Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 5: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 06:15, 21 February 2023

< October 4	October 6 >

October 5

Template:EngvarB

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completely needless given existing Template:Use British English on pages and Template:British English on talk pages, so there's that. Further, no evidence whatsoever that Ohcon or other users are checking edit histories to ensure that pages are actually (per WP:ENGVAR) properly or by consensus considered British English. No evidence whatsoever that pages with American English are being similarly formatted or protected via bot. In at least one case (Pippa Passes) the current method of inclusion of the template produces unsightly white spacing at the top of the articles. — $Llywelyn II$ 06:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can confirm that pages with American English are not being similarly formatted, but so what? There is no deadline. The project is a staged one, and work is continuing to apply WP:ENGVAR to articles, principally based on WP:TIES – initially British, Australian, NZ, Irish, Scottish, Indian, South African. The EngvarB template is conceived to be nationality-neutral, and allows a generic templating that upsets few – as opposed to broadly applying {{use British English}} to articles about Irish etc subjects – which can understandably provoke nationalistic sensitivities although none are intended. The "unsightly white spacing at the top of the articles" seems to be a technical constraint with hidden templates in general and does not affect only this one, otherwise all hidden templates would need deletion. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could the same tracking be done by adding a second parameter to {{Use British English}} and its cousins? Something like {{Use British English|date=June 2010|last_checked=September 2013}}. Have I understood the purpose of {{EngvarB}}? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been contemplating evolving the template and the related work for some time, but want to get the work done whilst avoiding complication. Of course we can always add a parameter to the template, if we find a good use for same. At present, when the script passes, it would simply change {{Use British English|date=June 2010}} to {{Use British English|date=September 2013}} because nobody has found any advantage of keeping the 'June 2010' date. Maybe in time, WP can move to International English. But you would think that there is a huge cultural trench where lies the Atlantic that bodes ill for universal application of IE if you read all the comments on WT:MOS and my talk page about national variants of English (or date formats). -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This project is unnecessary, appears US-biased and could provoke divisiveness. We already have guidelines on ENGVAR that work well. Labelling an article as "British English" places decision before discussion, over-emphasizes ENGVAR issues and is likely to provoke division. The project is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't take account of the most common variant - International English (e.g. see the Oxford Dictionary of English) - and appears to give special status to US English pages as the dominant form. In fact the main corpus of the English language is International English, with the others (US, Canadian, British, Australian, Indian, Irish, etc.) being important regional variants. Bermicourt (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bermicourt: You seem to have misunderstood that this is about deleting {{use British English}}. But if you believe {{EngvarB}} should be deleted, then the line of discussion in the above vote belongs at the relevant talk page. And until it's generally accepted that we can and should use IE, this template is necessary. The use of this EngvarB template is merely an extension of WP:ENGVAR, to keep articles' spelling a consistent variety throughout whilst avoiding provoking nationalistic sensitivities, which is something you alluded to in your comment. In actual fact, I've actually stopped applying {{use British English}}. Having said that, I tend to agree that the whole Engvar thing is divisive, but we also need to accept that it exists as part of the Manual of Style and needs to be maintained. I totally agree, why not "International English" instead? But has its dictionary even been defined? And who recognises IE? Or maybe we will evolve a "Wikipedia English" along these lines?
  I dislike the proliferation of templates for Australian English, South African English and even Scottish English and Hong Kong English – heaven help us that it's splintering to this degree – because they potentially create large permutations and thus hugely complicate maintenance. In the sense of what I'm doing, running the EngvarB script is applying a uniform spelling from a dictionary I established (close to British) rather than IE spellings. That dictionary is not immutable. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 10:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. If anyone would propose to delete all the "use English" templates listed here, I would happily support, but I sincerely believe EngvarB should be kept for the reasons I already gave. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 10:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohc. I don't know how widespread the concept of International English is, but the New Oxford Dictionary of English views English as a world language. To that end they employed around 70 editors and consultants from all over the English speaking world including e.g. 18 US consultants, 8 Indian English consultants and so on. In practice, words that are common to all or most regions are considered "international", words that are mainly used in just one or two regions are specifically annotated as such. This seems a smart approach which Wikipedia could adopt, provided we can agree on which dictionary or dictionaries are authoritative. There will probably be US objections if we only use the ODE as it may be seen (wrongly) as a British source, but if there were a leading US dictionary that used the "international" approach, we might find it easier to gain acceptance. Bermicourt (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"International English" has not been established on the Wikipedia MoS; that requires a change through discussion at MoS. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, deleting templates will not make such MoS changes happen. Dl2000 (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found User:Angr/Unified English Spelling extremely interesting. But "interesting" (and moot) will all it ever be unless we can sweep away the nationalism that exists here and embrace genuine multi-culturalism. It would be un fol éspoir under this consensual model we have. Even the author accepts that it's a personal view that isn't ever likely to be adopted. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could start by getting rid of this rubbish. Last time I brought it here not one person voted in favour of deleting. — Lfdder (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no coherent deletion rationale and based on faulty understanding of the templates. First note that {{EngvarB}} is not redundant with {{Use British English}}, etc. per template documentation; it groups similar spelling patterns of regional English variants for spell check, WP:COMMONALITY that is approximately associated with the British Commonwealth (the "appears US-biased" complaint is therefore absurd). EngvarB cannot simply be merged to the British English tag without causing complaints, in fact that has generated complaints on Australian articles. Thus EngvarB would be more likely to reduce the chances of divisive discussions. There are editors who occasionally fix for WP:ENGVAR consistency, and such templates help with identifying articles for such repair. There are indeed some technical and operational issues with the templates which need to be resolved (e.g. dating original tag versus checking dates; syncing with talk page templates) which should be solved but deletion is a false solution to these (WP:BATHWATER). There are editors who occasionally check for WP:ENGVAR consistency, such templates on the article assist that task. The deletion reasons are strictly WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the nominators have not supplied proof of any actual chronic or unsolvable problems and alternatives to deletion have not been sufficiently discussed. Dl2000 (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as currently useful. If there is a redundancy, ((tl|Use British English}} seems more likely the one to be deleted, IMO. -PC-XT+ 08:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at lest change the message displayed. This is not a request for copyediting as I understand it, and the WP:GOCE should not be responsible for it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The template does not show up as text, therefore no message is displayed. And who says that WP:GOCE must accept responsibility for this, or numerous other kinds of templates for that matter (WP:NOTCOMPULSORY)? Dl2000 (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am I wrong that this template places the article in the copyedit category? That's what adds apparent work to the WP:GOCE.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the template does not place any article in the copyedit category. Yout perception may be due to the coincidence that in September, I worked the script (and placed the {{EngvarB}} tag on many of the cleanup-tagged articles. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The documentation could be clearer, but as you've mentioned this is not a cleanup request template as such and could be exempt from a copyedit category (or add a category to indicate GOCE-exempt templates such as this). In any case, deleting the template entirely is overkill (WP:BATHWATER, WP:ATD); maybe WP:GOCE should recruit a larger labour pool? Dl2000 (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~, because spelling consistency is not important. — Lfdder (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, how flippant! Consistently wrong is not consistency. And just because one "ridiculous" template didn't get deleted doesn't mean you should make a target of similar ones. It is a fact that our manual of style places a great deal of emphasis on consistency. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I'm redacting my !vote here. — Lfdder (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This entire discussion, from the nomination to the last support vote, seems to live on a misapprehension or misunderstanding of what the template does and what the maintenance involves. I have already stated that this is not a classical maintenance template, like {{cleanup}}. It adds to dated categories and gets updated with each maintenance run (instead of getting removed). Yes, I am at fault that the documentation seeking to explain its function isn't clear, but the answer to that is better documentation and not deletion. Here, the nominator has misguidedly proposed the deletion because it apparently encourages divisiveness, others support for varying different reasons; none are based on an accurate understanding of the utility. In choosing to single out this template for deletion (out of several) is likely to result in more, not less, conflict of the sort he believes divisive. The category now has more than 10,000 transclusions. And should this template be deleted, the nominator and others supporting deletion would and should bear responsibility of sorting the tagged articles into what could be their constituent categories. Note that often articles tagged {{EngvarB}} are so tagged because of the style in which they are written, and do not necessarily conform to WP:TIES. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per User:Ohconfucius –DjScrawl (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The documented purpose of this template is "to denote articles which have non-American English spelling." Rather than use a negative template, which is being applied by bot rather than intelligence, articles in this wiki should be positively labelled "Use xxxxx English" if assessed as such, or if not assessed, left unmarked. Certainly this template and "Use xxxxx English" should be mutually exclusive. Stanning (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A deletion of this template will result in existing articles having {{DMCA|EngvarB|from|{{{date|}}}}} subst'd in and the longer form used by anyone adding it in the future. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be happier with its continuance if there was also another mutually-exclusive template that indicated articles that have American-English spelling. While there is no suggestion of discrimination here it may, in the long term, be used as a precedent for other less-neutral templates. In short every article should have a preferred spelling flag or none should. S a g a C i t y (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until the logic and neutrality are sorted out. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant You already !voted. Dl2000 (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I see no good reasons offered in this thread for changing the status quo. The template serves a useful purpose and is not American- or British-biased. (In addition, please let's not have a proliferation of other variety templates ... on that I agree with Ohconfucius.) Tony (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I came across this template and mistook the B to mean British, OhConfuscius has informed me that I was incorrect (I was). If the template EngvarLocal or EngvarNot instead this would cause less confusion and show it is a useful template. Murry1975 (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2013 (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.

Template:Bahram Rajabi

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; deleted as G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bahram Rajabi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is just a new user's test edit. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:47, 5 October 2013 (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.

Template:IMDb name

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, per an overwhelming consensus. While some might object that the arguments for deleting the template were more strongly policy-based, and that "consensus cannot override policy", the discussion strongly suggests (IMO) that the policy concerns, while reasonable, are not so cut-and-dried as to justify ignoring a strong consensus to keep the template. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:IMDb bio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Withdrawn- This template basically violates the BLP policy. In no way shape or form should any content from an unreliable, unprofessional, user-generated site such as IMDb be used in a article covered under the BLP policy. So we should not link to IMDb in an external links section, that would just open up for incorrect content being added to the article. The only way to stop it, would be to delete the template. See WP:RS/IMDB for more information on its lack of reliability for any content. Template: IMDb bio should also be included in this deletion discussion. STATic message me! 16:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for the above reasons for IMDb bio - there is no need for that template.

Add - it is currently used in 3 articles. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subtract - it is now unused, see below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree for "IMDb name" per WP:ELYES #3. As there is accurate info in actor articles about actors in IMDb that cannot be included in Wiki and thus is a useful external link. I agree with the current general consensus about IMDb at WP:ELPEREN#IMDb. Also this template is currently close to universally used in actor articles and IMDb is the convenience source implicitly used for actor completed project credits in wiki articles already. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase of WP:ELYES would be "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", there is no indication that the content is either neutral or accurate at any moment and time, because it is user-generated, which would not make the site or its content "encyclopedic". Also just because someone decided to universally use it, does not mean it is factually correct to use. I would need a dozen hands to count how many rumors made it to Wikipedia, because of IMDb. Also when many actors already have 5+ external links, adding an unreliable source like IMDb just creates a WP:LINKFARM. STATic message me! 18:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template was created in 2004, it is trancluded in 88662 articles and is indefinitely protected as a high-risk template. Removing this template would cause a major disruption to the project. IMDb is effectively a peer wiki and has a similar level of reliability as wiki itself. As long as we don't use it as a reliable source, which is currently prohibited, it provides a sufficient amount of additional "neutral and accurate" info that cannot be included in wiki. Since IMDb is not a valid reference, any info included in a bio article body itself that is derived from IMDb can and should be deleted on sight. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep unless removal is accompanied by blacklisting these sites after a specific RFC to do so. This site will continue to be used with or without the template. On a related matter, I would be strongly against blacklisting the site. While useless for determining notability it is useful for other things. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (template IMDb name per Davidwr) and Delete (template IMDb bio). --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 19:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMDb name - useful template for a widely used site. No harm. Delete or redirect IMDb bio - useless. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. First of all, as davidwr points out above, if you want to stop all links to imdb.com, then that requires an RfC. Setting that aside, though, this template isn't being used to cite IMDb as a source; it's just being used as an external link, and there's no requirement that exlinks be to non-user-generated sites. In fact, we have 21 templates to link to non-Wikimedia wikis, and those wikis all probably rely more heavily on user-generated content than IMDb does. Sure, there's some "unprofessional" content on IMDb, but we're not linking directly to that content. We're not responsible for every series of clicks that someone might take on a website we link to.
Oh, and redirect {{IMDb bio}} to {{IMDb name}}. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You four @PinkAmpersand:, @Taylor Trescott:, @Vanquisher.UA: and @Davidwr:, seem to miss the point that we are not getting rid of the IMDb template throughout ALL articles, just articles covered under the WP:BLP policy, as there is no place for unreliable user-generated links or references in biographies. The template just opens up even more of a reason for unreliable content spreading into the article. All reliable notable content is always reported in at least one reliable third party source, IMDb never broke any groundbreaking news, that wont be already found in the article, or a simple Google news search. STATic message me! 22:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if it's BLP you're concerned about... what about actors/actresses who are deceased? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support this relevant question --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 22:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be open to it still being used in biographies of deceased people, if it is really that necessary, as they are not as held up to a verifiability standard as BLPs. That is my concern, the verifiability of biographies of living people. I also assume biographies of (not recently) deceased people on Wiki and IMDb are not as open to dubious or factually incorrect content. STATic message me! 23:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and True Verifiability?! @STATicVerseatide: In that case we must allow link to facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc. as truly sources because some person speaks about self so no have any problem with any law!! It's nonsense!! On other hands, too many personal pages from mentioned sites and too many pages on IMDb are fulfilled with REALLY TRUE information!! --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 23:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, the only nonsense was your response, I do not understand a single thing you are trying to say. We only link to official verified Facebook and Twitter accounts, and then those can only be used for announcements. "Really true information", the biographies that look like they were written by Middle Schoolers speak for themselves. You have to remember this in an encyclopedia not a collection of links to other sites. STATic message me! 23:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't understand anything? Strange! IMDb in most cases is WP:SECONDARY and in some cases WP:PRIMARY source. In any case, proposition for deleting template which used mostly as external links looks strange. As I think, you doesn't have statistic info about usage of this template on wiki-pages, especially about count of pages which violating WP:BLP policy as you say. In any case, I'm voted, so sub-discussion - COMPLETED!! --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 00:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the way you type, I would be surprised if anyone could. Whether you think it is "completed" or not, it just proves that I successfully countered all your points. The claim of it being a primary or secondary source is just incorrect and unfounded, Jim Carrey or his management are not going to sit down on their computers and make sure IMDb is accurate. STATic message me! 00:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. But this TfD is about deleting the template, not about deleting the ability of people to use IMBd.com as a reference. Those are two totally different questions. The second question needs to be discussed in an RFC, preferably as a centralized discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC) rephrased below, "discussing" instead of "deleting"[reply]

It is about discussing the template as the page is called "Templates for discussion", not deleting it. I am sure most of the "strong keep" votes, were due to some users seeing the template, next to the template on articles, and thinking Template: IMDb is going to be deleted completely. My goal is to have it removed from BLPs. It is one think for someone to use it as a reference, but if it is widely known as an unreliable source why would we easily provide a link to it in every BLP? This is the reason why we do not link to Discogs in music album articles, even though there is a template for it, it is user-generated and an unreliable source. You are probably right, I will have to look into that following this discussion. STATic message me! 00:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. But this TfD is about discussing the template, not about discussing the ability of people to use IMBd.com as a reference. Those are two totally different questions. The second question needs to be discussed in an RFC, preferably as a centralized discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The template is a useful external link on articles, the nomination appears to be just a case of WP:I just don't like it more than anything, so lets not Throw out the baby with the bath water. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay do not start with the accusations, this nomination is based on holding up the reliability and integrity of the encyclopedia and Biographies of living people. IMDb should be okay to use on TV and film articles, but user-generated sites should not be linked in any way to biographies of living people. STATic message me! 22:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I haven't and won't, just airing my opinions and observations, just as you are entitled to do however by the looks of it they are overwhelmingly not shared. Tanbircdq (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information Template:IMDb bio informally deprecated and no longer in use. At the conclusion of this TfD, please place {{Db-deprecated}} on it then delete it a week later. Given that Db-deprecated is a "slow, 7-day speedy deletion," I think it's bad form to have the speedy up for 7 days concurrent with this TfD. I've put up a temporary "this template is deprecated" sign at the top. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for both. I cannot see any reason why a site crammed with tons of info and rumours which, in most cases, cannot be confirmed by a reliable source needs to be present in any way on an online encyclopaedia which claims to be trying to be high-quality; it's just like the argument over whether Wikipedia should be free to edit without registration or not: even if editing was restricted to registered editors, tons of original research, personal opinions, speculation, unencyclopaedic trivia, etc. would still be massively and (most importantly) uncontrollably introduced to Wikipedia on a daily basis for eternity. Wikipedia is and will never cease to be largely freaky unreliable under any circumstances, as long as it's free, it's been doomed from the very moment of its creation, as have all sites with user-contributed content. It's a cycle. Universities don't accept it, seeing it as a joke, as a reliable source of info for whatever kind of assignment and that's also a widely common belief in the general population. The only thing that can be done is just lessen (?!) the immense amount of harm done, by solely allowing registered editors to edit and excluding external linking to joke sites like IMDb. An apocalyptic doomsday theory, but unfortunately corresponding to reality, I'm very afraid. Hula Hup (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Hula Hup: Wikipedia as IMDb is the site with user-contributed content, so after that Wikipedia is a place of joke sites like IMDb due to analogy? Seems you are wrong. Problem lies in two parts: a. notability (in that case every editor have his own opinion and propose for deleting discussed only by a few editors without any simple readers so...) and b. reliability (in that case Wikipedia is equal to IMDb due to user-contributed content or anybody checking links in refs??). --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 23:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is maybe a little better than IMDb because of the refs, but is still largely junk and in no case a wholly serious source of info. On the reliability part, I think that the inclusion of refs on Wikipedia doesn't make much of a difference, as they're very frequently wrongly used by editors: misinterpretation of meaning, original synthesis, addition of not supported info based on alleged hints in sources (e.g. the faded silhouette teased in the official trailer/plot synopsis published on the official site is extremely similar to character X, so character X will appear in the film/game), addition of unreliable sources, and the list of disgusting methods of ruining the project goes on forever. I personally edit Wikipedia because I love writing and in a try to make the articles I touch as less mediocre as possible (even featured articles eventually become just OK due to editors [especially, but not always, unregistered ones] ruining the content and sometimes also the structure). R.I.P. Wikipedia. Hula Hup (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good spiel, but how about sticking to the topic rather than going off on a tangent. Tanbircdq (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it here, the door is thataway. Don't let it hit you on the way out. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – The IMDb name template is very useful for filmography information. Not every credit needs to be listed on a Wikipedia page so the external link is relevant. Errors are corrected eventually. ZeroMercury (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The big problem is we have lots of articles that at present have IMDb as their only source. Probably close to 10% of all biographies of actors, maybe higher. I almost think something needs to be done about this, but just deleting all links to IMDb will leave us will absolutely no sources on hundreds if not thousands of articles. This does not sound like a good solution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, in my opinion if an article on a biography of a living person does not have any references to reliable sources and the only source is to IMDb, then it should be BLPPRODed, PRODed, or AfDed immediately. Might as well have no references at all if the only reference is to IMDb. STATic message me! 22:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

or use {{BLP IMDb-only refimprove}} Christian75 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is a place to discuss deletion of the template, not if the link should be there or not. If the template is deleted, it should be substituted with a normal external link. Christian75 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of this section? Templates for discussion not Templates for deletion. STATic message me! 23:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the deletion of the template is a policy question. It would be strange to delete all links to imdb which use the template, but allow normal links to imdb....Christian75 (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The vast majority of the time, the credits listed on a person's IMDb page are accurate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. At IMDb they're very careful: if a user-generated credit does not convince them, they refuse to publish it. . - --Carpenter aka (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The positions given here seem to be influenced by positions on IMDB as a source, but that should not translate into the exact same position on IMDB as an external link, since Wikipedia's requirements for reliability are not the same. Per WP:EL (in particular WP:ELMAYBE) and WP:ELPEREN#IMDb IMDB appears to be acceptable. Therefore, it is reasonable to have a template for it, since templates makes listing it easier. Nightscream (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have just gone to WP:EL first, but my mistake for trying to be bold :(. My position is against have IMDb as an external link in BLPs, not against using IMDb as an external link in any situation. STATic message me! 00:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. IMDb is a professional repository of information. Professionals in the field (actors, directors, etc.) are encouraged to update their information, and those who are interested, including agents and studuos. While content quality varies based on interest (as it does in Wikipedia), and some could be seen as not NPOV due to their position, the most relevant information is not up for debate but is simply truthful and verifiable: who worked on a piece of filmed media. There is some oversight, so changes to key information are reviewed and can be reverted. User generated content is by far restricted to boards and sections like "trivia" which are clearly labeled as such so do not carry the same weight. User contributions to key facts and figures require additional verification; unlike Wikipedia they are not just validated by the mass of editors but by an approval workflow involving paid editors. Shoobe01 (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. In the history of ludicrous suggestions, this one reigns supreme. 99.247.1.157 (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and WP:SNOW. I don't like the message this TfD sends about sourcing, I don't approve of blacklisting uncontroversial sites, it's just another form of censorship which we don't need in the 21st century; the German wiki has huge "no no" blacklists and I've witnessed many German editors moving to this wiki to escape the out-of-hand reactions to using such sources as well as fierce disputes which result from such pushing lists. People aren't stupid; if they came to Wikipedia looking for an actor or a filmography and didn't find the information, who do you think is next on the Google search results: IMDB. Removing this template wouldn't delay the inevitable, wouldn't be responsible and would affect thousands of articles needlessly. Delete this template and you're going to have a whole lot of prigish dicks feuding with reasonable editors should they cite IMDB; I think this TfD is playing with fire and asking for trouble. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Strong Strong Strong Delete. "External links" section is meant for a very limited selection of official links, and "Reliability" doesn't come into it when it's a official or personal site. However, IMDB is not official, and even though some celebs don't have official sites, IMDB should not be masquerading as one. This template seems like just another means for fanboys to include as much fancruft as possible, or even to gain acceptability of IMDB as a source. But it is not our position to claim insertion is justified because "The vast majority of the time, the credits listed on a person's IMDb page are accurate" – that determination is made elsewhere on WP based on more objective criteria. The templates are used to resist or circumvent WP:ELNO and generate hits for imdb. We either use the site as a reference, if it's considered "reliable", or we don't point to it at all. We already have an epidemic of linkspam here on WP. There's really little justification for this manner of facilitating wholescale link insertion in our film- or entertainment-related articles. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohconfucius: Exactly what I am saying, but with the amount of fanboys attacking this TfD with their "strong keeps" (you know because if they put strong, that makes their opinion some how madder so much more), I do not think this discussion is going to go anywhere. Even though IMDb meets almost every point of WP:ELNO, and it is an extreme WP:BLP violation, looks like the fanboys are going to prevail. STATic message me! 03:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider "fanboys" an immature and hypocritical term to use by the nominator of this TfD and best avoided given that you consider this template "unprofessional" – I equally consider such terms unprofessional and contrary to WP:AGF. Ignoring your cherry-picked replies to only a a few of the weaker "keeps", I think it's only fair to say that whether your TfD succeeds or not, you don't win medals or popularity awards for such bold nominations, and should "fanboys" prevail, it's a community consensus, not a cultist uprising against you personally. Also not sure how you dare criticise everyone for using "strong keep" whilst ignoring the "Strong Strong Strong Strong Delete" you replied to here. Such remarks only detract from the TfD spirit rather than add to it. You might want to consider taking a less aggressive response towards deletion requests in future and just letting the !votes flow without commenting obsessively, as such an attitude tends to promote more interest and work against you. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I do not live on Wikipedia, and did not have time to reply to your unnecessary "strong keep" and uncalled for WP:SNOW. Also, he origionally put "delete", but because everyone is following the herd, and putting "strong keep", he changed it as a point. STATic message me! 05:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncalled for? At the time of my !vote there were 13 keeps to 1 delete and even that was more of an off-topic rant about enforcing registration than IMDB links. At is stands now, there are 26 keeps and 2 deletes. I realise !votes also require a good argument, but I don't see the closer of this TfD going with those 2, personally. I also note that your talk page includes numerous rebukes for your "fanboys" remark. You might try applying some modest accountability for your comments instead of the stubborn defensive attitude you seem to have taken instead, in light of the objections to this TfD and your passive aggressive remarks against the "keeps". You can't win 'em all. I also very much doubt that you had a reasonable counter-argument to contradict my !vote anyway. You do realise "strong" has been used in !votes across Wiki for years, don't you..? Nothing new there, so your manner of taking them personally somewhat relates more to WP:IJDLI or WP:DIVA: "Consensus is flawed". Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:ELYES #3. On top of this, WP:RS/IMDB mentioned by the nominator is talking about references, not external links. That relevant policy is WP:BLPEL and I don't think the IMDB links are excluded by it under a reasonable interpretation. Even if they are, I think that section needs to be weakened to accommodate them because, as mentioned above, we have a Throw out the baby with the bath water situation. I think WP:COMMONSENSE really needs to remain at the forefront. This proposal has serious negative consequences that would far exceed the "less-is-more"-benefit being suggested. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the nom is confused as to the purpose of external links, which is where this template should reside - and the nom is getting a little too BLP-sensitive. Content found at external links does not have to comply with BLP - you might have had a point if the whole purpose of IMDB was to show nude photos of celebs or rip them to shreds perez hilton style, but that's not the goal of IMDB and it is extensively used within and by people in the industry (see IMDB pro here: [1]) If someone cites a rumor from IMDB in a BLP, kill it with fire - but deleting this template will not prevent that! Again, I see no BLP violation with linking to such a site - it's one of the top 50 websites in the world and often the first google hit. Also, fwiw, go easy on the "fan-boys" stuff - I'm not a fan-boy of anything, I just think this nom is a pretty bad one and wasn't properly thought through.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ELNO, IMDb fails nearly every point of it. Last time I checked, you had yet to comment on this, so that comment was not directed towards you in any way, no reason to take it personal bro. But I plan to take this to WP:EL, which I am pretty sure their are more professional editors that understand the importance of WP:BLP, and the lack of point in linking to user-generated sites.STATic message me! 03:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I notified WP:EL board of this discussion, so no need to take this discussion anywhere else. Let it conclude here, and that will establish the current consensus. However, I would point you to the WP:EL perennial websites board, as it turns out, IMDB has already been discussed there, again and again and again, and no-one has put it on the list of links that should never be permitted (instead, it's argued it should not be used as a RS.)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The goals of IMDB are irrelevant as to whether their site warrants inclusion. Same could be said of the goals of Wikipedia, which isn't "reliable" by our rules, but is still widely referred to, read, copied as if was the most reliable source currently available. Having seen copious links to IMDB, I had begun even to think perhaps it was reliable after all, because our extensive pointing to IMDB strongly implies endorsement of same. Only now do I know this site fails our policies of WP:RS etc. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we link to all sorts of non-RS in the external links section. For example, www.ibm.com is not a reliable source w.r.t the quality of their products or how the wider world views IBM products, but we have no fear in such a link. Also, personal websites of entertainer X are not realiable for the many claims about entertainer X, and yet, we link away.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL makes specific provision for official sites. and I have referred to them in my previous comments. But contrary to what some may want, the EL section isn't meant to be the repository for linkspam either. Having one individual official link does not imply endorsement, transclusion in 88662 articles makes this a mighty big elephant in the room. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's link spam, I think it's a useful link for the reader to one of the most comprehensive sites on the internet with information about actors. Yes, it's not all correct/accurate, but neither is wikipedia. In any case, if we delete this template, users can just link to it directly, and then we'd have trouble even monitoring how many and which sites are linking to imdb...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BTW since we are all unpaid volunteers there are no professional editors here. MarnetteD | Talk 03:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd be surprised that we do the work for commercial spammers, then. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{IMDb name}}, since deletion would impact ALL biographical articles. Oppose interpretations of BLP that prohibit external links to IMDb. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 04:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Per User:Hiplibrarianship above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Per Zero Mercury above. There doesn't actually seem to be a lot of harm being done here.Bjones (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that this template is currently used as an external link in featured articles (see Angelina Jolie for example). Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we don't want user generated content, then we shouldn't link to other Wikipedia articles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: imdb has a long history of being the 'go to source' for its primary content, the credits from television and movies, and database of the people listed in them. no other site covers that subject with the depth and completeness of imdb. its 22 year history is nearly twice as long as wikipedia's own. i've been using it so long, i still, to this day, use "us.imdb.com" to access it. its bios may not always be perfect, but bios are only secondary content on imdb not even present for many persons listed. imdb has already been covered by instructions, guidelines and policy on wikipedia. its use on wikipedia has long been sorted out. problem with a bio on imdb? go there and fix it, or remove specific footnote cites here that reference it, but do not remove imdb from external links. if an article's topic has an imdb page, there should be an external link to it from wikipedia. it is that valuable of a web site and source. vmz (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per all the above: seriously, should this one run seven days? There is already a clear and well explained consensus to keep the IMDb name template, speedy close. Cavarrone 06:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against any snow-close until new reasons or new nuances to existing reasons to delete peter out. Given that we may someday have an RFC on the issue of IMDb in biographies, it's important to not shut this conversation down until those who have something to say have had a chance to say it or it runs the usual time for such discussions. Now, if there had been only 1 editor saying "delete" or the reasons for "delete" were pretty much identical, with not even minor differences, then I might be more sympathetic to a snow-close. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMDB is used as a jumping off point for the reader to find out more info about the subject and the place in the external links isn't being used as a primary source. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deletion rationale is "possible BLP violation". Deletion would remove the template from BDPs as well. Solution? Make an RFC asking for opinions whether or not IMDB should be linked from BLPs. The template itself is not inherently a BLP violation, and has done nothing wrong. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is ridiculous to consider removing the template for probably the most used external link in the actor/filmmaker's bio articles. --TheBearPaw (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. With all due respect to davidwr, at this point, shouldn't WP:SNOW be invoked? Keep per all the above, but especially Crisco 1492's rationale that the template is not only used for living people but also for dead ones. Biographies of dead people, by definition, cannot violate BLP policy. The template isn't in and of itself a problem. Usage issues should be dealt with individually or in policy statements, not by dropping bombs on popular and thoroughly embedded templates. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 11:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (imdb name). WP:EL comments on IMDB links almost directly: "What can normally be linked: ... 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." (Emphasis added). One might also note WP:EL "Links to be considered: ... 4. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

The credit lists at IMDB may be user-provided (or in some cases production-provided), but as a rule they do indeed tend to be accurate and neutral, drawn directly from on-screen information. It's a high visibility and professionally-important site, where there is an incentive for errors to get corrected. The detailed cross-referenced listings of productions are highly relevant for readers interested in actors and what work they have done and who they have worked with, and are detailed and systematised to a level that goes far beyond what we would aim to provide here. I do not believe there is any significant widespread evidence of BLP problems with this site. This nomination therefore seems to me to be misplaced, a result of somebody with too much time on their hands taking too rigid and mechanistic an approach to WP rules and rule-making, rather than a broader-based assessment of encyclopedic value, utility to our readers, and actual evidence of BLP risk. Jheald (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and don't waste our time with this. Cleduc (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Do people actually think before they nominate stuff for anything "willy-nilly"? ...--Stemoc (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy Keep per Carpenter aka, Nightscream and others. As Jheald put it: "This nomination therefore seems to me to be misplaced, a result of somebody with too much time on their hands taking too rigid and mechanistic an approach to WP rules and rule-making, rather than a broader-based assessment of encyclopedic value, utility to our readers, and actual evidence of BLP risk." — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned by Crisco 1492 "The template itself is not inherently a BLP violation". And while I do have problems with the trivia section of the IMDB, the Film & TV production credits section is arguably the best and most reliable source on the Internet for that information. If the template was being used to directly import information from IMDB into WP that would be one thing, but given that the template is simply an efficient way of standardizing this particular (widely used) External Link I don't see this is as a problem or a violation. Template:IMDb bio can be deleted. Userfriendly (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's rationale for deletion is flawed in that it implies that IMDB is uniquely unreliable, whereas the case is that all external sites will be subject to some degree of factual error. McPhail (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is my understanding that implementation of IMDb Pro has led to the tightening editorial controls considerably and that IMDb, according to WP:RS/IMDB, is simply a Questionable resource. From the list of the top three General resources (reliable) a site-search for "IMDb" yields the following:
Variety.com = About 1,580 results (0.29 seconds)
HollywoodReporter.con = About 1,570 results (0.19 seconds)
Entertainment Weekly = About 2,440 results (0.18 seconds)

So if the reliable sources are using, or reporting on IMDb, I see no reason to delete a template that belongs in the External links section. (I've found that IMDb has useful legacy information for obscure film awards and nominations, that many film festivals don't bother to maintain, but I don't dare use them, even as a hard-data reference.)009o9 (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being an actual IMDb Contributor, i can honestly say that IMDb has improved a lot over the last 18 months and is now very much a reliable source than say 2 years ago..all updates now go through paid staff members who doublecheck before each "submission" is approved...and yes IMDbPro is a much more reliable form of submitting and resourcing data....--Stemoc (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The external link is useful for the very reason that we can't use imdb as a sourcr. It allows readers of cinema articles to browse full filmographies and access tings on imdb which we don't offer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: IMDb is not without flaws, but is the most reliable source on the web for film and TV production credits. Everyone But You (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The bottom of every wikipedia page for a TV or film actor is being made to look weird, because of an obviusly spurious TfD nomination. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would personally like to thank all of you for your overwhelmingly civil responses [sarcasm]. All the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions are ridiculous, and many of you failed to realize this was a discussion not a deletion nomination. I would like to again laugh at everyone that followed the herd, with their "strong keeps", putting strong in front of it does not make your vote count any more in the slightest, and it is borderline unprofessional. I assumed that I would get a more positive, and good faith response from this nomination, but I see the majority is not civil enough to discuss, and there is a clear WP:ILIKEIT bias with the majority of commentators. Most of you act as if I nominated the main page for deletion, this backlash over a discussion is uncalled for and I am well over it. And I reiterate, I withdraw this nomination. STATic message me! 16:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally like to thank all of you for your overwhelmingly civil responses [sarcasm]. ... I would like to again laugh at everyone... Nice. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but what do you expect? If you had mud thrown at you for an idea that you thought was helpful, you would not be in the brightest, most happy mood. But for the record I was not talking about you Taylor in the slightest, along with a few others that were actually respectful and willing to discuss. STATic message me! 16:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should have raised a discussion the talkpage of the template in that case. But, of course, you knew that /sarcasm. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - least worst solution to prevent excessively long entries from fans of those concerned S a g a C i t y (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ImDB is not reliable but more than that, it's often wrong, incomplete or misleading. Wikipedia editors ought not be directing wikipedia readers there for any reason. David in DC (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"but more than that, it's often wrong, incomplete or misleading" Unlike Wikipedia... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone saying Wikipedia is "wrong, incomplete or misleading" is not doing their job right. We all have accounts for a reason, to improve it not complain about it.STATic message me! 18:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it is incomplete, so I guess you're not doing your job right. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:46, 6 October 2013 (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.

Template:ODE software

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) 01:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ODE software (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was only used in one place: in Ordinary differential equation. I merged its content to that page, and I don't believe the content is substantial enough for preservation. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template with no use and no obvious potential uses. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, redundant to prose. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2013 (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.

Template:Infobox National Polytechnic Institute school

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) 02:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox National Polytechnic Institute school (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Transcluded on three pages but all fields are blank in all instances (see example). If necessary, Template:Infobox university can be used instead. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2013 (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.

Template:Infobox Moldova wine region

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) 02:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Moldova wine region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Four transclusions, Template:Infobox wine region can be used for any country. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LT90001 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2013 (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.

Template:Infobox Hong Kong new town

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) 01:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hong Kong new town (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replaced with Infobox settlement here. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, redundant. Frietjes (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2013 (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.