Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CesarB (talk | contribs) at 14:31, 25 September 2005 (→[[Template: Oldvfdfull ]]: keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

Template:Sfd-current


Adding a listing

  • Please put new listings under today's date (October 19) at the top of the section.
  • When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages.

September 25

Directors templates

Recreations of Template:Kubrick (deleted) and Template:Steven Spielberg's films (deleted). These were previously deleted and categorified on this previous Tfd. Speilbergs was recreated against consensus and then speedied. Now they are both back again. The categories act as just as good as navigation system. Also some movies list both directors such as A.I. (film), which would look pretty silly if both templates were used. Propose redeletion, as they have already been categorified. ∞Who?¿? 14:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Sources

Delete: Not sure what this is supposed to be used for, but it doesn't link to anything. Was edited only twice before I placed the TFD tag on it; the last time was in March. Kamezuki 10:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Oldvfdfull

Delete: Obsolete template, not even needed for historical reasons due to the fact that all uses of this havee been using substitution so keeping this template leaves no purpose. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 04:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I only realized that after I put this nom up and after Zscout370 had already voted thus making it so I couldn't remove the nomination. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 05:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

Template:Past

If a product is no longer produced, this can be stated in the article. There's no need for a {{current}} equivalent here. --fvw* 01:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poster

Delete, too vague to fit in with our future direction on fair use tags, replaced with five other poster tags, now unused. JYolkowski // talk 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virginia Higher Education

Delete: Unwieldy monstrosity with natural representation as categories Fawcett5 15:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Canada

Delete: Unused template (Canada seems to have switched to Template:Infobox country). Sortan 15:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox alienaa

Delete: Looks like the creation of someone who misunderstood the point of templates. This "infobox" is hardcoded with info about one particular webgame, and it's not actualy used anywhere. See no point in keeping this. Sherool 02:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Delete agree with nom. Image used in template just got killed too - which is yet another reason to delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

Template: Edmonton Eskimos , Template:Calgary Flames, Template:Toronto Maple Leafs, Template:Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, Template:San Jose Sharks, Template:Washington Capitals, Template:New Jersey Devils, Template:Vancouver Canucks, Template:British Columbia Lions, Template:NY Islanders, Template:Ottawa Renegades, Template:NY Rangers and Template:Buffalo Sabres, Template:Toronto_Maple_Leafs

Delete: These templates are mostly not in use (British Columbia Lions and Edmonton Eskimos have one page using them each, all others zero), and are too specific; they would very likely never be used on any other articles than the teams they represent. Ongoing use of current players list across various articles is similar to Buffalo_Sabres#Current_Squad, rather than using these templates. I've listed what templates I've found in this group; there may be other similar ones. --Durin 22:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking... it was a busy day... I'll search for NHL templates and add any I find, feel free to look through my contribs that day for more background. ccwaters 23:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got all the NHL templates... Thanks ccwaters 00:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loosely associated topics and unused template. CG 17:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notable Wikipedian

Violates avoid self-reference both by creating an internal link and in mentioning they're wikipedians at all. There are a few wikipedians that should have a link to their user page in their article's external links section (Jimbo springs to mind), but for most people who've edited wikipedia it just isn't that notable a thing about them and shouldn't be in the article at all (like User:Eric S. Raymond). --fvw* 06:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

Template:Infobox Biography

  • Delete - This template is a constant source of dispute between Wikipedians. Its inclusion/exclusion on individual biography pages has been argued over several pages including Talk:John Vanbrugh, Talk:Charles Darwin, Talk:Mark Twain, Talk:Douglas Adams and probably a number of others. Over the last year or so at least 8 editors including me have commented on the talk page that they don't like it. I don't think it adds anything useful to most articles, and makes some look positively ugly. Jooler 22:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The facts in fhis info box are better in article prose, IMO. DES (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its only function is to make Wikipedia look more like Boy's Life or HiLites magazines. "If you can't read the birth and death dates, here is a box to tell you what they are." Further, the "infobox" idea (inasmuch as there is an idea behind infoboxes) is that they present either "interesting side lights" or "the most important 'bite' of information." Following that logic would say that all you really need to know about a biography is when the subject was born and died. Heaven help us if that's what people get out of history. Geogre 23:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personally I think it's a pointless eyesore. Ugliness may be in the eye of the beholder, but surely everybody will agree it's causing ugly edit wars—look at this. --Bishonen | talk 23:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless. Rivarez 00:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre's reasoning. Some infoboxes are useful: countries and elements, for example, have a certain common set of vital facts that are probably better presented in a table than in prose. Biographies don't: birth and death dates work just as well in the first sentence, and the locations for each can be dealt with in the relevant prose; they're not the most important facts about the subject. Get rid of this. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteUgly. Detracts from the lead. Adds no new information. Giano | talk 06:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really see what's ugly about this, and it seems to reside usefully on many pages without dispute. It's nice to create a consistent style in which key quick facts are presented in a central place. Generally, no compelling reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • N.b. there is a consistent place already: the lead. I'm not being sarcastic: it is biographical style to give dates right after the name. Why bust up the text to have a box to reiterate what's there in words 3 and 4? Geogre 10:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm aware of that standard, but at worst, placing the dates in the infobox as well can only help the reader. The infobox also features place of birth and death, which most WP biographies don't include in the lead, so not all the information is redundant in that sense. But more importantly, the "consistent place" at issue here applies not just to biographies but to all articles. The expansion of infoboxes means that it's fairly typical here for key facts and statistics to be presented in a condensed list format in the upper right of the screen. I don't see why we shouldn't have that for people articles as well; indeed for some types of people we do have uncontroversial infoboxes. Perhaps we can take a hint from those and add some more useful fields; one that comes to mind look at the President infobox is a spouse field. The arguments that this infobox is harmful seem weak to me, and I think it is helpful now and will become more helpful over time, so it seems worth keeping. Then again, I don't believe it "busts up the text"; as far as I see it sits harmlessly in the corner, and certainly disrupts the text less than the standard style, which places (sometimes substantial) parentheticals two or three words into the first sentence. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such would be the argument for redundancy. "It can only help" to repeat and repeat and repeat, too -- to repeat with pictures, with colors, with blinking text, etc. The words are there. They're quire unambiguous. The misinfobox just breaks up the flow of the article, dislodges the hard work of editors who have found portraits and have those beside the lead, etc. The makers of infoboxes should not have the anti-democratic gall to try to dictate to scholars how biographies must look because they happen to have an idle moment and draw up a box with reiterative information. Geogre 13:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the creators of the infobox shouldn't dictate to scholars how biographies should look, why should you? Why can't the editors of the article choose whether or not to use this template? Christopher Parham (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's called redundancy, and it's not good. When the lead has the birth and death dates and place, if known, then the box is just a violation of the space of the article to say what is said just beside it. That amounts to redundancy, not digestion or highlighting. "Duplicate material" is a violation of the deletion policy in articles. It should be in the case of templates, too. If there is no gain by the visual information of the big box, then there is no value. In this case, it's just a big way to destroy the pictures and other forms of illustration to put in, instead, an entirely redundant box. Geogre 12:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • IMO we are way overdoing the use of infoboxes, adn i thgink many of them tend to overly make arricl;es into cookie-cutter replicas. This one is IMO a particularly egrigious example. DES (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is used on some ~400 pages so there does seem to be a considerable population of editors who like/accept it. Also, I am inclined to think that general decisions for how biographies are presented are better decided by improving Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies), than trying to confront the specific widget that people have been using. Dragons flight 08:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be aware that the box's proponents (creator and editors, I assume) have been industrious in going around to insert it into every article they can find. The fact that 300 articles (generated by a 1911 dump, e.g.) have editors who aren't kicking the box out doesn't mean that there is a reason to keep it. Also, to use your own logic, it would be better to reform the style than to circumvent that by inserting a box to accomplish the same thing. It's the box that is attempting to make all biographies reduce to birth and death. It's less than useless, a typographical monstrosity, and is, on its best day, redundant. If someone thinks that all biographies should state the subject's love of sneakers vs. hard soled shoes, that someone should have to slog it out on the style pages, not create a silly infobox, insert it into every article conceivable, and then have people defend it here; it's the infobox that is attempting a content and style change without discussion. Geogre 10:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because people use it.  Grue  09:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Since this template is in active use on just under 400 articles at present, I believe its clear that this infobox has become a clear standard. This infobox not only serves a stylistic purpose (it looks really sharp on printed versions kids may use in school), but can and should be used later as a method of gathering metadata on our biographical articles, much like what the German Wikipedia had the foresight to put into place (description in English). -- Netoholic @ 08:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that people use it is not a sufficient reason for keeping it, just as ugliness is not for deleting. The only real question is, doe it add value? As per Geogre, Bishonen and others above, I cannot honestly see that it does. In fact it may well do the opposite by inviting the casual reader to imagine that by reading the infobox they have read all the facts worth knowing in the biography. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Filiocht and others. Ambi 14:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, birth/death dates may fit nicely into prose in the lead sentence, but places don't. Kappa 15:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this serves several useful purposes. Firstly it serves to provide a standard format for displaying useful information which will apply to all subjects of biographical articles (no more "how am I supposed to include this info in the lede?"). Second, it provides space for a more meaningful introduction to an article: information on when and where someone was born or died is usually less valuable than what they did in between (no more "how do I spatchcock this info into the lede?"). Thirdly, it does actually make the biography articles look more uniform and professional, which is something we ought to consider for those who have to read the damn things. Furthermore, the fact that various editors are unable to restrain themselves from conducting edit wars over such trivia might well say a lot more about them than about this template. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Take a look at Gilbert de Clare, 5th Earl of Hertford - this is possibly the worst example of over-use of templated infoboxes I have ever seen. 17:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that is really horrible. Who could possible think that improves an article? Perhaps (and just perhaps) on some scientific and mathematical pages these "facts thrust in your face" templates are useful, but on biographies and pages concerning literature and the arts, they are just a distraction that are of no use whatsoever. Giano | talk 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how using this template is any different from other infoboxes with much more information such as {{Infobox Company}}, {{taxobox}} or any of a number of others. It helps present biographical information common to all people in one standard format. slambo 18:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the dates and places of a person's birth and death are basically never the most important information about a person, so shouldn't be highlighted like this. Putting the person's name there is unnecessary too - it's in big letters at the top of the page, where it belongs! CDC (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template provides no new information to the reader. It merely repeats information already present in the article. That information is not even the most important, it's merely the most amenable to being mechanically put in a box. By using a frame and a standard caption, authors have complete flexibility. With this infobox they're stuck in a Playskool straitjacket. I also deplore the way this template is being forced on articles as if it is mandatory that it be used. PRiis 19:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I don't really like this template, it is used on a large number of articles (see [1]). The decision on whether to use, or not use, the Infobox Biography template is NOT something that should be decided by a TFD vote, but should, instead, be done through a proper survey of the consensus opinion of Wikipedia editors (Wikipedia:Infobox Biography template survey?). BlankVerse ∅ 21:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BlankVerse. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary duplication of information. The fact that it's used on 400 articles shows that some users favour it, but 400 uses out of however many biographical articles exist, seems to be very small percentage. I agree with User:PRiis that the infobox has far less flexibility than a simple image caption box. It's standardised format often prevents the use of the most appropriate image or more importantly, the most appropriate caption. Rossrs 01:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You guys have nothing better to do? How about offer a better template. Please do not delete this one... again, Wikipedians never cease to amaze me.. FranksValli 04:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Enhance This infobox would be quite useful if general biographical information other than birth/death dates were available in it. Plus, it provides a nice neat and consistent way to display a picture of the person in question. -- Tyler 07:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've also watched idly as this gained some ground, but I never really supported it. The factoids from these can and should be integrated into article text, and they mean very little as such. The quotation thingy is mildly amusing, but irrelevant. --Joy [shallot] 22:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also need to comment on the number 400 - that's simply peanuts. When we started demolishing the people stubs category, it included almost 16,000 articles. Even if we round it very generously, this template is probably used on less than one percent of the articles it's meant to be relevant for, so wide acceptance really cannot be a criterion for keeping it. --Joy [shallot] 22:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - it looks like despite the fact the the majority of people dislike and even detest this box the number of people voting keep here means that it is not going to get deleted. That can't be right can it. Really we should have voted on its inclusion in the first place. Jooler 23:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If people want to use it in a bio, let them. Shanes 00:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons stated by Phil, Christopher Parham, Slambo, et al. Wikipedia mentality must advance more beyond a paper analog than just hyperlinks. The goal is to convey information in an understandable manner. Infoboxes (which many of those who oppose this one seem to oppose in general) are a professional way to abstract information buried within the article and to summarize and standardize the presentation of FAQ about that person. Substitute geography for biography and see if the purge argument makes sense: One can describe the location of Winfield, Illinois in words (it is at the Very Center of the Universe) but a map (so one can see it in relation to our eastern suburb, Chicago) helps quick understanding. Yes the GPS coordinates are somewhere in the text, but a map would give it quickly and concisely. So does a biographical infobox. I use the Wikipedia many times just to get a quick birthdate or deathdate. The dates should be in the lead, but sometimes are not. An infobox gives a form-to-fill-in that will help make articles comprehensive. I think this type of infobox should not only be kept, but enhanced to include burial places, spouses, etc. Will those who want to purge this infobox next want to remove the tables of descendants that appear near the bottom of many bio articles? By adding the biobox as a standard, instead of trying to purge it via this TfD process, we can take care of those editors who use their prejudices for sola logis to vandalize(!) articles containing a biobox. The template itself can be protected against them. Please don't dumb-down bios by removing helpful aids. --StanZegel 05:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- it contains information that cannot be obtained at a "glance" otherwise, especially in large articles such as Mahatma Gandhi. The danger of it being deleted is that some of the articles (most probably stubs) may not have that info elsewhere. Again, as I understand it, the infobox is not a standard requirement. So, if some people do feel that the infobox is redundant in a particular article let them thrash it out on that article's talkpage. People entering edit wars on the info box issue in some articles should not be reason enough for template deletion. And people would enter edit wars only if they feel strongly about something - this does not apply to the infobox on lots of articles. ---Gurubrahma 05:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ugly and unnecessary for biographies, and will likely continue to be the object of edit wars. Tupsharru 06:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Improve, and Make Standard- About 380 articles show that it does have value. If it's ugly, make it pretty. The info given is very useful in immediately informing the reader of the subject's era and geographical location, which can aid the reader's understanding in reading by thinking about contemporary people and events. I think this sort of "contextual prompting" is something WP ought to do more of, not less. And let me say that I'm a little dumbfounded by the amount of rancor being exuded in some of these Delete votes ("make[s] Wikipedia look more like Boy's Life or HiLites magazines", "stuck in a Playskool straitjacket", "less than useless, a typographical monstrosity", "A bandwidth hogger"). I think it's a laudable thing if Wikipedia were to make itself readable and usable to the "Boy's Life" or even the "Playskool" set, even if these elitists don't agree. -Kwh 06:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its not ugly, it looks good and summarises everything clearly. - Aaron Hill 12:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vaoverland 12:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LedZeppelin

Since I had two versions (the second of which should have been left alone under normal Wikipedia guidelines since it was smaller and nonredundant) of a Mike Watt template deleted, then let's see if there's any double standards in Wikipedia or not. With that in mind, I say... Delete. This template is certainly oversized and redundant, since the great majority of the links are in the article itself. Cjmarsicano 06:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: poke-creature-cleanup

Delete: Redundant with Template:poke-cleanup, and not currently in use. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prettytable

Delete: The template was nominated for deletion (at least) once before. The situation has changed since: The template can now be substituted by class="wikitable". This class has been added to common.css and generates (almost) the same look as {{prettytable}} did before it was changed to merely include this very class. This also applies to several other templates that are based upon this one:

— Christoph Päper 11:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Besides being used on lots and lots of pages, I believe this template is one of the default ones included with the wiki software which means that users who cut their teeth on wiki editting elsewhere will be expecting to make use of this template. I have no objection to having people making efforts to subst this on the templates and pages that currently use it, but deletion will make wiki editting less friendly to the casual editor. Caerwine 13:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, how would those “default templates” work? Anyhow, I cannot see Prettytable being one of them. Christoph Päper 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • All I know is that I use several other minor wiki's besides Wikipedia and on all them, I've found {{prettytable}} available for use. I find it highly unlikely that someone has independently created the template on each wiki, so I presume that it was included with the software. At the very least, this template is going to need a long period of deprecation before being eventually removed. Caerwine 20:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, too well known, easy to remember and widely used. Dragons flight 14:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Let me add that if you do delete this, you are going to have a lot of mysteriously confused users. Think about it, it appear inside the <table> specifier in the rendered page image, so one is going to get the redlink stuffed inside the table tag, i.e.<table Template:prettytable> which won't even show the redlink to users. This means that if you break this thing that everyone has been trained to use, then when people try to use it they won't even have any obvious way of knowing the template has been deleted. Dragons flight 14:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don’t see how it’s harder to learn class="wikitable" than {{prettytable}}. If I thought it was, I would have lobbied more for the style to be made the default one for tables nstead of an extra class. Christoph Päper 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're missing the point. If it's deleted, someone accustomed to using it will be confused. They'll try and it simply won't work (won't do anything readily apparent). They'll probably think they mistyped the name. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete. It's not really hurting anything, unless you're paranoid about meta-templates, but it's been intentionally obsoleted by the new class. Yeah, typing {{prettytable}} is a little easier to remember than class="wikitable", but after we've subst'ed them all, it will be easy for people to learn. You are free to suggest other class names, too. Originally was called class="prettytable". Obviously the ideal is to use templates for everything, but until someone writes better template caching, it's (apparently) a strain on the servers. User:Omegatron/sig 14:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Widely used (though mostly as subst:). Its presence doesn't hurt anything. We should just note that it is deprecated on the talk page. We should only delete it after it hasn't been used for a while, not while it's being actively used. Nohat
  • Keep. This is used on a TON of pages. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (obviously). Dunc|☺ 13:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I use it all the time and will probably go on doing so. Class="prettytable" makes less sense to non-HTMLers --Celestianpower hab 20:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about adding a message like "<noinclude>'''Depreciated, please subst: or use class="wikitable" instead'''</noinclude>" right on the template page (and on the talkpage (minus the noinclude tags)) at least. Then we can revist this some months down the road once people have hopefully started using the alternative. --Sherool 00:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

Template:Fairuseunknownsource

And redirect at Template:Fuus. It's really, really difficult, if not impossible, to claim fair use without a source. I think that this template is dangerous because it rationalizes images without sources, and encourages laziness (instead of researching where an image came from, or coming up with an iron-clad rationale, people seem to just tag it it as {{fuus}}). As well, I've been re-tagging everything that uses this template, so as of later this evening there won't be any uses. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 21:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reuters

Blanked by creator, and subsequently edited to point to Template:Unverified. Also an orphan now that unverified images are CSDs. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AssociatedPress

Very misleading; Associated Press photos are probably not good fair use candidates because we could be construed as competing with them. Not used too much either. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairuse-ESA

Despite its name, it didn't say anything about fair use at all (until I added the bit at the end about how the image may or may not be usable in Wikipedia); rather, it appears to be a noncommercial-use-only tag, which is depreciated. Since there's only one use, let's delete it before it gets used any more. JYolkowski // talk 01:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Font sample

'Strong Delete': The template is actually much more confusing than helping. It only works if users have the proper font installed (and the proper browser settings), and images work a lot better to illustrating them. Consider the entries Univers, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Antiqua, Calibri (font) and compare them with Garamond, AMS Euler, Gill Sans which feature pictures. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of doing this. -- Thorpe talk 21:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

Template:Fair dealing

Doesn't mention anything about U.S. copyright laws, so it's not a valid image copyright tag. Furthermore, fair dealing in Canada only applies to research, private study, criticism, review, and news reporting and various noncommercial purposes, and it doesn't look like most of the images so tagged would apply. It might potentially be useful as an additive tag, but since it's not used that widely, contains a redlinked category and isn't documented anywhere I would say delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sesamestreetscreencapture

Delete: Overly precise, contains a badly-named and redlinked category, poor wording compared to Template:Tv-screenshot, just used in seven places before I changed them all to {{tv-screenshot}}. JYolkowski // talk 21:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simon_Clarke_Tube_Map

Delete: Now orphaned template was exclusively used for the now deleted and replaced Image:London underground zone 1 small.png. The template now serves no purpose. I suggest deleting talk page as well. —Gabbe 19:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

Template:Editwar

Delete: Redundant with Template: Disputed. The way it approaches the issue makes the tagged page look more like a web forum than an encyclopedia. -- Norvy (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cities in Sweden

Reportedly, this template is not useful. It's just a rather uninteresting list of Swedish cities, which might as well be replaced by a link to cities in Sweden and a listing of the relevant cities there. There's also the problem that stad and "city" are not equivalent terms, which is bound to confuse non-Swedes. Fred-Chess 05:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination is withtracted. The template as it were has been deleted. Fred-Chess 21:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "typical" template !!!! This should be inserted in the articles instead of a footer template. Lvr 11:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_State

Delete: I made this template (along with Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_Fed), but I've since created a new (and hopefully better) template, Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt. --Markles 01:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_Fed

Delete: I made this template (along with Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_State), but I've since created a new (and hopefully better) template, Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt. --Markles 01:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

Template:JapanCopyright

Similar to Template:Philippines-fairuse (recently deleted), this image copyright tag states that the image is copyrighted in Japan and elsewhere, and that its use qualifies as fair use in both Japan and the United States. However, since Wikipedia's servers are in the United States and not Japan, we're concerned about whether something is fair use in the United States and not Japan. Furthermore, Japanese copyright law doesn't have "fair use" provisions. It does have a number of exceptions, but those are so different from United States fair use law that it's hard to imagine that something could be "fair use" in both countries and still be usable on Wikipedia. So, this template is redundant with Template:Fairuse. It's also only used on two images. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 15:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if modifications can be suggested I'd totally forgotten about this template, that's why it was only on two images (so far). Any suggestions as to modifying this template? I think it would be quite useful, especially given the growing number of Japan pop culture-related items being added to Wikipedia. Cjmarsicano 20:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Our general direction for fair use tags is to get away from blanket tags to ones that explicitly describe what category of image it is and where fair use applies (see WP:WPFU for more information). If it described something specific (say, promotional Japanese anime posters or official photographs of Japanese politicians or something like that) then it might be useful. Alternately it might be useful if it were an additive tag that would be used in addition to a fair use tag, and just stated that the image is believed to fall under one of the exceptions in Japan's copyright act. Note that I still prefer deletion to either of the two options I listed, though. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Freenet

Unused, nonsensical. Alas, I couldn't find a CSD case to fit it. —Cryptic (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Holding cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

To convert to category

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories get put here until the conversion is completed.

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

(none right now)

Listings

Template:Sfd-current


Adding a listing

  • Please put new listings under today's date (October 19) at the top of the section.
  • When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages.

September 25

Directors templates

Recreations of Template:Kubrick (deleted) and Template:Steven Spielberg's films (deleted). These were previously deleted and categorified on this previous Tfd. Speilbergs was recreated against consensus and then speedied. Now they are both back again. The categories act as just as good as navigation system. Also some movies list both directors such as A.I. (film), which would look pretty silly if both templates were used. Propose redeletion, as they have already been categorified. ∞Who?¿? 14:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Sources

Delete: Not sure what this is supposed to be used for, but it doesn't link to anything. Was edited only twice before I placed the TFD tag on it; the last time was in March. Kamezuki 10:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Oldvfdfull

Delete: Obsolete template, not even needed for historical reasons due to the fact that all uses of this havee been using substitution so keeping this template leaves no purpose. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 04:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I only realized that after I put this nom up and after Zscout370 had already voted thus making it so I couldn't remove the nomination. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 05:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

Template:Past

If a product is no longer produced, this can be stated in the article. There's no need for a {{current}} equivalent here. --fvw* 01:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poster

Delete, too vague to fit in with our future direction on fair use tags, replaced with five other poster tags, now unused. JYolkowski // talk 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virginia Higher Education

Delete: Unwieldy monstrosity with natural representation as categories Fawcett5 15:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Canada

Delete: Unused template (Canada seems to have switched to Template:Infobox country). Sortan 15:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox alienaa

Delete: Looks like the creation of someone who misunderstood the point of templates. This "infobox" is hardcoded with info about one particular webgame, and it's not actualy used anywhere. See no point in keeping this. Sherool 02:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Delete agree with nom. Image used in template just got killed too - which is yet another reason to delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

Template: Edmonton Eskimos , Template:Calgary Flames, Template:Toronto Maple Leafs, Template:Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, Template:San Jose Sharks, Template:Washington Capitals, Template:New Jersey Devils, Template:Vancouver Canucks, Template:British Columbia Lions, Template:NY Islanders, Template:Ottawa Renegades, Template:NY Rangers and Template:Buffalo Sabres, Template:Toronto_Maple_Leafs

Delete: These templates are mostly not in use (British Columbia Lions and Edmonton Eskimos have one page using them each, all others zero), and are too specific; they would very likely never be used on any other articles than the teams they represent. Ongoing use of current players list across various articles is similar to Buffalo_Sabres#Current_Squad, rather than using these templates. I've listed what templates I've found in this group; there may be other similar ones. --Durin 22:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking... it was a busy day... I'll search for NHL templates and add any I find, feel free to look through my contribs that day for more background. ccwaters 23:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got all the NHL templates... Thanks ccwaters 00:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loosely associated topics and unused template. CG 17:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notable Wikipedian

Violates avoid self-reference both by creating an internal link and in mentioning they're wikipedians at all. There are a few wikipedians that should have a link to their user page in their article's external links section (Jimbo springs to mind), but for most people who've edited wikipedia it just isn't that notable a thing about them and shouldn't be in the article at all (like User:Eric S. Raymond). --fvw* 06:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

Template:Infobox Biography

  • Delete - This template is a constant source of dispute between Wikipedians. Its inclusion/exclusion on individual biography pages has been argued over several pages including Talk:John Vanbrugh, Talk:Charles Darwin, Talk:Mark Twain, Talk:Douglas Adams and probably a number of others. Over the last year or so at least 8 editors including me have commented on the talk page that they don't like it. I don't think it adds anything useful to most articles, and makes some look positively ugly. Jooler 22:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The facts in fhis info box are better in article prose, IMO. DES (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its only function is to make Wikipedia look more like Boy's Life or HiLites magazines. "If you can't read the birth and death dates, here is a box to tell you what they are." Further, the "infobox" idea (inasmuch as there is an idea behind infoboxes) is that they present either "interesting side lights" or "the most important 'bite' of information." Following that logic would say that all you really need to know about a biography is when the subject was born and died. Heaven help us if that's what people get out of history. Geogre 23:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personally I think it's a pointless eyesore. Ugliness may be in the eye of the beholder, but surely everybody will agree it's causing ugly edit wars—look at this. --Bishonen | talk 23:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless. Rivarez 00:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre's reasoning. Some infoboxes are useful: countries and elements, for example, have a certain common set of vital facts that are probably better presented in a table than in prose. Biographies don't: birth and death dates work just as well in the first sentence, and the locations for each can be dealt with in the relevant prose; they're not the most important facts about the subject. Get rid of this. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteUgly. Detracts from the lead. Adds no new information. Giano | talk 06:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really see what's ugly about this, and it seems to reside usefully on many pages without dispute. It's nice to create a consistent style in which key quick facts are presented in a central place. Generally, no compelling reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • N.b. there is a consistent place already: the lead. I'm not being sarcastic: it is biographical style to give dates right after the name. Why bust up the text to have a box to reiterate what's there in words 3 and 4? Geogre 10:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm aware of that standard, but at worst, placing the dates in the infobox as well can only help the reader. The infobox also features place of birth and death, which most WP biographies don't include in the lead, so not all the information is redundant in that sense. But more importantly, the "consistent place" at issue here applies not just to biographies but to all articles. The expansion of infoboxes means that it's fairly typical here for key facts and statistics to be presented in a condensed list format in the upper right of the screen. I don't see why we shouldn't have that for people articles as well; indeed for some types of people we do have uncontroversial infoboxes. Perhaps we can take a hint from those and add some more useful fields; one that comes to mind look at the President infobox is a spouse field. The arguments that this infobox is harmful seem weak to me, and I think it is helpful now and will become more helpful over time, so it seems worth keeping. Then again, I don't believe it "busts up the text"; as far as I see it sits harmlessly in the corner, and certainly disrupts the text less than the standard style, which places (sometimes substantial) parentheticals two or three words into the first sentence. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such would be the argument for redundancy. "It can only help" to repeat and repeat and repeat, too -- to repeat with pictures, with colors, with blinking text, etc. The words are there. They're quire unambiguous. The misinfobox just breaks up the flow of the article, dislodges the hard work of editors who have found portraits and have those beside the lead, etc. The makers of infoboxes should not have the anti-democratic gall to try to dictate to scholars how biographies must look because they happen to have an idle moment and draw up a box with reiterative information. Geogre 13:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the creators of the infobox shouldn't dictate to scholars how biographies should look, why should you? Why can't the editors of the article choose whether or not to use this template? Christopher Parham (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's called redundancy, and it's not good. When the lead has the birth and death dates and place, if known, then the box is just a violation of the space of the article to say what is said just beside it. That amounts to redundancy, not digestion or highlighting. "Duplicate material" is a violation of the deletion policy in articles. It should be in the case of templates, too. If there is no gain by the visual information of the big box, then there is no value. In this case, it's just a big way to destroy the pictures and other forms of illustration to put in, instead, an entirely redundant box. Geogre 12:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • IMO we are way overdoing the use of infoboxes, adn i thgink many of them tend to overly make arricl;es into cookie-cutter replicas. This one is IMO a particularly egrigious example. DES (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is used on some ~400 pages so there does seem to be a considerable population of editors who like/accept it. Also, I am inclined to think that general decisions for how biographies are presented are better decided by improving Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies), than trying to confront the specific widget that people have been using. Dragons flight 08:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be aware that the box's proponents (creator and editors, I assume) have been industrious in going around to insert it into every article they can find. The fact that 300 articles (generated by a 1911 dump, e.g.) have editors who aren't kicking the box out doesn't mean that there is a reason to keep it. Also, to use your own logic, it would be better to reform the style than to circumvent that by inserting a box to accomplish the same thing. It's the box that is attempting to make all biographies reduce to birth and death. It's less than useless, a typographical monstrosity, and is, on its best day, redundant. If someone thinks that all biographies should state the subject's love of sneakers vs. hard soled shoes, that someone should have to slog it out on the style pages, not create a silly infobox, insert it into every article conceivable, and then have people defend it here; it's the infobox that is attempting a content and style change without discussion. Geogre 10:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because people use it.  Grue  09:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Since this template is in active use on just under 400 articles at present, I believe its clear that this infobox has become a clear standard. This infobox not only serves a stylistic purpose (it looks really sharp on printed versions kids may use in school), but can and should be used later as a method of gathering metadata on our biographical articles, much like what the German Wikipedia had the foresight to put into place (description in English). -- Netoholic @ 08:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that people use it is not a sufficient reason for keeping it, just as ugliness is not for deleting. The only real question is, doe it add value? As per Geogre, Bishonen and others above, I cannot honestly see that it does. In fact it may well do the opposite by inviting the casual reader to imagine that by reading the infobox they have read all the facts worth knowing in the biography. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Filiocht and others. Ambi 14:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, birth/death dates may fit nicely into prose in the lead sentence, but places don't. Kappa 15:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this serves several useful purposes. Firstly it serves to provide a standard format for displaying useful information which will apply to all subjects of biographical articles (no more "how am I supposed to include this info in the lede?"). Second, it provides space for a more meaningful introduction to an article: information on when and where someone was born or died is usually less valuable than what they did in between (no more "how do I spatchcock this info into the lede?"). Thirdly, it does actually make the biography articles look more uniform and professional, which is something we ought to consider for those who have to read the damn things. Furthermore, the fact that various editors are unable to restrain themselves from conducting edit wars over such trivia might well say a lot more about them than about this template. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Take a look at Gilbert de Clare, 5th Earl of Hertford - this is possibly the worst example of over-use of templated infoboxes I have ever seen. 17:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that is really horrible. Who could possible think that improves an article? Perhaps (and just perhaps) on some scientific and mathematical pages these "facts thrust in your face" templates are useful, but on biographies and pages concerning literature and the arts, they are just a distraction that are of no use whatsoever. Giano | talk 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how using this template is any different from other infoboxes with much more information such as {{Infobox Company}}, {{taxobox}} or any of a number of others. It helps present biographical information common to all people in one standard format. slambo 18:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the dates and places of a person's birth and death are basically never the most important information about a person, so shouldn't be highlighted like this. Putting the person's name there is unnecessary too - it's in big letters at the top of the page, where it belongs! CDC (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template provides no new information to the reader. It merely repeats information already present in the article. That information is not even the most important, it's merely the most amenable to being mechanically put in a box. By using a frame and a standard caption, authors have complete flexibility. With this infobox they're stuck in a Playskool straitjacket. I also deplore the way this template is being forced on articles as if it is mandatory that it be used. PRiis 19:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I don't really like this template, it is used on a large number of articles (see [2]). The decision on whether to use, or not use, the Infobox Biography template is NOT something that should be decided by a TFD vote, but should, instead, be done through a proper survey of the consensus opinion of Wikipedia editors (Wikipedia:Infobox Biography template survey?). BlankVerse ∅ 21:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BlankVerse. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary duplication of information. The fact that it's used on 400 articles shows that some users favour it, but 400 uses out of however many biographical articles exist, seems to be very small percentage. I agree with User:PRiis that the infobox has far less flexibility than a simple image caption box. It's standardised format often prevents the use of the most appropriate image or more importantly, the most appropriate caption. Rossrs 01:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You guys have nothing better to do? How about offer a better template. Please do not delete this one... again, Wikipedians never cease to amaze me.. FranksValli 04:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Enhance This infobox would be quite useful if general biographical information other than birth/death dates were available in it. Plus, it provides a nice neat and consistent way to display a picture of the person in question. -- Tyler 07:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've also watched idly as this gained some ground, but I never really supported it. The factoids from these can and should be integrated into article text, and they mean very little as such. The quotation thingy is mildly amusing, but irrelevant. --Joy [shallot] 22:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also need to comment on the number 400 - that's simply peanuts. When we started demolishing the people stubs category, it included almost 16,000 articles. Even if we round it very generously, this template is probably used on less than one percent of the articles it's meant to be relevant for, so wide acceptance really cannot be a criterion for keeping it. --Joy [shallot] 22:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - it looks like despite the fact the the majority of people dislike and even detest this box the number of people voting keep here means that it is not going to get deleted. That can't be right can it. Really we should have voted on its inclusion in the first place. Jooler 23:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If people want to use it in a bio, let them. Shanes 00:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons stated by Phil, Christopher Parham, Slambo, et al. Wikipedia mentality must advance more beyond a paper analog than just hyperlinks. The goal is to convey information in an understandable manner. Infoboxes (which many of those who oppose this one seem to oppose in general) are a professional way to abstract information buried within the article and to summarize and standardize the presentation of FAQ about that person. Substitute geography for biography and see if the purge argument makes sense: One can describe the location of Winfield, Illinois in words (it is at the Very Center of the Universe) but a map (so one can see it in relation to our eastern suburb, Chicago) helps quick understanding. Yes the GPS coordinates are somewhere in the text, but a map would give it quickly and concisely. So does a biographical infobox. I use the Wikipedia many times just to get a quick birthdate or deathdate. The dates should be in the lead, but sometimes are not. An infobox gives a form-to-fill-in that will help make articles comprehensive. I think this type of infobox should not only be kept, but enhanced to include burial places, spouses, etc. Will those who want to purge this infobox next want to remove the tables of descendants that appear near the bottom of many bio articles? By adding the biobox as a standard, instead of trying to purge it via this TfD process, we can take care of those editors who use their prejudices for sola logis to vandalize(!) articles containing a biobox. The template itself can be protected against them. Please don't dumb-down bios by removing helpful aids. --StanZegel 05:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- it contains information that cannot be obtained at a "glance" otherwise, especially in large articles such as Mahatma Gandhi. The danger of it being deleted is that some of the articles (most probably stubs) may not have that info elsewhere. Again, as I understand it, the infobox is not a standard requirement. So, if some people do feel that the infobox is redundant in a particular article let them thrash it out on that article's talkpage. People entering edit wars on the info box issue in some articles should not be reason enough for template deletion. And people would enter edit wars only if they feel strongly about something - this does not apply to the infobox on lots of articles. ---Gurubrahma 05:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ugly and unnecessary for biographies, and will likely continue to be the object of edit wars. Tupsharru 06:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Improve, and Make Standard- About 380 articles show that it does have value. If it's ugly, make it pretty. The info given is very useful in immediately informing the reader of the subject's era and geographical location, which can aid the reader's understanding in reading by thinking about contemporary people and events. I think this sort of "contextual prompting" is something WP ought to do more of, not less. And let me say that I'm a little dumbfounded by the amount of rancor being exuded in some of these Delete votes ("make[s] Wikipedia look more like Boy's Life or HiLites magazines", "stuck in a Playskool straitjacket", "less than useless, a typographical monstrosity", "A bandwidth hogger"). I think it's a laudable thing if Wikipedia were to make itself readable and usable to the "Boy's Life" or even the "Playskool" set, even if these elitists don't agree. -Kwh 06:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its not ugly, it looks good and summarises everything clearly. - Aaron Hill 12:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vaoverland 12:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LedZeppelin

Since I had two versions (the second of which should have been left alone under normal Wikipedia guidelines since it was smaller and nonredundant) of a Mike Watt template deleted, then let's see if there's any double standards in Wikipedia or not. With that in mind, I say... Delete. This template is certainly oversized and redundant, since the great majority of the links are in the article itself. Cjmarsicano 06:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: poke-creature-cleanup

Delete: Redundant with Template:poke-cleanup, and not currently in use. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prettytable

Delete: The template was nominated for deletion (at least) once before. The situation has changed since: The template can now be substituted by class="wikitable". This class has been added to common.css and generates (almost) the same look as {{prettytable}} did before it was changed to merely include this very class. This also applies to several other templates that are based upon this one:

— Christoph Päper 11:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Besides being used on lots and lots of pages, I believe this template is one of the default ones included with the wiki software which means that users who cut their teeth on wiki editting elsewhere will be expecting to make use of this template. I have no objection to having people making efforts to subst this on the templates and pages that currently use it, but deletion will make wiki editting less friendly to the casual editor. Caerwine 13:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, how would those “default templates” work? Anyhow, I cannot see Prettytable being one of them. Christoph Päper 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • All I know is that I use several other minor wiki's besides Wikipedia and on all them, I've found {{prettytable}} available for use. I find it highly unlikely that someone has independently created the template on each wiki, so I presume that it was included with the software. At the very least, this template is going to need a long period of deprecation before being eventually removed. Caerwine 20:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, too well known, easy to remember and widely used. Dragons flight 14:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Let me add that if you do delete this, you are going to have a lot of mysteriously confused users. Think about it, it appear inside the <table> specifier in the rendered page image, so one is going to get the redlink stuffed inside the table tag, i.e.<table Template:prettytable> which won't even show the redlink to users. This means that if you break this thing that everyone has been trained to use, then when people try to use it they won't even have any obvious way of knowing the template has been deleted. Dragons flight 14:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don’t see how it’s harder to learn class="wikitable" than {{prettytable}}. If I thought it was, I would have lobbied more for the style to be made the default one for tables nstead of an extra class. Christoph Päper 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're missing the point. If it's deleted, someone accustomed to using it will be confused. They'll try and it simply won't work (won't do anything readily apparent). They'll probably think they mistyped the name. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete. It's not really hurting anything, unless you're paranoid about meta-templates, but it's been intentionally obsoleted by the new class. Yeah, typing {{prettytable}} is a little easier to remember than class="wikitable", but after we've subst'ed them all, it will be easy for people to learn. You are free to suggest other class names, too. Originally was called class="prettytable". Obviously the ideal is to use templates for everything, but until someone writes better template caching, it's (apparently) a strain on the servers. User:Omegatron/sig 14:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Widely used (though mostly as subst:). Its presence doesn't hurt anything. We should just note that it is deprecated on the talk page. We should only delete it after it hasn't been used for a while, not while it's being actively used. Nohat
  • Keep. This is used on a TON of pages. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (obviously). Dunc|☺ 13:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I use it all the time and will probably go on doing so. Class="prettytable" makes less sense to non-HTMLers --Celestianpower hab 20:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about adding a message like "<noinclude>'''Depreciated, please subst: or use class="wikitable" instead'''</noinclude>" right on the template page (and on the talkpage (minus the noinclude tags)) at least. Then we can revist this some months down the road once people have hopefully started using the alternative. --Sherool 00:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

Template:Fairuseunknownsource

And redirect at Template:Fuus. It's really, really difficult, if not impossible, to claim fair use without a source. I think that this template is dangerous because it rationalizes images without sources, and encourages laziness (instead of researching where an image came from, or coming up with an iron-clad rationale, people seem to just tag it it as {{fuus}}). As well, I've been re-tagging everything that uses this template, so as of later this evening there won't be any uses. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 21:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reuters

Blanked by creator, and subsequently edited to point to Template:Unverified. Also an orphan now that unverified images are CSDs. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AssociatedPress

Very misleading; Associated Press photos are probably not good fair use candidates because we could be construed as competing with them. Not used too much either. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairuse-ESA

Despite its name, it didn't say anything about fair use at all (until I added the bit at the end about how the image may or may not be usable in Wikipedia); rather, it appears to be a noncommercial-use-only tag, which is depreciated. Since there's only one use, let's delete it before it gets used any more. JYolkowski // talk 01:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Font sample

'Strong Delete': The template is actually much more confusing than helping. It only works if users have the proper font installed (and the proper browser settings), and images work a lot better to illustrating them. Consider the entries Univers, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Antiqua, Calibri (font) and compare them with Garamond, AMS Euler, Gill Sans which feature pictures. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of doing this. -- Thorpe talk 21:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

Template:Fair dealing

Doesn't mention anything about U.S. copyright laws, so it's not a valid image copyright tag. Furthermore, fair dealing in Canada only applies to research, private study, criticism, review, and news reporting and various noncommercial purposes, and it doesn't look like most of the images so tagged would apply. It might potentially be useful as an additive tag, but since it's not used that widely, contains a redlinked category and isn't documented anywhere I would say delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sesamestreetscreencapture

Delete: Overly precise, contains a badly-named and redlinked category, poor wording compared to Template:Tv-screenshot, just used in seven places before I changed them all to {{tv-screenshot}}. JYolkowski // talk 21:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simon_Clarke_Tube_Map

Delete: Now orphaned template was exclusively used for the now deleted and replaced Image:London underground zone 1 small.png. The template now serves no purpose. I suggest deleting talk page as well. —Gabbe 19:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

Template:Editwar

Delete: Redundant with Template: Disputed. The way it approaches the issue makes the tagged page look more like a web forum than an encyclopedia. -- Norvy (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cities in Sweden

Reportedly, this template is not useful. It's just a rather uninteresting list of Swedish cities, which might as well be replaced by a link to cities in Sweden and a listing of the relevant cities there. There's also the problem that stad and "city" are not equivalent terms, which is bound to confuse non-Swedes. Fred-Chess 05:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination is withtracted. The template as it were has been deleted. Fred-Chess 21:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "typical" template !!!! This should be inserted in the articles instead of a footer template. Lvr 11:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_State

Delete: I made this template (along with Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_Fed), but I've since created a new (and hopefully better) template, Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt. --Markles 01:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_Fed

Delete: I made this template (along with Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_State), but I've since created a new (and hopefully better) template, Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt. --Markles 01:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

Template:JapanCopyright

Similar to Template:Philippines-fairuse (recently deleted), this image copyright tag states that the image is copyrighted in Japan and elsewhere, and that its use qualifies as fair use in both Japan and the United States. However, since Wikipedia's servers are in the United States and not Japan, we're concerned about whether something is fair use in the United States and not Japan. Furthermore, Japanese copyright law doesn't have "fair use" provisions. It does have a number of exceptions, but those are so different from United States fair use law that it's hard to imagine that something could be "fair use" in both countries and still be usable on Wikipedia. So, this template is redundant with Template:Fairuse. It's also only used on two images. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 15:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if modifications can be suggested I'd totally forgotten about this template, that's why it was only on two images (so far). Any suggestions as to modifying this template? I think it would be quite useful, especially given the growing number of Japan pop culture-related items being added to Wikipedia. Cjmarsicano 20:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Our general direction for fair use tags is to get away from blanket tags to ones that explicitly describe what category of image it is and where fair use applies (see WP:WPFU for more information). If it described something specific (say, promotional Japanese anime posters or official photographs of Japanese politicians or something like that) then it might be useful. Alternately it might be useful if it were an additive tag that would be used in addition to a fair use tag, and just stated that the image is believed to fall under one of the exceptions in Japan's copyright act. Note that I still prefer deletion to either of the two options I listed, though. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Freenet

Unused, nonsensical. Alas, I couldn't find a CSD case to fit it. —Cryptic (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Holding cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

To convert to category

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories get put here until the conversion is completed.

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

(none right now)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=23997551"