Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 28



Template:Tom Cruise sidebar

 * 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 per precedent on such sidebars Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tom Cruise sidebar

Redundant as the only three links in this are already contained in Cruise's main article.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 19:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per every other sidebar used in articles on actors. This one was just missed in the previous nominations. Nymf (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent —PC-XT+ 01:41, 4 January 2015 (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:Cite web url

 * 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; deleted as G6 by AnomieBOT ⚡  23:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cite web url

Seemingly pointless, no forseeable uses, as it only calls one URL. It may lead to some accidental transclusions too, as it is similar to.  George Edward C –  Talk  –  Contributions  18:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as housekeeping. A apparent error by a new user. Was, three times in one article, but , along with the text it was used to cite, less than four hours later; the other in  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 28 December 2014 (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:Bobby (rapper)

 * 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 as unneeded navbox Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bobby (rapper)

Completely redundant template for a rapper with a few singles to his names; all the links in it are already in the article itself. What we have here is fairly typical K-pop template porn: the article for this Bobby, who's been active for maybe a year, has three templates, and it's hard to imagine a valid use for this template outside of this particular article. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete too soon for a navbox  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 19:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Asdklf&#59; (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2014 (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:Infobox Russian city district

 * 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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Russian city district

Unnecessary and unused wrapper of Infobox Russian district (I Subst: the only five uses). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since it was already used in five articles, it can't possibly be considered "unused". As for "unnecessary", there are several hundred city districts in Russia, all of which will ultimately have articles (and use this infobox). The wrapper was created to make using the main district template easier, with its main purpose being the filtration of accidental usage of inapplicable parameters. There is also plenty of potential for adding city district-specific fields (which would not be applicable in the main district template). Test-driving the wrapper in the five articles from which it was so unhelpfully removed is (as it should have been) the first step in the wrapper development.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 29, 2014 ; 14:24 (UTC)
 * It is unused, as explained above. It is unnecessary, as the replacement of every instance of it with something that looks identical shows. The existence of hundreds of articles which do not use it are not a reason to keep it, as they can each use the more generic template which it wraps. We never need to create wrappers for "the filtration of accidental usage of inapplicable parameters"; not least because if that is desirable, it can be done by adding a switch to the generic template. And please don't conduct "test drives" in article space. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Repeating statements unsupported by evidence does not make them any more convincing, I'm afraid. That aside, I do take testing seriously. Test driving an otherwise functional wrapper (one that went through preliminary testing) to catch possible bugs in production is a normal practice, especially if it is contained to only a handful of articles, as was the case here. The absence of any such bugs (as is the case here) indicates that the wrapper can safely be deployed in other articles. As for filtering inapplicable parameters, you must have never had the "pleasure" of cleaning up hundreds of incorrectly filled out instances of a bloaty mess like Infobox settlement, which, by the way, itself has dozens of wrappers whose purpose is, among other things, to suppress inapplicable parameters. I don't see how this situation is different. Nearly all instances of Infobox settlement's wrappers can be replaced with the generic template; is it your belief that they all should go as well? One can pile up various switches in the main template, sure, but that just leads to bloating the main code and makes it harder for people with limited template editing experience to parse, understand, and/or add to, and it also makes it more difficult for people with extensive template editing experience to do maintenance and debugging. As long as the wrapper has a well-defined, distinct purpose (as, again, is the case here), there is little reason to oppose its existence. You surely haven't provided any, apart from the wrapper being "unused" (with your help, no less) and "unnecessary" (for the vague reasons that don't hold). Not cool.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 29, 2014 ; 16:42 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could point to the wrappers of Infobox settlement which, you suppose, exist to surpress parameters, rather than to pre-populate the template? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said those wrappers "exist to suppress parameters"; merely that it is a part of their functionality, or perhaps a beneficial side effect.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 29, 2014 ; 17:50 (UTC)
 * Keep, is in use and has potential for further usage.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, no longer in use, Andy has shown that it is unnecessary. It is very difficult to see how "filtration of accidental usage of inapplicable parameters" is a good reason for creating or keeping a template. Appropriate copy-and-paste template syntax examples for each usage type (similar to Template:Infobox settlement) can be provided on the template documentation page. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record: It is in use.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In one article; that is true. But I don't think that undermines my argument much. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was used in five articles before. Someone (I guess Andy) removed it during the nomination. It is great that Andy (who btw is restricted by the Arbcom in many issues concerning the infoboxes) showed that the template can be removed altogether and replaced by a generic infobox. This is correct for almost every template. However, this is not Andy who writes articles about Russian city districts. This is Ezhiki and I who write them and add the templates. And we find it way more convenient to use the custom infobox with ten fields and not the generic infobox where out of fifty lines thirty do not apply to Russian city districts at all, ten more are prefilled with standard information, and ten more (which need to be found) finally do the job.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe that I have breached an arbcom restriction, please report that in the appropriate place, which is not here; otherwise, you are just making an irrelevant ad hominem attack. I replaced the few instances of the template, using Substitutuon before, not during this nomination; and in doing so demonstrated unequivocally that it is utterly redundant. That I was able to do so is not evidence that it is reasonable to do that "for almost every template", since most, unlike this one, are not pointless wrappers of anther template, much less for a duplicate subject-specific infobox. Your reverting one of this substitutions does nothing to refute that. The authorship of the individual articles which use the infobox is not relevant; and such logically-fallacious argument to from authority smacks of Ownership. Your convenience can be assuaged by you having a blank (or part-complete) proforma in your user space; like I do for other templates in my user space, without placing a burden on the wider editing community. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How exactly is it "a duplicate subject-specific infobox"? Are you saying that simply because you saw the word "district" used in both templates? That a subset of similar terminology can be used to describe Russian districts and city districts does not make the two concepts "duplicate". It is fortunate that we can make a simple wrapper around the district template to deal with city districts but it does not at all mean they are the same. I also find your ownership accusations unfortunate. We have two editors here who know and appreciate the benefits of this wrapper because they happen to use it and do a lot of work in this subject area. You, with all due respect, know nothing of the subject yet find no problem dictating the content creators which tools they should or should not be using. This is simply sad.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 8, 2015 ; 13:07 (UTC)
 * What was I saying, about "such logically-fallacious argument from authority"? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * question where is the list of articles which were transcluding it before it was orphaned? Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tsentralny City District, Sochi, Adlersky City District, Lazarevsky City District, Khostinsky City District, and one more which I do not remember.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2015 (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:Test-mode

 * 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 mark historical as obsolete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Test-mode

This was a really cool idea when it was first written, but the introduction of mw:Extension:TemplateSandbox has made it obsolete. (TemplateSandbox is the MediaWiki extension that produces the "Preview page with this template" box underneath the edit window on templates and modules.) It is also possible to preview what a sandbox template would look like on a page by using User:Jackmcbarn/advancedtemplatesandbox.js. Now that we have TemplateSandbox, it should always be preferred over this template. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or mark historical as obsolete per nom —PC-XT+ 03:52, 4 January 2015 (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:Infobox Province GR

 * 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 as unneeded and uncontested Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Province GR

Unnecessary wrapper of Infobox former subdivision. Can be safely Subst:, as shown in. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 28 December 2014 (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:Infobox Buffyverse group

 * 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 as unused, unneeded and uncontested Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Buffyverse group

Unused and unnecessary wrapper of Infobox character (I Subst: the only five uses of it). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 28 December 2014 (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:Infobox Greek Isles

 * 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 as uncontested Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Greek Isles

Unnecessary wrapper for Infobox islands. Can be safely Subst:, as shown in, ,. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 28 December 2014 (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:Infobox Melbourne park

 * 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 per nomination rationale Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Melbourne park

Unused and unnecessary wrapper of Infobox park. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, unused and unneeded. Orphaned by Frietjes. There's nothing really special about Melbourne parks in the first place... — This, that and the other (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2014 (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:Origlink

 * 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 as unused Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Origlink

Unused. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 07:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as I don't know what is useful about having 3 parameters to construct the link text. —PC-XT+ 04:22, 4 January 2015 (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:Apink BnN

 * 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 as uncontested and uncontroversial Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Apink BnN

Apink BnN has been re-directed to A Pink, so this template is not needed. Random86 (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2014 (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:Tagum City Newspapers

 * 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 as unneeded Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagum City Newspapers

The navbox just contains three links, two of them are red links. Only used in the article Balitang Gawasnon. —theenjay36 04:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The template is currently not in use (WP:TFD #3) as the article Balitang Gawasnon where it was used was deleted.  the enjay  36  09:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, perhaps speedily as G8 —PC-XT+ 09:54, 6 January 2015 (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:Esoteric file

 * 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, but feel free to continue discussions concerning "rewriting as a wrapper" or "merging" or whatever. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 05:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Esoteric file

If it's in scope for Wikipedia, it's in scope for Commons. In essence, this seems to be a request to keep local due to the author's preferences, which makes it redundant to Template:Keep local and Template:Do not move to Commons.

Specifically, this could be accomplished via. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: if we delete, we should replace the file with the Do not move to Commons equivalent. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. See this and this for the discussions that led to this template's creation. The point of the template isn't to honor the author's preference, but to categorize certain types of files as being unhelpful to move to commons. At the time, do not move to Commons contained a default message about legal issues, so it didn't fulfill this purpose. With its recent change to a blank rationale the tagger would have to fill in, it could fulfill the purpose of esoteric file, but with the many files falling into this category, I think a separate tag that doesn't require filling in that message would be preferred. equazcion   →  00:31, 28 Dec 2014 (UTC)
 * Also see userspace file which is similar. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This template does not seem to serve the same purpose as Do not move to Commons. Do not move to Commons is used to tell that a file probably doesn't satisfy c:COM:L, but this template seems to mean that the file meets all criteria for a Commons file but that moving it there should be of low priority. Do not move to Commons also exempts the file from WP:CSD, but I am not sure if this template comes with the same exemption. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This kind of thing fits somewhere in between Do not move to Commons and Keep local.  It basically says "While this is allowed on Commons, it wouldn't be appropriate there, so please don't move it".  This kind of template belongs on images such as File:Jefferson PA municipalities without photos.png, a tracking image that only appears in my userspace; nobody's going to use it elsewhere, and since it should be speedy deleted at some point (explanation will be given if you want it), moving it to Commons would necessitate an unnecessary deletion debate at some point, since they're less open to uploader-requested speedy deletions than we are.  I would support a merger with userspace file, merging that one into this, because this one is also appropriate for non-userspace images.  For an example, see File:Ohio Counties for Stubs.png: when sorting Ohio stubs, we divided the state into several regions and colored the different regions separately, since it makes for simpler descriptions at pages such as Category:Appalachian Ohio school stubs.  Since we used some semi-arbitrary boundaries, the map isn't really useful for any purpose other than Wikipedia stub-sorting, so it shouldn't be moved to Commons.  All of this assumes that the file won't be useful elsewhere.  If someone uploads it to Commons anyway and uses it at some other project's page, we shouldn't complain.  Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as wrapper , and perhaps merge userspace file into this one —PC-XT+ 03:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) 00:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I've seen too many files copied to Commons and then nominated for deletion there without the knowledge of the original uploader to have any faith in the system of moving files from enwp to Commons just because they may be in scope of Commons. This template is clear in its purpose: to indicate that a file has little or no value outside of enwp. Although "userspace files" may be one reason, I have sometimes uploaded screenshots of a part of a page to illustrate a point in article talk. Such screenshots are essential to an understanding of the debate for future reference, but are worthless outside of enwp. I am certainly not going to log onto Commons just to make sure that such files don't get deleted when I can simply carry them on my watchlist here. This template makes life easier for may editors who don't use Commons much and deleting it would cause a net loss to the project. --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nyttend. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per RexxS. Giano    (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge: Clearly a need.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  08:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Question: Why do we need:

when we can do:

using Do not move to Commons? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Convert to wrapper. As shown in the the comparison above, Do not move to commons can fulfill the exact same function. Also as shown in the above comparison, that's a lot of boilerplate text. If we make Esoteric file a wrapper with the pre-filled reason, I believe we can have the best of both worlds. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That would more clearly exempt from WP:CSD, as well. I'll support that. —PC-XT+ 12:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to add an F8 exemption to these files? It seems that the uploader only recommends people not to move the file to Commons but that the uploader does not object to deleting the file if it nevertheless has been copied there. If the uploader wouldn't want the file deleted here, the uploader would have used keep local, which is directly designed to be a WP:OWN violation, instead of this template. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right. It would be more clear, but in the wrong direction. I can no longer support confusion of Do not move to Commons with this template, because it would be better deleted, so I revert to my original !vote. —PC-XT+ 00:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your !vote, as amended, contradicts this statement. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was relying on Stefan2's comments for meaning. Let me explain better: This template appears to be a notice that the file probably won't be useful to other projects, but if it is, it can still be moved to commons and deleted here. As long as this template is not found to explicitly exempt from CSD F8 in any way, we should not merge with Do not move to Commons. Deleting this template would be better than trying to shoehorn it into another template. Both would cause loss of this functionality, so I won't support either. —PC-XT+ 22:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD#F8 would be reworded accordingly. There is no semantic difference between "This [...] file should not be copied to Wikimedia Commons." and "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons." (and neither is binding in any case). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It serves a specific purpose (the Guild of Copy Editors uses it frequently for housekeeping), and the similar tags are often ignored or misunderstood.  Mini  apolis  19:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does the Do not move to Commons version, above, not serve that purpose? In what way are "similar tags often ignored or misunderstood"? nd, for that matter, why are the Guild of Copy Editors (a WikiProject concerned with prose quality) interested in the location of image files? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, the GOCE uses the tag for housekeeping (periodic screenshots of the Copy edit backlog) and it would be inappropriate to move the files to Commons. This tag is specific enough to prevent misunderstanding.  Mini  apolis  03:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, I also asked: "Why does the Do not move to Commons version, above, not serve that purpose? In what way are 'similar tags often ignored or misunderstood'?". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 1 February 2015 (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:Infobox The Legend of Korra character
<div class="boilerplate tfd 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 per nomination rationale Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox The Legend of Korra character

Broken infobox, only used in a draft, and appears to be redundant to Template:Infobox Avatar: The Last Airbender character. Fun Pika  00:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as unneeded and redundant  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 19:27, 28 December 2014 (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.