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).

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted by creator - it was only created as an illustration for a discussion of ((Infobox artist discography)). RockMagnetist(talk) 16:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox artist discography2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

was probably useful back in 2015, but at this point, it is redundant to the sandbox Frietjes (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2017 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 December 14. Primefac (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ahnentafel_bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ahnentafel-compact5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 December 14. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ahnentafel_top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ahnentafel-compact5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 December 14. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ahnentafel-compact4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ahnentafel-compact5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 December 14. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ahnentafel-compact6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ahnentafel-compact5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PD-art-3d (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, replaceable by ((PD-old-100)) and/or ((Photo of art)) FASTILY 01:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not easily replaceable by the proposed tags; provides more clarity given the dual copyright of a photo of 3D works in jurisdictions without FOP. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain how ((Photo of art)) + ((PD-old-100)) is less clear. ((PD-art-3d)) seems more likely to confuse newbies and is missing clear instructions; as such, there's a reason why it's unused and why ((Photo of art)) + ((PD-old-100)) are used instead. -FASTILY 00:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Because the combination is contradictory. As written, ((Photo of art)) seems to suggest that (1) the artwork is still copyrighted and (2) the photo is freely licensed - and therefore ((PD-old-100)) would seem to apply to neither. In fact it appears there is only a single image that uses that particular combination, and in the context of that image it makes no sense. Whereas this tag makes it clear that (1) the artwork is out of copyright due to age, but (2) an additional tag is needed for the photo copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is simply untrue. The |pdsource= parameter in ((Photo of art)) exists for the exact scenario you just described. -FASTILY 03:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And the tag under discussion here provides a clearer understanding of the situation than that, IMO. You're welcome to believe otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, unused. if someone needs to use it, we can have it undeleted. Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to use it. "Unused" is only a rationale for template deletion if it has no likelihood of being used, and that isn't the case here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see, the retag as ((PD-US)) is clearly wrong since the photograph is not over 100 years old, only the subject of the photograph is that old. Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, current usage doesn’t indicate that it needs to be deleted as it is a maintenance template. As explained above, this is not easily substituted by a combination of licensing templates. Not all countries have freedom of panorama for 3D art. 165.91.12.190 (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2017 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox award. Primefac (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Indian awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Indian awards with Template:Infobox award.
Redundant. Proposal includes if needed merging variables that may be of a wider range of use in the general award template. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, it looks to me like this is a fork of Template:Infobox military award, so should it probably be merged there, especially since Template:Infobox civilian award also redirects to Template:Infobox military award. it may be worthwhile to consider merging Template:Infobox military award with Template:Infobox award to avoid confusion. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, redundant. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. I don't see any valid reasons to keep it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. No opinion on the military/civilian/award infoboxes, but this can happen first regardless. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No reason these two need to be kept separate. —cnzx (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2017 (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).