Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 7



Template:Infobox JR West Station

 * 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. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Infobox JR West Station

Orphaned and redundant to the standard Infobox station. Sw2nd (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; no point in a separate infobox for one rail company. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. hardly any difference from the standard template. Only one pre-filled field. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ORList

 * 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) 22:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ORList

Another confusing template similar in wording to inclusion. Totally unclear from the wording and links if the alleged problem with the list is OR, WP:V, or simply a disputed inclusion criterion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete agree, the conflation of V and inclusion criteria isn't appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Unblock talk-revoked

 * 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) 04:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unblock talk-revoked

This hasn't been used all that much, and I think I know why. It's too complicated. There isn't any real reason I can see to require the reviewing admin to reproduce the very comment that led to talk page access being revoked, and even less reason to require a more specific reason from the reviewing admin than the standard "revoking talk page access" message that will be recorded in the block log. This is also redundant to the easier to use Blocked talk-revoked-notice. I wouldn't object to redirecting this title to that one. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Redirecting will break all current uses of the template. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * delete after substitution or replacement. Frietjes (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Inclusion

 * 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. Redundant, as stated in the nomination, and barely used (in fact, most of the uses seem to be changes by an IP user from Template:ORList which was deleted slightly further up on this page). Anomie⚔ 14:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Inclusion

Another clone of famous. Redundant to the better worded cleanup list (for embedded lists) and list missing criteria for stand-alone lists. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete agreed that the cleanup list template does the job, although we need to be sure that for BLPs, sufficient warning is given because we shouldn't associate "notable people" with places we have no RS to support they're related to. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this works in templates, categories and lists, according to its text, while your pointed out duplicates are for lists, so they should be merged into this one. Why do you need two different list cleanup boxes anyways? inclusion would be better all around than the two list boxes -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Famous

 * 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) 22:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Famous
 * Famous players

This template puts the burden of getting inclusion or exclusion criteria for lists of famous people (on e.g. articles about populated places) on the article editors, resulting in many local discussions with potentially wildly varying results for the same problem. If inclusion or exclusion criteria are needed, a central discussion should be had, and articles checked to see whether they comply with the global consensus that may have emerged. Furthermore, the template as it stands mixes a few things in an unfortunate way: it solely links to WP:V and lists articles tagged with it in Category:Unverifiable lists of persons from August 2013 (or other moths). An article like Randolph, New Hampshire has a list of notable people containing one, referenced, name, so why it should be considered an "unverifiable" list is not clear. Even if the list (or some entries) are unverified, there is nothing that makes it clear why they should be considered "unverifiable".

In short, the template is ill-placed (as discussion should be had centrally, not locally) and ill-executed, as it demand inclusion/exclusion criteria but labels the list as unverifiable, which is totally different (and often not correct as well). Therefor, deletion seems to be the best solution. Fram (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Modify then keep I would agree that the categorisation imparted by the template is sub-optimal (so modify the template to remove or optimise this), but there still remains the problem of random lists of people on articles across all of Wikipedia with no clear inclusion criteria. Did these people live in Randolph?  Did they die there?  Did they invent something there?  (e.g. Clint Murchison, Jr. is listed as a "Notable person" in the Athens, Texas article, but in his own article, there is no mention whatsoever of Athens, Texas... why is he there?)  And more often than not, these lists are duplicates of categories such as "People from Randolph, New Hampshire", and are therefore unnecessary in any case.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But your example of Athens indicates a need for a general rule, not a need to put this on all pages. And lists and categories serve different purposes, e.g. lists can have more information, can be more easily subdivided, can have (sourced) redlinks, and so on... Fram (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not a general rule. A rule for a town inhabitants (or whatever the "criteria" applied there was) article may well not apply to "Notable animals" in national parks, or "Notable aircraft" in air force articles.  A rule for "inhabitants" might be "lived there", "died there".  A rule for animals may be "more than 100 sighted per year".  A rule for aircraft may be "at least 10 were used in the history of the force".  You can't apply a general rule, unless you care to suggest one?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You queried why a template (which deals with lack of inclusion criteria) was placed in a section with references. "Ashland, Ohio has a fair number of entries which are not BLPs and not unsourced, but is tagged anyway" - that's irrelevant. It's tagged (correctly) because there is no inclusion criteria. GiantSnowman 14:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve - largely per TRM. This template certainly serves a purpose i.e. why are these people associated with this town? Are they "notable" in general 9I would hope so!) or notable in the town or what? Where they born there, lived there, visited once as a child etc.? These kind of 'notable residents' / 'notable people' lists are a real nuisance. GiantSnowman 13:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And why would you have these discussions on every single page separately, and not centralized? because that is what the tag (and the tagging) suggests, that for evry town and so on, a discussion needs to be had to decide on your questions, with no guarantees that they will all reach the same conclusions. How does this improve Wikipedia or make things easier and better? Fram (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not know there was a central location for these kinds of lists to be discussed, if you could point me in the right direction it would be much appreciated. GiantSnowman 13:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The village pump? An RfC with a CENT notice? Fram (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, you were talking about a general discussion regarding the merits of these kind of lists as a whole - sounds sensible, though common sense (or mine at least!) dicatates that a list of BLPs which is unreferenced and POV should be removed. GiantSnowman 13:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily about the merits of such lists (although that can be included as well), but specifically about what the template states, i.e. inclusion/exclusion criteria. Note that many of these lists contain non-BLPs and sourced entries anyway. The POV aspect would largely match the inclusion/exclusion criteria anyway. E.g. Ashland, Ohio has a fair number of entries which are not BLPs and not unsourced, but is tagged anyway. Fram (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely that's an issue with the implementation of the template, not the template itslef? Maybe we need two templates then, one to deal with wholly unreferenced lists, one for partial - just as we have unsourced and refimprove. GiantSnowman 14:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But the current template says nothing about being unsourced, it mentions inclusion criteria and places the article in an unverifiable category, which is not the same as unsourced at all. Is there any reason that the existing templates (unsourced section and so on) aren't sufficient and that there needs to be a separate template for notable people lists as parts of larger articles? And do we then also need a separate one for e.g. the "main sights" section that many location articles have as well? After all, they are also arbitrarily decided and often unsourced (no BLP problems though)? Fram (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, but you did. GiantSnowman 14:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Slightly too cryptic there, I did what? Fram (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Useless and prone to abuse with the current wording. It's unclear that if the wording were to be changed substantially it would still be relevant to the articles to which it has been added. Looking at a few cases where it has been added, it can be uniformly replaced with Template:Cleanup-list in articles (i.e. embedded lists) and with Template:List missing criteria in stand-alone lists. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha. I haven't seen the Template:List missing criteria template before, I'll use that from now on.  So, begone famous! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - please note that List missing criteria is for standalone lists, and I still feel that the BLP considerations of famous need to be taken into acount. GiantSnowman 16:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point, perhaps it can be tailored as a "section" template so we can use it in the same way we use famous and tailor the wording to not necessarily refer to SALs? I agree, this isn't as straightforward as some would like to portray, per my example above where a BLP whose article has no mention at all of his affiliation with a specific location is listed.  For what reason?!  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree that while this template is a good idea on the surface, we all know what good intentions pave. In most cases, a "famous persons from X" section of X's article can simply have the criteria "people with Wikipedia articles", on those with too many it should be discussed - as necessary, and without a huge honking template on the page that does nothing for either reader or editor comprehension, instead serving simply as a scarlet letter. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the huge honking template will be used, just a different version. And you do realise we have categories for this sort of thing (i.e. "people with articles on Wikipedia"?)  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment importantly, an example of the misuse of these "notable people" section is Ashland, Ohio which, with a tiny bit of inspection, reveals that no fewer than four of the people listed appear to have no connection to Ashland whatsoever. This is a pandemic across these geographical articles which needs purging.  So, if we delete this template (and I'm cool with that) then we need another discussion to fix the fact these "notable people" are being added without control and without any evidence to articles.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * QuestionWho are the four persons you are speaking of?...William
 * If you look at the article, it'll be obvious. Thanks for logging in to this discussion by the way, this applies seriously to the aviation lists we've argued over.  (By the way, this may not apply, of course, but editing anonymously to avoid scrutiny is generally frowned upon... and thanks for adding those two citations while we discussed this, perhaps you can do the rest, probably only 50,000 more to go!)  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the list? I have. Everyone on it has some kind of mention of Ashland in their article. Either, born, lived in or worked there. You're very wrong, just like you were this morning on two occasions when you thought an IP editor is me and now. I'm not from Connecticut or anywhere within 1,200 miles of the location of the IP....William 17:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a coincidence then! And an amazing one as well.  By the way, you can't be "very" wrong, it's binary.  Anyway, thanks for the AN/I, and thanks for logging in.  Please focus on the discussion here now.  Cheers!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are those four people? Also produce evidence that I'm the IP or start an SPI on me. You can't produce the first and the second will end up with nada because I didn't edit today till this afternoon. My home is in Florida. So how about producing something besides snippy remarks?...William 18:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, SPI is not necessary! Your edits and the IP are so coincident, that a duck takes the biscuit.  I'm not fussed.  I'm going to continue to do what I'm doing.  How you stumbled upon this when the IP was so indignant about it (and you have "no connection to the IP" of course), is perhaps just a total fluke!  Anyway, welcome to the discussion, hope you can contribute to the debate over whether to delete this template or not.  After all, that's what this is about.  If you wish to continue the personal debate, feel free to do so somewhere else, but not my talkpage as I've asked you never to post there again!!  Brilliant!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For the 3rd or 5th time today(If you count those two talk page instances or not) you've been caught in error or making stuff up. You have never once written or asked for me to not post to your talk page at either my talk page or yours. Should a triple liar or false accuser be an administrator?...William 18:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good one. As your anon IP has suggested, take it to AN/I (for the fourth time).  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Famous. No comment on Famous players.  TRM seems to have created this purely for the sake of tagging notable-people sections in US communities, even when (as evidenced with Ashland) the tagging doesn't reflect reality.  These sections do often get people who weren't associated with their towns, but standard practice is not to tag sections with unrelated people: we remove unrelated entries ruthlessly, just like we remove nonnotable people.  Without this basic purpose, there's no reason to have a separate template for a purpose basically the same as the existing ones mentioned up above.  Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, "TRM seems to have created this..." pure 100% lie. I've never even edited the template.  Wow.  I never thought someone like User:Nyttend would be so negligent as this, but apparently so.  This is silly season I guess.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - please take a look at this before ing yourself. GiantSnowman 19:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gsnowman, look at User talk:Fram. Nonsense in extremis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Shit, we've been rumbled! GiantSnowman 19:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny, I thought I said "seems", which means that I'm not at all certain. Definitely not worthy of an accusation of lying, which is a pretty blatant violation of WP:NPA, on top of the evidence-free accusations of sockpuppetry against someone else.  Finally, kindly read my comments here in totality: TRM quotes just part of my "not to tag" sentence, ignoring the fact that we get rid of problems that this template is supposed to tag.  Let me rephrase it: we typically don't tag because we remove the problems when we find them.  We have no need for a tag because we don't wait around when we find these.  Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well a two-second check of the edit history of the template would have made it clear for you, and I must say I'm surprised, with your experience, you didn't consider doing that before suggesting I may created the template. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nyttend, seriously? Even if you're "not at all certain" whether or not somebody has created a template then a quick check would solve your dilemma, and prevent you making an arse out of yourself. More unsavoury is your accusations of agenda - "TRM seems to have created this purely for the sake of tagging notable-people sections in US communities, even when (as evidenced with Ashland) the tagging doesn't reflect reality". GiantSnowman 09:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve - Useful in flagging potential OR in Notable players sections in sports articles. Seems pretty straight forward in its requirement for clear inclusion criteria. If something is tagged with this and you don't thnk the inclusion criteria are clear, then delete. The issue with a lot of the sections where this tag is used is not that the "notable people" are unverifiable as notable within a given article's subject, just that they have not been verified. Fenix down (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. So many of the lame US geo-articles with lists of "notable people" or "notable residents" or "famous people" sections have no clear inclusion criteria.  Some editors believe people can be included if they were born there.  Some if they went to school there.  Some if they lived there.  Some of they died there.  It's entirely unclear in most cases so that's why this template is useful (post-improvement).  It worked a treat on football articles where fans of clubs would list "notable players" without any kind of inclusion criteria.  The US-geo-article folks need to get on-board with this and understand we're doing this for the reader.  I've found dozens of examples of people listed in US-geo articles whose articles make no mention at all of the place in which they're alleged to be notable.  Another case of bad management of embedded lists.  This template actively helps that affliction.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. People must have an article for inclusion under "notables". I concede that a second one is implicit: they must have some WP:RS association with the place! Born there, raised there, retired there. So a citation is mandatory and the bio rarely has that information at all. If it does, it, in turn, is not cited. The template might be reworded, but right now, it's seems more of an irritant to me, than helpful.
 * Also, section templates are not that helpful by themselves. They may inspire some people to individually label material. This latter templating is helpful. I usually erase sentences/notables/etc. after three months or so without a citation. (We're talking places here, not something really controversial). Student7 (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem is that people are listed (a) without clear inclusion criteria and (b) when very often, their articles don't provide any kind of verifiable evidence that the individual in question is actually related in some way to the location in question. We could list Bruce Lee, King Kong and Mike Myers as "notable people" of Grommitown, California, because they all have articles.  But usually there's nothing in the Grommitown, CA article saying why they're in the list, nor in their own articles.  This template was intended to force editors to say what the inclusion criteria for these embedded lists are.  And to meet WP:V by providing "on the spot" references, not relying on sub-articles to reference these murky claims. Out of interest, can you point me to the policy which backs up your statement: "People must have an article for inclusion under "notables". " as that would be very useful indeed.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's easy to be picky here. Again we're aren't talking controversial articles, just places (usually). But WP:NN has always worked for me. "Notable" is one of the few words that actually have a recognized meaning in Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But in this instance we are talking about a section that deals with notability, not of itself, but in relation to another subject, this is something that without clear inclusion criteria is not inherently known. A.N. Other may well be notable, so may be the town / sports club of Fooville, but A.N Other is not necessarily a notable associate of that town / club, although their may be an association. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep both. These templates exist to highlight an all-too-common problem: a list of names which has been picked essentially at random and with no criteria. They do so admirably. The problem hasn't gone away, and there is still a need for the templates. If the wording needs improving, then do so. But there's no need to delete. Modest Genius talk 15:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, the one thing that no one has been able to suggest so far is how deal with such list within individual articles were this template to be deleted. A cit needed template does not really cover it as citation is not the best way to show verifiability. In this instance the template asks for something completely different, clear inclusion criteria. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Poland Squad 2010 Maut–Cup

 * 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. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Poland Squad 2010 Maut–Cup

Maut–Cup has no notability. Sawol (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - the tournament is not notable (I've never even heard of it!) and the navbox for a squad certainly is not. Based on the creator's other contributions it is likely to be a hoax. GiantSnowman 12:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Annonymous tournament. Its own article is not exist. This navbox need to be deleted speedy. Banhtrung1 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unused template for a squad at a competition with no article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bigger

 * 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 procedural close. Per Templates for discussion, template redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bigger

A redirect to Template:Larger. Redirect templates are now tricky for the TemplateData system and this one servers no real purpose. The name is confusing as it does not correspond to a CSS size. It has only ever had a few uses mainly via The Holocaust and it now has no transclusions. Salix (talk): 10:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * wrong venue, should be discussed at WP:RFD. 64.106.111.10 (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep fix the templatedata system instead, Wikipedia should be accessible, not accessible to only coders. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Books-A-Million graphical timeline
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 04:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Books-A-Million graphical timeline

Single use template, redundant to text of article. I see no visual advantage to this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The code should be in the article if such a thing is necessary. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Single use template. Whether it should be substituted or not is a content/editorial decision, but for me, the article should have a proper history section instead of this timeline thing. -- Whpq (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Film infotaula oinarria
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 all - unused, unusable JohnCD (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Film infotaula oinarria

New user attempted to recreate Infobox film for the article Primos. See also dependent templates, , and. Auric   talk  01:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a usable template. -- Whpq (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.