actor)) is not a wrapper, it does not depend on ((Infobox person)). The two infoboxes are seperate. PC78 (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I was wrong. Thanks for keeping me honest. I had looked at the source and I don't know why I saw it as a wrapper. But I still think the rest of my comments stand; and to the extent that there is concern that the separateness of the two templates could introduce an inconsistency, this could be addressed by turning it into a wrapper. In any event, this concern appears strictly hypothetical at the moment; deletion based on this is a solution looking for a problem. TJRC (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The existence of additional parameters which "aren't wanted by the actors project" is utterly irrelevant; contrary to what some people think, WikiProjects are not club houses, and their involvement in the actual content of articles should be such that the reader doesn't have to think about it. A subject's infobox should be tailored to their life and career, yes, but enforcing this through having substantially identical forks of the same template is unnecessary; that's what style guidelines are for. The arguments against a merge, then, are all bogus, and I'd hope that whoever closes it appreciates that this isn't a head count. For what it's worth, there's ongoing discussion at template talk: infobox person to introduce a system whereby "modules" can be added to ((infobox person)) which deal specifically with particular aspects of a subject's life, and this might be a good way of resolving disputes over template content in the long run. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm largely in agreement with Chris here. The arguments against a merge seem to be ignoring one basic fact: none of the parameters in ((Infobox person)) are compulsory, so if any of them are inappropriate to a particular article they can simply be omitted. Indeed, the template documentation states as much: Do not use all these parameters for any one person... Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject". To skip such parameters would require no greater effort on the part of editors than it does to use a different template. I don't think that past discussions at Template talk:Infobox actor are irrelevant, but they aren't really sufficient as an excuse to hang on to a redundant template. Better to discuss such concerns anew at Template talk:Infobox person, or perhaps incorporate them into a style guideline for actor biographies. PC78 (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's there it will be used, that always has been the case on Wikipedia. You could make a styleguide and try to enforce it but it would only mean extra work. To merge the templates is a solution looking for a problem. Garion96 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A hypothetical concern at best; there's nothing wrong with allowing for editorial discretion. The absence of valid information from many actor infoboxes is a genuine problem. PC78 (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "problem" is that editors have to remember that there's a different template for actor bios which doesn't accept certain parameters from ((infobox person)), that two different code bases have to be maintained, and that when an actor bio would appropriately make use of one of the various omitted parameters it can't. Are you saying that the actors project doesn't have a style guideline for this sort of thing? Because that's how the rest of the enyclopedia enforces consistency. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • PC78, it's not quite a hypothetical concern. The comments are based on issues that have been raised previously, and the concerns expressed by several participants of WP:ACTOR is that a merge will reintroduce several parameters that have been seen as inappropriate in previous discussions. Going back a couple of years, there were plenty of infoboxes that stretched way beyond the end of the article. That said, I do see the point being made by Andy, PC78, Jack Merridew, and Chris about taking a site-wide approach. Chris makes a good point about project style guidelines, and it's fair to say that the issue is handled fairly weakly on the actor project page. It's somewhat present in the "to do" list and it's tucked away in various discussions, but it's not easy to identify or refer to. It's implied more than stated, and that's something that can be addressed. I asked earlier in this discussion how effectively a project could enforce project guidelines, and Andy's comment was that individual decisions can only be made by global participation at article level, and that's pretty much my opinion too, so whether or not "actor" has a written guideline to address these points, is likely a moot point. Before long, as Garion commented, if the parameter is there, it'll be used, and when it is, the global consensus for the parameters of the "person" infobox will trump the guideline of any project, not only the actor project, but I suppose projects can try to aim for a standard approach within whatever guidelines they formulate. I don't want to see the infoboxes merged because I think it will be a backward step for many specific articles, but I'm beginning to believe that it may be the "right" thing to do from a broader perspective. If all biographical infoboxes eventually merge into one "person" infobox with variable modules, that would be a fair and consistent approach. Has there been any recent discussion on that? Rossrs (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's intermittent discussion; Andy and JM have been drivers on that front, and I've been working on ((infobox person)) to that effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Than it would be much better to first discuss (and perhaps implement) that before merging this template yes or no. Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • As Jack was one of the drivers, it would be best to wait for his return and then perhaps we can review where it stands now. The discussion at "infobox person" seems to have faded out in early July. The suggestions received a fairly positive response there, so perhaps it needs another input of discussion to get it going again. Rossrs (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The subclassing discussion is orthogonal to this one. A merge here is still a sensible outcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • In your opinion perhaps, not of the editors voting keep I think. Since subclassing might solve my issues with the merging of these templates I think it's quite relevant. Garion96 (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I can see Chris's point that a resolution here is not necessarily dependent on a resolution of the subclassing discussion, but if subclassing may alleviate some of the concerns expressed, it's worth looking at. Rossrs (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't see how the subclassing is relevant here. Since there are no unique parameters in ((Infobox actor)), transcluding it inside ((Infobox person)) would be as redundant as the template itself. PC78 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes, just read the discussion about modules, I was mistaken in it's usage. Than I still oppose merging these templates. :) Garion96 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've been thinking this over, and I have changed my mind. I share the concerns expressed by several people opposed to this proposed merge, and I have misgivings, which I've expressed throughout this discussion, and which still stand. I think that the perceived problem of infoboxes being overwhelmed by the inclusion of material that may not always be helpful, is separate to the aim of merging, especially if it's part of a wider merge. The actor infobox is artificially keeping "undesirable" parameters out, with good intentions that I share, but which is ultimately not the best approach. I usually try to argue in favour of uniformity and inclusiveness and yet here I've found myself taking an opposite approach. I'm conscious that a few people have said "per Rossrs" in their comments. I've been particularly impressed by User:PC78's ability to acknowledge validity in comments made by both sides of the discussion, and if the merge does occur, his comments contain some helpful suggestions regarding how the actor project may respond. Rossrs (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the kind words. I often worry that I am perceived as being too stubborn in these sorts of debate, so your comment is appreciated. PC78 (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment. This was touched upon earlier, but I would like to stress again that this should strictly be a merge & redirect as opposed to a replace & delete. The page history of ((Infobox actor)) is significant, and the extensive talk history will most likely be essential to future discussions. It's worth noting that of the two templates ((Infobox actor)) actually has more uses (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates transcluded on the most pages), so this would not be a trivial merge, and by adding all duplicate parameter names to ((Infobox person)) we can ensure that it remains compatible with the old revisions of some 40,000 articles. For the record, I don't agree with some of the comments above that discussions at Template talk:Infobox actor represent a "limited concensus" (more so than at Template talk:Infobox person?), or that there has been any sense of "ownership" from WP:ACTOR (it's only logical that there will be an overlap of interests, but I don't think it's anything more than that). In any case, discussion here appears to have stalled. I will of course leave it to the closing admin to determine if there is any concensus here, but I would hope that it can at least be relisted rather than end with no concensus. PC78 (talk) 14:55, 4 September 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.

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. Airplaneman ✈ 05:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:El Canto del Loco (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-useful artist navigational box. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until more of artist's works have articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per TenPoundHammer. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:57, 23 August 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.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baku weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused; redundant to the weather table in the Baku article's climate section Green Giant (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as orphaned and redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 21:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally redundant. De728631 (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:06, 22 August 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.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bagong Alyansang Makabayan/meta/shortname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused; unsure what it was for Green Giant (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant and created by a sock puppet of an indef blocked editor so it's very unlikely to ever be used. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused. Airplaneman ✈ 21:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This seems to define the phrase "limited utility". Varlaam (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant and unused. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:17, 25 August 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.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bahujan Kisan Dal/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused; not sure what it was intended for Green Giant (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can be more easily typed; orphaned. Airplaneman ✈ 21:16, 20 August 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.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bahujan Vikas Party/meta/color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused; not sure what it was intended for Green Giant (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can be more easily typed; orphaned. Airplaneman ✈ 21:15, 20 August 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.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistani martial arts sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template with little prospect for future use; three martial arts listed but one was deleted as a neologism, and the other two are more South Asian than specifically Pakistani; at least two of the wrestlers listed finished their careers before Pakistan came into existence. Green Giant (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as orphaned with little potential for future use. Airplaneman ✈ 21:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems clear cut if the case is as GG describes. Varlaam (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:16, 22 August 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.

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistani people (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be part of a series but it is used on just one article and I can't see what it does for the article. The lists of articles in the drop-down menus appear to be a condensed version of ((Pakistan topics)). Green Giant (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In the article it is currently used in, replace with ((Pakistan topics)). Airplaneman ✈ 21:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Airplaneman. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:18, 25 August 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.

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 Speedy delete. G7. —fetch·comms 01:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009SCCCSenate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template; not sure what this was for, but these are un-notable students Green Giant (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as creator: I can't remember why I created it, but i've stopped using it and don't see a point in keeping it.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 01:33, 20 August 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.