, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 

 OK, but: 
 #WP:AUM != WP:DUM and WP:AUM != WP:NUM (a=avoid, d=don't, n=never) 
 #:True, but "avoid" also does not mean "ignore when you feel like it".  This is a high-profile template after all, the type WP:AUM targeted in the first place.  A metatemplate used only by a dozen of article would not have a significant negative effect; this one, however, is intended for use on hundreds of pages.  Perhaps we should invite a developer to take a look at this discussion and let us know once and for all if this particular template is problematic enough to be considered a serious AUM violation?  So far all we've been doing is second-guessing the policy's intent. 
 #if the Netoholic template is accepted it should be copied into the original template  to preserve the edit history of the latter. 
 #:If it's accepted and developed to the point of being usable, then histories can be merged at that time.  Merging edit histories is a quite simple procedure.  If the original template is protected from editing, it will be possible to merge the histories in a very clean way. 
 #the move of the original template to the standard name, has nothing to do with the WP:AUM violation accusations 
 #:True, but trying to solve the AUM violation together with the name standardization saves us all trouble of having to do mass moves/replacements more than once.  Wouldn't you agree that it's good for Wikipedia?  Every mass action eats resources, and, as it seems, Wikimedia does not have the latter in abundance. 

 A question for you, Tobias: please tell me what you see wrong with this scenario: 
 #Protect Template:Language from editing; 
 #develop Template:Infobox Language to the point when it's usable enough to replace old Template:Language; 
 #mass-replace all links to Template:Language with the links to new Template:Infobox Language, thus standardizing the infobox name and resolving AUM problem for good; 
 #merge histories of Template:Language and Template:Infobox Language to preserve records; 
 #delete Template:Language. 

 The way I see it, the end result will be exactly what you and other editors want, and the process only requires one mass-replacement that needs to be done anyway.  Am I missing anything or not?— 18:34