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) 23:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Tonio Ranks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete or userfy. All entries are either unlinked, or point to articles in the "Draft:" space. Delete if the topic is deemed non-notable, otherwise userfy pending creation of the articles. NSH002 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 (NAC, SNOW). There is overwhelming consensus against the proposition. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox television film (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox television film with Template:Infobox film.
Largely overlapping. A comparison of parameters is available. This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose merge If the infoboxes were merged then further alterations would require consultation with two Wikiprojects (WP:FILM and WP:TELVISION). While there is a substantial overlap there are notable differences that reflect the different project outlooks. Notably, WP:FILM continually reject the addition of a genre parameter since it is a subjective perspective rather than a concrete fact; also, the preceded by and followed by parameters were deactivated at ((Infobox film)) a couple of years ago and the film articles rely completely on templates and navboxes for sequel navigation. Since the templates serve different projects with a different set of editors with primarily different aims I think the distinction should be retained. Betty Logan (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Differences of opinions between two projects should not prevent two similar templates from being merged (equally, we should not fork a template, just because one arbitrary group of editors wants to do things differently to another arbitray group of editors). While we should use the same technique for navigation between sequels regardless of the project which has an interest in the subject, the merger would not prevent the status quo systems from being used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Along with the items that BL mentions the "Original channel" - "original run" and "number of episodes" are useful for TV shows, they are not needed in the film infobox. MarnetteD|Talk 19:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why would TV show articles not use ((Infobox television))? Alakzi (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Perhaps we should merge ((Infobox television film)) into ((Infobox television))? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, I think that's a lot more likely to happen, and even easier to do. Alakzi (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Further to Alakzi's good point; that they are not needed in some articles is not a reason not to merge templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Further still, a merge of this infobox with the television infobox would be trivial; the three parameters which are missing from the latter are |budget=, |screenplay= and |story=. If the two factions don't want to work together, they can at least keep to one infobox each. Alakzi (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • If that's the only additional difference, we should probably merge all three. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Considering that the scope of the projects are fairly distinct fom each other (the only overlap being TV films) I don't see why it is necessary to merge similar infoboxes. They are tailored to the specific subset of articles they are used on, where editors have developed different views on what information should be included/excluded etc. Both areas have active projects that rarely have any need to work together. This is a classic case of trying to fix something that isn't broken. By merging these infoboxes it will mean that the Film project will have to consult the television project to make alterations to the representation of data on articles that the television project has no declared interest in and vice versa. If these articles did not require a different set of considerations from each other then we wouldn't have two separate projects serving these areas. Why reduce the autonomy of these two projects when it is not necessary? Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • These infoboxes do not "belong" to projects. The FAQ I linked to, above explains what is being "fixed". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • First of all I do not not consider the two infoboxes redundant, and second of all that FAQ is just an essay by you that reflects your rationale. It does not reflect any particular community perspective. You also have not addressed the fact that WP:Television does not have a declared interest in film articles and WP:FILM does not have a declared interest in television articles, and that merging the infoboxes will effectively oblige two largely independent sets of editors to collectively consider a large group of articles neither have a declared interest in. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Saying that it would require editors to consider the larger wikipedia seems a rather counter-intuitive counter-argument. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • Your comment is something of a non sequiter. Templates exist to tailor regular content to groups of articles; films and television articles are two distinct groups that are not generally considered collectively. The technical treatment of these articles should reflect the actual reality of editing them. Betty Logan (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • That's why I called it a "FAQ", not a policy. I believe I have addressed precisely the former points you accuse me of not having addressed. Jason has adequately addressed your latter point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose; I agree with Andy Mabbett that ((Infobox television film)) would better be merged into ((Infobox television)). Also, though irrelevant, if his username (Pigsonthewing) is a reference to the Pink Floyd song of the same name, then I like his taste in music. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 21:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Andy: Can we get an early close and a renomination for merging with ((Infobox television))? Alakzi (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Let's see whether good sense prevails here, first. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Sigh Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose merge I don't agree with the merge idea and it's best to keep film and television infoboxes separate due to different information and alterations of the films and shows represent. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I linked above to a comparison of parameters, whch shows that they - and thus their information - are mostly the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Newsflash, pal. Not everything in those two infoboxes are the same and there's a reason why they should be kept separate. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I don't have an opinion yet, so it might be helpful if you explained the difference and reasons (preferably more civilly). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @BattleshipMan: That reason would be..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Because films and TV don't have anything common in detail. Films are one movie and TV shows are a number of episodes. TV shows have showrunners, films don't. Those are among a few reasons why those templates should be separate. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • ((Infobox television film)) is not a template "for a number of episodes"; it is (chiefly) for TV films, which we define at Television film as single items. Series are adequately dealt with by ((Television)). Nor does ((Infobox television film)) have a |showrunner= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I got news for you. Your idea of merging these templates are met with oppression from others as you may have notice. Television films isn't the same as feature films. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose merge - Don't fix it if it ain't broke. BMK (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I addressed the "ain't broke" shibboleth, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose merge - Film and TV are not the same. Bluerules (talk)
  • Non sequitur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose merge - Film and TV are not the same. Magazines are not books. ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Non sequitur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Film and Television are two different things --Mjs1991 (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Non sequitur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. I'm all for template consolidation, but ((Infobox film)) and ((Infobox television)) appear to be sufficiently distinct in their usage, and ((Infobox television film)) seems to be a better merge candidate with the latter. PC78 (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They are not significantly distinct in their properties. . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If you're talking about ((Infobox film)) and ((Infobox television)) then I disagree, but that should be a discussion for another day. PC78 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Not the same thing. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Non sequitur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose merge. Yes, they serve similar purposes (as do ALL infoboxes), but they are different and impart different information to our readers. Apples and oranges are both fruits, but thy are different fruits. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Non sequitur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No, it's not. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You might also like to note that, while apples and oranges are indeed different fruits, both Apple and Orange (fruit) use the same infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose merge with iFilm, but Support merge with iTelevision. — A WPTV contributor, Wyliepedia 05:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If it has to be merged I'd say it would be better to merge with infobox television.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Pigsonthewing: If you relist this as a proposal to merge with infobox television rather than film I'll support.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • No, not the other way as well. Film and television are two different things. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is not a vote. Your WikiProject affilaition is irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • My point was, as a TV editor, that I've seen other "TV films" vary with either infobox. And what was that about a "vote"? — Wyliepedia 23:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • WP:NOTVOTE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Don't cross the streams. MB1972 (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Non sequitur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strongly oppose merge Feel pitty for the one who started this senseless discussion as television film and a feature film are two different things and have different credits ofcourse. You want to merge a sea into river and that's impossible! UBStalk 21:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rivers merge into seas all the time. feature films and television films are not different things, no matter how you and other project-members would like to pretend so; they're just different parts of the same spectrum. Modern technology (Netflix, at al) is blurring the distinction even more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Egzistence of multiple Wikiprojects is irrelevant to merge (or templates in general). I believe, this is also a good opportunity to review "status quo" matters (should be done regularly). Optional parameters are natural (increased number of unused fields after merge is not a valid argument - I wildly guess that it is possible to prove that ~20% average utilation of fields is opptimal. User:Betty Logan is not familiar with the purpose of templates - their arguments can be safely ignored. Most other posts by editors from affected projects do not even contain arguments. Might be difficult to reach meaningful consensus in this atmosphere, but I recommend seeking administrative/authority support (replying to void statements is not productive) and holding onto the project.
  If Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) is willing to put effort required for merge (including supporting systematic update of film article infoboxes, which might be negatively affected by changes), I would strongly support 'film' + 'TV-film' merge. On the other hand, idea of merging 'TV-series' with 'TV-film' does not seem correct. Ideally, all three (or more) current infoboxes should be redeveloped into two separate templates ('film' & 'series'), optionally, morphing the new infoboxes towards commonality with other relevant templates [art-work (song, ...), product (software, ...), publication (magazine, ...)].
  There could be further discussion on categorization (possibly having auxiliary boxes, besides 'film' & 'series') and inheritance (ultimately 'film', 'series' and other video art infoboxes should have a common parent template). However, opposition on the basis of "status quo" or metaphors is invalid. Fakedeeps (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have designed and coded quite a few templates, so I am more than familiar with their purpose. In fact I believe it gives me an insight editors such as yourself lack, since I have come to firmly understand that Wikipedia's technical underpinnings are subservient to editing practices, and not the other way around. Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This is more an issue of categorization, than technical underpinnings, which, indeed, should serve here, again. Fakedeeps (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not one article would need to be updated as a result of the proposed merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose merge. TV show templates, tv film templates, and feature film templates are all different. Furthermore, feature film templates can be expanded with parameters that do not (yet) apply to tv show/tv film infobox templates. -Mardus (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose merge. Some editors feel there are too many different infoboxes and believe there is some kind of virtue in cutting down the number. However, I don't think the regular users of Wikipedia (i.e. the non editors) are in any way disturbed by the fact that there is one infobox for feature films, another for TV films, and a third for TV series, quite the opposite. Different infoboxes for different things help editors to understand what information is most relevant for each category, and thus help readers find the most useful info. Too many fields intended for different things within a template only serves to create confusion, and increases the risk that editors, especially the greenhorns, miss adding good information even if it's available for them. Let's keep all three and improve them, instead of merging for its own sake. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm in a complete agreement on what Thomas Blomberg said. There's no way we are merging those infoboxes together and what Pigsonthewing is trying to do is unnecessary. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You're apparenlty unaware that infoboxes may have optional fields which are only used as required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose this merge but Support merging Template:Infobox television film with Template:Infobox television. By all means delete or merge infoboxes that are redundant or not used, but television films and cinema films have huge differences and budgets, so they can be expected to suit different purposes and requirements. For example, Template:Infobox film has a "gross" field, as expected, but Template:Infobox television film does not, as also expected. Conversely, Infobox television film includes airing dates, a common and useful metric, while Infobox film obviously does not. How would you merge all that? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the same way that we have already merged hundreds of largely-overlapping infoboxes with some optional fields that ware not used in all articles. Why this is an issue in this case, but not all those precedents is not made clear by any of the above comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose First, I want to make clear that I am not opposed to anything that may be new and better, but I am not sure we are gaining anything by it, if not actually making things worse. The problem as I see it with merging the infoboxes templte is that it possibly would hurt usability for future editors as they may find terms confusing or that they do not understand what they are editing. If the two were merged, you would have a larger infobox template. Now, if doing this would somehow make the given article more readable for the end user, I would be for it. Or if it made things easier editing, then I would be for it. But I actually think that down the line it just creates more confusion. Besides the inherent distinction that a "made for TV" movie is clearly different from a theatrical release. Even if that was not the case at some point in the future, you still have a vast catalog of films that are made for TV that have yet to get an entry on Wikipedia. So I actually think it has the potential to hinder in more than one area here. Nodekeeper (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As I said above, this FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Perhaps you missed that. It addresses the points you raise. As for "the inherent distinction that a 'made for TV' movie is clearly different from a theatrical release"; that is bunkum. Some films are made of theatrical release; that is then cancelled; they are subsequently used as "TV" movies. Your premise also ignores straight-to-video/DVD releases, and on-line only releases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Pigsonthewing: Actually, I'm in an agreement Nodekeeper. This merge might make things worse of film infoboxes, not better and what your trying to justifying has no bearing on this propose merge. You better accept that this merge is with met with a rather opposition. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - The TV and film projects collaborate when necessary but, while there are similarities between the infoboxes, the parameter use and requirements are different because of some subtle differences between film and television. Some of these have arisen in recent times making me think that it would be a bad thing to make both projects use the same template. The genre parameter has already been mentioned. Another is that of runtimes. A single template would result in no end of conflicts when determining instructions for some of the parameters. Even if we had two sets of instructions, we'd have some issues with adding or removing parameters as, despite instructions, the presence of parameters makes them available to both projects. I do think that a merge of ((Infobox television film)) and ((Infobox television)) is worth considering and that would seem the more logical choice. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it happens, a merge with ((Infobox television)) is very simple. I've already added the appropriate code to that template's sandbox.[1] This provides far better consistency across the TV project. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support an ((Infobox television)) merge, but I think it'd be better to have a fresh nom. Alakzi (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose this merging; Support merging ((Infobox television film)) with ((Infobox television)). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Favre1fan93: Then let's make a fresh proposal about merging ((Infobox television film)) with ((Infobox television)). BattleshipMan (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 do not merge. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Fighting game character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox video game character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Fighting game character with Template:Infobox video game character.
FGC is used as a module in 146 (about one quarter of) instances of VGC. The two should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I would disagree with merging these. The reason these (er) "modules" exist is to avoid fiction-creep in the main template and subsequent uses of the template.

  That said, I think a wider discussion on the overlap between template:infobox video game character and template:infobox character is probably warranted, especially with a discussion about how lax Template:infobox character is regarding fictional vs nonfictional content. --Izno (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• What Izno said. --185.34.28.184 (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• don't merge per Izno. Frietjes (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone pls close it already/ --185.34.28.184 (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose merge I agree that it is appropriate to have a separate infobox. 146 instances is a large number, and the content of this box seems reasonably customized. Mamyles (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox Highlander character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox character)). (20 transclusions.) This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• keep or merge - no explanation why it should be deleted except that its redudant, which it is not. The replacement are missing a lot of parameters. Number of transclusions doenst matter Christian75 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep Infobox character does nor cover teachers/mentors or historic period of origin. Which are essential to Highlander characters. Dimadick (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  We are writing a real-world encyclopedia. Are teachers, mentors, or historic period of origin in accordance with our guidelines on writing about fiction? --Izno (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment There's a big problem with a lot of these parameters, and that's that they seem to be from a heavily in-universe perspective. We do not generally have fields for birthdate, and "Immortality" falls under similar problems. So we need to decide, is this Trivia -- in which case they should be removed, and the infobox is needless -- or we say this is an exception, that given they're immortals this is important in immediately understanding their character. If the latter, I'd argue a certain restructuring is in order, put them under a "Fictional" header, perhaps, but the template's worth keeping. Honestly, I lean towards the former, though I admit I'm not the most knowledgeable about Highlander. Just knowing they're "Immortals" is probably enough here, mortal characters aside. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep, not all the parameters are duplicated in ((Infobox character)), and this isn't a merger discussion. could also see rewriting it as a frontend for ((Infobox character)), but that can be discussed on the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Looking at the transclusions where this is used, the customized fields aren't even used half of the time. This information (immortality date, teacher) should be in the content anyway. I also share The Millionth One's concern that these parameters may encourage writing from an in-universe prospective. Mamyles (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom and Mamyles; low transclusion count, mostly redundant, no need for specialist character infoboxes for each fictional universe. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom and Mamyles. Alakzi (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep – It's not redundant to any other template and addresses very specific needs. For instance, sourced details in the articles show writers employed the oldest immortals as moral or authority figures to shape other characters' development. The slippery slope suggestions that it compels or discourages editors from building real-world article content in favour of in-universe are patently untrue. Of course details should also be in the article, just as leads summarise the main body. Indeed, the template is an aid to making Highlander articles better conform to WAF guidelines; there's scope for even more real-world oriented parameters like in similar usages, but XfD is never cleanup. No policy grounded rationale was given for deletion/merge--the supposed "FAQ" is an essay written & exclusively edited by the nom. --146.199.151.33 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox pulps character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox character)). Some parameters are crufty and perhaps best discarded. (Only 10 transclusions.) This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep or merge - no explanation why it should be deleted except that its redudant, which it is not. The replacement are missing a lot of parameters. Number of transclusions doenst matter Christian75 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep, not all the parameters are duplicated in ((Infobox character)), and this isn't a merger discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep I can't see infobox character replacing this, it is missing quite a few important parameters. It may be appropriate to open a new discussion proposing merging this with ((Infobox comics character)). Mamyles (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Mamyles: As noted in the rationale, "Some parameters are crufty and perhaps best discarded". Which important parameters do you feel would not be provided by ((Infobox character))? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox Power Rangers character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox character)). (Has just 28 transclusions.) This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - Uses custom parameters (such as Color and Zords) that are essential information for Power Rangers characters. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 16:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Andros 1337: ((Infobox character)) has six customisable parameter/label pairs. Why are they not adequate for that purpose, for just 28 articles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Perhaps that would work. However, one thing that might be a potential source of problems is the colored header on the standard character template. Some Power Rangers characters have been more than one color, and this could be a potential source of edit warring on what color to use for the header. Do we go by the color they were most famous in, the color they served the longest in, or the color they most recently appeared in? We eliminated them from this template for this very reason, replacing it with a "Color" parameter that you simply add colored boxes to show the full history of all colors they have appeared in. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 00:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • There is no need to show colours at all, but if you wish to do it the same customisable parameters will suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep per Andros 1137, and there is no polycy which states that the number of transclutions play any role. We have templates which are transclude by one article only, e.g. template:Hydrogen... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian75 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 April 2015‎
  • Straw man, since no such policy has been claimed. Furthermore, you advance no argument as to why a separate template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as redundant, or modularise, as having five extra fields is not exactly ideal. Regardless, I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate the conversion. Alakzi (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep, not all the parameters are duplicated in ((Infobox character)), and this isn't a merger discussion. the demonstrated conversion uses far too any of the generic lbl/data parameters. could also see rewriting it as a frontend for ((Infobox character)), but that can be discussed on the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I'm not convinced that the use of a customized infobox is required here. Only a single field, color, is one that is especially relevant to an out-of-universe prospective. That could readily be accomplished with customized fields, as mentioned above. Mamyles (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete low transclusion count and mostly redundant with the standard infobox. No need for each fictional universe to have a custom infobox -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox Dune character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox character)). (Has only 30 transclusions.) This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• keep or merge - no explanation why it should be deleted except that its redudant, which it is not. The replacement are missing a lot of parameters. Christian75 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Christian75: The nominator clearly nominated the template for merging. Regards "missing" parameters, that may be because Template:Infobox character better provides the information needed to write about the character in accordance with our guideline on writing about fiction. In other words, Template:Dune character (and the other templates nominated for today) does a bad job differentiating between fictional and nonfictional content, and which content is actually important to the encyclopedia (hint: it's not the fictional content). --Izno (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom; no useful parameters missing from ((Infobox character)). image2 and image3 can be placed outside the infobox, the way it's usually done. Alakzi (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge. This template is a holdover from the days when many individual shows and franchises had their own specific infoboxes, which has been proven redundant and unnecessary. In this particular case, all the content can be accommodated by ((Infobox character)) with some tweaks. Assuming this TfD is successful, I will make these changes to all of the articles that use this template.— TAnthony^Talk 16:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep, not all the parameters are duplicated in ((Infobox character)), and this isn't a merger discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some specific parameters are exclusive to this template, but the data itself can be preserved in other parameters in ((Infobox character)), which is why customizable parameters were created in that template in the first place. See Princess Irulan for how this would be accomplished. And merging is an acceptable (and common) outcome for a deletion discussion.— TAnthony^Talk 00:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course by merge I essentially mean convert the articles to use the main template and redirect it. Other templates up for deletion here may have more reason to stay separate but this one does not.— TAnthony^Talk 00:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Frankly, every single field here is present on ((Infobox character)). Literally all parameters are duplicated. Mamyles (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete low transclusion count and redundant to standard infobox. No need for each fictional universe to have their own infobox -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox James Bond character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox character)). (Has only 35 transclusions.) This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep or merge - no explanation why it should be deleted except that its redudant, which it is not. The replacement are missing a lot of parameters. Number of transclusions doenst matter Christian75 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep, not all the parameters are duplicated in ((Infobox character)), and this isn't a merger discussion. could also see rewriting it as a frontend for ((Infobox character)), but that can be discussed on the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Every parameter here is present in ((Infobox character)). Both keep !votes above do not seem to have looked at the templates. Mamyles (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete low transclusion count and mostly redundant. No need for each fictional universe to have their own infobox -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - As the parameters are specific to the Bond franchise and no other info box can provide this.  — Calvin999 12:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only parameter that's not on Infobox character is "Henchmen," which could easily be included as one of the customized parameters. Mamyles (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox Jane Austen character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox character)). Some parameters are crufty and perhaps best discarded. (Has just 19 transclusions.) This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep or merge - no explanation why it should be deleted except that its redudant, which it is not. The replacement are missing a lot of parameters. Number of transclusions doenst matter Christian75 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep, not all the parameters are duplicated in ((Infobox character)), and this isn't a merger discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Some of these parameters are useful, and could not be readily customized on the standard character infobox. Mamyles (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge or delete per nom; low transclusion count, and Jane Austen novels are not very different from many other novelists' characters. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Very useful for people researching literary characters - which is the whole point of an encyclopaedia!!! Researching! This should be done on every classical literary authors that has common themes through their work instead of discarding it on a technicality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.43.89 (talk) 22:59, May 15, 2015‎
  • Why does ((Infobox character)) not serve that purpose? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep, the infobox's parameters immediately indicate elements of the setting that might not be obvious at first reading (whether one is reading the novel or even the article, as is the case for the income or rank of the character), but are important to understand the novels. Besides, aside from innovating style and her influence on modern writing, the novels' subject matter has always been dubbed peculiar, as they are neither pure romance novels nor part of pre-realism, which was "uncharacteristic" of the time. 90.48.200.230 (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To clarify, those aren't pure romance novels, so the ((Infobox character)) model would miss aspects important for the social commentary they contain, aspects which also happen to be characteristic of the time period. 90.48.200.230 (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Parameters like income and age are the very definition of trivia/cruft, and similar in-universe details have been eliminated from the standard character infobox which is used in thousands of character articles. Many similar franchise-specific infoboxes have been deleted over the years for the same reason. If notable, this information should be presented within the body of an article within a Description or Plot section, as is the established convention. Infoboxes are intended as brief overviews of the article's notable facts, not collections of pertinent trivia like street addresses. I'm sorry but these details and Eyre's works are not exceptions.— TAnthony^Talk 19:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 23:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:505 Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is already a page List of 505 video games, and also 505 Games is a big publisher, and that it is almost impossible to have a navbox to list all the games published by them. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, navboxes are for related articles, video games that are published by the same company isn't notable enough to merit its own navbox. --Soetermans. T / C 11:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 23:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Unused. Part of an inactive workgroup. Magioladitis (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete or Merge. Appears to be part of a series of templates used by WP:TIMETRACE, the others being ((Histref)) and ((Histrefverif)). I expect all three could be merged into ((WikiProject Timeline Tracer)) which would be more appropriate, though perhaps not worth the bother if the project is inactive. Otherwise this seems like unnecessary talk page clutter - we have an ample supply of cleanup templates for articles needing sources. Have you notified the WikiProject, just in case anyone is still there? PC78 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Or perhaps Redirect to ((Histref)) as it appears to serve the exact same purpose. PC78 (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete- I am sure this served a purpose in 07 (ah those heady days of yesteryear) but this template has been superseded by several others at this point. MarnetteD|Talk 04:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose this merging please, as it creates many problems to readers !!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgyu (talk • contribs) 05:45, 26 April 2015‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What "problems" will be created for our readers by removing this unused talk page template? PC78 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • As template provides a picture and info briefly and it is very useful for readers to get the information quickly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgyu (talk • contribs) 08:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Talk pages are for editors, not readers, and the template is unused anyway. For highlighting problems with an article it's completely redundant to ((Refimprove)) and others. PC78 (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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.