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) 07:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Selected filmography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Boilerplate messages on a discussion page should not be encouraged. Plus, there is no consensus to remove red links from filmographies. In fact, removing red links is hurting Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Utterly inappropriate boilerplate – if you want to discuss trimming a filmography in any given article, then use your own words. In addition, there is no guideline or concensus for restricting filmographies to those films that just happen to have a Wikipedia article. PC78 (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's enough boilerplate nonsense put onto talk pages without this. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Filmographies are part and parcel of an actor's work and should be complete as possible. A list of relevant work isn't an indiscriminate list by any means. Because a film doesn't have a current article doesn't mean it isn't relevant or notable in an actor's career, it just hasn't happened to have an article created yet. The essential problem I have with the concept of any "Selected filmography" is that it is at the whim at some editor's POV. That extends to what films have articles. This template is the anti-thesis of adequate coverage of a subject's notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep We do not list each and every appearance by every actor, per our policies on WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA and so forth. Wildhartlivie's claims above are exactly opposite of how things are supposed to work here. This template makes it easy for someone to explain actions that he/she will be doing routinely. It's like a bot improving Wikipedia and leaving a form letter to explain what's going on, and we have a ton of those. Removing links to articles that do not exist is a long-established method here of determining whether something is worth mentioning in an article or not. If people want full biographies they SHOULD go to IMDB or so forth. That's what they are there for. We're here to be an encyclopedia, for those people who have forgotten. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2009 (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. delldot ∇. 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Myth box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Isn't this a disclaimer in an article? ViperSnake151 23:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Rather than defining the word myth in every single article about an academic myth-mythology topic, this template simplifies by defining it once. Reviewed and passed by Wikiproject Mythology in the past. It also helps to jazz up the pages. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is right on the edge of being a disclaimer in article space - one could argue either way. However, it also is a needless substitute for prose (e.g., this would be better as a paragraph in the appropriate articles, if editors wished to have it), something templates are not supposed to do. "Jazzing up" pages is not a good reason to have it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that while the template usefully defines wikipedia's usage of the term myth this could also be explained in the text of the article without such a template, although I think that it is also important to be clear that no claims are being made by wikipedia to the factuality or lack thereof contained in these mythologies, the general disclaimer does not have anything pointing to the fact that information in such articles on mythology or theology describe only the content of the stories and do not make any claims to factual accuracy. It is not appropriate to present such things as being factual as would be implied by them being contained in a factual encyclopedia without some further clarification. 212.159.54.241 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment was added by myself without noticing I was not logged in. Signing MttJocy (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It's not a disclaimer, it's a clarification. A disclaimer would be something like "If you're offended we're sorry." This is a box which lays out the usage of a term that is very commonly misinterpreted by people who don't know the scholarly context and assume it merely means "false." It saves a lot of flamewars that way. Heck, I've seen articles where this should really be added, because people will flip out and edit out the term "myth" even when there really is no better and more precise term to use. It's no different than the many, many other brief explanations of background terms that appear on Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • People still flip out with the box there. DreamGuy (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Take the word "criminal". Not all criminals are bad or vulgar people, as society connotates their portrayal in the media. What all "criminals" have in common (hopefully) is a violation of the law. We shouldn't have to apologize for some people's interpretation of the word "Myth". While people commonly take the definition as "fake", it doesn't mean that everyone is correct. There is equally as much "Christian Mythology", "American Mythology" and "Local Mythology" existing within the total pantheon of the Human Existance, while few of which are noteworthy enough to mention in Wikipedia, debating whether any of these mythologies are real or not is irrelevant to the fact that they still remain. I guess I'm saying the bigger crime is not that there is people regarding mythology as synonymous with the word "fake" with no further consideration (e.g. the same as pop culture use of "history" to describe anything that is no longer worth popular attention), but that the subjective point of view is used in the first place to jocularize the entire of mythology, which is the more interesting fight as I see it. Science aside, they still contain interesting stories from our past. I think incorporating the content of Myth template into the article would be a good compromise, but it shouldn't be on most/all mythology pages. 216.117.192.91 (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (additional reason) This infobox was chosen and approved by Wikiproject Mythology here is the link to that approval [[1]] ^(scroll down to The boundaries between "Myth" and "Religion")^.. I've just left a message on their talk page to come here to vet it out with the larger community. Please allow them some time to respond. Goldenrowley (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Disclaimer, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We have wikilinks and wiktionary at our disposal to link terms like this. Ben (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly a disclaimer, and was created to try to avoid offending people who are still choosing to be offended even with the disclaimer there, so it serves no encyclopedic purpose at all. Anyone curious about the definition of myth can just click the link on the word and read the article in question. We can't add these little signs to any article with any word that could confuse people if they're too lazy to go read more about the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I agree with the detractors that the infobox looks a bit like a disclaimer. Heck, I even agree that the infobox doesn't stop many complaints. At the same time, we are far from clearing up the dispute over the use of the word "myth" on Wikipedia. We have recently made some progress on Talk:Mythology and Talk:Christian mythology, but we still have a long way to go. I know that Wikipedia suggests "being bold", but in this kind of situation the best policy is to be cautious and conservative. Until we get any closer to finding a permanent solution to the "myth" dispute, let's avoid rash changes. A couple of people above argued that we should discuss our terminology in the article rather than in an infobox. That's interesting, because I once had a conversation with an editor who argued very strongly that clarification of the term "myth" should go in an infobox, rather than having it clutter up the actual text of an article (see the discussion here). I'm honestly not sure how much good the infobox is doing, but it has been approved by WikiProject Mythology, and I don't see how deleting it will, by itself, achieve anything constructive. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I glanced back at the old discussion of the infobox at Wikiproject Mythology, and I realized that Goldenrowley and myself were the two editors mainly involved in that discussion. So it might have been somewhat misleading when I said that the infobox was "approved by Wikiproject Mythology", since people might take that to mean explicit approval by a large group of people. Nonetheless, others had ample time to object to the infobox at the time. (In fact, I believe that Dreamguy lent somewhat guarded support to the infobox idea then: see the discussion here.) So I stand by my previous argument. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sorry if I misrepresented the discussion from the past, that wasn't my intent; it was however the Wikiproject Mythology page discussion page and the whole group was consulted. Goldenrowley (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just glanced at the policy page on disclaimers. By Wikipedia standards, this infobox is not a disclaimer in any way, shape, or form. The infobox does not fit any of the categories of disclaimers mentioned (general disclaimer, risk disclaimer, medical disclaimer, legal disclaimer, content disclaimer). --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not tha this template itself bothers me much but I doubt articles made from transcluding bits from here and there are a good option. A discussiong on the meaning of a given word/concept should go in an article about it, with a short reference in the article if needed for context. Having a template, alongside with the main article, may lead to slightly different definitions, which will be unhelpful for its clarifications, bith from editors and readers POVs. I presume all articles about myths and mythologies link back to "mythology" and that is enough. - Nabla (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a disclaimer-like, unneeded templated definition. This template is a disclaimer in spirit if not in letter, since it's primary purpose seems to be to avoid offending certain readers. If the goal was definitional clarity only, then a link to mythology would be sufficient. The function of the template duplicates the following portions of Wikipedia's content disclaimer: "Some Wikipedia articles discuss words or language that are considered ... offensive by some readers" and "Many articles contain frank discussion of controversial topics". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:20, 30 March 2009 (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 the California and Canada ones into a North America one, no consensus on the rest. Everyone's in agreement about merging the California one, so I'll do that. It looks like there's also probably consensus for merging them all into one, but I recommend starting a merge discussion at one of their talk pages to make sure then carrying out the merges and turning them into redirects. delldot ∇. 22:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anime conventions in California (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Anime conventions in Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Anime conventions in Japan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Anime conventions in the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I originally asked User:TheFarix about merging these templates into a single ((Anime conventions)), but he said he'd rather have them deleted, citing duplication of List of anime conventions. Besides that, the templates are overly specific (why California instead of the United States (or, fir that matter, why the US and Canada instead of North America)?), and leave a lot of conventions high and dry. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All We have already a list of noteworthy conventions and having a template per geographic location is meeeuhhhh as there is not enough differences between conventions around the word to deserve separate template. I also add that there some BIAS by having template for some regions and not others --KrebMarkt 07:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All as useful navigation aids. I would also support merging all of the US conventions (or US and Canada) into one template as there really aren't all that many. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all; the list is perfectly satisfactory for this. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some the country based templates, rebuild the California one into a US one. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just so everyone is clear, I don't really care what happens with these as long as *something* does. If they are kept, I'd be most partial to merging them to a single ((Anime conventions)) template (as I stated in my nomination) which could later be split if and/or when necessary; but if not, they should probably at least be broadened to cover whole continents, so no convention articles are neglected. If they are deleted... well, I guess there's really not much to say about that, is there? ;P 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 05:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but merge - I think they should be kept but i think the can become one template like Dinoguy1000 said above, and it should not be California it should cover the whole of the USA. Cheers Kyle1278 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Navigation boxes work really well for "small and more or less complete sets" (WP:CLN). "Anime conventions" does not comprise such a set, and so Category:Anime conventions and the list of anime conventions are better-suited to this purpose than one or more navboxes. If kept, then definitely merge the California navbox into one for the United States as a whole. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:08, 30 March 2009 (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.