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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Public colleges and universities in Virginia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template, as the information it conveys is already included in the more comprehensive navbox Template:Colleges and universities in Virginia. Masonpatriot (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Merge them. Kasaalan (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Rillian (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after converting any uses to the existing template. Not used heavily enough to make this a difficult task or worth keeping a redirect around. See nothing to be merged. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Mabeenot (talk) 09:09, 14 October 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Intellectual Property Law 82 of 2002 was not retroactive according to Special 301 Report on Egypt by the International Intellectual Property Alliance. See the template on commons. This Template should therefore be depreciated and deleted.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Garion96 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 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 Speedy deleted by request from author. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

See bit and reins templates, below. This one is the one I created, and after re-reviewing the huge edit war that erupted over the tack templates a year ago, resulting in the abandonment of the whole project and all the templates being orphaned, I propose deleting all templates and the category they are living in, including my own (I moved content to my sandbox for fixing up later) Eventually WikiProject Equine WP:EQUINE (aka WPEQ) will revisit this topic and we will then organize the navbox too. Montanabw^(talk) 05:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object deletion of useful template containing valuable info with easy navigation. Really good template no need to delete it. Kasaalan (talk) 19:05, 9 October 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. JPG-GR (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ronnie Barker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The use of templates for actor articles is deprecated by WP:ACTOR. All of these templates have been deleted in the past and there seems no valid reason for this one. Each and every film listed on it already has its own article and all of this content is already available on the Ronnie Barker article. Effectively, it's redundant and needless Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I can see the reasons for deletion here. I suppose it could be argued that he was also a writer for many of these shows, but ultimately, this was just something I made a few years ago as a nice way to group his various works and roles together. I think most of the redlinks on here have articles, now, though. Bob talk 10:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a member of WP:ACTOR, I don't know what they deprecate, is there any policy about "templates deprecated by WP:ACTOR" should get deleted that I am not aware. Instead giving opinion pieces, why don't you try to explain rationale behind deletion request with any Wiki Guideline or link to example cases. Kasaalan (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Policy doesn't cover these sorts of things. This is a WP:ACTOR decision, accompanied by consensus, that actor templates for filmographies are redundant and unnecessary. It's not solely my opinion, it's wide consensus previously determined. All delete decisions are based on the opinions given in deletion nominations, otherwise, there wouldn't be deletion discussions such as this one. Do you really think having to hunt back through multiple deletion archives to show you the examples of all the previously deleted actor templates is a productive use of time? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the same general reasons given in the Jim Carrey template: I agree with and support the consensus from WP:ACTOR. It is jut a bad idea all around to have actor templates shoved onto every film article any actor ever appeared in. It would clutter the footers of most articles very quickly, often leads to the creation of unnotable film articles because its linked in the template, and it really does not aid in navigation at all. If people are interested in an other actor's filmography, they can go to that actor's article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't care a bunch of deletionists' consensus over deleting templates. I am inclusionist, and against all kinds of unnecessary deletion. Kasaalan (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per previous consensus and WP:ACTOR. Lugnuts (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Template with many relevant links, fullfilling a function that is not otherwise taken care of (linking all articles directly). If they have such a consensus at wp:actor, then I for one disagree with it. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - See my comment at the Jim Carrey tfd below. Garion96 (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I couldn't care less how WP:ACTOR overrates itself into a policymaker, they cannot decide for other users. They cannot dictate their consensus for each and every case to waste various wiki editor's efforts by deleting their work. I am against all unnecessary actor template deletions. You cannot dictate a "consensus" so that noone create any actor template. For that you need a wiki-wide guideline. I will bring this issue over a higher process to undelete all deleted leading actor templates. Kasaalan (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per established consensus. An actor's page, which is already linked in film article, presents the same information in a filmography. The problem that occurs by adding multiple templates at the bottom of film articles is well elucidated here. A guideline should be added to WP:ACTOR and WP:FILM to reduce this perennial discussion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons articulated at length at WT:ACTOR#Guidelines directive and in TfDs for similar templates. --RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per consensus; actors' roles range from major to minor. They also do the job that directors ask of them. They are also one of several actors in a given film with varying roles of importance, so they are not head and shoulders above the cast and the crew. Best practice is to ensure that the actor's article links to his works; that is the most relevant place, particularly for actors of many, many films in a wide range of roles. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no different to the discussion below regarding the Jim Carrey template. Rossrs (talk) 06:37, 16 October 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. JPG-GR (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jim Carrey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The use of templates for actor articles is deprecated by WP:ACTOR. All of these templates have been deleted in the past and there seems no valid reason for this one. Each and every film listed on it already has its own article and all of this content is already available on the Jim Carrey article. Effectively, it's redundant and needless. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The use of templates for actor articles is deprecated by WP:ACTOR. All of these templates have been deleted in the past and there seems no valid reason for this one."

I am not a member of WP:ACTOR, I don't know what they deprecate, is there any policy about "templates deprecated by WP:ACTOR" should get deleted that I am not aware. Instead giving opinion pieces, try to explain rationale behind it with any Wiki Guideline or link to example cases.

"Each and every film listed on it already has its own article and all of this content is already available on the Jim Carrey article."

As creator of the template, my replies are

1. I am not a member of WP:ACTOR, I don't know why they try to get any template deleted if they do so. If nominator provides any example case or guidelines to support his arguments we may have a talk, otherwise it is his opinion piece.
2. The template is created for adding almost 50 Jim Carrey films like Liar Liar, for easy navigation.
3. The template has 49 film article entries with production years, grouped by each 10 year, 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010s
4. Template is compact, taking much less space, It is 1/6 of the Jim_Carrey#Filmography table in Jim Carrey page when expanded, and it is 1/50 while collapsed in length.

A redundant and needless RFC. Kasaalan (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Response I didn't know this was your creation until after the fact. As I said above, this is based on consensus while these nominations are opened because there are no policies specifically governing this sort of thing. But since you insist on examples: covers 18 such templates, covers 15 such templates, starting with this one, covers 15 such templates, covers one template with discussion about general usage, covers 9 such templates and as an aside, I note that the Jim Carrey template had been previously deleted, so it could have been put up as a speedy deletion, covers 4 such templates, covers 1 template, covers 3 such templates, covers 3 such templates, covers 3 such templates, covers 1 such template, covers 1 such template, covers 1 such template, covers 1 such template, covers 1 such template, covers 1 such template, covers 1 such template, covers 1 such template, covers 1 such template, covers 1 such template, covers 2 such templates, covers 1 such template, covers 1 such template. So what we have is from about a 3 year period, covering 18 separate template deletion decisions for 86 separate templates, all of which were deleted. I am fairly certain that indicates prior consensus. Is that enough evidence? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Replies against wrong consensus It is apparent you have a consensus in actors. Though it is a clearly and utterly wrong consensus that leaves no space to create template for any actor, again which is against spirit of templates and wikipedia. Also after a while if you get deleted such a high number of useful templates, then you can always claim for "x year period covering x template" we have a consensus over deleting actor templates, therefore you leave no space for actor template creation in the first place. So maybe we should take a whole upper process for any template.
• I am not a member of WP:ACTOR as previously stated, and as a wikipedia editor I couldn't care less for such a wrong consensus of a group which is against general Wiki Guidelines. [You should get a wiki guideline for actor templates isn't allowed to dictate such a wrong consensus] If templates getting deleted we should redebate all cases to be restored in a higher process. It is apparent WP:ACTOR wasted numerous editor's hard work for nothing in the past.
• Also as a fact, listing every film entry in a template might not be good, though number of major films an actor can play is generally limited and we may only include his leading role films. Kasaalan (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with and support the consensus from WP:ACTOR. It is jut a bad idea all around to have actor templates shoved onto every film article any actor ever appeared in. It would clutter the footers of most articles very quickly, often leads to the creation of unnotable film articles because its linked in the template, and it really does not aid in navigation at all. If people are interested in Carrey or any other actors filmography, they can go to the appropriate article. Would disagree with the assertion that it is "compact" when it consumes half the browser window on a normal monitor (and the entire window at 800x600). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons stated at length above. --RL0919 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep- I was shocked when I saw this was put up for deletion. The fact that we cannot have an actor filmography template soley because the films are included in the article is ridiculous. Not only that, the consensus now is that listing acting roles in templates at all is wrong. I mean, why can't Mel Gibson have an acting credits section in his template? It's part of his filmography... but, back on the subject of this proposed deletion, I see this as a template with easy access to the articles; nice to have everything in one place. I see absolutely no reason why this should be deleted at all. I feel that this is all about politics in a way, which is sad. Now, people will probably jump in and say that I don't know anything about how things are done on this matter, but it's nothing I haven't heard before. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 7:36, 10, October 2009
• Delete Per previous consensus and WP:ACTOR. Lugnuts (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Replies to wrong Consensus of WP:ACTOR For an extreme consensus like "no actor template is allowed in wikipedia", you need a strong written Wiki Policy or Guideline. The consensus itself is clearly wrong and dictated by WP:ACTOR which clearly wastes non-member editors time and efforts. Kasaalan (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the article includes a complete filmography, what is the purpose of including a template with the same information at the bottom of it? It's redundant. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template was created to be added under films where Jim Carrey has a leading role. It is not only added to Jim Carrey article. Also are you sure you understand what easy navigation within films means. Kasaalan (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Template with many relevant links, fullfilling a function that is not otherwise taken care of (linking all articles directly). If they have such a consensus at wp:actor, then I for one disagree with it. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would base the decision on the current consensus regarding actor filmography templates in general. Is there a relevant statement (at WP:ACTOR?) Is there a demonstration of consensus somewhere else? Equazcion (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wildhartlivie's comment above with many links to previous TFD's. Garion96 (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous consensus and also as overtemplating. Keeping this means we also would have a Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones, Nicole Kidman, Chris O'Donnell and many other actor templates on Batman Forever. Garion96 (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is overtemplating, did you just made that term up. Why Nicole Kidman having a template offends or irritates you. She is one of the leading actors. It is only helpful to add director or leading actor templates for readers. Before you can bring a consensus as "actor templates banned in wikipedia" you should create a wiki guideline [rule] to say so. That is abuse of consensus, which overrates it into a guideline. With the same fail of logic you can say, awards of Nicole Kidman is already in article, delete Nicole Kidman articles template. Kasaalan (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overtemplating? No, that word has been used quite a lot before. You don't need a guideline or policy to show consensus. Look at the links Wildhartlivies provided. All previous tfd discussions where it shows that there is consensus for such templates to be deleted, basically because all of them have been deleted. Garion96 (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Guidelines exist just to give everyone advice based on the current consensus, and the lack of a guideline doesn't mean there's no consensus. There's also no such thing as abuse of consensus, because Wikipedia runs on consensus. In fact, consensus trumps guidelines. See WP:Guideline. Equazcion (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WAIT - Who says that by keeping this template we will also have to have one for every actor in Batman Forever ? That is simply NOT true. Thank you, Kassaalan, and anyone else who has voted to keep this template, for agreeing with me on this. And, you're right, to have such an extreme consensus as No actors can have a template at Wikipedia, you need a strong valid reason, and, to be completely honest, I have not read ONE deletion nomination that provides a better reason than pointing to WP: ACTOR and mentioning that weak consensus. Hear me out.... JUST BECAUSE ONE ACTOR HAS A TEMPLATE, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE ONE FOR EVERY SINGLE ACTOR. Come up with a better consenss than No actor can have a template. It's very weak, and also, it's an opinion. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) -- 11:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, one actor having a template does not mean we have to have one for every single actor. In practise however that will be the case for sure. Garion96 (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WAIT - How do you, or anyone for that matter, know that? Come on, guys, there is nothing wrong with this template, SERIOUSLY. I have had people delete my additions because of weak consensus that made sense to them, like adding film adaptations in the Stephen King template - like I said on the talk page for that article, many authors have film adaptations of their works listed (Michael Crichton, Tom Wolfe, Roald Dahl, etc.) They say the film adaptations don't belong there because he didn't have a hand in hardly any of them - neither did Dahl or Chricton, and Wolfe hasn't had any - JESUS! I'm sick of the politics. And the List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes template is a perfect example of a template that was put up for deletion, then was deleted after many people chose to keep the article because of poor judgement by said deleter. Look at the deletion review for that. Anyway, like I said, there is nothing wrong with having an actor template for a few actors, we don't have to add one for every single person. My apologies if I appear to have blown up at you guys, that's not my intention, definitely. But, do me a favor and at least think about what I've said. From the looks of it, though, this template will get deleted anyway, no matter what I say.... - Cartoon Boy (talk) - 7:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
      • He knows that from experience, Cartoon Boy, as do I. When the Timothy Dalton fan sees the Jim Carry nav box, he'll say if there's one for him then why not him? That's just what happens, generally. I think the problem with actor nav boxes vs. director boxes is that there are multiple actors per movie, whereas there's only one director, so the actor nav boxes would crowd the movie articles. Equazcion (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So do you concern bandwith over content. I mean wikipedia has high bandwith servers just because users can improve and add useful content. I couldn't care less if Cartoon Boy have an actor template, if he has wiki-article films to fill it with. And for anyone watching Cartoon Boy it may matter to easily navigate related pages. Kasaalan (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a bandwidth issue. It's an issue of keeping pages relatively "clean" and leaving out the extraneous clutter, keeping only things that are actually useful. It's about how the encyclopedia looks, and how easy it is to navigate. More nav links don't necessarily mean easier navigation, if there's a mass of them on every page. If everyone had a template linking to all the work they ever contributed to, you'd never find anything. Equazcion (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • No removing templates won't make a page "cleaner", telling you as an expert, a collapsed template only takes 1 line, so all above claims are not sufficient enough to create a wiki-wide ban over actor templates. Moreover multiple templates can be collapsed into a single one, again indicates above arguments are wrong. Kasaalan (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Since I'm only trying to express the opinion felt my most people who have been in on decisions like this in the past, I'm not wrong; and neither are you, because it's an opinion. This general feeling probably also has to do with maintaining a professional/quality look and feel to the encyclopedia, which involves judging and editing out the extraneous. Equazcion (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Opinion and expert opinion differs I suppose. When you claim professional-quality look, it comes to graphics design and page layout, which is within my scope of expertise. And if we talking about a single line template, no it never ruins "look" of the encyclopedia by any means and never drags the "professional layout" of it, especially if it is collapsed. Again however you put it "long time consensus" people come up with as a deletion reason is a "actor template ban" in practice. So, either they will put a strict guideline into WikiPolicies as no actor template is allowed in wikipedia, or they dictate their limited consensus to each and every case for deleting all templates. Kasaalan (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm not referring to graphic design. I'm talking about a public opinion that may result from a judgment of the encyclopedia based on what we seem to think is important information. That has historically been a problem for Wikipedia. We'd like for people to take Wikipedia seriously, and unfortunately people have judged it as otherwise in the past due to inclusion of extraneous elements (among other things). You're right that if consensus shows consistently that actor templates should not exist, a guideline might be warranted; but the absence of one isn't necessarily consequential. Even a guideline wouldn't be a "ban", though. Few things are disallowed on Wikipedia to the point that I would consider them banned. Most guidelines and policies have their exceptions, and if actor templates were already banned there would probably be no need for this discussion. This doesn't seem like an exceptional case though. Equazcion (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As a professional I can tell, Wikipedia layout, and wiki editor layouts are horrible if we talk about layout. Yet it has nothing to do with being taken lightly by "public opinion". Only content decides that, in an encyclopedia, where actual users evaluate that by reading it. An additional actor template won't clog or ruin layout since most of the leading actors also have "golden globe award" or similar templates. And an actor template only takes up 1 line under them. Kasaalan (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per established consensus. An actor's page, which is already linked in film article, presents the same information in a filmography. The problem that occurs by adding multiple templates at the bottom of film articles is well elucidated here. A guideline should be added to WP:ACTOR and WP:FILM to reduce this perennial discussion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per long-running consensus because actors have roles of varying importance on any given film. Optimal application of actor filmography templates in all film articles would mean template overload at the end of it. This detracts from the article topic. Director templates are acceptable because they are singular and have extensive creative control over their works, where actors do not (and there are many of them in any film). It is most suitable to ensure that all actors' articles have filmographies, so when readers come to an actor's article to learn about one of the several players of a given film, they can see the person's body of work there. No need to clog the footer of film articles with this kind of template. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You may limit actor templates for leading roles. Noone bother to create template for minor roles or unpopular actors. And if they does, that is where you can use your consensus. Otherwise, if you come up with same old consensus argument in each and every case that means a ban in practice, by any means.
• Also users should click actor page, then go to filmography section, then click back an forth or use numerous "tabs" in browser then click each tab to read them, is why your argument fails. It is not an easy navigation style. Also for bandwith usage, it is the same. An actor page loading-reloading is not practical and requires page to load so user to wait all of the page to load. Yet with a simple template, user can navigate through all filmography.
• An additional actor template won't clog or ruin layout since most of the leading actors also have "golden globe award" or similar templates. And an actor template only takes up 1 line under them. So your clog argument clearly fails for visual layout. Kasaalan (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not worth trying to establish criteria for the importance of an actor's role to warrant its inclusion in a template. We already have the full body of work on the majority of actors' articles. In addition, you exaggerate the difficulty of finding out an actor's other films. Clearly the actor's article will have this information, and I don't know what the so-called "click back and forth" issue is. Readers do not go to film articles to read about actors' entire bodies of work. If they want to do that, they can obviously go to the actor's article to see the body of work and explore them. You make it sound like the footer template should be the centralized go-to spot for navigation. Also, thank you for bringing the Golden Globe templates to my attention. It looks like they will need to be deleted, too, since there is no point in knowing all the other actors who won at one actor's article. In addition, with so many awards an actor could win, this is also template overload. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Also, thank you for bringing the Golden Globe templates to my attention. It looks like they will need to be deleted, too, since there is no point in knowing all the other actors who won at one actor's article. In addition, with so many awards an actor could win, this is also template overload." Funniest thing is you may also nominate actor articles for deletion after that. Who holds you anyway. There are vast number of actors out there, you may trim some too, if you consider that as an actor overload. The issue is you ask yourself you judge yourself. It is interesting and informative for me and various others to know who won such an award. And easy to navigate, unlike going to golden globe article, then try finding such a table from another link. Kasaalan (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are specific notability guidelines regarding people, which I'm sure Erik is a aware of, so I don't think he will be nominating actor articles. Besides which, articles were specifically not his complaint. Nav templates are an entirely different animal, and there's currently no guideline regarding them (at least not for actors), so it's left up to discussion, such as the one we're having now. Although the Golden Globe template will be a bit more difficult to have deleted. There are a lot of similar award templates and they're in wide use. Equazcion (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability guidelines. Well you can put notability guidelines for actor templates too. However you higher the notability, Jim Carrey passes it anyway. The issue here is the logic behind deletions. I don't find ... templates useful, though others find it useful and informative, who cares, lets get it deleted anyway. It is users and projects job to control templates, not excusing "they may get out of hand" to delete them.
• A serious logic failure dominates deletion reviews in the first place. After a while, you can get all templates deleted by "previous consensus", which results a wiki ban, and most of wiki users aren't aware of the "ban in practice" in anyway. A number of users, 100 different according to the project, voted for deletion, nice. 86+x number of different keep voters and template creators put a will and consensus against that deletion. Let alone people who like to add templates into articles anyway. That is a serious matter, affect wikipedia. So it need a guideline after voting process and international debate. Kasaalan (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please post messages without bold, underscored or italic text. Garion96 (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Redundant. The template contains nothing that does not exist in the filmography table, so all it does is further summarize what has already been summarized. Considering that many actor articles use filmographies, it's fairly clear that the use of filmography is generally supported. Considering that relatively few actor articles contain templates such as this, and many have been deleted over the last few years, that seems to indicate that the use of the template is not widely supported. Why have a new debate every time this appears - the only thing that changes is the name of the actor, but this has clearly been discussed numerous times, given the number of templates that have been deleted. Rossrs (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lists are much better for cases like this one. We will have templates like this one for every actor if we keep this. It will take a few weeks or months, but it will happen. --Conti|✉ 09:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Vote There is a wiki-wide ban in practice against every actor templates. So a bot should be created to leave a message in every current and previous editor in such templates, so that we can have a clear debate to decide, if actor templates should stay or banned. This is no healthy discussion, just to decide a case with template deletion review page checkers, members of actors while none of the previous actor template creators or editors are involved. Kasaalan (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30 actor templates means 30 more keep votes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Film_actor_templates has 30 actor templates, again mentioning pre-debates, you should mention all over 100 actor templates created. Kasaalan (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response How do you figure that? Those are either a combination of work covering things other than films or are specialized templates for specific pairings, such as Tracy-Hepburn films, or are directorial works by actors. Not the same thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So Category:Film_actor_templates can exist, Template:Laurel and Hardy because they are duo, Template:Selena Gomez can exist since she has a discography, but why a singer listed under Category:Film_actor_templates yet real actors like Jim Carrey can't have one. On the other hand can I have a Kevin Spacey actor template just because he also can sing and make album. Also Template:Andrew Howard Films can exist because he wrote a film and appeared on 3 television series. Interesting why TV serie actors may have templates, film actors can't. Template:Actors in Tyler Perry works again interesting. However you put it film actors seriously banned in practice, and that is only because you delete voter outweight template creators in each deletion discussion by their singled-out case, and after a while you dictate "consensus", though when you accumulate all 86 cases, at least their creator put a keep vote, and along the vote he put time and effort. [unlike just voting for delete] There is no way you can but a ban to actor templates, only thing you can do with consensus is to remove templates from articles since consensus is a temprory thing. You overrate your consensus way too much. Kasaalan (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Yes, consensus was that specialized groupings like Laurel & Hardy, Marx Brothers, Tracy & Hepburn, etc. can be used because they do not encompass an actors entire body of work. But thanks, you did point a handful of templates that didn't show up before, and in fact, some of them aren't even used on articles. At that point, they become subject to deletion because they are orphaned and unused. Why were singers listed under actor templates? Because some of them were improperly categorized. In fact, you're wrong. In many cases, the creator didn't bother to weigh in on deletion discussions, in other cases, they came in, made a template and didn't come back. It isn't my consensus, Kasaalan, it's a wide consensus involving a lot of people. I'm sorry you don't like the consensus. It isn't simply the WP:ACTOR project. As I've stated on more than one occasion here, WP:FILM does not support using actor templates on film articles, which renders them useless since putting them on the actors page is redundant to the filmography table. At that point, they again become orphaned and unused. Why keep something that isn't going to be used? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can only ask whether they will be used or not, by keeping templates yet deleting from pages. Only then you can tell if users will use actor template or not. If you delete such templates, 99 percent of the wiki users wouldn't be aware of such a template or template ban exist. Filmography tables cannot be added into articles anyway, so they don't substitute for anything.
          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_11#Template:Matthew_McConaughey 0:8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_6#Film_Lists This is where everything starts. 2:7 delete-keep votes [don't know who created templates or if they properly informed about deletion review], then by arguing such "consensus" and additional consensus built in it all comes to same, banning and deleting actor templates. Yet again around 3 years, for 86 different template cases, you can tell a creation effort for actor templates by dozens of independent editors, which all got deleted by same "consensus" yet no actual policy that forbidding any actor template. Again as I suggest why don't we have a bot that informs all previous template creators or editors edited such templates about a wiki-wide debate to finalize issue. Because 2:7 or 0:8 is no good for a wiki-wide actor template ban-deletion. You have a discussion where non-watching users aren't aware, yet you accomplish a wiki-wide actor ban with less than 10 people. Again telling you, no guideline or policy give such small number of editors to ban creation of a template genre. Kasaalan (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're assuming that people automatically vote according to the very first recorded consensus, with no other reasons factoring in. Here the deleters aren't just saying previous consensus", they're also giving logical rationale. Consensus following your first 2:7 incident would never have continued through other debates had people not agreed with the rationale against the templates. And there are plenty of examples of the opposite happening, where consensus changes. That doesn't appear to have happened in this case, but we'll see at closing. If you think there should be a broad central debate to re-evaluate the subject of actor templates, you should post at WP:VPP or WT:ACTOR. You won't be able to go around telling everyone who's ever edited an actor template (WP:CANVAS), but you could get a broad discussion going and judge the current consensus. Equazcion (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not sure if you realize it, but the discussion at this link indicates that ((Jim Carrey)) was previously deleted. So not only have you failed to show any change in the general consensus against actor navboxes, you've actually shown that there was a previous consensus specifically against a template for this particular actor. --RL0919 (talk) 18:04, 18 October 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, orphaned template. Garion96 (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

See template bits, below. Same problem. Template is too narrow in scope, has too much OR and POV, and conflicts with Template:Tack, which is far more inclusive and useful from a navigation view, and all are still in sandbox form anyway. Full disclosure: I am the original editor of Template tack, but if that's an issue, we can just toss all three until WPEQ has time to sort it all out. Montanabw^(talk) 05:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, improve. Note which entries are OR or POV, which entries has conflict then ask for help. No need to waste efforts. Kasaalan (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole template is useless. There are about five articles about reins, the rest of the template is about bridle accessories, training techniques or other things that really have nothing to do with reins. There is no need to "ask for help." The template is orphaned and is going to remain so by consensus of WikiProject Equine until we get a general tack template sorted out. Montanabw^(talk) 21:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on the field but heading says "Reins and related horse tack" and template lists articles related to horse tack and reins so maybe the title of template should change. Again no expert so cannot really vote with best arguments. Kasaalan (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notified template creator. Kasaalan (talk) 18:57, 15 October 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 per lack of films directed. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ben Affleck (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no reason for a 2 film director template. When the body of work becomes sufficient, a template may be appropriate, but not at this point. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. Can always be recreated later if/when he has directed more movies. --RL0919 (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Improve. Ben Affleck is an actor, so add Ben_Affleck#Filmography entries and create an improved template. 2 entry template is a bit weak. Kasaalan (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Consensus does not support containing actor filmographies in templates. See the breakdown of deletions of actor filmographies under the Jim Carrey discussion above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I disagree with the idea of director templates as a whole, and see them as no more valuable than actor templates. That aside, even if there is consensus for a director having a templte, having directed only two works, it is far too early for Affleck to have such a template. Completely disagree with the suggestion of expanding it to include his other filmography, as consensus has already agreed that actor templates are inappropriate and a bad idea all around. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For an extreme consensus like "no actor template is allowed in wikipedia", you need a strong written Wiki Policy or Guideline. The consensus itself is clearly wrong and dictated by ACTOR which clearly wastes non-member editors time and efforts. Kasaalan (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination and Collectonian. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - See my comment at the Jim Carrey tfd above. Garion96 (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per small number of items in this template. No problem with recreation down the road if Affleck directs 4+ films or so. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:29, 15 October 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 keep. Garion96 (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Law unref (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a kind of complicated nomination. I'd originally redirected the template (it was only used in two articles at the time), and then nominated the template for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 8#Template:Law unref. That was speedy closed as being out of process, which I see now it was; a TFD would have been more appropriate. The situation was brought to my attention at User talk:Drilnoth#Inquiry.

Anyway, I feel that many of the WikiProject or topic-related cleanup templates are a bad idea. We have monthly cleanup listings that have a much wider scope for all projects that sign up. Adding in a separate template with its own category A) Makes finding the right tag even more complicated; B) acts as an extra self-reference, linking to a WikiProject page rather than a policy or guideline (this could, of course be fixed by just removing the link). As such, I think that this template should be redirected to ((unreferenced)) or, if consensus is to retain the template in its current or a similar form, at least rename it to ((Unreferenced-law)) or somesuch.

I will notify WikiProject Law about this nomination, and urge all commenters to discuss the template itself, not my earlier mishandling of the situation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I welcome any WikiProject's initiative to take care of a few of the literally thousands of articles tagged with the general Template:Cleanup every month. At least this way, there is a fair change somebody will actually improve some articles. Debresser (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that people actually use the category? And wouldn't the WolterBot cleanup listings work for the same purpose, a la Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Cleanup listing#Article lacking sources? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At one point I put this template on dozens of articles. The fact that it reached the point of being unused indicates to me that it was working just fine, since these articles must have been fixed if the template was not simply removed without reason. No objection to renaming, but a shorter form is more convenient to type. bd2412 T 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A redirect can be kept, if wanted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that, either. bd2412 T 04:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. As the nominator mentioned, they create an extra self-reference -- something else to make things more complicated and esoteric for readers and new editors to comprehend, raising the bar for entry; which we want to avoid, I think. I don't see any particular reason to have wikiproject-specific maintenance tags anyway. It just seems like a needless complication. The category might have been a reason, but if there's a bot to create such listings, what's the use in this? Equazcion (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep (just realized I never registered my !vote here. bd2412 T 15:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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 do not merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Indian elections with Template:Elections in India.

Template:Indian elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Elections in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in May 2009. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template_talk:Elections in India#Merger proposal. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merger Both templates can be used for different issues - ((Indian elections)) is part of a series of templates covering every country in the world. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:05, 9 October 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Election table with Template:Electiontable.

Template:Election table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in October 2008. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:Electiontable#Merge. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merger. From a quick test, it appears that a simple redirect of ((Election table)) to ((Electiontable)) should work. --RL0919 (talk) 16:51, 18 October 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 nomination withdrawn.  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Further with Template:Details.

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

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

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in February 2008. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template_talk:Details#Merge_from_.7B.7Bfurther.7D.7D. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, is the proposed action? This template is quite different from ((details)) and ((see)) (for example, you can italicize parts of the links). Keep barring a good explanation of why this high-use template should be deleted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your right. Bad idea. I revoke the nomination. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useful. Do not delete. Kasaalan (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merger for now. If/when someone builds a template that handles both variations, I would be happy to reconsider. Given how widely used these hatnotes are, I would be reluctant to support a merger without seeing a real example of a combined template. --RL0919 (talk) 16:49, 12 October 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 no merge. Garion96 (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Computer algebra systems with Template:Numerical analysis software.

Template:Computer algebra systems (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Numerical analysis software (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in August 2009. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on none. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer algebra and numerical computation are distinct capabilities. Most of the systems on the the Numerical system template are completely incapably of computer algebra operations. Many of the computer algebra systems have basic numerical capabilities but are either too limited or too slow to be practically used as numeric systems. There are a few that appear on both templates because they have fully developed capabilities in both categories.Wordsoup (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge, per Wordsoup. Having worked on some of the systems in question, I can testify that there are reletively few commonalities (possibly fewer than actually in the templates). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:06, 17 October 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. Garion96 (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Cite online journal with Template:Cite journal.

Template:Cite online journal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cite journal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in March 2007. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:Cite online journal. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused and Template:Cite journal already serves the exact same function, with a more appropriate format, and is already heavily used for citing both online and offline journals. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fewer than 40 uses, all easily replaceable with the widely used ((Cite journal)). --RL0919 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect maybe a redirect works after deletion. Kasaalan (talk) 21:48, 11 October 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. Garion96 (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Bits with Template:Reins.

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

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

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in November 2008. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:Bits#Merge with Template:Reins. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I favor deletion of this template and the one (reins) where a mergeto is recommended. Not only is this template poorly done and contains much OR in its classification scheme, there is a more inclusive template out there, Template:Tack, which encompasses bits, reins, bridles, saddles, harness, etc. I admit to a COI because I created that one. However, all three are currently orphaned because, basically, the editor who created the bit and reins templates and I had a huge debate over this, as well as several other horse templates, much bad feeling arose all around as others were drug into the battle, and eventually everyone just gave up on the whole project. If people want to just dump all three, I won't even push to keep the one I am working on; I can just move template tack to my own sandbox until WPEQ finds the time to, um, "tackle" the tack templates. Montanabw^(talk) 05:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out how a template like this can contain OR. Keep, merge or improve. Kasaalan (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The classification scheme is OR, also, many of the links redirect to the same three articles, it's a navbox in a place where there is no need for one. The article bit (horse) pretty much links to everything that needs linking. No need for this navbox. See deletion of template;tack. We basically need to just toss all of these tack templates until WPEQ has time to properly address the whole issue. Montanabw^(talk) 21:44, 11 October 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Archaeological Site Peru with Template:Archaeological site.

Template:Infobox Archaeological Site Peru (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Archaeological site (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in May 2009. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:Archaeological site#Merge Peru. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. It looks like ((Infobox Archaeological Site Peru)) has a few additional fields that could potentially be added to ((Archaeological site)), such as 'civilization' and 'region'. But in general there does not seem to be any good reason to have localized infoboxes for archaeological site articles. --RL0919 (talk) 16:35, 18 October 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Fair use media rationale with Template:Non-free use rationale.

Template:Fair use media rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Non-free use rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen asno more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in December 2007. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template_talk:Non-free use rationale#Please add a merge tag. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merger. ((Non-free use rationale)) is clearly the superior and more widely used template. But ((Fair use media rationale)) has an intuitive name and a multi-year history. So I would suggest that all instances of ((Fair use media rationale)) (there are less than 60, fortunately) be converted, and then turn it into a redirect. --RL0919 (talk) 16:43, 18 October 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 Louisville places Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Louisville places with Template:Geographic Location.

Template:Louisville places (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Geographic Location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in March 2009. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on none. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No transclusions, and nothing in the documentation to indicate it is substituted. It's just a wrapper combining ((Geographic location)) and ((Louisville neighborhoods)). Seems easy enough to just add the two templates separately. --RL0919 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 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 deleted ((Robert Bresson Movies)), nothing to merge. Garion96 (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Template:Robert Bresson Movies with Template:Robert Bresson.

Template:Robert Bresson Movies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Robert Bresson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in August 2009. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:Robert_Bresson#Merge proposal. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ((Robert Bresson Movies)) and replace the two transclusions of it with ((Robert Bresson)). There is nothing in ((Robert Bresson Movies)) that isn't in the other template except an unnecessary picture, and the format of ((Robert Bresson)) is more typical of movie director navboxes. --RL0919 (talk) 16:41, 12 October 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 redirect ((NYC river crossings)) to ((NYC Bridge)) as the former is unused. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:NYC Bridge with Template:NYC river crossings.

Template:NYC Bridge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NYC river crossings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in =May 2007. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on none. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 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/redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Same-sex marriage with Template:Same-sex unions.

Template:Same-sex marriage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Same-sex unions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in August 2009. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:Same-sex unions#Merge proposal. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace its small number of uses with ((Same-sex unions)), which is more comprehensive and much more widely used. --RL0919 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A merge will accomplish the same thing - just redirect the former to the latter. bd2412 T 03:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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 do not merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Magazine with Template:Infobox journal.

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

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

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in September 2009. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template_talk:Infobox_journal#Merge_Infobox_magazine. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the talk page discussion shows a clear consensus against any merge. No note was made on the talk page indicating that further discussion was needed. Indeed, Debresser never even participated in this discussion, on which the final note also confirmed no consensus and that the merge tag should be removed. A "nomination" is not required for a merge discussion. This is templates for deletion not templates for merging. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Thanks to Collectionian for mentioning this discussion at the (moribund) merge discussion. There is absolutely no consensus on a merge of these two infoboxes and I proposed removal of the merge tag on Oct. 1. Nobody has disagreed with that, so I guess that means that there's consensus that the merge proposal is dead. --Crusio (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If such was consensus, but the merge template hadn't been removed yet (for a whole week...), then I have no problem revoking this nomination. After all, I don't have much of a personal opinion about it, and came along only to bring this to an orderly close. Debresser (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not remove it because: 1/ I wanted to give possible opponents to removing the tag the chance to give thier opinion, so that I would not start a tagging war and 2/ I've been terribly busy (had to prepare for an NIH committee meeting in Washington where I just arrived yesterday evening, returning to France tomorrow afternoon...). --Crusio (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose clear consensus against merge, ergo deletion discussion is not required. - X201 (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Both infoboxes are too different. There was no consensus to merge on the discussion page, and I don't see a consensus here to delete either. Garion96 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger until/unless someone creates a combined template that could build some consensus that one template will do for both uses. --RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 12 October 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 UK Television Episode with Television episode and no consensus to merge American Dad! episode. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox UK Television Episode and Template:Infobox American Dad! episode with Template:Infobox Television episode.

Template:Infobox UK Television Episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox American Dad! episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Television episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in September 2007. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on none. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the UK template so long as the 'series' field can be added to avoid US bias (The main Infobox Television has a season/series choice). The JPS^{talk to me} 22:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove American Dad!: What the hell has that got to do with it? Sure merge the general TV ones, but leave AD! out of it. The template is unique (eg: Roger's disguise, Newspaper Gag) and should stay that way. Deon555 (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ((Hell)) and ((Heaven)) are separate templates, but what does that have to do with anything? As to your disagreement: have you noticed that all three templates are (almost) identical? So what is unique anout it? Its name? So I'll make two templates, one for Superstar #1, and copy it for Superstar #2, and then say that they are unique in that they have different names! This is not what we have templates for. That is why they are called templates, BTW. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Dude you couldn't have missed my point more. I'm talking about the parameters like [1]. They aren't in the general TV ones, and to add them would include useless parameters in general shows that are never used. Deon555 (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep American Dad, merge others. Much like ((Infobox Simpsons episode)) the AmDad template has unique parameters and should be kept (or a customisable parameter added to Infobox Television episode). —what a crazy random happenstance 13:38, 17 October 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox NFL player coach with Template:NFL Coach.

Template:Infobox NFL player coach (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NFL Coach (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in February 2007. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on none. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't see why these couldn't be merged. --Son (talk) 14:33, 16 October 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.