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 the old ones (say older than a year), keep the newer ones for now. Any of them can be resurrected upon request if the articles are created. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Included in this nomination are all entries on this list that are subpages of Template:S-line. (hundreds of templates)

These templates are often left behind and not deleted after lines are renamed, or they are created in advance for future lines whose station articles do not exist. I have been going through the list processing all the USA ones, and in every single instance that was true. Also included (but not in the list) are unused redirects, which pose no use since the templates are called through ((s-line)) parameters and not through regular usage. If the outcome is to delete,it should be a soft delete with no penalty for future recreation. Many will be recreated in a few years anyway. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A soft delete may be acceptable, but that's it. I really don't like the idea of deleting templates before they can be used in the articles they were intended for. I created the template for Chesapeake (Amtrak) before I created the article itself, and it was a big struggle to get that article out of my sandbox. Plus, I see a lot of people adding S-Line templates for railroads that used to go to stations, but don't exist anymore, and a lot of them aren't finished yet. I for one would still love to make Green Mountain Railroad S-Line templates and color bars, specifically yellow and green ones. ----DanTD (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would've create the templates after the article was in mainspace. Or only delete those older than a certain age (maybe Jan 1 2010?) so that future plans don't get impacted. And I do not want a hard delete whatsoever, that would be counterproductive. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete all that are older than one year and unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted per WP:G6. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite doi/i:10.1038.2Fnature0139 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Incorrect use of template:cite doi. This particular doi does not exist. Decstop (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no such doi. Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete G6 unambiguously created in error ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted per WP:G6. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite doi/Edward James Salisbury (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Incorrect use of Template:Cite doi. This template is not used anywhere in en.wikipedia Decstop (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no such doi. Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete G6 unambiguously created in error ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. I'm going to subst the usages. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS-Trenner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Import from de: this function (adding a <hr/>) is better done by minimal wikicode than by importing a clunky template used only four times. Circéus (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Keep.

I am treating the discussion here and at #Template:Non-free Otto Perry image below as one combined discussion as requested during the debate. This is a difficult close with no clear-cut killer argument on either side so a full explanation of my reasoning is appropriate here. I accept the argument that all material must comply with the WP:NFCC policy regardless of the source or the source's attitude to publication which is well-founded in policy. However, no argument was advanced against having a template to identify a specific source. Further, no argument was advanced against such a template being combined with a fair-use template. I take no position on the question of whether or not the template is clear enough on the policy position, that is a matter that should be addressed by the editors of the template.

An argument was advanced (and also strongly opposed) that the attitude of the copyright holder should be taken into account and that the template is a means of drawing attention to such attitudes. I find that there is at least a prima facie basis for this in policy in that the policy rationale, in part, is to "...minimize legal exposure..." Such minimisation would be more effective if a strong position were taken with material from sources known to challenge all reuse of their material and a more tolerant position taken with material from sources known to encourage reuse. Whether or not the community actually wishes to adopt this as a guideline is not clear from the discussion here and the close as keep should not be taken as either endorsing or rejecting that position. A backwater debate of a template is not a suitable venue for resolving such questions and I would recommend that those interested should take the issue to a more public policy forum. SpinningSpark 13:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Denver Public Library image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary non-free template. It does not matter whether or not the Denver Public Library actively encourages fair use of its images for educational purposes, and actually is counterproductive for our purposes, since it subtly encourages misuse of non-free content where we probably shouldn't be. In addition, as this template does not indicate any additional rights beyond our fair use policy, we have to treat the images as garden-variety fair use anyway, so why tag them differently? SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion should be consolidated with Otto Perry below. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the consolidation suggestion. It might be better to update rather than discard both templates -- see the discussion below. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the DPL's opinion is a pointless distinction to make in a fair use template. — Bility (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this template may be irrelevant to you, but who funds the library? Anyway, this template serves purpose to be part of the library's collective works of others. While it does not extend to third-parties, this template is well-written and well-intended, in spite of later changes in guidelines since its creation. Files not under guidelines of fair use should require permission from the Library. Why, in general, deleting images that do not meet fair use and that require permission from copyright holders? Why avoiding permission from anyone? --Gh87 (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, if the permission extended is insufficient, i.e. it's anything short of a free license or public domain release, it doesn't affect how we can use it. We still must treat it as non-free, with all of the stipulations that go with that. Image sources and credits and such do not belong in a license template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm having a hard time figuring out why you would bring up most of those points, Gh87. Who funds the library, how well-written the template is and the intentions of the authors don't have any bearing on whether the template should be kept. "Files not under guidelines of fair use" would need to be compatibly licensed, in which case this template wouldn't be used anyway, so no issue there. We delete images that don't meet fair use criteria and for which we don't have permission because it's illegal to use them otherwise, but this a fair use template and doesn't have anything to do with those types of files. Replacing this template doesn't "avoid… permission from anyone", it simply states the fair use rationale without unneeded embellishments. For clarity, let's confine the discussion to relevant points about the template. — Bility (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This seems to me to be a valuable template and I fully support the arguments for keeping it set forth both above and below (in the "Otto perry" discussion) by Mackensen, a very senior admin with considerable experience in this area, as well as that of -Gh87 above as well. The views of the proposer seem to treat '"non free" images so narrowly as to make it impossible to ever use them at all and that just not conform to WP policy. Centpacrr (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Valuable how? SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't make sense to rebut the same arguments twice: this should just be considered a co-nom of the Otto Perry one below and closed the same way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as R3. NAC. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite doi/, doi: 10.1130.2FG31890.1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a mal-formed version of Template:Cite doi/10.1130.2FG31890.1 Decstop (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - converted to redirect --Decstop (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Unirea Urziceni squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The team FC Unirea Urziceni has been dissolved. Eddie Nixon (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, former team, so no current squad. Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No need for this. Can simply be replaced by a #switch statement. WOSlinker (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template is in use by ((Stv-ballot)). That template is used on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names, and is protected. Placement of the Tfd notice broke display of that page very badly. I am reverting by removing the Tfd notice, placing noinclude tags around it still resulted in broken display of STV votes. User notified. Sswonk (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the Tfd notice on ((Array)) & done a version of ((Stv-ballot)) at ((Stv-ballot/sandbox)) which uses #switch statements. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To reviewer: the template can be safely deleted as unneeded, as long as WOSlinker's sandbox version using #switch is then immediately moved to replace the protected ((Stv-ballot)) and avoid another breakage. Sswonk (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after replacing with a "#switch" statement. Frietjes (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. See #Template:Non-free Denver Public Library image above. SpinningSpark 13:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Otto Perry image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary non-free template. It does not matter whether or not the Denver Public Library actively encourages fair use of its images for educational purposes, and actually is counterproductive for our purposes, since it subtly encourages misuse of non-free content where we probably shouldn't be. In addition, as this template does not indicate any additional rights beyond our fair use policy, we have to treat the images as garden-variety fair use anyway, so why tag them differently? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The images all belong to the same collection, so linking them as such is not unhelpful. For all that,I think the debate last year over the Pioneer Zephyr images suggests that the views of the Denver Public Library are not unimportant. I acknowledge that we disagree on this point. Indeed, if you actually bothered clicking the link in the template you'd discover that the page is now a 404, which suggests that the DPL may have changed its stance. I think we should determine the current licensing policy of the DPL, and its implications for the numerous Otto Perry images hosted here, before we go and delete the one template which easily identifies all of them. Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with you about the importance of the Denver Public Library's opinion on the matter. Bottom line is that no matter what they say, short of a complete release under a free license or into the public domain, anything they say doesn't affect how we can use them based on our own stricter-than-legal-fair-use policies. Thus, who cares whether or not they encourage fair use? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It makes little sense to me to adopt a standard stricter than the one adopted by the rights holder. That's nonsense. There's also language floating around (cf. Category:Otto Perry images) which implies blanket permission for use on Wikipedia. I've contacted Morven (talk · contribs) for clarification on this point. Mackensen (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basically, there is no middle ground between free content and Wikipedia's non-free content policy. It is irrelevant for purposes of Wikipedia whether (A) a copyright holder encourages fair use (e.g. DPL), (B) whether we have received permission to use the images in Wikipedia unless it's a full-on free license, and (C) if the copyright holder grants usage rights that are insufficiently free for our purposes (e.g. trainweb). In all of those cases, we have to treat the materials as non-free content on Wikipedia and that's the point of this discussion. Rather than arguing an irrelevant point, your time would be better spent writing the Denver Public Library to (A) determine if they actually are the rights holders (it's very possible that they just hold the materials but don't own the rights), and if they do own the rights, then (B) see if they will release the materials under a free license. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment regardless of whether these images are as a group deletable, the category is useful to me in reviewing them, since it's pretty clear that the nominator is likely to ask that some large part of them be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Firstly, per WP:TEMPLATECAT, we shouldn't be categorising these images using a fair use tag. Assuming this is closed as a delete, the template should first be modified simply to output the category and then substituted. Secondly, on the actual matter of licensing SchuminWeb is correct as usual. We have a binary policy on media files: we either host as free content under license, or as non-free content under the fair use provisions of US copyright law. Only in the former case is the specific licensing of the file an issue, as in the latter we are not licensing the files. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as needless. The DPL's stance on fair use of its images is immaterial. Not sure why Mangoe is bringing up deleting the images—if they have this template on them they are claiming fair use, and switching to a general fair use template won't make them any more or less deletable. — Bility (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This seems to me to be a valuable template and I fully support the arguments for keeping it set forth above by Mackensen, a very senior admin with considerable experience in this area. Centpacrr (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that I have 90,000 contributions in six years compared to his 37,000 contributions in eight years, so what's your point? Realize that we don't have "senior admins" for exactly reasons like that. But more to the point, answer this: why are we categorizing such images by their source using a licensing tag? Why don't we just straight categorize them with a category in the normal way and use the standard non-free license tag? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Raw numbers of contributions are absolutely meaningless to me (especially when those "contributions" seem to consist almost exclusively of rampantly removing thousands of useful images and other materials from WP as opposed to building the project by actually contributing new material), but my reference to Mackensen as being a "very senior admin" has to do with the many other positions of high trust beyond being an admin in which he has served the community and the objectivity and quality of judgment that I have observed in him in previous encounters. But as you say "more to the point" I think this template is useful as a means to offer some protection to using the Perry images from your seeming campaign to remove every one of them from WP no matter how valuable, non-substitutable, and/or to the point they are. Centpacrr (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "if it is not public domain or a free license, it does not affect how we are able to use these images based on our policies" do you not understand? SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument by authority. Furthermore, the reason that we "adopt a standard stricter than the one adopted by the rights holder" is because the rights holder could impose a stricter standard tomorrow if they want: we are not using these files under license but rather under fair use. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete. No compelling deletion rationale advanced. SpinningSpark 11:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is dependent on a process that was made obsolete and discontinued via deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 28#Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed. However, unlike ((rtd)) and ((rb)), which are also nominationed for deletion but where substitution is requested, we can probably dispense with this template entirely. As I see it, this template seems to lend de facto immunity from deletion due to its claiming that it is basically irreplaceable, and with non-free content, we want to keep the number of non-free images as low as possible. Thus if a non-free image is around, we can reasonably believe that it does meet all the criteria for non-free content, because otherwise it would be gone. We don't need an extra template saying so. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, as I don't find the deletion rationale to be entirely convincing. This template isn't dependent on an obsolete process; files are still being tagged with ((di-replaceable fair use)), which can still be removed and the file can go to FfD. The difference between "being around" and having this template is that it provides a notice that it has been reviewed for replaceability already so future disputes can perhaps be avoided. Not sure why we need a category for these images, but the template seems to serve its purpose and be somewhat helpful. — Bility (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing on this is, if a file goes to FFD, then it gets a different template with a link to a discussion. Additionally, having dealt with many fair use discussions on here, too many editors use these sorts of things as a "free pass" to violate WP:NFCC in countless ways because an image was kept for whatever reason in a limited case. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether people are misusing the existence of templates in file discussions is a topic for another venue, but I see what you mean about the standard template that links to the FFD discussion. So rk would just be used if di-replaceable fair use was removed without it going to FFD. I think I'd still rather see this template than people taking every controversial image to FFD just to get the notice on the talk page. — Bility (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Subst and delete. SpinningSpark 11:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Templates are dependent on a process that was made obsolete and discontinued via deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 28#Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed. I request that all usages of these templates be substituted and the templates themselves be deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete as G6. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 03:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see why the file talk pages themselves couldn't be deleted, if the only content they contain is an old discussion like this. Though I may be quite wrong, of course. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But they can't be mass-deleted. Anything with any more contributors than the contestor and closing administrator needs a careful review. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that they should be relocated. I think we should move them to a special subsection of FFD. Specifically, I was thinking this:

• The main page for it goes at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Historic, which would contain links to all 500-some discussions
• The discussions themselves would go on a subpage of that, named for the file, e.g. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Historic/File:Whatever.jpg

That's how I envision it. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if there were contributors to the discussion, of course... Otherwise, the deletion log is sufficient, surely. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I came up with: User:SchuminWeb/Replaceable fair use. This would ultimately end up at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use. Basically, it explains the process as it existed prior to the change, explains the process that replaced it, and provides a list of all 556 discussions that occurred under the old process. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some brilliant work there. I say delete this template and implement SchuminWeb's proposal. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As no one has opposed the reorganization portion of my proposal in more than a week's time, I'm going to boldly implement this part of it. For that part, it doesn't matter whether or not the templates exist. It's just good organization. Meanwhile, this discussion has been left hanging open for two weeks now. When will someone come along and close it? SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ...so, as I said, delete. Fairly non-controversial. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• PossiblyDeprecate this templateboth templates, NOT delete. It is totally unfair to delete the archive templates that archive discussions. Look at ((expand)): it has been deprecated since its own TfD and DRV. Whoever is favoring a delete must have not known about possibilities of deprecating this template. --Gh87 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)As for both templates, I don't know why you want them unfairly deleted. The template ((di-replaceable fair use disputed)) was been discussed in User talk:SchuminWeb#Changes to Template:Di-replaceable fair use and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#Changes to Template:Di-replaceable fair use. I question your rationales for this. If both templates will happen to be deleted, then I'm taking this to Wikipedia:Deletion review and/or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Why moving ALL older discussions? This requires more effort than you ever imagine. --Gh87 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if he's going to do it, let him do it. No harm in that. Seeing as this process is obsolete, there's no point in leaving these templates around. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are older discussions irrelevant to you? I have put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of All My Children, the four-year-old discussion, into deletion review because I assume the evolution of consensus and agreements. Luckily, all discussions have been archived and preserved, so they may be put into deletion review anytime if arguments have been flawed. Same should go for all archived discussions by RtD. --Gh87 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you understand what's being discussed here? No discussions are being lost, and in fact you won't even see any difference at all unless you're looking at old revisions. — Bility (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I left them a note about what substitution is. Now they have no excuse for not understanding substitution. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete as obsolete. — Bility (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If both will have been deleted, then these templates will have appeared to be red links, and you will not have seen appearances of discussions being archived any longer. Also, moving ALL discussions into another namespace requires more effort, such as creating (maybe 100 or 1,000) future namespaces into somewhere; ((discussion top)) and ((discussion bottom)) are no substitutes for these, even if they may be suitable. --Gh87 (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is why the editor suggested that they be substituted first. That dumps the template's content into the page directly, and so there's no transclusion anymore. Thus the content is preserved in the page, but the template goes away. Go into the sandbox, and test using ((Retain orphaned)). First add it as ((Retain orphaned)), save, and look at the diff for that edit. Then edit again, change that into ((subst:Retain orphaned)), save, and look at the diff for that second edit. See the difference? That's what substitution does. Otherwise, the movement of the discussions from the File talk namespace to Wikipedia namespace is done. All 500-some pages are moved. That took about two hours to do - definitely not as bad as you and another editor believe it would have been. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Unfortunately, substituting at this moment can result the ((tfd|rtd)) and ((tfd|rb)). Link to prove it:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=458766897&oldid=458765266. However, maybe I can remove them at this moment and then go on, unless there is a policy against this action during active discussion. --Gh87 (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pending for now: Oh, boy! Between 500 and 1,000 discussions... I need assistance. Also, I have struck my comments and voided my vote. You may strike your replies to me anytime. --Gh87 (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a thing would normally go like so: an administrator closes the discussion. If it is closed as "subst and delete", then the TFD tags are removed, the substitution completed (by a bot or AWB or something), and then the templates are deleted. No big deal. The whole process could be done in an hour, tops. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So basically, we remove the tags before we substitute the templates so that the notification is not substed in. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Please close this as "subst and delete". SchuminWeb has completed the migration into project-space of these old file-talk pages. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2011 (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.