Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Levy (talk | contribs) at 14:35, 3 November 2005 (→‎[[Template:Hoax]]: replied to Doc glasgow). 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

Stub templates for deletion

Main page: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

Template:Sfd-current

Listings

Adding a listing

  • Please put new listings under today's date (October 2) 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.

November 2

Template: Football squad player/other/

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Football squad player/other/captain

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Football squad player/other/vice-captain

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

Template:New Jersey New

Speedy delete: Testing ground for {{New Jersey}}, obsolete now that it has been merged in. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template: POTS-appointment

Delete: I am nominating this template for deletion because it seems unencyclopedic. First of all, it actively highlights a temporary state of affairs. While this is sometimes unavoidable, there is a reason Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly is part of the style guide. Second, it doesn't contribute anything to the article, while creating a lot of blank space unnecessarily; the fact that there is a vacancy in an office seems to almost always be redundant with information presented in the article. Third, the link for "qualified applicants" seems out of place, particularly in articles such as Supreme Court of the United States (from which it was deleted with the comment "Is this a joke?" while I was writing this nomination). That should be enough to start with. — DLJessup (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I orphaned it. BJAODN and delete. ~~ N (t/c) 23:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The creator speaks
  • Keep, but if you really want to, delete. I don't think it's nonsense. I don't think it's a bad joke, either. It's a damn good joke, and it's encyclopedic. It presents a notable fact in an interesting (and entertaining) way. At the time I created that, I had been doing much CSD screening on new pages and images for several days, and I really just sort of snapped. I needed to do something encyclopedic and lighthearted. The hilarity of it results from the fact the the Executive Office of the President of the United States of America solicits applications for Senate-confirmed positions on the main White House website. The template actually presents the user factual information - that this particular HR mechanism has made it all the way into the highest realms of even the federal government. I think the concept is encyclopedic. In hindsight, the template presentation is, well, unusual. A note might be added to George W. Bush Administration in the nominations section about this web application mechanism if it is deleted. --Mm35173 18:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, keep. Many jobs are notable enough that they have articles which deal with them on Wikipedia. How one gets said jobs is notable and important. We have a whole discourses on how men become popes, presidents, etc. How to get a presidentially appointed position is pertinent to each article about such positions. Since the information is reusable, and would likely change on all of these pages at once, templatization is a good way to present it.--Mm35173 18:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already said keep jokingly but I like Mm's idea. A page on how applications are made is definitely encyclopædic and a reworded version of this template would be perfectly suited for such a page. But full marks to Mm for giving us all a great laugh. I've added a doctored version of it onto my user page, reworded in a humorous vein. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mormon jew

Why does there need to be a merge of Mormon and Jewish templates? There's no article using it. ~~ N (t/c) 22:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hoax

I'm nominating this template for the same reason why I support the deletion of {{DisputeCheck}} and {{Cleanup-nonsense}}. Massive warning templates disparage entire articles' quality in the eyes of readers, and therefore should be confined to situations in which concrete allegations of major editorial problems exist. If someone suspects that an article is a hoax (and isn't certain of this), the appropriate course of action is to research the subject further and/or consult others (such as major contributors to related articles). When in doubt, it's important to assume good faith. There's absolutely no need to compromise the appearance of a potentially legitimate article by advertising a mere hunch. —Lifeisunfair 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It should only be used where there is real suspicion, after some research, that the article is likely to be a hoax not in case of mere hunches. When the editor feels the need of advice in specialist areas, for example. Dlyons493 Talk 22:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, when someone suspects that an article is a hoax, it certainly is appropriate to seek the advice of those who are more knowledgeable in the area. In no way, however, does this require the user to add a proclamation of his/her suspicion to the article (which might be legitimate). —Lifeisunfair 22:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dlyons. ~~ N (t/c) 23:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with {{twoversions}} and {{cleanup-nonsense}}, the community at large cannot be trusted to use these templates sensibly. If you think something is a hoax, the correct course of action is to look further into it, and tag it with {{delete}} or to AfD it, or to raise it on the talk page for the article. Chris talk back 23:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The origin of this template was a discussion at WP:CSD if hoax vandalism ought to be speedy deleted. A concern was that just tagging it as {{delete}} would not give the article sufficient exposure to eyeballs. As far as responsible use goes, I see no rampant misuse of the {{delete}} template. Pilatus 10:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Under current policy, alleged hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates on that basis. And even if this were to change (which would be ill-advised, in my opinion), the {{hoax}} template encourages readers to place a scarlet "H" on articles that are merely "suspected" to be hoaxes. (Hurl accusations now, ask questions later.) —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Hoaxes are speediable under G1 if the article give insufficient context for turning it into a valid article. Johntex\talk 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I explicitly stated that "alleged hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates on that basis" (new emphasis). Hoaxes are subject to G1, but this has nothing to do with the fact that they're hoaxes. —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Recent examples show that once spotted, the legitimacy of an article is quickly established either way. Pilatus 13:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • How is it beneficial to display a disparaging notice in the meantime? —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ordinary vandalism (including adding nonsense) is reverted on sight and doesn't stay visible for too long. Hoax entries on entirely fictional people on the other hand must go through the AfD process to be removed and take a week or so to go away. A notice that the hoax has been discovered in addition to the AfD notice (which will be slapped on once the hoax is confirmed) will hopefully discourage the vandal. Pilatus 14:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. Until sufficient evidence exists to reasonably establish a high level of probability that the article is a hoax (thereby warranting an AfD listing), it's inappropriate to place a deprecatory label on the (potentially legitimate) page. Even a non-definitive declaration is injurious to an article's reputation — and more importantly, that of its contributor. In the case of a false alarm, this is likely to be a new, inexperienced member of our community (who might be offended/discouraged by the false vandalism accusation to the extent that he/she decides to cease all participation). "Assuming good faith" doesn't mean "assuming that a borderline suspicious article is a hoax until proven otherwise."
2. When there is sufficient evidence to warrant an AfD listing, it remains inappropriate to tag an article with a supplementary template (in addition to {{afd}}). This unfairly conveys an out-of-context, one-sided, POV-based assessment of the content. The correct procedure is to simply insert the {{afd}} tag (and nothing more). This promulgates the fact that the article has been nominated for deletion (itself an unfortunate but unavoidable circumstance for valid articles), and directs readers to the AfD discussion (where all pertinent viewpoints and specific evidence may be addressed). —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoaxes are alluded to in that paragraph, but not in a context that would render them eligible for speedy deletion. An unambiguously nonsensical joke ("Lushy McDrinksalot traveled to Earth from the planet Foamymug in his magical, hops-powered rocket ship to become the first openly drunk President of the United States . . .") fits the speedy deletion criteria, but a plausible hoax (meaning one that might be taken seriously by a rational adult) is explicitly excluded from speedy deletion: "This does not include . . . hoaxes . . ." Of course, this is irrelevant to the matter at hand; even if "likely hoax" were added as a new CSD, your template would be inappropriate. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • G1 contains the page's one and only instance of the word "hoax." Thus far, every attempt to expand the speedy deletion criteria to include hoaxes has failed. If the current proposal or any future proposal succeeds, your template still will be inappropriate (IMHO). —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your description does not correspond to the template's actual wording (which clearly encourages application to a "suspected" hoax that has not yet been "confirmed to be a hoax" or "nominated[d] for deletion," and that might be "confirmed true"). If you were to reword the template for use in the manner that you describe above (confining its application to a situation in which the user is confident in his/her assertion that an article is a hoax), it would become nothing more than an inappropriate companion to {{afd}} that shouts "HOAX! HOAX!" at readers who haven't had the opportunity to read such a claim in the context of the AfD discussion (which might contain weak evidence of wrongdoing and/or valid a defense of the article's legitimacy). —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If can come up with better phrasing for the intended use, please do so. Pilatus 13:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't believe that this template has a valid application; any rewording would merely shift it from one inappropriate purpose to another. —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just now, on New Page Patrol, I came across two hoax articles that the hoax template was intended for. Barry Cahill committed a "triple murder" when he killed the "Larkson Family"; Google throws up no hits for this. Dr. Julian Godfray won the 1972 Booker Prize with for his novel "The Sun Disk Pharaoh". Neither author nor title are listed in the catalogue of the British Library. I didn't check if a building is named after him at King's College School, Wimbledon; probably it isn't and the school may not exist. The 1972 Booker Prize was awarded to John Berger. Does that really need to hang around for a week on AfD? Pilatus 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a hypothetical example, suppose that an individual by the name of "Larry Cahill" murdered a family by the name of "Clarkson." What initially appears to be a clear-cut hoax could turn out to be nothing more than a couple of honest factual errors. (The level of notability would be a separate issue.) This is the sort of realization that sometimes occurs at AfD, and that's why we bother to conduct the discussions.
Again, this is irrelevant to the matter at hand; even if "likely hoax" were added as a new CSD, your template would be inappropriate. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is always the risk that speedy-deleting hoax vandalism might kill a legit article, that is precisely why it's preferable to have some people look over it before the hoax is deleted. Hence the template.
It always is a good idea to seek community feedback before deleting an article because it's believed to be a hoax, irrespective of how that deletion occurs. But once again, why is it necessary to solicit such advice via a deprecatory template? —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already have such a template; it's called {{not verified}}. —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(hits himself) sorry - missed that, thanks --Doc (?) 02:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we are 51-90% sure something is a hoax, we do the unsuspecting reader a disservice if they are not warned of this possibility while we continue our fact-checking. Johntex\talk 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are 51-90% sure something is a hoax, then it gets AfD'd, with the statement that it might be a hoax there, and a great big sodoff link at the top saying the article might be deleted. Is that somehow not enough for the discerning reader to think twice about the article's content? Chris talk back 19:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much of this discussion is the wrong way round. It isn't a question of whether we are 50-90% sure it is a hoax. We only include verifiable info. If there is 1% possibility of hoax, we try to verify the article. If we can't verify it - we delete it, period. {{not verified}} or {{afd}} are all we really require. --Doc (?) 10:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that this conflicts with what Chris wrote above. We seek to verify everything (and remove the content that cannot be verified), but we shouldn't allege that an article is a "hoax" unless we're fairly certain of this. There's a big difference between "I can't confirm that this article is true" (which could simply mean that the article is in need of cleanup) and "I believe that this article is false." In fact, {{hoax}} goes a step further by specifying an accusation of vandalism. (Not all inaccurate articles are hoaxes. Some are written in good faith by people who mistakenly believe the information to be accurate.) —Lifeisunfair 14:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAOL

This template was created to highlight articles that have a featured-article equivalent in an other language wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages). But I think that it should be replaced by Template:FA link, a smaller template that puts a small star in the interlanguage box (see Boeing 747). check also here the same proposal that I've made but didn't get any responses. CG 18:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The "Featured Article" interwiki star only works with the Monobook skin. --Carnildo 00:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Template:FA link (currently a redirect to Template:Link FA) only notes for the benefit of readers that an article is featured in another language. Template:FAOL has a somewhat different meaning. It notes for the benefit of contributors that a featured article in another language is a likely source of additional information (which definitely isn't true for all featured articles in other languages). It also places the article in a category under Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages. --Hoziron 03:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. {{FAOL}} and its companion {{FAOLdone}} are complementary to {{link FA}}: they perform different tasks in different contexts. —Phil | Talk 11:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wait. Which is it? Is the purpose of Template:FAOL (1) to accomodate people who don't use the Monobook skin, or is it (2) to note articles which aren't just featured articles on other languages, but also happen to have valuable information that could assist the English article if it were utilized, or is it (3) to put the articles into the category of featured articles in various languages? The motivation here seems fairly confused. What if a featured article on a foreign-language Wikipedia doesn't have any information that we haven't yet utilized for our English Wikipedia article, but we do want to make it clear to non-monobookers that the article is a featured one, or we do want to put it in that category? What then? Or what if an article isn't featured on a foreign language Wiki, but does have lots of information on that Wiki that we would find highly valuable to use if it was translated and properly formatted? Why include the additional "featured article" requirement, if the chief point of Template:FAOL is to note foreign-language articles we can use to improve the English Wikipedia, rather than a template just to point out when there's a featured article in another language, a task already well-handled by Template:FA link for anyone who uses monobook. And wouldn't it make sense to have template:FA link also put articles into categories, so we wouldn't have to use two redundant templates for every featured article in every foreign language? This whole idea seems like an inefficient doubling of the steps required to note that a certain article is a featured one in a foreign language, one that could only lead to inconsistencies and unnecessary work. Never do with two templates what you could do with one. -Silence 12:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is needed for users relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia's arcane nomenclature and semiotics to transfer contents from featured homologues to those that need improvement. Saravask 01:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though its flawed beyond reason, this needs consensus in other locales before deletion. If you doubt that's its useless, see Talk:World War II where about 7 featured articles are linked. Of course, none is as thorough or as well written as the one in English (the Arabic one is laughably short), and many are translations of the English, but of course, that's not important. However, that's not really a reason to delete it. I think there need to be guidelines to its use, however.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for above reasons. Enochlau 08:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. For all of the above reasons. BlankVerse 09:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unicode hack

Delete: Blank, orphan, abandoned experiment. Phil | Talk 16:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Danger

Delete: Also Template:Danger-adultsuper and Template:Danger-professional. See Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates for the rationale. Also being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Warning boxes for dangerous activities and products. cesarb 02:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the Disclaimers link is to suffice, it should be at the top of the framework, with a small warning box, so that it is seen immediately. Seahen 15:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brisbane infobox

Delete This infobox can only be used for a single city, and is redundant given the existence of Template:Infobox Australian City. --Dalziel 86 02:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

NOTE

A bot is under production to automatically subst certain templates. If you have suggestions for templates that should always (or never) be subst'ed, please contribute them to Wikipedia:Subst.

Template:Royal Welch Fusiliers

Delete Yet another, one article only type template. This one can only ever be used in Royal Welch Fusiliers and should just be substed into it. --Sherool 22:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and convert into infobox. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm the creator of this template (and many similar ones). I've created Template:Infobox British Army regiment to replace them. In retrospect I should have done this when I initially set out to create these for all the regiment articles, but better late than never. I'll list the templates for deletion once I've completed the task. When I do, would it be possible to lump them under one section? SoLando (Talk) 19:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If they are all of this kind I don't think anyone would mind them being lumped together. Check the history first though, if you are the only one who has edited them you can just put {{db-g7}} on them and bypass TFD altogeter. --Sherool 23:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

Delete, another one of those templates that are only used in one article namely The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. --Sherool 22:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert into infobox. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Avram table

Delete, this one was only used in Avram, don't rely see the point in a seperate template for this, I just substed it into the article itself. Some kind of "micronation infobox" template might be in order though if anyone is interested. --Sherool 21:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fair use-firefox

Delete and retag images as {{Logo}}, unlike the Disney logo ting this is not used for subcategorisation (it puts images in the generic Category:Logos), also it only apply to like 4 images (one of wich I nominated for deletion because it was only used on a userpage). Moreover the purpose of the template seems to be to validate the use of FireFox logos on userpages based on the fact that FireFox says that you can use the logo on your webpage to promote FireFox. IMHO this permission means little as Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy explicitly states that "fair use" images should not be used on userpages (or templates). --Sherool 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: IANAL, but as far as I know once you're granted permission to use an image on, say, your web page, the use of it in that context ceases to be fair use. Lord Bob 16:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As to permission for "promotional usage"--promotional usage tends to run counter to WP:NOT a soapbox. Also, on the page for button programs, it says at the bottom "Usage guidelines for the new logos is currently under development."[1] I'm not sure exactly what to make of that; it sounds like the conditions are subject to change.
For uses other than as a promotional button on a web page, there are restrictions to personal or non-commercial uses: "Sure, if it's just for you, or if it's for others and no money or other consideration changes hands" [2] All in all, it sounds like a grey area with no compelling justification for why we need to do this.
IMO, we should stick to fair-use {{Logo}} for these, and abide by the restrictions that entails: using the image in articles as identification or illustration when the product or trademark owner in question is a subject of discussion. --Tabor 18:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rewrite & rename:
    1. The copyright holder, firefox states that they are ok with the usage of the image on web pages, hence we have a greater level of permission compared to the standard "Fair use". And as far as copyrights are concerned the copyright holder granted me the permission to use the firefox logo on my userpage for a "promotional usage".
    2. It is plainly "kawaii" (cute) to have the firefox logo on my userpage rather than an annoying "FF" in its place.
    3. If I can say "I like firefox" on my userpage, I should also be allowed to use the logo as well as far as WP:NOT is concerned.
    --Cool Cat Talk 20:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is way too specific. Just use {{Logo}}, in combination with other existing tags if any apply. JYolkowski // talk 22:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The Problem is logo doesnt do the level of usage of the images we are granted by copyright holder. --Cool Cat Talk 14:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep re-write somehow. I'm out of my league here, but could {{Promotional}} be of any use? - RoyBoy 800 00:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 19:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cool Cat, and "not a soapbox" does not apply to user pages. ~~ N (t/c) 23:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template serves a very specific purpose, but said purpose is valid and unserved by other templates. When placed on a user page, this is not an example of fair use (because the copyright holder has provided explicit consent). While Wikipedia is not a personal hosting service, we're permitted to include some autobiographical information on our user pages (especially when it pertains to our Wikipedia participation, as browser selection does). —Lifeisunfair 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just how would you clasify these logos anyway? Free use? Defenently not, they are copyrighted and trademarked, and have several restrictions. Used with permission? That runs afoul of WP:CSD#I3. Promotional? All promotional images are still used under a fair use rationale. Conditional use? Nope, they must allow derivative works to fit in that category (wich they don't). We would have to invert a whole new licence type to allow this use as far as I can tell.

    Also note at the end of the quote from the FAQ it says "Put one or more of these buttons on your website to help us spread the word about Firefox." (emphasis mine), it does not say "use any Mozilla logo you like", and only Image:Firefox logo 305x150.png seems to actualy be one of those buttons. --Sherool 17:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pdf icon

Delete it's one and only function is to insert a PDF icon into an article, use of fair use images in templates is a big no-no acording to Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. It was only used in 3-4 articles all by the same person, so I just orphanded it because the articles would look extremely ugly with the huge TFD notice for these small icons. If someone wants to replace the image with a free one (some text saying "pdf" maybe) that's fine with me, but this current form has to go. --Sherool 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE I am the user who uploaded the icon. I have no problem with its deletion. Saravask 10:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and note that you can achieve the same functionality other ways, though it wouldn't be completely trivial. Something like this in your monobook.css, though you'll need to tweak it with padding and whatnot:
a[href$=".pdf"] { background-image: url('.../pdficon.png'); }
—HorsePunchKid→龜 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia Primetime Sunday

Also:

This is a procedural nomination moved from a misplaced listing on AFD. Bwithh's reasoning there was that "Wikipedia is not a TV guide. also, this is unmaintainable." No opinion from me. —Cryptic (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Get rid as soon as possible! We can't have this spammed on the pages of the series and I'm going to remove them from articles as this is clearly not appropriate. If the result is to keep then they could be readded. In some cases there are three templates per article and the problem would just get worse and worse. Have an article about the TV schedules, but not a template on every article for every channel in every country. violet/riga (t) 11:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. unmaintainable, too many templates, not a tv guide, ..... JPD (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is a US equivalent, and these are useful and interesting templates. I do suggest, however, removing them from foreign television shows, as they just would not scale if that were the case. Ambi 12:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Define "foreign" on an international website........--ElvisThePrince 13:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"foreign" means the country of broadcast is different from the country of production. --Scott Davis Talk 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK what about say HBO/BBC co-productions?--ElvisThePrince 01:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who created these templates. I just happen to stumble across Template:US Primetime Thursday when correcting links to Will & Grace. Liking the look of the template, I proceeded to create ones for Australian television and placed the templates on the appropriate pages. Ambi discovered what I was doing and some discussion regarding the templates took place on my talk page. However Chuq then suggested that templates be created for each network rather then each day. I then came up with the following:

Seven Network Daily Primetime Schedule
7:30
8:00
8:30
9:00
9:30
10:00
Sunday
??
Sunday Night Film
Monday
The Great Outdoors
Grey's Anatomy
24
Tuesday
Dancing with the Stars
All Saints
Wednesday
Beyond Tomorrow
Blue Heelers
Forensic Investigators
Thursday
The Mole
Las Vegas
24
Friday
Better Homes and Gardens
Friday Night Film

This is as far as it went. Now I discover that the templates have been put up for deletion. There is currently no tfd tags on any of the templates except for Sunday and most have been removed from the articles without discussion and without any notification to me.

So, may I suggest a compromise. Lets delete these nightly primetime templates and replace them with the network primetime templates like the example above. This way they can be placed on the article about the network (e.g. Seven Network). Also I agree with Ambi that these templates should only be placed on articles about Australian programmes. How does that sound with everybody?? -- Ianblair23 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! posted just after Ianblairs post above. I concur with his proposal. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment templates are not required if they only go on one article (the network). I guess templates are useful if they go on each member channel as well, but I don't know if they are always consistent across states (eg football). --Scott Davis Talk 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Network-specific tables would be nice, but I agree, they don't need templates. Also, I think it's more usual for the days to run horizontally and the times vertically, but that's a minor nitpick. Anyway, more should have been done before this TfD. Bwithh (the original nominator) should have made an attempt to contact the creator, ie User:Ianblair23. Obviously some work has gone into these. Let's not rush to throw out so much content so quickly. pfctdayelise 13:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the table is only on the network page, it shouldn't be a template. I don't personally see much value in having a table showing what's on on the programme pages, and am not really happy with the half-done solution of only having the table for the country of origin. Also, note that one of the US templates is also listed above - the Australian ones should definitely not be considered separately. JPD (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the one who originated the US Thursday template, I will refrain from voting. I will, however, make the following comments:
  1. I created that solely to see how people would react to it, and to see if anyone would pick up and create tables for the other days (again, to judge whether or not people found them useful). I thought the issue was dead when other days didn't pop up, not realizing someone in Australia had picked it up.
  2. I fail to see how this is "unmaintainable". Unless a show completely bombs by the end of October, it only requires updating at new season and midseason.
  3. I strongly object to whoever removed the templates from the pages before this vote was concluded. That's equivalent to blanking a page and then putting it up for deletion, in my eyes, and that's poor Wikipedia etiquette, also (perhaps) strictly IMO.

Otherwise, I don't care one way or another how this vote goes. Sahasrahla 22:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

Template:Partof

This template is overkill. To list a related article, we use a "see also" section towards the bottom. Using indented text at the top is improper format. Furthermore, an article is not part of a series (def: number of objects or events arranged or coming one after the other in succession) if it is not part of the list. This template is being used for articles that are not part of a series (only topically related to the series) and improperly labels them as being part of a series. --Jiang 13:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Instruments

In variation to Wikipedia:Babel, this page contains dozens of templates such as {{User horn-1}} ("this user is a novice hornist") and {{User org-4}} ("this user is a professional organist") and accompanying catagories. Nearly all of those aren't actually used. At the risk of going out on a limb, I would propose simplifying it a lot by removing the "skill levels" and simply leaving Category:Wikipedians by instrument. Radiant_>|< 10:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Totally harmless. As long as they serves some kind of community purpose and doesn't interfere with anything important, why get rid of things used in userspace? I would, however support getting rid of the categories for each skill level and just lumping as "Hornist", "Organist" etc. unless those categories get overly populated. The templates themselves, though, should stay. -- Tyler 10:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMO even levels should remain, because being able to play "Frère Jacques" is not the same thing as being able to play "The Flight of the Bumblebee" or "Eruption" by Van Halen. However, I might agree that four levels are not strictly necessary, maybe three or even just two would suffice; anyway, since they don't harm, they could as well stay. --Army1987 20:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that not only should the levels be left, but all the levels. I agree with Army1987 about Frère Jacques/The Flight of the Bumblebee, and while there may not be many higher level players for some instruments (for instance, there are currently only 3 professional saxaphone players) the fact that there is ONE is grounds for keeping that level. And for the sake of continuity (for lack of a better word- someone substitute the one I'm looking for) there should be the same number of levels for each one. Eventually (in theory at least) someone will fill themselves into each one- the same theory that Wikipedia eventaully approaches perfection.

Wildyoda 03:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean consistence. However, to avoid having many underpop'd categories as Tyler says, we could keep the templates, remove level-specific categories and replacing [[Category:User {{{instrument-cat-code}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]] with [[Category:User {{{instrument-cat-code}}}|{{{level}}}]]. This way there will be one category per instrument, but users will be sorted by level. (This is just an idea, IMO as long as those categories don't harm they can remain.)--Army1987 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User sco templates

These seem to be used by some of the user-language templates but not by others. And I can't really see why any of them would be used, since thyey are hardly "shortcuts". Who in their right mind would type in {{user sco 1}} rather than simply typing 1? And {{User sco N}} defies even the tenuous logic of having the rest of these as templates - it returns M! Unless there's a perfectly logical reason that I have overlooked, I don't think these should survive. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, they all just seem to be numbers. Unless there's some technical reason for this? -- SCZenz 08:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the reason for this is to hook to categories in the Scots Wikipedia. For some bizarre reason, they're using M instead of N for native speakers (even though other languages where the equivalent of "native" does not start with an N still use N). Since there is a parameter {{{level}}}, they'd need to have some way of changing the level. The only way to do this is to wrap it in another template by level. Chris talk back 03:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they were actual user-language templates they would be for speakers of Template:Ll. If someone cares to make them such, then of course keep. But in their current state, delete. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until someone knocks some sense into sco:, delete thereafter. Actually, it seems that several languages to this, see the list of included templates]. Keep until WM policy on how to do this across all Wikipediae can be formed. Chris talk back 03:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A possible technical reason: These seem to be for the purpose of mapping our system of language levels (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, N) to those of other languages. For these templates, it seems that speakers of Template:Ll also use 0-4 for language levels; however, they use 'M' instead of 'N'—apparently preferring mither tung (mother tongue) to native. A better example would be mapping the language levels to Template:Ll, where {{User ast 1}}, {{User ast 2}}, etc. map the numerals to equivalent words in Asturian. These apparently exist as templates (as opposed to just typing in the translated text/numeral) for more flexible use in templates like {{User language subcategory}}, to create properly-mapped interwiki links on user-language subcategory pages to the corresponding subcategories in other languages. For example, Category:User en-N (which uses the User language subcategory template) would link to the corresponding User en-M subcategory in Wikipaedia Scots. (It doesn't, actually, because the TfD message currently breaks the User language subcategory template when it tries to call {{User sco N}}.) Were these templates to be deleted, the interwiki link would point to the nonexistant subcategory User en-N. I vote a weak keep. These templates certainly have their legitimate uses; however, at least for the specific case with Scots, any breakage resulting from deleting these templates (to my knowledge) would seem to be relatively minimal and could be fixed by making a category redirect on Wikipaedia Scots and editing the User language subcategory template so it doesn't try to re-map the language levels for the Scots interwiki link.—Jeff 03:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

Template:D-t

This is a new way of proposing a template for speedy deletion without specifing a reason. As none of the WP:CSD apply specifically to templates anyway, this could only be legitimately used under the general criteria (vandalism or nonsense, for example). This is a very rare occurance, and such a mechanism is not needed for it. Delete DES (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:InMemoriam

  • Delete: Although I support linking to the memorial site from relevant articles, I don't see why we need a template simply for a link. I imagine this template was created to discourage people from creating overly conspicuous or elaborate links to the memorial, but hopefully that is no longer such a pressing problem. Instead of having a template, we should simply encourge editors to create normal links to the memorial from the External links sections of the various articles. That way we're not wasting processor power on generating a link from a template. Kaldari 19:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created this to resolve an edit war on Template:Sep11 over the placement of a prominent link to Sep11:Main Page. Some people wanted it in the series box, some people didn't, and most were quite pigheaded about it. Initially it was a box like the other sister project templates (Template:Wikiquote, Template:Commons, etc.), so the link would get the extra prominence that Side 1 wanted, but wouldn't be placed on the same footing as the articles in the series, which is what Side 2 didn't like. I don't care one way or another whether this is deleted or not; both the main edit warriors on the issue are long gone, so I doubt they care too much either. (Though, of course, others might take their place . . . but we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:RAÄ

Doesn't really say anything about use that Template:Restricted use doesn't, is used only on one image (which I'm retagging right now). As well, I don't really think we want to encourage uploads of such images by providing a template, so delete. JYolkowski // talk 16:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. In fact, take out the fair use bit, and this would be a double-whammy as "non-commercial use only" and '"'by-permission, Wikipedia only". (Both are prohibitted, of course.) Wcquidditch | Talk 01:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GameCoverInfo

Basically transcludes Template:Gamecover with a few parameters at the top to specify source and copyright info. However, the parameters are in such an unintuitive format that it's probably easier just to type them in in the upload box. It's unused to boot, so delete. JYolkowski // talk 16:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GameScreenshotInfo

Along the same lines as Template:GameCoverInfo, and I think it should be deleted for the same reason. JYolkowski // talk 16:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline

A somewhat confusing template used for putting Wikipedia pages in a subcat of Category:Wikipedia guidelines. It is, however, redundant since afaik most of those categories already have different templates that are better worded. Radiant_>|< 00:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, "most of those categories" have not different templates; the only guideline subcategory that has its own template are style guidelines. All other subcategories of the guidelines category are served only by this template, that can be used for these four subcategory types. See Template talk:Wikipedia subcat guideline and see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Project_namespace#Policies_and_guidelines --Francis Schonken 08:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Other approach
I propose to continue the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Project_namespace#Discussion --Francis Schonken 10:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-ABN

Delete for several reasons, first of all it is incorect, images from that source is not PD, they can be used freely provided atribution is given, but they are not public domain. Secondly it's only used on one image, and finaly it's bascaly a duplicate of Template:ABr, wich corectly states that the images are copyrighted, but can be used as long as credit is given. I recomend it's one image be re-tagged {{ABr}} after this is deleted. --Sherool 00:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

Template:Limited Use-person

Nominated for sake of consistency with consideration of Template:Limited_Use below, for the same reasons. --Tabor 19:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly delete. I reproduce my comment from below for consistency. I fully appreciate the point of the template, but the fact is that anything you upload here to which you own the copyright is under the GFDL, and it does not matter what other templates you stick on it. The GFDL explicitly allows for any use, and this template spcifically restricts the usage and is thus incompatible with long-standing Wikipedia policy. Like the user-page template before it, creating a new template is not the way to change policy. The way to do that is to contact the Foundation's lawyers. Everything we do here ourselves we give away freely; if your work is not compatible with that, you need not contribute it. I note that compared to the template below, the word "encyclopedic" has been omitted, which is interesting, but makes no difference to the GFDL status. -Splashtalk 19:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that the people tagging their uploads as PD, CC-by-sa, or fairuse are not making valid license choices? Please clarify. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you upload something to which you hold the copyright, it is licensed under the GFDL, regardless of how else you tag it. You can also tag it in other ways, but the GFDL is always there: those who upload with cc-by-sa and the like are multi-licensing, not single licensing under their chosen tag. The presumption of this template on the other hand, is to upload something to which you hold the copyright but to not do so under the GFDL, an action that, under current policy, cannot be taken, as stated clearly on Special:Upload. Which is to say that the template is extremely misleading: you can tag with it sure, but I can then soundly ignore it and use the image in whatever way I like anyway. -Splashtalk 07:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not free. --Carnildo 20:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 19:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reasons as other template. Rhobite 22:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-free. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Twoversions

This template was deleted by User:David Gerard and then undeleted by User:DESiegel. I agree with David (Gerard), who stated [3] that this template is "...a blatant encouragement to violate NPOV and substitute Sympathetic Point Of View." Carbonite | Talk 16:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which David do you agree with? :) My undeltion does not seem to ahve been successful, at least I still can't see the earlier versions. I undeleted because this was delted with no process or consensus at all, and because the last TfD on this had a keep result. I agree that encouraging edit wars and PoV disputes is a bad idea. Abstain pending furhter debate on the merits of this template. DES (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, per Carbonite and David Gerard. Further existence of this template is poisonous to Wikipedia and immediate deletion is called for. Process is good for general cases, but isn't required when something this contrary to our core principles appears. Unfocused 17:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not speedy. Forks are evil, but instead of deleting this template out-of-process we can just fix any situation that it ends up being used in, until it's deleted. ~~ N (t/c) 17:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Unfocused. I don't really see the merits of this template, and it has caused more trouble than it was meant to prevent. Titoxd(?!?) 17:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A very useful template to halt edit warring, and possibly, bring the parties to discussion. Better guideline is necessary to state clearly which of the two versions should be displayed (e.g. based on what the articles were like before the disputes, in other words, based upon the original intents). Better enforcement is also necessary to avoid individuals like user:Huaiwei who ignored what the template said - " Please do not revert to the other disputed version unless it is decided on the discussion page that this should be done. " - and insisted to have their preferred versions displayed. The template tagged on the article should better be as minimal as possible, and the links to the other version and to the diffs can be provided on the talk page by a sister template. — Instantnood 17:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Far more often, the template is used inappropriately. For example, you tagged [4] National pastime due to a disagreement about how Hong Kong should be classified. In practice, this is almost always the manner in which this template is used. I've seen almost no evidence of it halting edit wars or helping parties to reach consensus. Carbonite | Talk 18:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mean I should not have applied the template? In your opinion, what should I do instead to stop the POV pushers like user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat who refused to follow how things were presented prior to their contentious edits? — Instantnood 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, yes, I believe that you shouldn't have applied the template in that instance. That dispute was about one line of text. I honestly have no idea about the POV of you, Huaiwei or STC, but I do know that placing the twoversions template on the article wasn't going to settle any dispute. This template shouldn't even be an option for settling a dispute. We need to work on getting one NPOV article, not two different POV articles. Carbonite | Talk 19:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What else can be done? Yes I can understand how frustated you must be feeling now that a Requests for comment and two arbcoms (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al., Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2) hasent managed to solve your problem. Poor individual admins who invest time and energy to try to resolve has faltered one after another, with the latest hanging in the balance with a threat like "I have no comment unless the first steps are done". But I sure hope you are not demanding for this template's existance by saying Carbonite cant give you a solution to your problem. Like I constantly remind, learn to take responsiblity and ownership of the problems you are part of, and quit constantly expecting others to solve them for you.--Huaiwei 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are not two ArbCom cases, the second part was a reopening for the close for the first part was procedurally and technically incorrectly performed. Please also take a look at what the arbitrators have said about user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat: [1] [2]. — Instantnood 20:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited there is no reason to expect people will follow how things are presented prior to their edits. Nobody owns the text, intent or title of an article and they can and will change. It's a wiki, get over it. SchmuckyTheCat 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obliterate We have {{POV}} for such things, whereas this template implies that you are looking at The Wrong Version. Chris talk back 18:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. User:Instantnood's himself has actually proven to be one of the worse abusers of this template, and for him to bring it up for undeletion and then to support its continued existance here demonstrates the extent to which individuals who circumvent the mediation and dispute resolution process can go to archieve their aims. Not a single usage of this template by instantnood has resulted in resolution of any kind, with all of them continuing to remain in their respective pages till this template was deleted. Plenty of these pages resulted in worse edit warring (not just over the version to be displayed as instantnood claims, but much more so over the usage of the template itself), with some even being on page protection just to preserve this template. Even now that the template has been deleted, he continues to add a "legacy" of its existance with "dispute notices" in [5] and [6]. A new revert war now erupts between us over the retention of this notice. As what User:Calton describes in [7], "nice try: it's the twoversions tag in different clothing".--Huaiwei 18:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Some of my usage of this template involved disputes with user:Huaiwei, who insisted to drop the template, and to display his preferred version, i.e. ignored what the template said. To my experience, that made discussion not quite possible, therefore better enforcement is needed to avoid people who ignore what the template said. — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As also mentioned here [8], lets get the facts straight via a simple chronological recount of how a typical usage of the template results in when it involves you. First, an edit war erupts. At the end of three reverts and with the page still not showing the version you prefer, you pop in a "twoversions" tag after reverting again to your version. When I proceed to remove this tag by reverting back to my version, you revert it back to your version with the template, saying "the twoversions tag is not meant to endorse any version", and insists I am "flouting its intentions by reverting the displayed version". And again, another round of reverts ensue over whether the template should appear at all or not. All this time, the talkpages remains empty. Obviously at this stage, the template has not worked, and at least it is plain obvious to me, it is also being abused. The same scenario is repeated across subsequent disputes we have, sometimes reaching the attention of admins. And that was when folks like myself told admins that you are abusing the template not to stop edit wars, but to basically justify your version irrespective of how you claim otherwise. Pressurised, you proceeded to display the tag this time on the preferred versions of your opponents, myself incluced, but only in some cases and only after extremely heated exchanges. Some pages ended up with your prefered version, some with mine. Subsequently, you lost your patience (or got a shot of viagra), and suddenly starts reverting them to your version again (and still with the template) when you think no one else is looking. Another round of editwars breaks out over which version is to be displayed (the only edit war you bothered to admit above). And the talkpages? Still starkly empty. Has any disputed pages been resolved? No. Has any of the templates abused by you been successfully removed after a compromise has been found? Zelch. Need I say more about the feasibility of this template, and its potential for abuse? Claiming that the template should stay because it didnt work with individuals like me who "ignore it" is laughable at best.--Huaiwei 18:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also a previous nomination. — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now why should I be surprised that STC is the nominator! And now we know who are the ones with foresight and who have been assuming good faith? Both virtues in themselves. :D--Huaiwei 19:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Is there any possible way to have a list of articles previous tagged with this template, so that we can know about its usage like the special:whatlinkshere tool? — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you that list, are you pretending not to see it? [13] I sure hope you're not pretending you can't see it, cuz you edited that very edit of mine. [14] SchmuckyTheCat 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Delete with scrubbing bubbles, for the same reason as Huaiwei. Instantnood, who uses this template more than anyone else on Wikipedia, simply DOES NOT EVER discuss it, he clams up until poked, prodded and provoked. It doesn't stop his edit warring, nor does it bring him to discussion. This template is just an endrun around content forking. Furthermore David Gerard was absolutely right to go rouge and delete. You can't vote on NPOV. The very proposed policy that led to this template to be created originally was dismissed out of hand as ridiculous, the templates continued life was a loophole of TfD voting instead of real discussion. SchmuckyTheCat 18:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not speedy. per Nickptar. --Tabor 18:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETE. I seldom support applications of WP:IAR, but this one by David Gerard was justified. When the original TfD debate was held, this template was relatively new and seemed like a reasonable idea. Since then, its overwhelmingly counterproductive nature has been proven time and again. Rather than being used by an objective third party (who merely wishes to halt edit warring) or by an involved party who adds it to the other party's version, it typically is inserted by an edit warrior who also reverts to his/her version (either simultaneously or immediately prior). He/she then acts as though the template is backed by some sort of authority that renders the first associated version sacrosanct for the time being. And even if this template is used as intended, it actually discourages long-term resolution (by essentially creating a fork, thereby reducing the incentive to gauge consensus and/or discuss possible compromises). It also uglifies articles and drags readers into editors' disputes. This simply is a terrible template, and it mustn't be allowed to continue harming Wikipedia. —Lifeisunfair 19:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the above debate, and recalling my one interaction with this template (during the debate over the spoiler-warnign templates IIRC) I have come to the conclusion that this tempalte is ill-advised. as User:Lifeisunfair says, it sounds like a good idea. if its use could be somehow restricted to uninvolved people sincerly trying to stop edit wars, it might be a good tool in some case. it doesn't sound as if that has been the most common result. Therefore, delete this template, but do not speedy delete it. I still don't see any reason why an out-of-process undiscussed deletion was needed for thsi -- there seems no problem in getting significant numbers of people to agree to delete it at this time. DES (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it makes sense to have a large number of templates for article content disputes so that the right one is available. JYolkowski // talk 22:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Used correctly, it can reduce the damage in sterile edit wars. If someone's abusing it, RFC him, tar and feather him, crush him by elephant, whatever, but that's no reason to delete the template. Plenty of other templates get applied incorrectly too. —Cryptic (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously. This template is only used to give extra credence to one side of an edit war, and tell the other side to STFU. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I'm not an administrator, I have zero idea what this template's text was. However, based on what's been said here, I assume that it left one version as the main page and placed an alternate version on a sub page. The problem with that approach (if that is what the template does) is that it gives the version on the main page a perceived degree of superiority. If such an approach is going to work at all, it will need to place all alternate versions (while rare, I have seen three-cornered edit wars before) on sub pages and make the main page just a protected stub pointing to them. I'm not certain how feasible such an approach would be, but the concept sounds intriguing. Caerwine 23:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming a Monobook skin, you'll find a "history" button atop the page. Chris talk back 23:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The template adds a link to the other version from the page's history. Aside from the arguably inappropriate nature of content forking, your suggestion would basically hide articles from the site's readers. That's entirely unacceptable. —Lifeisunfair 02:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unacceptable maybe, but less so than a template whose only use is to legitimise one side of an edit war. No amount of "This is not an endorsement of this version" can change this. If neither side is willing to play nicely, then neither side gets their version shown in main article space. Can you say fairer than that? Chris talk back 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Both options are unacceptable. I agree with your criticism of the template, but I believe that your Caerwine's alternative is even worse. The concept of removing an article from its correct location might seem like a fair way to treat the editors involved in the dispute, but it's unfair to readers (and patently unprofessional). And of course, it would impede one of the core functions of a wiki: the ability to edit pages. (Which forked version would someone edit? Neither? Both/all? The one that he/she prefers?) —Lifeisunfair 04:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to call into question your ability to read, but I assume when you say "my alternative" you are referring to Caerwine's suggestion above? Also, your point about impeding the users' ability is moot, for obvious reasons. Chris talk back 04:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Not to call into question your ability to read, but I assume when you say "my alternative" you are referring to Caerwine's suggestion above?"
Yes, I'm sorry about that. When I replied to Caerwine, I inadvertently copied-and-pasted your username (from the reply above mine) into the edit summary. When I actually replied to you, I was thinking that you were the same person to whom I already had replied. Additionally, I apologize for splitting your signature (also inadvertent).
"Also, your point about impeding the users' ability is moot, for obvious reasons."
Those reasons are not obvious to me. Could you please elaborate? —Lifeisunfair 14:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pages in such disputes are generally protected, rendering the question of which version to edit worthless. Chris talk back 17:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this template used on numerous unprotected pages. The fact that it can be inserted by a non-admin renders this inevitable.
Also, isn't the theoretical idea behind this template (and Caerwine's variation) to halt edit wars without the need for more drastic intervention? (If the involved parties agree to stop reverting — with or without the use of a special template — there's no need for page protection.) —Lifeisunfair 18:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After having read the above discussion, I'll go ahead and vote Delete on this template. I still think a variant of the {Protected} template that gave direct access to the competing versions might be useful, but it's clear that the method that this template used has been tried and found wanting. Caerwine 19:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fast company this template keeps: see the original use Zen master attempted to make of it over at Conspiracy theory, where his personal impressions are being undue weighted out by other editors (myself included). More evidence for the argument Lifeisunfair gives for a Delete? Adhib 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I assume a person of your level of experience is aware, this is not a simple majority vote count. When applied in a prudent manner, the prefixes "strong" and "weak" can assist the closing admin in gauging the nature of the consensus (or lack thereof). —Lifeisunfair 14:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DisputeCheck

This seems to serve the same purpose as Template:Not verified, though there's a wide variance in the alarmingness of the banner. It seems to me that these templates and their associated categories should be merged. -- Beland 04:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I like the more alrming red color better, but with the text from Not verified. I think we want to be clear as possible that an article with such a banner should not be trusted until the issues are dealt with. But, anyway, merge. -- SCZenz 08:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-nonsense

Only one article is using this rather in-your-face template. I suggest merging it into Template:Cleanup-rewrite. -- Beland 04:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is supposed to fill in a specific niche: You come upon an article; you're not familiar with the subject area, so you have no idea whether the article is in need of Template:Cleanup-context (or some other cleanup template) or if the article is just straight nonsense. I'm not surprised the template is not frequently used: its primary function is to be replaced with another template by somebody who knows more about the subject area. (I admit this could be made clearer within the template itself.) Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 05:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, abrasive and needlessly biting (especially since this will hit new users with unusual frequency). Also, the one article it's used on isn't even nonsense! (Although that article does lack context and could probably be deleted on that basis.) Nonsense is defined as "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." How an expert could be expected to help with it, I don't know. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now, no articles are using it *ahem*. Chris talk back 13:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone is unfamiliar with a subject to the extent that he/she is unable to differentiate between patent nonsense and a legitimate article in need of cleanup, he/she is in no position to declare that the "article appears to be nonsensical" (thereby accusing its author of vandalism). The template's creator stated above that it serves as a means of consulting "somebody who knows more about the subject area," but this can be accomplished with far greater efficiency via other means. (Leave a note on the talk page of a user who has made substantial edits to a related article.) When in doubt, it's important to assume good faith. The insertion of this template marks the assumption of bad faith (placing the onus on a third party — not even the article's author — to counter a potentially false allegation of wrongdoing). —Lifeisunfair 01:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, --Masssiveego 08:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

Template: BoFII

Delete: Obsolete navbox. Links together a series of articles that are now merged into List of Breath of Fire II characters. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Limited Use

This is a recently created, and presently unused, image copyright template. In my opinion, this is a close cousin of the banned "with permission" images, as clause 3) requires: "this picture is used only to illustrate an encyclopedic article about the subject, or in which the subject is significantly refered to". In other words it is an attempt to limit image use and reuse to only encyclopedias, which goes against the spirit of free image use. I understand why it was created, but generally believe it is a bad idea. Dragons flight 17:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this template specifically for those who wish to contribute images to wikipedia, and proper reusers of wikipedia content, but only for use in a context similar to wikipedia or a wikipedia fork or mirror. This makes the image freely available -- the template quite explicitly allows commercial use, but would not allow the image to be, for example, used in an advertisement with no relevance to its inital context. It would not limit reuse to encyclopedias, as a reuser might use only a single article, or use content from wikipedia to create a sigle-purpose page on a web site that could none the less be considered "encyclopedic". I think this template is well within wikipedia image policy, and it is certianly much more free than fair use and "promotional" images. I also think this template will encourage many content owners to upload and allow us to use many images we might well not otherwise get. The template is curently unused because it is relatively new and has not been popularized, but I suspect it will be used significantly in future. It does have some aspects in common with the now disapproved "with permission" templates, but those were disapproved specifically because their permission did not run to mirrors and other proper reusers, particularly commercial mirrors. The license granted by this template explicitly runs to all such users. Keep this template. DES (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am philosophically opposed, as per Wikipedia:Five Pillars and m:Foundation Issues, to crafting licenses that are, in effect, as narrow as can be tolerated by ourselves and our reusers. The object, at least in my mind, is to make information free and available for creative reuse and adaptation, not merely to create an encyclopedia that can be copied for free. It also occurs to me that this license could be read as prohibitting derivative versions, which would make it unwelcome for the same reasons that cc-nd is disallowed. Might we be able to acquire more content by narrowing our licensing conditions? Certainly, but I don't think it is worth narrowing our notion of freedom for the sake of more images. Oh, and I don't agree that confining images to "encyclopedic" contexts is more free that fair use, frankly it strikes me as less so. Dragons flight 20:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might add that the related {{Limited Use-person}} was created for pictures of individuals, but is particularly aimed at user-page images, while allowing mirrors that wish to copy user pagess to do so freely. DES (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also add that I am open to suggestions for rewording or revising. What i am trying to do with this is strike a balance between the nearly complete openness that comes with a GFDL license, and the much greater restrictions that come with fair use, or the effectively total restriction that comes when a user is simply unwilling to license in any form we support. Soemthing like this might be used for the ESA images (now subject to complex discussions, as I understand matters). It seems to me that an image's creator might well be willing to have it freely reused to illustrate the subject of the image, but not in quite different contexts. and that that limited willingness is somethign that we should, insofar as possible consistant with our basic purporse (to create a freely reusable and accessible encyclopedia) enable and support. I was also reactioning to the depage on the deleted {{user-page image}} (I may have the exact name wrong) which effectively restricted rights to wikipedia uses. That prevented reuse, and was properly deleted, IMO. But aI think that htere can be a line between reasoanble and proper reuse, and unreasonable reuse. For example, i put my picture up on my userpage with a varient of this license. I did so because i think it helps to build the encyclopedia to have images of the contributors aviailable, where they are willing. (And if ther should evenr be an actual article about me -- which i rather doubt -- the image would be appropriate there, also. But there are contexts in which i would not be willing for the image to be used, and I think I ought to be able to have it avaialbe on wikipedia for proper purposes, without giving up the right to prevent such uses. DES (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Because it is unused. It looks like significant policy discussion is needeed to get approval of the license which it represents. (SEWilco 21:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete: Non-free. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not free. --Carnildo 22:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a new Wikipedia contributer (follow links on my user page to see my photos and links to the articles I have added them to) who would like to comment from the viewpoint of someone who makes his living as a (paid) content creator. The licenses that W has deemed acceptable virtually guarantee that the images that people are willing to donate to W will be mediocre. I am going through the unpleasant process of trying to find a compromise between several inimical forces that affect the quality of the content that I am willing to donate to W. In my own case my "mistake" (encouraged by several Wikipedians with whom I had early contact) was to upload images of a very high resolution to W. On the one hand there is my desire to help further a project that appeals to the idealist in me. On one of the other hands is the fact that no license W allows images to be licensed which provides the sort of control over the use of the image that content creators expect in any other situation. When I showed the license I am using to my attorney she practically locked me in her office and wouldn't let me out until I had promised to remove the images I had uploaded. When I explained that I didn't think that was possible, she suggested in the strongest terms that I never ever make another contribution of any kind to W. Well, lawyers are lawyers and I pay her to look out for my interests. (If information wants to be free, it hasn't had a chat with my attorney.) The problem with what I had done was supply high-resolution, print-ready content for free and with almost no conditions. If at some point in the future someone should want to license one of my photos (I'm not a professional photographer, but have made a bit of money on the sided from such licensing) they most likely would balk if that photo were already licensed with any of the W licenses. I have tried to reach a compromise by requesting that the images I have uploaded be replaced with duplicates that are of lower resolution. I still probably could not license any of these photos simply because they are on/in W, but it seemed to me an acceptable way to provide W with a good quality image (still in a higher resolution than most in use here) and at least make some effort to hold out the possibility that I might be able to sell the rights to the image by providing a high-resolution version to a client. I have been seeing all of your eyes rolling for some time know. With a few notable exceptions, the basic attitude here is "Ha ha--you screwed yourself. Too bad." Well, too bad for W as well. Since photography is only a sideline of mine, I don't feel too bad about essentially destroying the commercial value of some of my images. I suppose that the warm and fuzzy feeling I get by donating my work is supposed to make me feel OK about that. Call me selfish, but it doesn't. At least, not quite. I am holding up my impulse to contribute to W to scrutiny. If I decide that it is not worth it to me to continue to contribute, I will stop, as now seems likely. The thing that would make me enthusiastic about contributing would be a licensing scheme that would allow me to have enough control over the use of my images so I don't feel like I have turned them over to a group of people who don't understand how creative people make their living, and could care less. That's the feeling I have now. I do think you need something that would let producers of high quality work feel comfortable about putting it on W. You don't have that now. And I suspect that's why so many of the photos currently on W are so mediocre. They may be produced by people for whom photography is a hobby and who perhaps just get a thrill from seeing something they made on the web. Or they are the cast-offs of more talented artists who realise there will be no market for them and who have saved their best shots for comercial purposes. I don't really know, and I don't have the solution. But I hope I have made my case that you have a problem. The proposed license may be part of the solution. JShook | Talk 22:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • JShook, I recognize your dilemma, but please consider that this is the entire purpose of Wikipedia, to have a encyclopedia of free content, including images. For more on the background of this movement, please read about Free software, Free content, and the GNU Project. It is your right to decide how your copyrighted material is licensed. If you do not agree with the GFDL or other free-use licences (some of the Creative Commons for example), then please don't make those contributions here. If you no longer wish to have your images included in Wikipedia, feel free to list them for deletion. Wikipedia is not obligated to remove them since you have licensed your images under the GFDL or similar license, but the author's wishes are generally honored. Be aware that while your image was on Wikipedia under the GFDL license, others may already be using your image in compliance with the GFDL outside Wikipedia. Finally, I dispute the fact that high-quality images will not be uploaded to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Featured images. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are certainly some fine images at the URL you provide. I didn't look at all of them, but of the ones I checked they were all usable at screen resolution only. It would not be possible to use them for print unless you are satisfied with images 2 inches across or so. So by uploading low-resolution images, the contributors have effectively limited their use to Wikipedia and any screen-resolution derivatives. The resolution of the images acts as a de facto license prohibiting their use in print. This is the compromise I am trying to implement with the images I have already uploaded--switching out the high-resolution images with screen resolution versions (which are still of higher resolution than many I saw at the Wikipedia:Featured images page.) JShook | Talk 16:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • JShook has made some valid points, some of which I am preocuppied myself. I don't mind donating any picture I've taken to Wikipedia, but the licensing is too open, and I'm very uncomfortable with that, which made me stay away from the "Upload file" link for the most part. Keep pending further discussion of the issue. Titoxd(?!?) 22:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, why would any original creator of work contribute to Wikipedia? I don't see any reason at the moment. None of this discussion has convinced me that it is a good thing for anyone to do. JShook | Talk 16:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly delete. I fully appreciate the point of the template, but the fact is that anything you upload here to which you own the copyright is under the GFDL, and it does not matter what other templates you stick on it. The GFDL explicitly allows for any use, and this template spcifically restricts the usage and is thus incompatible with long-standing Wikipedia policy. Like the user-page template before it, creating a new template is not the way to change policy. The way to do that is to contact the Foundation's lawyers. -Splashtalk 22:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't allow images with usages restricted in this manner, except for fair use images. It's really as simple as that. If you find Wikipedia too open for your work, then don't donate it. There is a reason it is a "free" encyclopedia.--Fastfission 02:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this flatly contradicts the spirit under which Wikipedia operates, and the Wikimedia Foundation's policies. Either contribute to Wikipedia under the GFDL, or don't contribute at all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an attempt to change legal status of Wikipedia contributions by creating a template. Jkelly 18:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and allow recreation if Foundation approves of this sort of use-with-permission. --Tabor 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Licenses which restrict the use of content are incompatible with Wikipedia. Rhobite 22:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-free. dbenbenn | talk 06:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vote and all derivatives

(Includes at least Template:Voteapprove/Template:Votesupport/Template:Voteyes (a speedy candidate), Template:Votemove, Template:Votereverse, Template:Votedelete, Template:Voteneutral, Template:Voteoppose/Template:Voteno (another speedy candidate), and Template:Votecomment.)

A terrible idea that just keeps on getting terribler. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#Template:Support and Template:Object and Template:Oppose for these templates' ancestor. Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a powerpoint presentation, and the templates are an unnecessary server drain. Note also that voting-on-afd-via-template has been discussed and thoroughly rejected before (see Wikipedia talk:Survey guidelines#Voting via templates). —Cryptic (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Votecomment: Discouragement of vote creep, such as Reverse alternate merge except feminine conjunctions. Covered in previous discussions as well as Template talk:Vote. (SEWilco 04:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Template: New York State Highways

Delete: This template is way too big, is a red link farm, and is unnecessary because of List of New York state highways I point to the deletion of the Virginia state highways template as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of California State Routes Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:30, 27 October 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. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.

Stub templates for deletion

Main page: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

Template:Sfd-current

Listings

Adding a listing

  • Please put new listings under today's date (October 2) 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.

November 2

Template: Football squad player/other/

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Football squad player/other/captain

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Football squad player/other/vice-captain

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

Template:New Jersey New

Speedy delete: Testing ground for {{New Jersey}}, obsolete now that it has been merged in. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template: POTS-appointment

Delete: I am nominating this template for deletion because it seems unencyclopedic. First of all, it actively highlights a temporary state of affairs. While this is sometimes unavoidable, there is a reason Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly is part of the style guide. Second, it doesn't contribute anything to the article, while creating a lot of blank space unnecessarily; the fact that there is a vacancy in an office seems to almost always be redundant with information presented in the article. Third, the link for "qualified applicants" seems out of place, particularly in articles such as Supreme Court of the United States (from which it was deleted with the comment "Is this a joke?" while I was writing this nomination). That should be enough to start with. — DLJessup (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I orphaned it. BJAODN and delete. ~~ N (t/c) 23:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The creator speaks
  • Keep, but if you really want to, delete. I don't think it's nonsense. I don't think it's a bad joke, either. It's a damn good joke, and it's encyclopedic. It presents a notable fact in an interesting (and entertaining) way. At the time I created that, I had been doing much CSD screening on new pages and images for several days, and I really just sort of snapped. I needed to do something encyclopedic and lighthearted. The hilarity of it results from the fact the the Executive Office of the President of the United States of America solicits applications for Senate-confirmed positions on the main White House website. The template actually presents the user factual information - that this particular HR mechanism has made it all the way into the highest realms of even the federal government. I think the concept is encyclopedic. In hindsight, the template presentation is, well, unusual. A note might be added to George W. Bush Administration in the nominations section about this web application mechanism if it is deleted. --Mm35173 18:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, keep. Many jobs are notable enough that they have articles which deal with them on Wikipedia. How one gets said jobs is notable and important. We have a whole discourses on how men become popes, presidents, etc. How to get a presidentially appointed position is pertinent to each article about such positions. Since the information is reusable, and would likely change on all of these pages at once, templatization is a good way to present it.--Mm35173 18:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already said keep jokingly but I like Mm's idea. A page on how applications are made is definitely encyclopædic and a reworded version of this template would be perfectly suited for such a page. But full marks to Mm for giving us all a great laugh. I've added a doctored version of it onto my user page, reworded in a humorous vein. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mormon jew

Why does there need to be a merge of Mormon and Jewish templates? There's no article using it. ~~ N (t/c) 22:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hoax

I'm nominating this template for the same reason why I support the deletion of {{DisputeCheck}} and {{Cleanup-nonsense}}. Massive warning templates disparage entire articles' quality in the eyes of readers, and therefore should be confined to situations in which concrete allegations of major editorial problems exist. If someone suspects that an article is a hoax (and isn't certain of this), the appropriate course of action is to research the subject further and/or consult others (such as major contributors to related articles). When in doubt, it's important to assume good faith. There's absolutely no need to compromise the appearance of a potentially legitimate article by advertising a mere hunch. —Lifeisunfair 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It should only be used where there is real suspicion, after some research, that the article is likely to be a hoax not in case of mere hunches. When the editor feels the need of advice in specialist areas, for example. Dlyons493 Talk 22:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, when someone suspects that an article is a hoax, it certainly is appropriate to seek the advice of those who are more knowledgeable in the area. In no way, however, does this require the user to add a proclamation of his/her suspicion to the article (which might be legitimate). —Lifeisunfair 22:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dlyons. ~~ N (t/c) 23:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with {{twoversions}} and {{cleanup-nonsense}}, the community at large cannot be trusted to use these templates sensibly. If you think something is a hoax, the correct course of action is to look further into it, and tag it with {{delete}} or to AfD it, or to raise it on the talk page for the article. Chris talk back 23:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The origin of this template was a discussion at WP:CSD if hoax vandalism ought to be speedy deleted. A concern was that just tagging it as {{delete}} would not give the article sufficient exposure to eyeballs. As far as responsible use goes, I see no rampant misuse of the {{delete}} template. Pilatus 10:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Under current policy, alleged hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates on that basis. And even if this were to change (which would be ill-advised, in my opinion), the {{hoax}} template encourages readers to place a scarlet "H" on articles that are merely "suspected" to be hoaxes. (Hurl accusations now, ask questions later.) —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Hoaxes are speediable under G1 if the article give insufficient context for turning it into a valid article. Johntex\talk 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I explicitly stated that "alleged hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates on that basis" (new emphasis). Hoaxes are subject to G1, but this has nothing to do with the fact that they're hoaxes. —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Recent examples show that once spotted, the legitimacy of an article is quickly established either way. Pilatus 13:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • How is it beneficial to display a disparaging notice in the meantime? —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ordinary vandalism (including adding nonsense) is reverted on sight and doesn't stay visible for too long. Hoax entries on entirely fictional people on the other hand must go through the AfD process to be removed and take a week or so to go away. A notice that the hoax has been discovered in addition to the AfD notice (which will be slapped on once the hoax is confirmed) will hopefully discourage the vandal. Pilatus 14:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. Until sufficient evidence exists to reasonably establish a high level of probability that the article is a hoax (thereby warranting an AfD listing), it's inappropriate to place a deprecatory label on the (potentially legitimate) page. Even a non-definitive declaration is injurious to an article's reputation — and more importantly, that of its contributor. In the case of a false alarm, this is likely to be a new, inexperienced member of our community (who might be offended/discouraged by the false vandalism accusation to the extent that he/she decides to cease all participation). "Assuming good faith" doesn't mean "assuming that a borderline suspicious article is a hoax until proven otherwise."
2. When there is sufficient evidence to warrant an AfD listing, it remains inappropriate to tag an article with a supplementary template (in addition to {{afd}}). This unfairly conveys an out-of-context, one-sided, POV-based assessment of the content. The correct procedure is to simply insert the {{afd}} tag (and nothing more). This promulgates the fact that the article has been nominated for deletion (itself an unfortunate but unavoidable circumstance for valid articles), and directs readers to the AfD discussion (where all pertinent viewpoints and specific evidence may be addressed). —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoaxes are alluded to in that paragraph, but not in a context that would render them eligible for speedy deletion. An unambiguously nonsensical joke ("Lushy McDrinksalot traveled to Earth from the planet Foamymug in his magical, hops-powered rocket ship to become the first openly drunk President of the United States . . .") fits the speedy deletion criteria, but a plausible hoax (meaning one that might be taken seriously by a rational adult) is explicitly excluded from speedy deletion: "This does not include . . . hoaxes . . ." Of course, this is irrelevant to the matter at hand; even if "likely hoax" were added as a new CSD, your template would be inappropriate. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • G1 contains the page's one and only instance of the word "hoax." Thus far, every attempt to expand the speedy deletion criteria to include hoaxes has failed. If the current proposal or any future proposal succeeds, your template still will be inappropriate (IMHO). —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your description does not correspond to the template's actual wording (which clearly encourages application to a "suspected" hoax that has not yet been "confirmed to be a hoax" or "nominated[d] for deletion," and that might be "confirmed true"). If you were to reword the template for use in the manner that you describe above (confining its application to a situation in which the user is confident in his/her assertion that an article is a hoax), it would become nothing more than an inappropriate companion to {{afd}} that shouts "HOAX! HOAX!" at readers who haven't had the opportunity to read such a claim in the context of the AfD discussion (which might contain weak evidence of wrongdoing and/or valid a defense of the article's legitimacy). —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If can come up with better phrasing for the intended use, please do so. Pilatus 13:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't believe that this template has a valid application; any rewording would merely shift it from one inappropriate purpose to another. —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just now, on New Page Patrol, I came across two hoax articles that the hoax template was intended for. Barry Cahill committed a "triple murder" when he killed the "Larkson Family"; Google throws up no hits for this. Dr. Julian Godfray won the 1972 Booker Prize with for his novel "The Sun Disk Pharaoh". Neither author nor title are listed in the catalogue of the British Library. I didn't check if a building is named after him at King's College School, Wimbledon; probably it isn't and the school may not exist. The 1972 Booker Prize was awarded to John Berger. Does that really need to hang around for a week on AfD? Pilatus 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a hypothetical example, suppose that an individual by the name of "Larry Cahill" murdered a family by the name of "Clarkson." What initially appears to be a clear-cut hoax could turn out to be nothing more than a couple of honest factual errors. (The level of notability would be a separate issue.) This is the sort of realization that sometimes occurs at AfD, and that's why we bother to conduct the discussions.
Again, this is irrelevant to the matter at hand; even if "likely hoax" were added as a new CSD, your template would be inappropriate. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is always the risk that speedy-deleting hoax vandalism might kill a legit article, that is precisely why it's preferable to have some people look over it before the hoax is deleted. Hence the template.
It always is a good idea to seek community feedback before deleting an article because it's believed to be a hoax, irrespective of how that deletion occurs. But once again, why is it necessary to solicit such advice via a deprecatory template? —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already have such a template; it's called {{not verified}}. —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(hits himself) sorry - missed that, thanks --Doc (?) 02:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we are 51-90% sure something is a hoax, we do the unsuspecting reader a disservice if they are not warned of this possibility while we continue our fact-checking. Johntex\talk 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are 51-90% sure something is a hoax, then it gets AfD'd, with the statement that it might be a hoax there, and a great big sodoff link at the top saying the article might be deleted. Is that somehow not enough for the discerning reader to think twice about the article's content? Chris talk back 19:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much of this discussion is the wrong way round. It isn't a question of whether we are 50-90% sure it is a hoax. We only include verifiable info. If there is 1% possibility of hoax, we try to verify the article. If we can't verify it - we delete it, period. {{not verified}} or {{afd}} are all we really require. --Doc (?) 10:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that this conflicts with what Chris wrote above. We seek to verify everything (and remove the content that cannot be verified), but we shouldn't allege that an article is a "hoax" unless we're fairly certain of this. There's a big difference between "I can't confirm that this article is true" (which could simply mean that the article is in need of cleanup) and "I believe that this article is false." In fact, {{hoax}} goes a step further by specifying an accusation of vandalism. (Not all inaccurate articles are hoaxes. Some are written in good faith by people who mistakenly believe the information to be accurate.) —Lifeisunfair 14:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAOL

This template was created to highlight articles that have a featured-article equivalent in an other language wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages). But I think that it should be replaced by Template:FA link, a smaller template that puts a small star in the interlanguage box (see Boeing 747). check also here the same proposal that I've made but didn't get any responses. CG 18:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The "Featured Article" interwiki star only works with the Monobook skin. --Carnildo 00:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Template:FA link (currently a redirect to Template:Link FA) only notes for the benefit of readers that an article is featured in another language. Template:FAOL has a somewhat different meaning. It notes for the benefit of contributors that a featured article in another language is a likely source of additional information (which definitely isn't true for all featured articles in other languages). It also places the article in a category under Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages. --Hoziron 03:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. {{FAOL}} and its companion {{FAOLdone}} are complementary to {{link FA}}: they perform different tasks in different contexts. —Phil | Talk 11:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wait. Which is it? Is the purpose of Template:FAOL (1) to accomodate people who don't use the Monobook skin, or is it (2) to note articles which aren't just featured articles on other languages, but also happen to have valuable information that could assist the English article if it were utilized, or is it (3) to put the articles into the category of featured articles in various languages? The motivation here seems fairly confused. What if a featured article on a foreign-language Wikipedia doesn't have any information that we haven't yet utilized for our English Wikipedia article, but we do want to make it clear to non-monobookers that the article is a featured one, or we do want to put it in that category? What then? Or what if an article isn't featured on a foreign language Wiki, but does have lots of information on that Wiki that we would find highly valuable to use if it was translated and properly formatted? Why include the additional "featured article" requirement, if the chief point of Template:FAOL is to note foreign-language articles we can use to improve the English Wikipedia, rather than a template just to point out when there's a featured article in another language, a task already well-handled by Template:FA link for anyone who uses monobook. And wouldn't it make sense to have template:FA link also put articles into categories, so we wouldn't have to use two redundant templates for every featured article in every foreign language? This whole idea seems like an inefficient doubling of the steps required to note that a certain article is a featured one in a foreign language, one that could only lead to inconsistencies and unnecessary work. Never do with two templates what you could do with one. -Silence 12:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is needed for users relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia's arcane nomenclature and semiotics to transfer contents from featured homologues to those that need improvement. Saravask 01:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though its flawed beyond reason, this needs consensus in other locales before deletion. If you doubt that's its useless, see Talk:World War II where about 7 featured articles are linked. Of course, none is as thorough or as well written as the one in English (the Arabic one is laughably short), and many are translations of the English, but of course, that's not important. However, that's not really a reason to delete it. I think there need to be guidelines to its use, however.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for above reasons. Enochlau 08:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. For all of the above reasons. BlankVerse 09:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unicode hack

Delete: Blank, orphan, abandoned experiment. Phil | Talk 16:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Danger

Delete: Also Template:Danger-adultsuper and Template:Danger-professional. See Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates for the rationale. Also being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Warning boxes for dangerous activities and products. cesarb 02:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the Disclaimers link is to suffice, it should be at the top of the framework, with a small warning box, so that it is seen immediately. Seahen 15:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brisbane infobox

Delete This infobox can only be used for a single city, and is redundant given the existence of Template:Infobox Australian City. --Dalziel 86 02:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

NOTE

A bot is under production to automatically subst certain templates. If you have suggestions for templates that should always (or never) be subst'ed, please contribute them to Wikipedia:Subst.

Template:Royal Welch Fusiliers

Delete Yet another, one article only type template. This one can only ever be used in Royal Welch Fusiliers and should just be substed into it. --Sherool 22:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and convert into infobox. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm the creator of this template (and many similar ones). I've created Template:Infobox British Army regiment to replace them. In retrospect I should have done this when I initially set out to create these for all the regiment articles, but better late than never. I'll list the templates for deletion once I've completed the task. When I do, would it be possible to lump them under one section? SoLando (Talk) 19:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If they are all of this kind I don't think anyone would mind them being lumped together. Check the history first though, if you are the only one who has edited them you can just put {{db-g7}} on them and bypass TFD altogeter. --Sherool 23:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

Delete, another one of those templates that are only used in one article namely The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. --Sherool 22:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert into infobox. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Avram table

Delete, this one was only used in Avram, don't rely see the point in a seperate template for this, I just substed it into the article itself. Some kind of "micronation infobox" template might be in order though if anyone is interested. --Sherool 21:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fair use-firefox

Delete and retag images as {{Logo}}, unlike the Disney logo ting this is not used for subcategorisation (it puts images in the generic Category:Logos), also it only apply to like 4 images (one of wich I nominated for deletion because it was only used on a userpage). Moreover the purpose of the template seems to be to validate the use of FireFox logos on userpages based on the fact that FireFox says that you can use the logo on your webpage to promote FireFox. IMHO this permission means little as Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy explicitly states that "fair use" images should not be used on userpages (or templates). --Sherool 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: IANAL, but as far as I know once you're granted permission to use an image on, say, your web page, the use of it in that context ceases to be fair use. Lord Bob 16:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As to permission for "promotional usage"--promotional usage tends to run counter to WP:NOT a soapbox. Also, on the page for button programs, it says at the bottom "Usage guidelines for the new logos is currently under development."[15] I'm not sure exactly what to make of that; it sounds like the conditions are subject to change.
For uses other than as a promotional button on a web page, there are restrictions to personal or non-commercial uses: "Sure, if it's just for you, or if it's for others and no money or other consideration changes hands" [16] All in all, it sounds like a grey area with no compelling justification for why we need to do this.
IMO, we should stick to fair-use {{Logo}} for these, and abide by the restrictions that entails: using the image in articles as identification or illustration when the product or trademark owner in question is a subject of discussion. --Tabor 18:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rewrite & rename:
    1. The copyright holder, firefox states that they are ok with the usage of the image on web pages, hence we have a greater level of permission compared to the standard "Fair use". And as far as copyrights are concerned the copyright holder granted me the permission to use the firefox logo on my userpage for a "promotional usage".
    2. It is plainly "kawaii" (cute) to have the firefox logo on my userpage rather than an annoying "FF" in its place.
    3. If I can say "I like firefox" on my userpage, I should also be allowed to use the logo as well as far as WP:NOT is concerned.
    --Cool Cat Talk 20:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is way too specific. Just use {{Logo}}, in combination with other existing tags if any apply. JYolkowski // talk 22:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The Problem is logo doesnt do the level of usage of the images we are granted by copyright holder. --Cool Cat Talk 14:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep re-write somehow. I'm out of my league here, but could {{Promotional}} be of any use? - RoyBoy 800 00:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 19:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cool Cat, and "not a soapbox" does not apply to user pages. ~~ N (t/c) 23:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template serves a very specific purpose, but said purpose is valid and unserved by other templates. When placed on a user page, this is not an example of fair use (because the copyright holder has provided explicit consent). While Wikipedia is not a personal hosting service, we're permitted to include some autobiographical information on our user pages (especially when it pertains to our Wikipedia participation, as browser selection does). —Lifeisunfair 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just how would you clasify these logos anyway? Free use? Defenently not, they are copyrighted and trademarked, and have several restrictions. Used with permission? That runs afoul of WP:CSD#I3. Promotional? All promotional images are still used under a fair use rationale. Conditional use? Nope, they must allow derivative works to fit in that category (wich they don't). We would have to invert a whole new licence type to allow this use as far as I can tell.

    Also note at the end of the quote from the FAQ it says "Put one or more of these buttons on your website to help us spread the word about Firefox." (emphasis mine), it does not say "use any Mozilla logo you like", and only Image:Firefox logo 305x150.png seems to actualy be one of those buttons. --Sherool 17:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pdf icon

Delete it's one and only function is to insert a PDF icon into an article, use of fair use images in templates is a big no-no acording to Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. It was only used in 3-4 articles all by the same person, so I just orphanded it because the articles would look extremely ugly with the huge TFD notice for these small icons. If someone wants to replace the image with a free one (some text saying "pdf" maybe) that's fine with me, but this current form has to go. --Sherool 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE I am the user who uploaded the icon. I have no problem with its deletion. Saravask 10:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and note that you can achieve the same functionality other ways, though it wouldn't be completely trivial. Something like this in your monobook.css, though you'll need to tweak it with padding and whatnot:
a[href$=".pdf"] { background-image: url('.../pdficon.png'); }
—HorsePunchKid→龜 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia Primetime Sunday

Also:

This is a procedural nomination moved from a misplaced listing on AFD. Bwithh's reasoning there was that "Wikipedia is not a TV guide. also, this is unmaintainable." No opinion from me. —Cryptic (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Get rid as soon as possible! We can't have this spammed on the pages of the series and I'm going to remove them from articles as this is clearly not appropriate. If the result is to keep then they could be readded. In some cases there are three templates per article and the problem would just get worse and worse. Have an article about the TV schedules, but not a template on every article for every channel in every country. violet/riga (t) 11:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. unmaintainable, too many templates, not a tv guide, ..... JPD (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is a US equivalent, and these are useful and interesting templates. I do suggest, however, removing them from foreign television shows, as they just would not scale if that were the case. Ambi 12:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Define "foreign" on an international website........--ElvisThePrince 13:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"foreign" means the country of broadcast is different from the country of production. --Scott Davis Talk 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK what about say HBO/BBC co-productions?--ElvisThePrince 01:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who created these templates. I just happen to stumble across Template:US Primetime Thursday when correcting links to Will & Grace. Liking the look of the template, I proceeded to create ones for Australian television and placed the templates on the appropriate pages. Ambi discovered what I was doing and some discussion regarding the templates took place on my talk page. However Chuq then suggested that templates be created for each network rather then each day. I then came up with the following:

Seven Network Daily Primetime Schedule
7:30
8:00
8:30
9:00
9:30
10:00
Sunday
??
Sunday Night Film
Monday
The Great Outdoors
Grey's Anatomy
24
Tuesday
Dancing with the Stars
All Saints
Wednesday
Beyond Tomorrow
Blue Heelers
Forensic Investigators
Thursday
The Mole
Las Vegas
24
Friday
Better Homes and Gardens
Friday Night Film

This is as far as it went. Now I discover that the templates have been put up for deletion. There is currently no tfd tags on any of the templates except for Sunday and most have been removed from the articles without discussion and without any notification to me.

So, may I suggest a compromise. Lets delete these nightly primetime templates and replace them with the network primetime templates like the example above. This way they can be placed on the article about the network (e.g. Seven Network). Also I agree with Ambi that these templates should only be placed on articles about Australian programmes. How does that sound with everybody?? -- Ianblair23 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! posted just after Ianblairs post above. I concur with his proposal. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment templates are not required if they only go on one article (the network). I guess templates are useful if they go on each member channel as well, but I don't know if they are always consistent across states (eg football). --Scott Davis Talk 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Network-specific tables would be nice, but I agree, they don't need templates. Also, I think it's more usual for the days to run horizontally and the times vertically, but that's a minor nitpick. Anyway, more should have been done before this TfD. Bwithh (the original nominator) should have made an attempt to contact the creator, ie User:Ianblair23. Obviously some work has gone into these. Let's not rush to throw out so much content so quickly. pfctdayelise 13:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the table is only on the network page, it shouldn't be a template. I don't personally see much value in having a table showing what's on on the programme pages, and am not really happy with the half-done solution of only having the table for the country of origin. Also, note that one of the US templates is also listed above - the Australian ones should definitely not be considered separately. JPD (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the one who originated the US Thursday template, I will refrain from voting. I will, however, make the following comments:
  1. I created that solely to see how people would react to it, and to see if anyone would pick up and create tables for the other days (again, to judge whether or not people found them useful). I thought the issue was dead when other days didn't pop up, not realizing someone in Australia had picked it up.
  2. I fail to see how this is "unmaintainable". Unless a show completely bombs by the end of October, it only requires updating at new season and midseason.
  3. I strongly object to whoever removed the templates from the pages before this vote was concluded. That's equivalent to blanking a page and then putting it up for deletion, in my eyes, and that's poor Wikipedia etiquette, also (perhaps) strictly IMO.

Otherwise, I don't care one way or another how this vote goes. Sahasrahla 22:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

Template:Partof

This template is overkill. To list a related article, we use a "see also" section towards the bottom. Using indented text at the top is improper format. Furthermore, an article is not part of a series (def: number of objects or events arranged or coming one after the other in succession) if it is not part of the list. This template is being used for articles that are not part of a series (only topically related to the series) and improperly labels them as being part of a series. --Jiang 13:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Instruments

In variation to Wikipedia:Babel, this page contains dozens of templates such as {{User horn-1}} ("this user is a novice hornist") and {{User org-4}} ("this user is a professional organist") and accompanying catagories. Nearly all of those aren't actually used. At the risk of going out on a limb, I would propose simplifying it a lot by removing the "skill levels" and simply leaving Category:Wikipedians by instrument. Radiant_>|< 10:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Totally harmless. As long as they serves some kind of community purpose and doesn't interfere with anything important, why get rid of things used in userspace? I would, however support getting rid of the categories for each skill level and just lumping as "Hornist", "Organist" etc. unless those categories get overly populated. The templates themselves, though, should stay. -- Tyler 10:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMO even levels should remain, because being able to play "Frère Jacques" is not the same thing as being able to play "The Flight of the Bumblebee" or "Eruption" by Van Halen. However, I might agree that four levels are not strictly necessary, maybe three or even just two would suffice; anyway, since they don't harm, they could as well stay. --Army1987 20:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that not only should the levels be left, but all the levels. I agree with Army1987 about Frère Jacques/The Flight of the Bumblebee, and while there may not be many higher level players for some instruments (for instance, there are currently only 3 professional saxaphone players) the fact that there is ONE is grounds for keeping that level. And for the sake of continuity (for lack of a better word- someone substitute the one I'm looking for) there should be the same number of levels for each one. Eventually (in theory at least) someone will fill themselves into each one- the same theory that Wikipedia eventaully approaches perfection.

Wildyoda 03:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean consistence. However, to avoid having many underpop'd categories as Tyler says, we could keep the templates, remove level-specific categories and replacing [[Category:User {{{instrument-cat-code}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]] with [[Category:User {{{instrument-cat-code}}}|{{{level}}}]]. This way there will be one category per instrument, but users will be sorted by level. (This is just an idea, IMO as long as those categories don't harm they can remain.)--Army1987 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User sco templates

These seem to be used by some of the user-language templates but not by others. And I can't really see why any of them would be used, since thyey are hardly "shortcuts". Who in their right mind would type in {{user sco 1}} rather than simply typing 1? And {{User sco N}} defies even the tenuous logic of having the rest of these as templates - it returns M! Unless there's a perfectly logical reason that I have overlooked, I don't think these should survive. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, they all just seem to be numbers. Unless there's some technical reason for this? -- SCZenz 08:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the reason for this is to hook to categories in the Scots Wikipedia. For some bizarre reason, they're using M instead of N for native speakers (even though other languages where the equivalent of "native" does not start with an N still use N). Since there is a parameter {{{level}}}, they'd need to have some way of changing the level. The only way to do this is to wrap it in another template by level. Chris talk back 03:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they were actual user-language templates they would be for speakers of Template:Ll. If someone cares to make them such, then of course keep. But in their current state, delete. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until someone knocks some sense into sco:, delete thereafter. Actually, it seems that several languages to this, see the list of included templates]. Keep until WM policy on how to do this across all Wikipediae can be formed. Chris talk back 03:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A possible technical reason: These seem to be for the purpose of mapping our system of language levels (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, N) to those of other languages. For these templates, it seems that speakers of Template:Ll also use 0-4 for language levels; however, they use 'M' instead of 'N'—apparently preferring mither tung (mother tongue) to native. A better example would be mapping the language levels to Template:Ll, where {{User ast 1}}, {{User ast 2}}, etc. map the numerals to equivalent words in Asturian. These apparently exist as templates (as opposed to just typing in the translated text/numeral) for more flexible use in templates like {{User language subcategory}}, to create properly-mapped interwiki links on user-language subcategory pages to the corresponding subcategories in other languages. For example, Category:User en-N (which uses the User language subcategory template) would link to the corresponding User en-M subcategory in Wikipaedia Scots. (It doesn't, actually, because the TfD message currently breaks the User language subcategory template when it tries to call {{User sco N}}.) Were these templates to be deleted, the interwiki link would point to the nonexistant subcategory User en-N. I vote a weak keep. These templates certainly have their legitimate uses; however, at least for the specific case with Scots, any breakage resulting from deleting these templates (to my knowledge) would seem to be relatively minimal and could be fixed by making a category redirect on Wikipaedia Scots and editing the User language subcategory template so it doesn't try to re-map the language levels for the Scots interwiki link.—Jeff 03:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

Template:D-t

This is a new way of proposing a template for speedy deletion without specifing a reason. As none of the WP:CSD apply specifically to templates anyway, this could only be legitimately used under the general criteria (vandalism or nonsense, for example). This is a very rare occurance, and such a mechanism is not needed for it. Delete DES (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:InMemoriam

  • Delete: Although I support linking to the memorial site from relevant articles, I don't see why we need a template simply for a link. I imagine this template was created to discourage people from creating overly conspicuous or elaborate links to the memorial, but hopefully that is no longer such a pressing problem. Instead of having a template, we should simply encourge editors to create normal links to the memorial from the External links sections of the various articles. That way we're not wasting processor power on generating a link from a template. Kaldari 19:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created this to resolve an edit war on Template:Sep11 over the placement of a prominent link to Sep11:Main Page. Some people wanted it in the series box, some people didn't, and most were quite pigheaded about it. Initially it was a box like the other sister project templates (Template:Wikiquote, Template:Commons, etc.), so the link would get the extra prominence that Side 1 wanted, but wouldn't be placed on the same footing as the articles in the series, which is what Side 2 didn't like. I don't care one way or another whether this is deleted or not; both the main edit warriors on the issue are long gone, so I doubt they care too much either. (Though, of course, others might take their place . . . but we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:RAÄ

Doesn't really say anything about use that Template:Restricted use doesn't, is used only on one image (which I'm retagging right now). As well, I don't really think we want to encourage uploads of such images by providing a template, so delete. JYolkowski // talk 16:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. In fact, take out the fair use bit, and this would be a double-whammy as "non-commercial use only" and '"'by-permission, Wikipedia only". (Both are prohibitted, of course.) Wcquidditch | Talk 01:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GameCoverInfo

Basically transcludes Template:Gamecover with a few parameters at the top to specify source and copyright info. However, the parameters are in such an unintuitive format that it's probably easier just to type them in in the upload box. It's unused to boot, so delete. JYolkowski // talk 16:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GameScreenshotInfo

Along the same lines as Template:GameCoverInfo, and I think it should be deleted for the same reason. JYolkowski // talk 16:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline

A somewhat confusing template used for putting Wikipedia pages in a subcat of Category:Wikipedia guidelines. It is, however, redundant since afaik most of those categories already have different templates that are better worded. Radiant_>|< 00:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, "most of those categories" have not different templates; the only guideline subcategory that has its own template are style guidelines. All other subcategories of the guidelines category are served only by this template, that can be used for these four subcategory types. See Template talk:Wikipedia subcat guideline and see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Project_namespace#Policies_and_guidelines --Francis Schonken 08:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Other approach
I propose to continue the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Project_namespace#Discussion --Francis Schonken 10:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-ABN

Delete for several reasons, first of all it is incorect, images from that source is not PD, they can be used freely provided atribution is given, but they are not public domain. Secondly it's only used on one image, and finaly it's bascaly a duplicate of Template:ABr, wich corectly states that the images are copyrighted, but can be used as long as credit is given. I recomend it's one image be re-tagged {{ABr}} after this is deleted. --Sherool 00:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

Template:Limited Use-person

Nominated for sake of consistency with consideration of Template:Limited_Use below, for the same reasons. --Tabor 19:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly delete. I reproduce my comment from below for consistency. I fully appreciate the point of the template, but the fact is that anything you upload here to which you own the copyright is under the GFDL, and it does not matter what other templates you stick on it. The GFDL explicitly allows for any use, and this template spcifically restricts the usage and is thus incompatible with long-standing Wikipedia policy. Like the user-page template before it, creating a new template is not the way to change policy. The way to do that is to contact the Foundation's lawyers. Everything we do here ourselves we give away freely; if your work is not compatible with that, you need not contribute it. I note that compared to the template below, the word "encyclopedic" has been omitted, which is interesting, but makes no difference to the GFDL status. -Splashtalk 19:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that the people tagging their uploads as PD, CC-by-sa, or fairuse are not making valid license choices? Please clarify. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you upload something to which you hold the copyright, it is licensed under the GFDL, regardless of how else you tag it. You can also tag it in other ways, but the GFDL is always there: those who upload with cc-by-sa and the like are multi-licensing, not single licensing under their chosen tag. The presumption of this template on the other hand, is to upload something to which you hold the copyright but to not do so under the GFDL, an action that, under current policy, cannot be taken, as stated clearly on Special:Upload. Which is to say that the template is extremely misleading: you can tag with it sure, but I can then soundly ignore it and use the image in whatever way I like anyway. -Splashtalk 07:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not free. --Carnildo 20:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 19:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reasons as other template. Rhobite 22:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-free. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Twoversions

This template was deleted by User:David Gerard and then undeleted by User:DESiegel. I agree with David (Gerard), who stated [17] that this template is "...a blatant encouragement to violate NPOV and substitute Sympathetic Point Of View." Carbonite | Talk 16:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which David do you agree with? :) My undeltion does not seem to ahve been successful, at least I still can't see the earlier versions. I undeleted because this was delted with no process or consensus at all, and because the last TfD on this had a keep result. I agree that encouraging edit wars and PoV disputes is a bad idea. Abstain pending furhter debate on the merits of this template. DES (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, per Carbonite and David Gerard. Further existence of this template is poisonous to Wikipedia and immediate deletion is called for. Process is good for general cases, but isn't required when something this contrary to our core principles appears. Unfocused 17:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not speedy. Forks are evil, but instead of deleting this template out-of-process we can just fix any situation that it ends up being used in, until it's deleted. ~~ N (t/c) 17:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Unfocused. I don't really see the merits of this template, and it has caused more trouble than it was meant to prevent. Titoxd(?!?) 17:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A very useful template to halt edit warring, and possibly, bring the parties to discussion. Better guideline is necessary to state clearly which of the two versions should be displayed (e.g. based on what the articles were like before the disputes, in other words, based upon the original intents). Better enforcement is also necessary to avoid individuals like user:Huaiwei who ignored what the template said - " Please do not revert to the other disputed version unless it is decided on the discussion page that this should be done. " - and insisted to have their preferred versions displayed. The template tagged on the article should better be as minimal as possible, and the links to the other version and to the diffs can be provided on the talk page by a sister template. — Instantnood 17:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Far more often, the template is used inappropriately. For example, you tagged [18] National pastime due to a disagreement about how Hong Kong should be classified. In practice, this is almost always the manner in which this template is used. I've seen almost no evidence of it halting edit wars or helping parties to reach consensus. Carbonite | Talk 18:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mean I should not have applied the template? In your opinion, what should I do instead to stop the POV pushers like user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat who refused to follow how things were presented prior to their contentious edits? — Instantnood 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, yes, I believe that you shouldn't have applied the template in that instance. That dispute was about one line of text. I honestly have no idea about the POV of you, Huaiwei or STC, but I do know that placing the twoversions template on the article wasn't going to settle any dispute. This template shouldn't even be an option for settling a dispute. We need to work on getting one NPOV article, not two different POV articles. Carbonite | Talk 19:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What else can be done? Yes I can understand how frustated you must be feeling now that a Requests for comment and two arbcoms (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al., Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2) hasent managed to solve your problem. Poor individual admins who invest time and energy to try to resolve has faltered one after another, with the latest hanging in the balance with a threat like "I have no comment unless the first steps are done". But I sure hope you are not demanding for this template's existance by saying Carbonite cant give you a solution to your problem. Like I constantly remind, learn to take responsiblity and ownership of the problems you are part of, and quit constantly expecting others to solve them for you.--Huaiwei 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are not two ArbCom cases, the second part was a reopening for the close for the first part was procedurally and technically incorrectly performed. Please also take a look at what the arbitrators have said about user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat: [1] [2]. — Instantnood 20:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited there is no reason to expect people will follow how things are presented prior to their edits. Nobody owns the text, intent or title of an article and they can and will change. It's a wiki, get over it. SchmuckyTheCat 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obliterate We have {{POV}} for such things, whereas this template implies that you are looking at The Wrong Version. Chris talk back 18:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. User:Instantnood's himself has actually proven to be one of the worse abusers of this template, and for him to bring it up for undeletion and then to support its continued existance here demonstrates the extent to which individuals who circumvent the mediation and dispute resolution process can go to archieve their aims. Not a single usage of this template by instantnood has resulted in resolution of any kind, with all of them continuing to remain in their respective pages till this template was deleted. Plenty of these pages resulted in worse edit warring (not just over the version to be displayed as instantnood claims, but much more so over the usage of the template itself), with some even being on page protection just to preserve this template. Even now that the template has been deleted, he continues to add a "legacy" of its existance with "dispute notices" in [19] and [20]. A new revert war now erupts between us over the retention of this notice. As what User:Calton describes in [21], "nice try: it's the twoversions tag in different clothing".--Huaiwei 18:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Some of my usage of this template involved disputes with user:Huaiwei, who insisted to drop the template, and to display his preferred version, i.e. ignored what the template said. To my experience, that made discussion not quite possible, therefore better enforcement is needed to avoid people who ignore what the template said. — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As also mentioned here [22], lets get the facts straight via a simple chronological recount of how a typical usage of the template results in when it involves you. First, an edit war erupts. At the end of three reverts and with the page still not showing the version you prefer, you pop in a "twoversions" tag after reverting again to your version. When I proceed to remove this tag by reverting back to my version, you revert it back to your version with the template, saying "the twoversions tag is not meant to endorse any version", and insists I am "flouting its intentions by reverting the displayed version". And again, another round of reverts ensue over whether the template should appear at all or not. All this time, the talkpages remains empty. Obviously at this stage, the template has not worked, and at least it is plain obvious to me, it is also being abused. The same scenario is repeated across subsequent disputes we have, sometimes reaching the attention of admins. And that was when folks like myself told admins that you are abusing the template not to stop edit wars, but to basically justify your version irrespective of how you claim otherwise. Pressurised, you proceeded to display the tag this time on the preferred versions of your opponents, myself incluced, but only in some cases and only after extremely heated exchanges. Some pages ended up with your prefered version, some with mine. Subsequently, you lost your patience (or got a shot of viagra), and suddenly starts reverting them to your version again (and still with the template) when you think no one else is looking. Another round of editwars breaks out over which version is to be displayed (the only edit war you bothered to admit above). And the talkpages? Still starkly empty. Has any disputed pages been resolved? No. Has any of the templates abused by you been successfully removed after a compromise has been found? Zelch. Need I say more about the feasibility of this template, and its potential for abuse? Claiming that the template should stay because it didnt work with individuals like me who "ignore it" is laughable at best.--Huaiwei 18:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also a previous nomination. — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now why should I be surprised that STC is the nominator! And now we know who are the ones with foresight and who have been assuming good faith? Both virtues in themselves. :D--Huaiwei 19:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Is there any possible way to have a list of articles previous tagged with this template, so that we can know about its usage like the special:whatlinkshere tool? — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you that list, are you pretending not to see it? [27] I sure hope you're not pretending you can't see it, cuz you edited that very edit of mine. [28] SchmuckyTheCat 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Delete with scrubbing bubbles, for the same reason as Huaiwei. Instantnood, who uses this template more than anyone else on Wikipedia, simply DOES NOT EVER discuss it, he clams up until poked, prodded and provoked. It doesn't stop his edit warring, nor does it bring him to discussion. This template is just an endrun around content forking. Furthermore David Gerard was absolutely right to go rouge and delete. You can't vote on NPOV. The very proposed policy that led to this template to be created originally was dismissed out of hand as ridiculous, the templates continued life was a loophole of TfD voting instead of real discussion. SchmuckyTheCat 18:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not speedy. per Nickptar. --Tabor 18:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETE. I seldom support applications of WP:IAR, but this one by David Gerard was justified. When the original TfD debate was held, this template was relatively new and seemed like a reasonable idea. Since then, its overwhelmingly counterproductive nature has been proven time and again. Rather than being used by an objective third party (who merely wishes to halt edit warring) or by an involved party who adds it to the other party's version, it typically is inserted by an edit warrior who also reverts to his/her version (either simultaneously or immediately prior). He/she then acts as though the template is backed by some sort of authority that renders the first associated version sacrosanct for the time being. And even if this template is used as intended, it actually discourages long-term resolution (by essentially creating a fork, thereby reducing the incentive to gauge consensus and/or discuss possible compromises). It also uglifies articles and drags readers into editors' disputes. This simply is a terrible template, and it mustn't be allowed to continue harming Wikipedia. —Lifeisunfair 19:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the above debate, and recalling my one interaction with this template (during the debate over the spoiler-warnign templates IIRC) I have come to the conclusion that this tempalte is ill-advised. as User:Lifeisunfair says, it sounds like a good idea. if its use could be somehow restricted to uninvolved people sincerly trying to stop edit wars, it might be a good tool in some case. it doesn't sound as if that has been the most common result. Therefore, delete this template, but do not speedy delete it. I still don't see any reason why an out-of-process undiscussed deletion was needed for thsi -- there seems no problem in getting significant numbers of people to agree to delete it at this time. DES (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it makes sense to have a large number of templates for article content disputes so that the right one is available. JYolkowski // talk 22:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Used correctly, it can reduce the damage in sterile edit wars. If someone's abusing it, RFC him, tar and feather him, crush him by elephant, whatever, but that's no reason to delete the template. Plenty of other templates get applied incorrectly too. —Cryptic (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously. This template is only used to give extra credence to one side of an edit war, and tell the other side to STFU. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I'm not an administrator, I have zero idea what this template's text was. However, based on what's been said here, I assume that it left one version as the main page and placed an alternate version on a sub page. The problem with that approach (if that is what the template does) is that it gives the version on the main page a perceived degree of superiority. If such an approach is going to work at all, it will need to place all alternate versions (while rare, I have seen three-cornered edit wars before) on sub pages and make the main page just a protected stub pointing to them. I'm not certain how feasible such an approach would be, but the concept sounds intriguing. Caerwine 23:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming a Monobook skin, you'll find a "history" button atop the page. Chris talk back 23:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The template adds a link to the other version from the page's history. Aside from the arguably inappropriate nature of content forking, your suggestion would basically hide articles from the site's readers. That's entirely unacceptable. —Lifeisunfair 02:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unacceptable maybe, but less so than a template whose only use is to legitimise one side of an edit war. No amount of "This is not an endorsement of this version" can change this. If neither side is willing to play nicely, then neither side gets their version shown in main article space. Can you say fairer than that? Chris talk back 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Both options are unacceptable. I agree with your criticism of the template, but I believe that your Caerwine's alternative is even worse. The concept of removing an article from its correct location might seem like a fair way to treat the editors involved in the dispute, but it's unfair to readers (and patently unprofessional). And of course, it would impede one of the core functions of a wiki: the ability to edit pages. (Which forked version would someone edit? Neither? Both/all? The one that he/she prefers?) —Lifeisunfair 04:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to call into question your ability to read, but I assume when you say "my alternative" you are referring to Caerwine's suggestion above? Also, your point about impeding the users' ability is moot, for obvious reasons. Chris talk back 04:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Not to call into question your ability to read, but I assume when you say "my alternative" you are referring to Caerwine's suggestion above?"
Yes, I'm sorry about that. When I replied to Caerwine, I inadvertently copied-and-pasted your username (from the reply above mine) into the edit summary. When I actually replied to you, I was thinking that you were the same person to whom I already had replied. Additionally, I apologize for splitting your signature (also inadvertent).
"Also, your point about impeding the users' ability is moot, for obvious reasons."
Those reasons are not obvious to me. Could you please elaborate? —Lifeisunfair 14:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pages in such disputes are generally protected, rendering the question of which version to edit worthless. Chris talk back 17:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this template used on numerous unprotected pages. The fact that it can be inserted by a non-admin renders this inevitable.
Also, isn't the theoretical idea behind this template (and Caerwine's variation) to halt edit wars without the need for more drastic intervention? (If the involved parties agree to stop reverting — with or without the use of a special template — there's no need for page protection.) —Lifeisunfair 18:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After having read the above discussion, I'll go ahead and vote Delete on this template. I still think a variant of the {Protected} template that gave direct access to the competing versions might be useful, but it's clear that the method that this template used has been tried and found wanting. Caerwine 19:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fast company this template keeps: see the original use Zen master attempted to make of it over at Conspiracy theory, where his personal impressions are being undue weighted out by other editors (myself included). More evidence for the argument Lifeisunfair gives for a Delete? Adhib 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I assume a person of your level of experience is aware, this is not a simple majority vote count. When applied in a prudent manner, the prefixes "strong" and "weak" can assist the closing admin in gauging the nature of the consensus (or lack thereof). —Lifeisunfair 14:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DisputeCheck

This seems to serve the same purpose as Template:Not verified, though there's a wide variance in the alarmingness of the banner. It seems to me that these templates and their associated categories should be merged. -- Beland 04:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I like the more alrming red color better, but with the text from Not verified. I think we want to be clear as possible that an article with such a banner should not be trusted until the issues are dealt with. But, anyway, merge. -- SCZenz 08:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-nonsense

Only one article is using this rather in-your-face template. I suggest merging it into Template:Cleanup-rewrite. -- Beland 04:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is supposed to fill in a specific niche: You come upon an article; you're not familiar with the subject area, so you have no idea whether the article is in need of Template:Cleanup-context (or some other cleanup template) or if the article is just straight nonsense. I'm not surprised the template is not frequently used: its primary function is to be replaced with another template by somebody who knows more about the subject area. (I admit this could be made clearer within the template itself.) Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 05:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, abrasive and needlessly biting (especially since this will hit new users with unusual frequency). Also, the one article it's used on isn't even nonsense! (Although that article does lack context and could probably be deleted on that basis.) Nonsense is defined as "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." How an expert could be expected to help with it, I don't know. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now, no articles are using it *ahem*. Chris talk back 13:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone is unfamiliar with a subject to the extent that he/she is unable to differentiate between patent nonsense and a legitimate article in need of cleanup, he/she is in no position to declare that the "article appears to be nonsensical" (thereby accusing its author of vandalism). The template's creator stated above that it serves as a means of consulting "somebody who knows more about the subject area," but this can be accomplished with far greater efficiency via other means. (Leave a note on the talk page of a user who has made substantial edits to a related article.) When in doubt, it's important to assume good faith. The insertion of this template marks the assumption of bad faith (placing the onus on a third party — not even the article's author — to counter a potentially false allegation of wrongdoing). —Lifeisunfair 01:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, --Masssiveego 08:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

Template: BoFII

Delete: Obsolete navbox. Links together a series of articles that are now merged into List of Breath of Fire II characters. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Limited Use

This is a recently created, and presently unused, image copyright template. In my opinion, this is a close cousin of the banned "with permission" images, as clause 3) requires: "this picture is used only to illustrate an encyclopedic article about the subject, or in which the subject is significantly refered to". In other words it is an attempt to limit image use and reuse to only encyclopedias, which goes against the spirit of free image use. I understand why it was created, but generally believe it is a bad idea. Dragons flight 17:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this template specifically for those who wish to contribute images to wikipedia, and proper reusers of wikipedia content, but only for use in a context similar to wikipedia or a wikipedia fork or mirror. This makes the image freely available -- the template quite explicitly allows commercial use, but would not allow the image to be, for example, used in an advertisement with no relevance to its inital context. It would not limit reuse to encyclopedias, as a reuser might use only a single article, or use content from wikipedia to create a sigle-purpose page on a web site that could none the less be considered "encyclopedic". I think this template is well within wikipedia image policy, and it is certianly much more free than fair use and "promotional" images. I also think this template will encourage many content owners to upload and allow us to use many images we might well not otherwise get. The template is curently unused because it is relatively new and has not been popularized, but I suspect it will be used significantly in future. It does have some aspects in common with the now disapproved "with permission" templates, but those were disapproved specifically because their permission did not run to mirrors and other proper reusers, particularly commercial mirrors. The license granted by this template explicitly runs to all such users. Keep this template. DES (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am philosophically opposed, as per Wikipedia:Five Pillars and m:Foundation Issues, to crafting licenses that are, in effect, as narrow as can be tolerated by ourselves and our reusers. The object, at least in my mind, is to make information free and available for creative reuse and adaptation, not merely to create an encyclopedia that can be copied for free. It also occurs to me that this license could be read as prohibitting derivative versions, which would make it unwelcome for the same reasons that cc-nd is disallowed. Might we be able to acquire more content by narrowing our licensing conditions? Certainly, but I don't think it is worth narrowing our notion of freedom for the sake of more images. Oh, and I don't agree that confining images to "encyclopedic" contexts is more free that fair use, frankly it strikes me as less so. Dragons flight 20:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might add that the related {{Limited Use-person}} was created for pictures of individuals, but is particularly aimed at user-page images, while allowing mirrors that wish to copy user pagess to do so freely. DES (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also add that I am open to suggestions for rewording or revising. What i am trying to do with this is strike a balance between the nearly complete openness that comes with a GFDL license, and the much greater restrictions that come with fair use, or the effectively total restriction that comes when a user is simply unwilling to license in any form we support. Soemthing like this might be used for the ESA images (now subject to complex discussions, as I understand matters). It seems to me that an image's creator might well be willing to have it freely reused to illustrate the subject of the image, but not in quite different contexts. and that that limited willingness is somethign that we should, insofar as possible consistant with our basic purporse (to create a freely reusable and accessible encyclopedia) enable and support. I was also reactioning to the depage on the deleted {{user-page image}} (I may have the exact name wrong) which effectively restricted rights to wikipedia uses. That prevented reuse, and was properly deleted, IMO. But aI think that htere can be a line between reasoanble and proper reuse, and unreasonable reuse. For example, i put my picture up on my userpage with a varient of this license. I did so because i think it helps to build the encyclopedia to have images of the contributors aviailable, where they are willing. (And if ther should evenr be an actual article about me -- which i rather doubt -- the image would be appropriate there, also. But there are contexts in which i would not be willing for the image to be used, and I think I ought to be able to have it avaialbe on wikipedia for proper purposes, without giving up the right to prevent such uses. DES (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Because it is unused. It looks like significant policy discussion is needeed to get approval of the license which it represents. (SEWilco 21:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete: Non-free. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not free. --Carnildo 22:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a new Wikipedia contributer (follow links on my user page to see my photos and links to the articles I have added them to) who would like to comment from the viewpoint of someone who makes his living as a (paid) content creator. The licenses that W has deemed acceptable virtually guarantee that the images that people are willing to donate to W will be mediocre. I am going through the unpleasant process of trying to find a compromise between several inimical forces that affect the quality of the content that I am willing to donate to W. In my own case my "mistake" (encouraged by several Wikipedians with whom I had early contact) was to upload images of a very high resolution to W. On the one hand there is my desire to help further a project that appeals to the idealist in me. On one of the other hands is the fact that no license W allows images to be licensed which provides the sort of control over the use of the image that content creators expect in any other situation. When I showed the license I am using to my attorney she practically locked me in her office and wouldn't let me out until I had promised to remove the images I had uploaded. When I explained that I didn't think that was possible, she suggested in the strongest terms that I never ever make another contribution of any kind to W. Well, lawyers are lawyers and I pay her to look out for my interests. (If information wants to be free, it hasn't had a chat with my attorney.) The problem with what I had done was supply high-resolution, print-ready content for free and with almost no conditions. If at some point in the future someone should want to license one of my photos (I'm not a professional photographer, but have made a bit of money on the sided from such licensing) they most likely would balk if that photo were already licensed with any of the W licenses. I have tried to reach a compromise by requesting that the images I have uploaded be replaced with duplicates that are of lower resolution. I still probably could not license any of these photos simply because they are on/in W, but it seemed to me an acceptable way to provide W with a good quality image (still in a higher resolution than most in use here) and at least make some effort to hold out the possibility that I might be able to sell the rights to the image by providing a high-resolution version to a client. I have been seeing all of your eyes rolling for some time know. With a few notable exceptions, the basic attitude here is "Ha ha--you screwed yourself. Too bad." Well, too bad for W as well. Since photography is only a sideline of mine, I don't feel too bad about essentially destroying the commercial value of some of my images. I suppose that the warm and fuzzy feeling I get by donating my work is supposed to make me feel OK about that. Call me selfish, but it doesn't. At least, not quite. I am holding up my impulse to contribute to W to scrutiny. If I decide that it is not worth it to me to continue to contribute, I will stop, as now seems likely. The thing that would make me enthusiastic about contributing would be a licensing scheme that would allow me to have enough control over the use of my images so I don't feel like I have turned them over to a group of people who don't understand how creative people make their living, and could care less. That's the feeling I have now. I do think you need something that would let producers of high quality work feel comfortable about putting it on W. You don't have that now. And I suspect that's why so many of the photos currently on W are so mediocre. They may be produced by people for whom photography is a hobby and who perhaps just get a thrill from seeing something they made on the web. Or they are the cast-offs of more talented artists who realise there will be no market for them and who have saved their best shots for comercial purposes. I don't really know, and I don't have the solution. But I hope I have made my case that you have a problem. The proposed license may be part of the solution. JShook | Talk 22:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • JShook, I recognize your dilemma, but please consider that this is the entire purpose of Wikipedia, to have a encyclopedia of free content, including images. For more on the background of this movement, please read about Free software, Free content, and the GNU Project. It is your right to decide how your copyrighted material is licensed. If you do not agree with the GFDL or other free-use licences (some of the Creative Commons for example), then please don't make those contributions here. If you no longer wish to have your images included in Wikipedia, feel free to list them for deletion. Wikipedia is not obligated to remove them since you have licensed your images under the GFDL or similar license, but the author's wishes are generally honored. Be aware that while your image was on Wikipedia under the GFDL license, others may already be using your image in compliance with the GFDL outside Wikipedia. Finally, I dispute the fact that high-quality images will not be uploaded to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Featured images. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are certainly some fine images at the URL you provide. I didn't look at all of them, but of the ones I checked they were all usable at screen resolution only. It would not be possible to use them for print unless you are satisfied with images 2 inches across or so. So by uploading low-resolution images, the contributors have effectively limited their use to Wikipedia and any screen-resolution derivatives. The resolution of the images acts as a de facto license prohibiting their use in print. This is the compromise I am trying to implement with the images I have already uploaded--switching out the high-resolution images with screen resolution versions (which are still of higher resolution than many I saw at the Wikipedia:Featured images page.) JShook | Talk 16:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • JShook has made some valid points, some of which I am preocuppied myself. I don't mind donating any picture I've taken to Wikipedia, but the licensing is too open, and I'm very uncomfortable with that, which made me stay away from the "Upload file" link for the most part. Keep pending further discussion of the issue. Titoxd(?!?) 22:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, why would any original creator of work contribute to Wikipedia? I don't see any reason at the moment. None of this discussion has convinced me that it is a good thing for anyone to do. JShook | Talk 16:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly delete. I fully appreciate the point of the template, but the fact is that anything you upload here to which you own the copyright is under the GFDL, and it does not matter what other templates you stick on it. The GFDL explicitly allows for any use, and this template spcifically restricts the usage and is thus incompatible with long-standing Wikipedia policy. Like the user-page template before it, creating a new template is not the way to change policy. The way to do that is to contact the Foundation's lawyers. -Splashtalk 22:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't allow images with usages restricted in this manner, except for fair use images. It's really as simple as that. If you find Wikipedia too open for your work, then don't donate it. There is a reason it is a "free" encyclopedia.--Fastfission 02:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this flatly contradicts the spirit under which Wikipedia operates, and the Wikimedia Foundation's policies. Either contribute to Wikipedia under the GFDL, or don't contribute at all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an attempt to change legal status of Wikipedia contributions by creating a template. Jkelly 18:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and allow recreation if Foundation approves of this sort of use-with-permission. --Tabor 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Licenses which restrict the use of content are incompatible with Wikipedia. Rhobite 22:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-free. dbenbenn | talk 06:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vote and all derivatives

(Includes at least Template:Voteapprove/Template:Votesupport/Template:Voteyes (a speedy candidate), Template:Votemove, Template:Votereverse, Template:Votedelete, Template:Voteneutral, Template:Voteoppose/Template:Voteno (another speedy candidate), and Template:Votecomment.)

A terrible idea that just keeps on getting terribler. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#Template:Support and Template:Object and Template:Oppose for these templates' ancestor. Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a powerpoint presentation, and the templates are an unnecessary server drain. Note also that voting-on-afd-via-template has been discussed and thoroughly rejected before (see Wikipedia talk:Survey guidelines#Voting via templates). —Cryptic (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Votecomment: Discouragement of vote creep, such as Reverse alternate merge except feminine conjunctions. Covered in previous discussions as well as Template talk:Vote. (SEWilco 04:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Template: New York State Highways

Delete: This template is way too big, is a red link farm, and is unnecessary because of List of New York state highways I point to the deletion of the Virginia state highways template as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of California State Routes Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:30, 27 October 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. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=27256536"