< March 12	March 14 >

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted at Gracenotes' request davidh.oz.au 01:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nothing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's, uh, nothing. The creator stated they no long need it and I can't think of a good use for it. Any code that is using this is likely not needed. — MECU≈talk 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems pretty useless – Qxz 04:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ((void)), which it's redundant to (yes, ((void)) and ((ns:0)) (the magic word version) are actually useful, but we don't need more than one template and one magic word to do this.) --ais523 09:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - MECU, there is actually a perfectly good reason to use this sort of template: with a metatemplate for which the base template is either substituted or merely not displayed at all. And I assume that you heard of this template through my post at the WP:VPT, wherein I specifically delineated a use for it. But yeah, delete because it's redundant to ((void)), and less used. Gracenotes^T § 13:27, 14 March 2007 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete author request. Garion96 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox IN State Road (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Never used, routes call ((Infobox road)) directly, so it is unneeded. —  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 22:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete this. I created it. --Holderca1 22:12, 13 March 2007 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Tanner '88 episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Infobox Tanner '88 season episode list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Infobox Tanner '88 season 1 episode list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An episode infobox with a different layout. For a series that only ran for 1 season, I find this layout somewhat over the top. (i can see the usefulness in 16 seasons of the simpsons). It uses 3 templates for something that should be simple. I have replaced it in this case, in a drive to limit the amount of series specific infoboxes. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom. - grubber 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redundant, unused. —dgies^t_c 07:37, 16 March 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, author's request. Garion96 (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SeaQuest episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant with ((Infobox Television episode)) and was only used on 2 pages. replaced with the standard infobox --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - grubber 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless tailored to be series-specific. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I've flagged the template for speedy deletion under ((db-author)) (which was me). If it doesn't qualify for speedy, delete the slow way as redundant and unused. Koweja 16:51, 14 March 2007 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SFU episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Replaced with ((Infobox Television episode)) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and prior TfD entry. - grubber 21:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I stated before. Unless it can be made different based upon this series, there's no need for it. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ((Infobox Television episode)) fork. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:28, 16 March 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In the Heat of the Night episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wholly replaced by ((Infobox Television episode)). No information or color lost — --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant and unused. Jay32183 20:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ditto. - grubber 21:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the third time so far. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 21:21, 13 March 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lincoln criticism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, per TfD deletion criteria 1 and 3; only used at WP:APR, and it has been subst'd there, so this template serves no purpose (and if it ever did, should have been a subpage of WP:APR in the first place). ((Sheen kicking)) which was used in the same way on the same page was already subst'd and TfD'd. — – SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with above, in that it has no use on but one page. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 21:21, 13 March 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was keep per WP:SNOW. This is an early non-admin close. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Workpage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It basically says "this page is not an article". There's little point in that; it should be obvious that any page outside the main namespace is not an article. >Radiant< 14:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Useful on /subpages, like Talk:Article name/Redraft2 or whatever, where article drafts are being worked on. Users can sometimes end up at these pages (e.g. by clicking on links or following a URL someone sent them), and it wouldn't hurt to inform them that they are reading a draft or partial article, not the real thing, especially since some such users may be newbie editors or non-editors unfamiliar with the namespace conventions and thus not realize they are not at an article. If there's another template that serves the same function, I'd go with merge. – SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful on sub and certain talk pages, which could be confusing to some users. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - yes, a page may not be in mainspace, but it may look like an article to someone who doesn't know what a namespace is. Gracenotes^T § 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can be used like ((userpage)) to add to pages that people are placing in userspace and linking to from outside, saying "look, Wikipedia says this!". Can (often is) also be used by good-faith editors who don't want to confuse anyone who might stumble across the page. --ais523 11:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Useful and being used properly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jreferee (talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 March 2007 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC) It's big, obtrusive and incomprehensive, and more importantly everything this template does is already covered better by ((Deletiondebates)) and ((Policylist Deletion)). >Radiant< 08:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright lets continue to keep the deletion system confusing for new users. Delete. -Gareth Aus
• Delete per Radiant and Gareth; if anyone thinks the targeted template has a useful feature that one of the others could use, then merge that bit first. – SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant - if there is anything new in Delnav it can be added to Deletiondebates. Koweja 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant and consumes too much space on the page. --ais523 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Can we Speedy Delete this in view of the crystalline precipitation guidance! ><RichardΩ612 19:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete to stop the TfD notice from disrupting articles where it is transcluded. –Pomte 00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Del/redirect to ((deletiondebates)), which is far more straightforward. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If ((deletiondebates)) needs to include more information, then the solution is to discuss it there. Not to create a new template, and then unilaterally place it on every single XfD page. -Amarkov moo! 04:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to ((deletiondebates)). Any modifications can be made there; no need to have a new template. – Black Falcon 07:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and troutslap the creator. ~ trialsanderrors 19:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. Terence 15:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Amarkov is right. I went ahead and reverted to how things were. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I feel alone so far! This template is for the different policies related to deletion and that other template is for the different deletion discussion pages. Sure, they both have policy on there etc. but one is better for the deletion discussion pages and the other is better for the policy pages. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:41, 17 March 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was a clear keep' 11 people voted keep and several strong keep - per WP:SNOW. The discussion should now be a part of WikiProject Films to decide how the templates should be administered and to find an official written criteria for guidance -and to severely restrict the use of the generic US template. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List and navigation management is being set up precisely to address this issue. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CinemaoftheUS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is no clear definition on when this template should be used. Furthermore, it is so generic that I don't see the point in adding to so many articles on American movies and actors. Another minor point is that film related articles tend be filled up with enough templates as it is, adding generic templates only complicates things. See further discussion on User talk:PS2pcGAMER#American cinema and User_talk:Ernst_Stavro_Blofeld#CinemaoftheUS_Template. — PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with PS2 with both points on the US films as I have stated this. If they have decent templates its use is not that important and may clutter them but it certainly is useful on the world cinema pages most of which have little connection ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 20:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Might as well throw the rest of the Cinema of X templates in here as well (no, I haven't checked them all to see if they are used the same way as CinemaoftheUS and I really hope that I got them all): --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CinemaofIceland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofRussia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofAustralia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofIran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofAlbania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofIndia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofSerbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofSriLanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Cinema of Malaysia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofthePhilippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofIndonesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofEgypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofCuba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofNewZealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofColombia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Cinema of Singapore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofEstonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofCroatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofBulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaoftheCzechRepublic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Cinema of Norway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofPakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofRomania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofHungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofBelgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaoftheNetherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofIsrael (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofTaiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofNigeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Cinema of Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofGreece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofPoland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:CinemaofSweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete I would have preferred some more discussion before this TFD, but I agree with the nominator. Too generic, and no criteria. And yes, there already way too many templates on film (and other) articles, this clutters articles up even more. Garion96 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The comment above was made when only the US template was nominated for deletion. I have no opinion (yet) on the other templates. Garion96 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats a big surprise isn't it. I would sincerely hope the template would attempt to connect a huge industry together and link related articles and categories more conveniently. For American films:

Here is my criteria then:

CRITERIA:In the sole reason and exception of many American films already having genre templates and to avoid too much cluttering in a lot of articles the US template should be strictly limited to the core articles e.g Cinema of the United States, Golden Globes etc and Oscar winning or Oscar nominated articles films and people. However for world cinema articles films and people in the majority which don't have any useful templates or standardization of article linking they should be used at the footer of all pages in relation to the cinema industry involved to attempt to connect articles more efficiently and improve an understanding of the cinema. I would hope it would be an asset in enhancing connection with each article. Is this clear enough? Why dleete something I have spent a lot of time with? I am wasting my time aren't I with this discussion when I could be continuing to improve articles. Two admins ganging up on me. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the criteria given above: The hasty "criteria" given here should be worked out properly within WP Films to come to proper guidelines that should be given as "noinclude" text in each template page. Hoverfish Talk 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from Wikipedia:What adminship is not: "Administrator status does not place you in an elevated status within Wikipedia" Garion96 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't feel that because two people disagree with you, that you are being ganged up on. Any established user is entitled to their own opinion. An admin's opinion carries no more weight than your's. I am sorry you spent so much time on this and now I am nominating it for deletion. I fully understand that you must be incredibly frustrated. However, that doesn't mean that the templates belong. Could you expand on your criteria? As discussed on my talk page, these templates are used in multiple articles that make no mention any nominations for awards (Vin Diesel, Ocean's Twelve, etc). BTW, what is your criteria for an award? An Oscar? Or does a nomination from one of the many film festivals count? What is the limit of templates for when this template shouldn't be included? Your criteria is rather broad and general, which is my precise problem with this template.--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The templates serve a useful purpose in navigating the related categories and lists in articles about the film industry. I feel this rush towards deletion is too hasty. — WiseKwai 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The templates link to categories and lists. If the article already belongs to some of those categories, then that is needless duplicate content; for the other categories it doesn't belong to, why would someone looking at Babe: Pig in the City want to navigate to Category:Australian cinematographers? I am leaning towards delete because there doesn't seem to be a satisfactory way to connect all these broad groups of articles. It doesn't make sense to link only key figures to lists that contain all notable figures. The creator should have proposed this somewhere (if he didn't) before transcluding these templates widely. –Pomte 00:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There might be some readers who appreciate the connectivity, even if it doesn't make sense to others. There was discussion about these templates at WP:FILM, here, and I believe the consensus was that the templates would be particularly useful for the smaller (and some larger) film industries. Maybe the templates aren't appreciated for Cinema of the United States articles, but folks I've encountered who edit articles about Indian film, Egyptian film and other country industries seem to think they are great. — WiseKwai 07:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for linking to that discussion, and point taken that these are a lot more useful for smaller film industries. WikiProject Films should be able to deal with usage issues. –Pomte 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These templates absolutely must be kept, and not only for the effort that has gone into them. I've been doing a fair bit of work on Australian films and seeing the CinemaofAustralia template I think it's an invaluable inclusion for all related film articles which brings a consistency to the articles, currently there are inconsistent and messy ways of linking to related further reading through "See Also - List of Australian films" and no other way of finding other relevant information. It seems a crime that this could be considered and it does dampen my faith in the whole essence of Wikipedia. It helps collate all film related articles together for editing, verification and expansion. I also don't have a problem with various templates if they are practical and used wisely. Peter 13:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe idea is that if for instance you go into any Australian film article that after reading the article you would immeditately have access to the entirety of Australian cinema and can look though actors, directors, producers, periods of film history created by the lists etc at the touch of a button. It attempts to rid of inconsistencies with links and remove alienation. THe same purpose for the Australian template is for the rest of the cinema industries and articles 80% of which don't have particularly great connection. Having a quicker and easier access to all knowledge -I thought this was one of the essences of wikipedia. If not then my idea of wikipedia is sorely mistaken and should perhaps leave. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To the closing admin, unfortunately User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld has resorted to canvassing with a mass copying and pasting effort. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

[7] [8] --14:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have made people aware of this deletion - otherwise in the hands of one or two rash people you will just delete it all. I have stated what my intentions are and have asked for them to provide their view openly "please leave your opinion" -nothing wrong with this. They are all respectable users and are clearly respectable enough to make their own decisions if they haven't been frightened off!! But then again thats how you guys usually make decisions around here -one or two people say delete and then things are wiped out without any proper discussion or fair consensus ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template adds very little useful information to an article, especially since it is intended to be at the bottom of every actors page apparently. – EnemyOfTheState 14:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No template on wikipedia is intended to provide information in an article!!!! They are there for convenient navigation beteween related articles! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find it very strange that it is criticized that Blofeld tried to warn some of the WP Films members about this deletion. Why should the deletion go on without anybody in the project knowing anything about it? Anyway: Exact implementation of the American cinema template is still under discussion, due to the huge number of films it wouldn't be useful in. However in many foreign cinemas it is very useful and there is an inflow of positive feedback about them. There is an effort to bring up film awards (industrial, festival, critics) and connect them in a useful way to each cinema. I see no problem with linking to categories. Our lists are often AfD'd with the argument that categories could do the job. Well, if they can do the job, then we can use them as links too. If Italian directors don't have a list but are there in the category, then the category is as useful as a list and can be linked. Please, note that in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes it is stated that the 3 methods of navigation are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other. If you think that the way we plan to combine them is not going to be efficient or helpful, you are welcome to suggest a better way. If you think that in some articles an additional footer template would clutter things, we are also very open to suggestions. But nominating all these templates for deletion without even discussing the plus and cons is somewhat inconsiderate of the efforts our project. I don't say that AfD's don't play a role in keeping is on the right path, but project discussions are also an alternative with lots of good results and less waste of time. Hoverfish Talk 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Blofeld would have been neutral in his warnings, they would have been perfectly appropriate. Adding "A nasty user put up all the cinema templates for deletion" is partisan, which isn't appropriate. Thank for taking the time to make a rational argument. I suggest adding the relevant links to the leads of Category:American films and Category:American actors instead. The information from the template would still be accessible, yet we won't have thousand of articles with this template at the bottom. Categories are meant to tie in similar topics and I think it is a better way to do it than these templates. That way this template (which still has no clear definition to when it should be used) wouldn't need to be used, yet its information would still be accessible from even more articles (and it is a lot easier to do). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well how can you possibly say this comment isn't nasty made by PS2pcGAMER

"Might as well throw the rest of the Cinema of X templates in here as well (no, I haven't checked them all to see if they are used the same way as CinemaoftheUS and I really hope that I got them all" "I hope I got them all" . Thats spiteful and I only used the word nasty after reading that clearly undermining comment ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't a malicious comment. It was simply full disclosure. I'm not going to spend hours going through those templates and checking every article to see where they are used. You said yourself that the Argentina template is used in over 500 articles. I can only assume they are used the same way. My comment that I hope I got them all was in reference to the amount of time it took to find the ones I listed, which was considerable. I was simply hoping that none were overlooked. Try to assume at least a little good faith. I've made my case, I think it is appropriate for me to let my arguments stand on their own merits and let the TfD run its course. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I take part in this discussion disregarding any heated arguments for any reason. Please, refrain from taking things personally and make things appear as if there is bad faith behind anyone here. The suggestion to use the navigation within the categories (and I should say lists too, where available) is something to seriously consider. From the start my feeling was that these templates should be used only in key articles, general film articles, some directors' biographies, but not in any film article and not in any film-related biography. Somehow the implementation was hasty. But this does not mean that the templates are useless and should be deleted. If there has been a massive mistake in putting them in many articles, we can take them out of the articles. They can be better implemented and instructions have to be given without hasty moves. So I stay on "keep" with asking the nominator and the supporters of the deletion to help us find the most efficient use for them instead of deleting them. I would also like everyone to know that Blofeld, along with several other editors have been working on these templates within WP Films scope. We are trying to organize things better, not to create a mess. Hoverfish Talk 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I must agree that I find the CinemaofUS template generic and its mass usage sort of redundant, but that is absolutely not the case for the cinema templates of other countries. As Peter suggested, when it comes to cinema-related articles of the foreign, smaller cinema industries, like Egyptian Cinema or Indian Cinema, the templates are a very useful addition to the articles. Most of the articles, for example, of Egyptian actors and films are not well-connected. I believe the template will be of great help to maintain consistency in such articles. I also believe that the template might help draw attention to related articles and make navigation easier for interested readers. Blofeld please calm down, why the big fuss? Please, don't take this personally and let's all assume good faith and consider the messages friendly notices. - Anas ^Talk? 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. However, there should obviously be different times when each one should be used - there should be a discussion about this (perhaps on the talk pages of the templates). The restrictions should then be mentioned on the template pages themselves. For some countries with a smaller film presence on wikipedia, it could be appropriate to place one of these on the page of every film from that country. For other countries, they should only be places on select articles. One more suggestion for improvement: the "v-d-e" thing should be added to each template, as is the case on most other templates. I have no idea what it's called. Esn 23:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In fact, strongly keep. How did this debate get so out of control. First, it was about the Unites States cinema, then other templates were included as well. Poor job of wiki Roberts Roles of Order (if there was such a thing). So what exactly people voting for? As for me, I love the Argentina template. It provides a super purpose in linking films, actors, directors, film festivals, awards, etc. That's one of the strong reasons I started editing Argentine films. I saw the cohesiveness of the section. The template is very important.

I move that the deletion of the Cinema of Argentina template, and deletion of other world cinema templates, be debated somewhere else. As the old addage says, "We are throwing the baby out with the bathwater." But, in general KEEP. Luigibob 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Not only is there the fact that Blofeld put an enormous amount of effort into creating these templates but I have also noticed that he contributes a huge amount of his energy to film-oriented articles/projects in general. I personally find the templates extremely useful in providing an overview of country-specific film industries and I concur with Anas Saloum in that regard. For the record, I happen to be connected with WP:INCINE and I was so impressed with Blofeld's India-template that I awarded him a barnstar for it, and I don't give out barnstars lightly. I genuinely think that these templates are extremely useful for addition to some articles. I understand that these templates are relatively new and proper discussion about their deployment hasn't taken place yet but there is no need to nominate them for deletion in the meantime. So I disagree with the nomination and vote to keep the templates; they are immensely useful. Ekantik ^talk 01:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Don't you think that deleting all of the templates is too much. Most of them are certainly useful. However, yes there should be definite criteria stating where they should be used. This can be done by members of the films projects. --Meno25 08:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful navigation aid. With above mentioned criteria conditions. Bubba hotep 10:46, 16 March 2007 (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.