Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IceKarma (talk | contribs) at 07:34, 22 June 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Debates

June 22, 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marcus Allbäck infobox

Template:Marcus Allbäck infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Moved from AfD; is specific template, not general template. TheProject 23:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michael Gravgaard infobox

Template:Michael Gravgaard infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Moved from AfD; is specific template, not general template. TheProject 23:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Álvaro Santos infobox

Template:Álvaro Santos infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Moved from AfD; is specific template, not general templage. TheProject 23:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User beauty2

Template:User beauty2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to and used less than Template:User beauty. SCHZMO ✍ 23:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jnetwork

Template:Jnetwork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not useful in any way. Punkmorten 20:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scot rugby 2nd

Template:Scot rugby 2nd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
{{Scot rugby 2nd}} has been merged into {{Scot rugby prem}}, and the result reformatted to be similar to the SANZAR and French templates. All the pages using {{Scot rugby 2nd}} now use {{Scot rugby prem}} making {{Scot rugby 2nd}} redundant. KeithW 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scot rugby 3rd

Template:Scot rugby 3rd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
{{Scot rugby 3rd}} has been merged into {{Scot rugby prem}}, and the result reformatted to be similar to the SANZAR and French templates. All the pages using {{Scot rugby 3rd}} now use {{Scot rugby prem}} making {{Scot rugby 3rd}} redundant. KeithW 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Freetekno Soundsystems

Template:Freetekno Soundsystems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
All items listed have been deleted under A7. Now useless. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eng rugby nat1

Template:Eng rugby nat1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
{{Eng rugby nat1}} has been merged into {{Eng rugby prem}}, and reformatted the result to be similar to the SANZAR and French templates. All the pages using {{Eng rugby nat1}} now use {{Eng rugby prem}} making {{Eng rugby nat1}} redundant. Bob 17:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom KeithW 07:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Frac0

Template:Frac0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
{{frac}} now accepts one, two or three parameters and thus effectively deprecates {{frac0}}. Christoph Päper 12:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per only contributor request. — xaosflux Talk 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-r4

Template:Db-r4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There isn't a CSD R4, and the reason shown on the template is simply a worse-stated version of R3. ais523 09:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 19:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox musical artist

Template:Infobox musical artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is un-necessary. Template:Infobox Band does this and more. 86.138.224.60 09:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No it isn't. Categories such as real name and aliases, birth date, notable albums etc, in fact most things that distinguish solo artists from bands are NOT included. I don't see how it is unnecessary. 82.145.231.4 10:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a poorly thought out nomination by unregistered user. The reason applies better to Template:Infobox Band than to Template:Infobox musical artist. Tim Ivorson 2006-06-22
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox MP

Template:Infobox MP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template has no pages attached to it and it can be replaced by Template:Infobox Politician. Philip Stevens 08:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox MP2

Template:Infobox MP2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template has no pages attached to it and it can be replaced by Template:Infobox Politician. Philip Stevens 08:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BSASE

Template:BSASE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's a template just for showing two winners and of something that was only peripheric to the real Eurovision contest. Both things can be mentioned in the article without the need for a template. It's used only on the winners pages and the main Eurovision page, and there's already a page about the "Congratulations" festival. I don't think it's really useful. Andromeda 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PlutonianSystem Footer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Superseded by Template:Pluto —C.Fred (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 23:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Splitmerge

Template:Splitmerge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is redundant; it merely duplicates a portion of the functionality offered by the long-standing {{mergeto}} tag (which already accommodates a proposal to merge a specific section into an existing article). In fact, this new template is less useful, as its wording only allows for placement at the top of the article (instead of the appropriate section). Meanwhile, the {{splitsection}} tag (on which the new template is based) covers proposals to split a specific section into a new article. Delete. —David Levy 00:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 21, 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was replace and redirect -- Drini 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nordic Countries

Template:Nordic Countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Entirely redundant with Template:Nordic Council, identical in scope and placed on the same articles Night Gyr 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Back to the Future character 2

Template:Back to the Future character 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I have merged the functionalities of this template (allow to disply a different set of reference years) into template:Back to the Future character and replaced it's use. It is unnecessary now. Circeus 19:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Stifle--SomeStranger(t) 15:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deletebecause:Needs to be WDGG-FM

Template:Deletebecause:Needs to be WDGG-FM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Doesn't make any sense, and simply using the db template would likely be shorter if the message on the template is ever needed. Also, the reason given doesn't seem to be any of the criteria for speedy deletion, which would be expected on a speedy template. ais523 14:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete single instance substed -- Drini 20:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nationalanthemsoftheworld

Template too huge to be used in any page. CG 13:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nationalanthemsofafrica and Template:Nationalanthemsofeurope created. More to follow. Badagnani 02:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of the links don't actually go to the anthems; could you unlink those or otherwise make it more clear that they aren't pointing to the proper place? Night Gyr 04:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am working very hard at this. Badagnani 05:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I think a single-column list for the right side of anthem articles would be a much easier format. The current version is a big mass that makes it hard to scan and find a specific item. Night Gyr 04:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an example of this? I'd like to see what such a list would look like. Badagnani 05:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking like we have for episodes of the simpsons. See how Dancin' Homer has a single column list down the right hand side of every episode for the season? It's easier to pick out items from a list that keeps them aligned, because the eye can just scan vertically to the desired first letter, rather than trying to look through a jumble. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Dancing Homer but the (numbered) list was only about 25 items long. I think there must be over 200 countries and other states in the full anthems list. With smaller lists like the anthems of Central America template I've made it's not so hard because there are only 7 nations. But with Africa, the World, and other continents with many countries it does get a bit long. Badagnani 17:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am working very hard at this. Badagnani 05:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox PM

Template:Infobox PM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
On 7 June 2006 Infobox:Prime Minister was put up for deletion. In the debate it was suggested that Infobox_Prime Minister and Infobox_PM should be deleted and redirected to Template:Infobox President in order to have a standard template for office holders on Wikipedia. Infobox_Prime Minister was deleted and I redirected it to Template:Infobox President, this now serves the purpose of Template:Infobox_PM, so it is no longer needed. Hera1187 12:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WOW-real

Template:WOW-real (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
And the point is, what exactly? Redundant to Template:WoW, inappropriate tone "is, of course..." Used on one userpage, and that person wasn't the original Willy on Wheels anyway. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP -- Drini 20:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:James Bond characters

Template:James Bond characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Huge. Duplicates categories and list articles that are already in place. K1Bond007 04:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree it's huge, and often larger than the articles themselves, but it is useful, possibly more useful than the lists. Certainly better looking. Maybe it needs to be split into smaller templates? Andymarczak 10:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But we already have them in categories. All it does is duplicate that. What possible purpose does this have? There is no order here or better organization. According to Wikipedia:Template namespace: "Templates should also not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category or a See also list can perform the same function." — clearly this template violates that. K1Bond007 19:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are still useful as navigation templates. Even though you cited the rules, it appears that such templates are supported by teh community. For instance, another user attempted to nominate Template:Mario series and Template:Zelda series for deletion (see archive entry), also with the same justification, and was unilaterally shot down. Hbdragon88 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that these templates remain is because the average user does not use the categories. Navigation templates are far more accessable as long as they are relavent and not too large.--SomeStranger(t) 21:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which italics? The ones in the template itself for the individual pages? Or the ones for the heading (James Bond is in italics)?--SomeStranger(t) 23:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The italics in the box text, the names of the characters. Type face is small, and italics makes it even harder to read. Badagnani 00:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Game Mixtapes

Template:The Game Mixtapes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Single-use template, used only to place a gallery of images in Discography of The Game. --Carnildo 04:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MilitaryOperation

Template:MilitaryOperation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is obsolete and as been officially replaced by {{Infobox Military Conflict}} which is also been officially adopted my the WikiProject Military history group. James Bond 00:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 20, 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Db -> Db-reason Maybe one of the template gurus can make this look nice without a default reason, but it's insane to delete this one, also, the redirect will encourage the habit of putting reasons, which isn't bad, and if fixed, wouldn't force it either. -- Drini 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Delete

Template:Delete (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm well aware that this template has been the source of TfDs in the past. However I think that the template should be deleted. I say this after having had to correct an editor tonight who used this template, but not only that replaced a db-bio template with it. We seem to be sending out mixed messages, on the one hand saying don't use this template, but on the other actually having it. I understand all the arguments that have been presented before, regarding the extra time it can take RC patrollers to add reasons, or that admins in the end have to evaluate a reason. Yet, the evidence suggests that the vast majority of RC partollers do now use db templates, and that I would imagine that it makes admins jobs that bit easier having a good indication of why the page is a CSD before even reading the article. Wisden17 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for two reasons;
  • the db-whatevers are not easy for the rest of us to remember.
  • If the reason for speedying a page is not obvious by inspection, it probably shouldn't be speedied. (It may be a proper and unanimous xfD, but that's another story.) Septentrionalis 19:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SPEEDY has a very useful list of templates to use, and your second point is surely a reason for deletion. If you can't see a template that fits, or can't associated the problems of the article with a speedy deletion reason then you should either prod it or AfD it. So by having to put a reason it can eliminate unnecssary speedies (to an extent) and so surely you've just provided further reason to delete it? (SomeStranger has beaten me to commenting on your reasoning) --Wisden17 20:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Septentrionalis, I think your second reason for keeping it is actually a reason to delete. If the reason for speedying is not obvious then it should go to xfD. It should not have an ambigious template placed on it that leaves more work for an admin later who either has to make a decision or just ends up putting the article in an xfD.--SomeStranger(t) 20:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But no form of speedy nomination should be used when the reason is not manifest; this one at least brings the problem out into the open. How about a no-include tag: Use only when reason for speedying is obvious by inspection? Septentrionalis 20:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had to laugh - deleting the delete template? LOL. Anyway, I vote to either redirect it to {{db-reason}} (require a brief explanation) or depreciate it instead of outright deleting it. Hbdragon88 21:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to db-reason per Hbdragon88, easy to remember. --Eivindt@c 22:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've several times proposed that this be deprecated based upon the "give me a reason" and "db|reason is easy" before. As long as no one is using it, the relative merits of redirection vs. deletion aren't clear to me. Delete unless I understand why to . - brenneman {L} 00:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — as I've said in the previous TfDs before, the necessity of having a {{delete}} template is crucial. Even if not popular or well-used, it still is criticial and integral. First, almost every single Wikipedia has a speedy deletion template at Template:<delete>, where <delete> is in the local language. Deleting this from the English Wikipedia - the largest one - would simply make it inconsistent, and make it difficult for people to find who are less familiar with the English Wikipedia to tag an article for speedy deletion. Someone who mainly edits, say, the Turkish Wikipedia won't know to tag something as {{db-bio}}; they'll instinctively tag it as {{delete}}. In addition, as I've argued many other times before, the template is also useful for RC patrollers. Even if not widely in use, forcing people to spend more time to add another template instead of using this one is a waste of time; not everyone has all the delete templates memorized, including the often-cited {{db-reason}}, and forcing them to search for a new template when this one conveys the exact same message and does the job appropriately is excessive. Finally, we must keep in mind that Wikipedia is not paper. Even if something is depreciated, we usually don't delete it. (Not that I agree that this template is depreciated, but that's another debate.) Deleting it would be akin to deleting a part of our history - it has played a long and important part in the development of Wikipedia, and there's simply no reason to delete it just because it's not used as much. Sorry for my long comment... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your point about foreign Wikipedias using this template then begs the question why do we not propose it for deletion on foreign Wikipedias (I'll take a look at the French one today then) any takers for the Turkish one? With regard to the extra time it takes to add a reason, as I said in my nomination that seems a weak point. The number of people who currently use this template is minimal, and as I also said in the nomination WP:SPEEDY contains a handy list of deletion tables at the bottom of the page. I'm sure this won't have changed your mind at all but it is worth considering.--Wisden17 10:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment lol, I had the same complaints with image tags not being the same when I tried to tag an image on the French Wikipedia. A long and important history - and so what? Do we cut-and-paste to move pages anymore? No. Do we continue to use {{fairuse}}? No. Wikipedia doesn't keep things for archival reasons: when somethinb better comes up, the old thing is replaced. But I think the administrators have enough to deal with on CSD - why make them guess at what the problem is? It might be obvious to me but not to the next administrator that happens to be looking at it. The db templates should be used as much as possible so administrators can delete or keep faster. Hbdragon88 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move db-reason to take its place per Flcelloguy's concerns. — Philwelch t 08:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because better alternatives ({{db|...}}) are available. ais523 16:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Look what it says on the criteria for speedy deletion page. "{{delete}}, {{d}}: Request Speedy Deletion, without providing a reason. This template should not be used." Why on earth do we need a template for which its only use is now prohibited? Now, I would normally say "fine whatever just keep it" but in this case people still use the template although it says not to. What easier way to prevent this from happening exists than to simply delete or redirect the template.--SomeStranger(t) 16:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For someone who only occasionally nominates something for speedy deletion, it is much easier to remember 1 template than all the db-foo's. If {{delete}} is removed, it is more likely that that someone won't bother to mark the article at all than that he will look for the correct SD template, which would be a loss for Wikipedia. As Septentrionalis says, if it is unclear why the article should be speedied just by looking at the article itself, it probably is not a speedy at all. (Redirection to {{db}} would be fine too, as that template has more or less the same result when called without a parameter.) -- Eugène van der Pijll 21:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But the point is you don't need to remember all the fancy pre-formed templates. All you need do is put {{db|reason}}, that is hardly that hard to remember, is it? It just seems that we are sending out conflicting messages, as pointed out above, by on the one hand saying don't use this, but on the other actually having it (it's almost like a temptation). --Wisden17 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is we should make it as easy as possible to nominate something for speedy deletion, because we can use all the help we can get to get rid of all the crap here. And {{delete}} and/or {{d}} is easier than {{db}}, and easier by far than db+reason. If we don't want to send out conflicting messages, undeprecate {{delete}}. Eugène van der Pijll 22:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are quite a few CSD reasons that aren't clear by just looking at the page. Copyvios, duplicate images, reposted material, afd not deleted, hisotry merger, and contributions from a banned user are all not-so-obvious speedy deletions. Hbdragon88 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleing this template will mack holes in pages history and comfus people that use this thenplate by redirect it plesering port of Wikipedia history. I thank the ony good resom to delet this themplate is do to the fac that some good article got delet by this template**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 17:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{db-reason}}. The first logical thing to think when looking for a template to ask admins to delete crap is "delete". As this template is deprecated, we shouldn't use it, but that doesn't address the problem of newbies not finding the correct template and going with their first instinctive guess. The best way to solve it is by redirecting the template, which has the side effect of forcing the tagger to provide a reason. If the reason they give is bad, well, we still do the same amount of work that we would need to do if there weren't any reason provided, because we would need to analyze whether the article is a speedy-deletion candidate in both cases. Also, if someone is required to give a reason, then that gives an added incentive for the tagger to read WP:CSD. Titoxd(?!?) 18:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to db-reason per Titoxd. Seems like forcing someone to provide a reason will do no harm, and can do good (and perhaps force people to learn the CSD categories quicker.) Grandmasterka 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moved to SfD. SomeStranger(t) 20:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dvd-stub

Template:Dvd-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Orphaned template I discovered some hours ago. It is not being widely used (three articles other than the 8 I tagged before realizing the template was unused), its associated category doesn't exist (Category:DVD stubs), and according to the Stub project, movies are sorted according to genre. [1] ReyBrujo 19:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP -- Drini 19:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IndefblockedIP

Template:IndefblockedIP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is exclusively to be used if an IP were indefinitely blocked for vandalism, which would be a violation of policy. Prodego talk 18:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh .. quick to the draw! There was a clear problem here (as discussed on various talkpages including yours and mine and WP:ANI,) and a solution was required. There is no current template that covers the same ground (ie IP block not username block). Also, policy doesn't actually preclude the statement in nor content of this template. I'd also refer people to Bugzilla 550 --AlisonW 19:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(In my defence might I be permitted to state that I created and used this template purely in an "I'm a wikipedia editor and nobody special" status!) --AlisonW 22:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are certain situations where this is completely appropriate. Static IPs CAN be blocked indefinately due to repeated vandalism, only dynamic ranges cannot be indef blocked.  ALKIVAR™ 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per CSCWEM and Alkivar. Ian Manka Talk to me! 07:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never use the templates so I have no strong views on their construction. However, as a user of a dynamic ISP it seems to me that the weedy policy on vandals is the basis of the problem, which could be largely obviated by requiring a user name plus 30minutes wait. The constant autoblocks are a pain for me as an experienced user and admin, so I wonder how many potential contributors we lose from AOL who are faced with an immediate block. And all this so we can let the vandals run riot. jimfbleak 09:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CSCWEM and Alkivar. --Myles Long 18:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RasulGuliyev

Template:RasulGuliyev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused. None of these books currently have articles. - Liberatore(T) 17:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete --William Allen Simpson 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FOTWpic

Template:FOTWpic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The actual drawing of a flag, that is in the Public Domain, contains no originality (threshold of originality) and is therefore ineligible for copyright. Mere labor, if not original, is not copyrightable. The FOTW claims are the result of misinformation. --h-stt !? 11:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • FOTW has rights on their images and it was respected here in English Wikipedia. Only some Germans, who are angry now, that I asked there for the same respect for our work, asking now for deletion.

Here are one more time the arguments for the rights of FOTW:

For your benefit here's an extract of the WIPO copyright treaty, which Germany signed, and to which is therefore legally bound:

Article 2 - Scope of Copyright Protection Copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.

This means that the design of most flags may be public domain, which means that anybody can draw them freely, but its expression as a GIF or PNG image is copyrighted by the author of the image.

Furthermore, by your attitude, you and the whole german wikipedia are engaging in illegal activities and you may be pursecuted. Another quote of the same source:

Article 12 - Obligations concerning Rights Management Information

(1) Contracting Parties shall provide adequate and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly performing any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil remedies having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of any right covered by this Treaty or the Berne Convention:

(i) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information without authority;

(ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast or communicate to the public, without authority, works or copies of works knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority.

(2) As used in this Article, “rights management information” means information which identifies the work, the author of the work, the owner of any right in the work, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a work or appears in connection with the communication of a work to the public.

The full text of this treaty can be found at wipo.int.
--J. Patrick Fischer 16:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Mr. Fischer: it's no use quoting laws or international treaties. We're all quite aware of them. But you and your German correspondents are talking at cross-purposes. They claim that the FOTW flag images were not copyrightable at all because they lacked the necessary originality. You, on the other hand, obviously and understandably are of the opinion that the images are eligible to copyright. Maybe we could get somewhere if you explained why you believe so. I (as an outsider) have made an attempt to try to see through this at User talk:Lupo#Template:FOTWpic and User talk:Lupo#TfD nomination of Template:FOTWpic, but I don't know whether I'm even on the right track. Lupo 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Patrick, either you are completely misinformed or malicious, because your quoted part is severely misleading. Regarding Art 2 only the first line "Article 2 - Scope of Copyright Protection — Copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such" is actually from the treaty, the following part from "This means" trough "you may be pursecuted" is an interpretation by someone not named. And it is an interpretation that is not consistent with mainstream judicatur. Please stop using this in discussion. The second article (Art. 12) from the original WIPO treaty is not applicable to our problem here. Please stop using it as an argument, if you don't understand about its scope and intention. Fact is that labour alone, without originality, makes no ground for copyright, and FOTW is not original in their drawings, thus no copyright. This template is misleading and should be deleted. --h-stt !? 18:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear h-stt, I will never understand, why people like you are requesting someone not to use any arguments. If my arguments are wrong, you can tell your arguments and opinons about this and every reader can make his own opinion out of this postings. Or do you want to censor my opinion? --J. Patrick Fischer 09:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep the template. I am the original creator of the template, and I created this because as a member of the FOTW mailing list and editorial staff, I see a lot of discussion, often heated, about the use of FOTW images on Wikipedia. With some exceptions, the consensus seems to be "No, we do not want our images on there." So, what I did is I created this template, stating that the image came from our website and here is our copyright policy. After several months, it turns out that due to Wikipedia's rules about non-commercial images, it was determined that our images are not supposed to be on here, so the non-commercial tag was added. I don't buy the points that H-stt has stated, since Wikipedia should respect the copyrights of websites, and this will, IMHO, encourage the stealing of images and put them in the public domain. So I want this template to stand, not only as a note saying where the images came from, but also note about its status on Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ZScout, I will repeat this again and again if needed: You don't have a copyright on the FOTW-flags. They are ineligble for copyright in the US as well as in continental Europe (those are the legal systems I can talk about). This invalidates all your licences, as well as your claims, making this template bogus. --h-stt !? 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While yall sort this out, I'll draw some flags so the amount of FOTW images are reduced as a whole. I still want this template to exist. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To h-stt: pray, tell why should these drawings not pass the threshold of originality? I must be missing something... (see the example on my talk page). Lupo 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my short comment on the talk page of the template. The makers of FOTW are proud of their effort to optimize the flags for web use, meaning they try to create a perfect representation of the flag on the screen. This meets the definition of reproduction, and reproduction is just the opposite of originality. --h-stt !? 21:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep. Nominator does not seem to understand the copyright law as it applies to images of flags. H-sst's own comments indicate that there is original labour involved in the reproduction of these flags by FOTW, who "... are proud of their effort to optimize the flags for web use". In doing this they are putting significant original effort into the creation of the images. Consider this - if images of flags were not subject to copyright, why would FOTW go to such pains to make their own copies? They would simply cut and paste images of flags from elsewhere. Consider too the following analogy: if this is simply a case of reproduction rather than originality, then by the same criterion the recording of classical music, in which orchestras strive to reproduce the efforts of the original composer, cannot be copyright. Neither could any illustrative photographs of paintings - they simply reproduce someone else's artwork. Yet photographs of paintings are in the main copyrighted, despite only being reproductions rather that original items. Look at any website showing images of paintings, and any book of art, and you will see the photographs are copyrighted, despite their deliberate lack of originality. So too are drawings of flags in reference books on flags. Similarly, FOTW's work is copyrighted, and this template is WP's way of consenting to that copyright. If the template is deleted, so too will be the flags, as they will fail to pass WP's copyright restrictions. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. FOTW's effort can either be original, or reproductive, not both. They (quite rightly so) are proud of how good their reproductions are. I think nobody here objects to giving them credit for creating the images, it just doesn't give them copyright. In response to your analogies: With classical music, there is no reproduction other than playing the notes the composer has written down. Anything else is a matter of interpretation, which is original. As for photographs, at least in Europe there are special laws and agreements that make almost any photo copyrightable, except if it's really impossible to make it in any other way (purely 2D reproductions of paintings, for example). —da Pete (ばか) 08:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "significant original effort": The degree of effort is irrelevant. See Feist v. Rural.

      "if images of flags were not subject to copyright, why would FOTW go to such pains to make their own copies?": Ignorance (or at least knowledge of ambiguity). Why do museums so jealously guard their reproductions' "copyright"?

      "if this is simply a case of reproduction rather than originality, then by the same criterion the recording of classical music . . . cannot be copyright.": Classical music is based off sheet music, which can be interpreted in many ways. The same is true for some, but not all, of FOTW's flags. (See 17 USC § 114, in any case, which deals with music specifically.)

      "Neither could any illustrative photographs of paintings - they simply reproduce someone else's artwork. Yet photographs of paintings are in the main copyrighted, despite only being reproductions rather that original items. Look at any website showing images of paintings, and any book of art, and you will see the photographs are copyrighted, despite their deliberate lack of originality.": You are mistaken. They claim that they're copyrighted, but avoid the courts like the plague, simply because they aren't. The one time an owner of such reproductions was stupid enough to go to court over it, probably due to incompetent legal counsel, they lost terribly; see Bridgeman v. Corel. Note that almost everything under {{pd-art}} relies on this decision. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOTW's images are original web images. At all, the design of a flag and its FOTW image is the same, but a flag is not a web image. FOTW made original web images, which shows how flags look like. --J. Patrick Fischer 09:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that more traditionally "wikilawyering" is a term of abuse applied to arbcom proceedings participants, but we're getting into very dodgy territory if we have to have a moot copyright court just to determine the fate of a template. I can't see that either keeping or deleting is a satisfactory course of action in isolation: we'd thereby either be asserting the validity of FOTW's copyright notice, and the compatibility of its terms of use with our own; or on the other, its invalidity. I'm inclined not to accept anyone's word on this, unless I know for a fact that they make an obscene amount of money as a U.S. IP lawyer, or they're just gotten off the phone to Sandra Day O'Connor (and even then I might ask for five quotes with the intent to take the median). Better just not to touch it with a pole of arbitrary length, unless the foundation's lawyers are willing to take a stance either way. I think Grutness is exactly right, in a round about way: the only satisfactory solution is to delete all images that assert this status, and can't be re-tagged as common-or-garden fair use of some some other sort, and then delete this template. Having disparaged everyone else's not-a-legal-opinion, here's my stab: there's clearly scope and necessity for artistic originality in depicting a flag, at least where the flag is more than a precisely defined geometric shape (for example, where it includes a coat of arms there's generally going to be such scope). Some rulings in the US might make it more dubious if deliberately exactly faithful reproductions, such as a scan or photocopy of a flag or non-copyright image of same. Or perhaps also where the flag is itself essentially "fully specified" in exact shape and colour, as IIRC is the case for the Scottish saltire. Alai 02:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A FOTW-copyrighted flag
These being the "honest users" who would deliberately steal images from FOTW? Like it or not, Wikipedia operates under US law, which makes it clear that these images are being used illegally by Wikipedia. As I pointed out, H-stt's arguments actually support FOTW's clear case here. So if you support "everything said by H-stt" then you too are agreeing that this template must stay if the images are not to be deleted forthwith. As to Alai's point, the Scottish saltire is not fully specified as to shade - and as such the interpretation of that shade by FOTW adds original input into the image, making it doubly covered by copyright. BTW, I should here state that (a) I am a member of FOTW, and (b) I am also a member of an imternational copyrighting association, and as such have a fair working knowledge of the law as it applies in this case. I repeat. The use of these images without this template and accompanying acknowledgement of authorship by Wikipedia violates copyright law. However, Alai does have a point: it is the images themselves that should be changed. Which is the reason why a few of us who are both FOTW and Wikipedia editors are trying to replace the images here with ones that we are making specifically for Wikipedia. Deleting the template would be a bad move though, even if all of the flags currentl;y on Wikipedia that come from FOTW are deleted. the reason for this, is that it acts as a warning not to upload any further FOTW pictures without specific assent from the original creators. If it is deleted and there is no specific mention of FOTW images in WP's image copyright information, people will incorrectly assume that they may take FOTW's images as Public Domain images (which they are clearly not). As such, I would not like to see the template deleted - it should be left as a historical template in much the same way as quite a few other deprecated image copyright templates are. Grutness...wha? 12:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After all of this: I looked television the last days and I saw a lot of people using a FOTW-copyrighted Flag. So please be consequent and write a letter to the german governement and tell them, not to use the german flag anymore, because now you are the legal owner of its copyrights. --ST ○ 14:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand what I said, as you have missed the entire point of this discussion - the flag itself is not copyrighted. But images that have been drawn of that flag are. None of the people at the world cup deliberately downloaded images from FOTW and waved those images. They either bought or created the flags for themselves. Doing that does not breach copyright. Neither would Wikipedia editors creating images of flags for themselves. What does breach copyright is using the images directly, which is theft, pure and simple. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to keeping reworded as a historical/deprecated template with no definitive assertion on the copyright status of the image, certainly not "the keep and preserve intact as a masterly wrought legal construct and compromise" argument previously deployed. The Scottish flag does indeed have an official colour (though admittedly this is fairly recent); and how did we get to "doubly protected": I see no at all convincing (much less forcing) argument that it was singly-protected in the first place, certainly not under under US law. Likewise the German flag: completely defined in both shape and in colour. The idea that two processes with the same end result (give or take jpg artifacts and the like) could have different legal statuses recollects Borges more than it does any copyright principle I'm aware of. Whether a saltire with a field of Pantone 301 or 299 could be "original" I won't venture an opinion on, except that I'm fairly confident that both sides are relatively safe in opining away, since no-one in their right minds is ever going to litigate on such a basis, so the precise claims at issue will never be tested, and thus we have only differing analogies and case law cites. Alai 19:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some flags, I agree, are copyrightable. Many from FOTW are, many are not. Therefore, the "noncommercial" clause of the template should be removed, because it's not applicable to all the flag images.

Might I suggest, incidentally, that FOTW file an OCILLA takedown notice with the Wikimedia Foundation? Its legal team can then handle this case directly. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The German users who are leading this campaign do not know what they are talking about. Some images of flags are not copyrightable as they are simple representations of geometric shapes. Things like the French tricolore and the German flag without the coat of arms come to mind. However flags which are more complicated, like the German flag with the coat of arms or the Californian state flag, most certainly can have copyright protection applied to image of them. The border line is sometimes difficult to find (for example is an image of the British union flag protected by copyright?) but a lot of cases are clearly on one side or another of it. This template is a valuable marker for images which violate Wikipedia policies and need to be dealt with. Ignorance of the law if not an excuse, but on Wikipedia we not only see ordinary ignorance but wilful ignorance in many cases. Wilful ignorance is even worse and people who are deliberately and wilfully ignorant of copyright law need to be banned from editing Wikipedia on the grounds of serious breach of terms and conditions. David Newton 16:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Das Problem ist einfach beschrieben: Bei FOTW handelt es sich um eine Bande von Rechtsbrechern, die die Allgemeinheit um das PD betrügen. --ST ○ 16:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Das Problem mit this message is that most people here don't speak German. Please provide a translation. David Newton 17:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
something like: The problem is: FOTW is a gang of right crusher, which fraud the public around the PD. --ST ○ 17:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest banning ST for this.--Mevsfotw 16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For saying the trouth? If you spend the time and read you'll find out, it is. --ST ○ 17:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are accusing FOTW of fraud. That is a very, very, very serious accusation which leaves you open to suit for libel. I suggest you retract your statements immediately. David Newton 23:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that ST's accusation is based on facts. In de:Wikipedia:Vermittlungsausschuss/Problem FOTW zwischen Steschke und J. Patrick Fischer he quotes a decision of the District court Munich against FOTW (1995, Sep 21st Az: 7 O 1384/95) in which the court states that FOTW violated §§ 3, 5 UWG; I trust ST that he quotes the court decision correctly. So we have a court convicting FOTW because they broke the law. In this case his statement "FOTW is a gang of right crusher" is not more than the statement of a verifyable fact. At first, I was a somewhat concerned about his harsh comments against FOTW members, too, but knowing about this specific court decision things turn out in a different light. --Proofreader 00:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC) ST just corrected himself in de WP saying that there is no such decision against FOTW and that he made a mistake. This makes my comment above of course obsolete. May any reader draw his own conclusions from this. --Proofreader 00:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that we both try to keep this civil, and to avoid any suggestion of legal threats. Alai 03:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not threatening since I'm not the injured party and thus would not have capacity to sue. David Newton 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While our own page puts it in more narrow terms, MeatBall:LegalThreat makes the case why "allusions to legal action" are a bad idea, whether intended as, or technically consist of, threats per se. Alai 01:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copying a coat of arms, provided your sole goal is to make as precise a copy of the original as possible, requires substantial expertise but is nonetheless not creative according to what precedent exists. If you try to make it look better than or otherwise different from the base image, or if you're trying to combine multiple base images, your work is then subject to copyright. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first choice is to keep as a source-indicating template only. Remove any statement about copyright, because the copyright claim is bogus. Please see Bridgeman v. Corel:
    In this case, plaintiff by its own admission has labored to create "slavish copies" of public domain works of art. While it may be assumed that this required both skill and effort, there was no spark of originality -- indeed, the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity. Copyright is not available in these circumstances.
    The entire point of the endeavor is to emulate a preexisting work as faithfully as possible, and no copyright is generally available under those circumstances. Mere digitization is not sufficient to grant copyright. See also Feist v. Rural: "originality, not 'sweat of the brow,' is the touchstone of copyright protection". (My second choice is to delete, if the result would otherwise be "keep as noncommercial license".)

    However, some images from FOTW do involve creativity. In particular, where exact shades or shapes are not standardized, if the shades or shapes are chosen by the digitizer based on multiple images plus personal preference, that's clearly sufficient creativity to merit copyright. Those would be covered by copyright, without doubt. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok, based on the above comments; yall have issue with the copyright notice, but not the sourcing. Ok, what I did is removed the copyright message, but still kept the link on the useage of the FOTW images. I still have the noncommercial tag, since our images are still non-commercial/educational use only, which Jimbo has disallowed since May of 2005. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thanks for this edit. It is a step into the right direction. But from the point of free content I think we should aim at a clear statement with the intention to free all the flag drawings for any purpose and to dismiss the noncommercial claim, because it is based on wrong assumptions. FOTW simply isn't in the position to limit the use of their drawings in any way. --h-stt !? 08:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're clear by now that that's your position. However, what I can't see is how you expect anyone to act on that basis, unless a) FOTW suddenly agree with it, b) the foundation's lawyers explicitly agree that's a position they're happy to stand by, or c) you yourself take legal action to establish this is indeed the case. As none of these seem to be happening in a hurry... Alai 13:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In matters where there is doubt as to whether something is copyrighted, either the Foundation steps in, or the community decides according to established policy. This doesn't change just because someone actually objects. The only difference is that the complaining party can bring the Foundation's attention to it readily, if they choose to do so; if they don't, it's the community's decision as always. There is no mandated "automatically cave upon request unless you actively file suit in our behalf" policy on Wikipedia. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We may be talking somewhat past each other here, as I don't quite follow how this relates to my comment, and the last sentence I'm not sure I understand at all. I'm not suggesting that the community shouldn't make determinations about the presumed copyright status of anything, on a case by case basis: I'm saying that it's dangerous to try to make blanket determinations of the status of whole classes of images (like "pictures of flags", or "images taken from FOTW"), which both "wings" of this discussion are inviting us to do. And if we were to do one or the other, to act under the presumption that no image of a flag is copyright is a) wrong as I understand it, and more legally problematic than to act as if all images of flags were copyrightable (which is also wrong, as I understand it). Alai 02:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by preference, but I'm not against keeping it with the speedy tag on it. The main problem that I see with it is that we haven't had a clarification on the copyright status of drawings of flags, so until we do I don't think we should be encouraging people to upload flags from a source that doesn't want their flags used for commercial purposes when it often isn't hard to either find a PD version of it or create something yourself. JYolkowski // talk 19:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what was said above is what we are trying to get at. The amount of images we are dealing with right now is around 450 (if you want exact numbers, then it is 454 at last check). While yes that is a lot of images, but given some time, that number will be reduced greatly. For example, I draw these flags. I managed to replace about 20-30 flags since this debate started. Thats 20-30 more flags in the public domain, by me, without any fuzzy copyright issues to deal with. There are more people like me doing the drawing bit, and we managed to knock down the number of FOTW images by a lot (granted that we do most of the flags in SVG now). Folks, just relax. We are going to draw more, though I am not sure how many I will knock out this week. Also, many of the flags that were also in here were just used for galleries or lists, and not articles, so those were knocked out. There are websites, like Vector-Images.com, that allow for their PNG flag images to be used commercially, and they focus a lot on Russian-related flags. That will allow you to have many flags related to Russia, and from a free source. Just work with me and we will not have to deal with this issue much longer. BTW, the reason why this debate has started at EN is that a similar discussion is happening at de.wikipedia.org. (For comparison, I counted only 19 images on German Wikipedia, with many images uploaded to the Commons). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the question seems to be quite simple then: If FOTW uses colors different from those of the actual flags, then they have a copyright for them. But I don't quite see why that should be the case or if it were the case and let's say FOTW offers a Union Jack with a pink cross instead of a red one, then WP of course wouldn't use it because we depict reality and not creative deviations from reality. When FOTW claims that their flags differ from the actual ones, then they don't actually offer the real flags of the world and then they wouldn't be of any interest for us. If on the other hand they offer the real flags, they have no copyright for them. Right? Delete. --Proofreader 12:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete WP is not a tv guide indeed, and this do has potential of becoming misleading if it-s not watched forever-- Drini 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia primetime ten

Template:Australia primetime ten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not required, risk of factual innacuracy. bdude Talk 09:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Danube countries, keep the other -- Drini 21:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Danube, Template:Danube Countries

Template:Danube (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Danube Countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not quite sure this templates are useful. Especially now that we have List of tributaries of the Danube. I don't why would anybody want to have a template where he/she could see main tributaries to the Danube. I think this templates just overcrowd the pages they're on, and the same info can be easily accessed on speciffic pages. I don't think information in this templates is informative enough to have it's own template --Dijxtra 08:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Danube, Delete Danube Countries as redundant. I just merged country and city info into Danube and added it to the city articles, most of which are not overcrowded with nav boxes (not so sure about the countries). In any case, this nav box does what all other nav boxes do: Let the reader easily jump between related articles without returning to the list. ~ trialsanderrors 08:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{Danube}}, it's useful to easily browse through Danube-related articles, but we really have to decide what is a major tributary and a major city. Delete {{Danube Countries}}, redundant. Todor→Bozhinov 10:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{Danube}}. Delete {{Danube Countries}} per above. —dima /sb.tk/ 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from country articles. The previous one was a fairly useless footer creep for country articles - but in the current form, it's simply obnoxious. Horrible misuse of navigation boxes on country articles that always needs to be curbed. --Joy [shallot] 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More large navigation templates of links; a permanent nuisance. This is better-looking than most, and please write me if it is redesigned before closure. Septentrionalis 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Danube is important river and should have it's tamplate Avala 20:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both Danube and Danube Countries should be deleted. I don't see any added value in including them in the articles about cities where Danube flows through. --dusoft 16:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Danube Countries}} should definitely go, the presence of a river is not a major navigation-worthy characteristic of a country; {{Danube}} may be useful on some articles, possibly tributaries (so keep) but not on cities; for settlements what about something like {{Severn from Llandrinio to Ironbridge}}? This is a potentially useful navigational template on an article. Linking together a couple of the major cities on the Danube with the main Danube template is really a little daft - that kind of thing can be done through the category system anyway. A more comprehensive list of settlements along the course of the river, broken up into little bits along its course, and connecting articles on settlements with those settlements just up- or down-stream actually adds something valuable navigation-wise to articles as far as I can see. It can't be dealt with via categories (alphabetical order) and can't even easily be navigated via a "list of settlements on the Danube" (if you are interested in the next town up- or down-stream to navigate "along" the river, you'd have to locate the current settlement in the list). Just a simple, comprehensive, stage-by-stage series of navigation boxes would (1) reduce page cramp, (2) eliminate subjectivity about "important" cities and (3) provide a really neat way of navigating more obviously linked articles. There is no good reason on the Vienna article to link to Ulm, or Ruse! And especially not to Moldova or Prut! But there would be a good argument to link it to, say, Bratislava and Linz and the settlements in between either way. It would be pretty cool to be able to take a "tour down the Danube" by navigating the articles; there is no doubt at all the Danube is a major feature of the settlements on its banks (unlike being a major feature of the countries it flows through). TheGrappler 07:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The country links go to the "Geography of..." entries now where there is significantly less clutter. I don't quite follow your argument in favor of succession boxes, which have the same inclusion criteria problems, and provide far less information on roughly the same footprint. ~ trialsanderrors 02:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll have a stab at explaining myself better. The guiding principle is that navboxes are not primarily to provide information, they are there to provide useful/relevant links. Why is it relevant to the Vienna article that the Prut and Iller are tributaries of the Danube? It's not; anybody interested in that information would go to the Danube page, or the list of tributaries of the Danube. The link to Moldova is just as superfluous. What about the links to Ulm, Regensburg, Vukovar, Ruse, Tulcea? These are clearly more relevant to an article about Vienna: they are links to other cities which share a major characteristic. But the arbitrary nature of the selection detracts from the usefulness of the links. Around the Vienna area, the path of the Danube goes Bratislava - Hainburg - Vienna - Krems - Dürnstein - Melk - Greinburg - Linz. Now, isn't a link to Hainburg or Krems or Grein more relevant than a link to Tulsea or Ingolstadt? Anybody who is interested in "What other major cities lie on the Danube?" could just have clicked on the Danube link in the text. Anybody who is interested in "Where on the Danube is just upstream or downstream from Vienna?" won't find an easy answer; giving them a navbox with those towns and cities (and other settlements along the river between Bratislava and Linz we have articles for) would be very helpful, producing a useful way of navigating articles (along the river) that can't be replicated using categories and is far more relevant as a navlink for an article like Vienna than "Moldova" or "Prut" would be. A succession box would be stupid (how to decide which settlement either side to link to? That could be arbitrary) but what about something like:
Danube between Bratislava and Linz (heading downstream) edit

Bratislava | Hainburg | Vienna | Krems | Dürnstein | Melk | Ybbs an der Donau | Greinburg | Linz

Or with confluences included too:
Danube between Bratislava and Linz (heading downstream), tributaries (full list) in italics edit

Bratislava (Morava joins) | Hainburg | Vienna | Krems | Dürnstein | Melk | Ybbs an der Donau (Ybbs joins) | Greinburg | Traun joins | Linz

This wouldn't be arbitrary in the way that a succession box (or conversely, the "major" cities only option) would be; also it takes up far less space than the current template! TheGrappler 16:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From parsing the boxes you tried to include I guess your point is that the relevance of local info trumps the relevance of global info. I tend to disagree, but that's an edit conflict that shouldn't take place in the TfD. The same goes for your comment that the three types of info should not appear in the same navbox. ~ trialsanderrors 18:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a TfD issue because a space-hogging navbox that can not provide useful navigation should be deleted. Since any navigational template could change significantly in usage, purpose and form, discussing these points is not merely editorializing. TfD is often inherently a form of content dispute (look at some of the other TfDs). Templates sometimes only survive TfD as a result of editorial changes arising from a consensus that in a previous form a template is unacceptable and should be deleted. If the sole purpose of this template is to lie at the bottom of articles on cities then it needs to be either radically amended or deleted. The issue is not "local trumps global" or vice versa but about usefulness of navigation and overclogging articles. It is obviously irrelevant to an article about Vienna that the Prut is a tributary of the Danube, or that the Danube also flows through Moldova, so it is silly to include this information: it is better provided elsewhere and it is easy to navigate to that information anyway if you wanted it! Personally, I think {{Danube}} may be useful on articles specifically about the Danube, like Danube itself, as well as articles like Danube Tourist Commission, International Commission for the Protection of the Danube and List of bridges across the Danube (even if they are redlinks, they really ought to be articles). So I think {{Danube}}'s purpose should be restricted, maybe only to core Danube articles and potentially articles about tributaries. Alternatively, {{Danube}} could be rescoped as a template to be used on Danube and the city articles, and just restricted to cities on the Danube as its content. The mock navboxes I inserted above were merely illustrations that there are alternative ways of presenting navboxes for city and town articles that provide clear, relevant navigation and do not reproduce information that may be found trivially elsewhere. My interpretation of the way this TfD is going is that there is consensus that either {{Danube}} needs to change in usage (probably to be used in less articles) or to change in scope (removing a lot of the links). TfD debates are inherently "content plus purpose" disputes. There's nothing wrong with a template called "Danube" (contrast to CfD or AfD, where "Category:Automobiles available in a shade of yellow" or "My best mate's house" are goner's on title alone) but its contents could be anything from being a navbox for tourist attractions or bridges along the Danube, to a list of cultural references to the Danube. Currently it is a big fat template stuffed full of links to all kinds of things and it is ticking off people who watch over articles it is appearing on. That is why it is at TfD, and that is why its current content and purpose are relevant. TheGrappler 19:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look into changing your screen resolution if it appears as a big fat template in your browser. But in any case, if you feel so strongly about it I'll happily take it off my watchlist and let you do with it whatever you want. Have a nice day. ~ trialsanderrors 19:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect -- Drini 22:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SCOTUSRecentCase

Template:SCOTUSRecentCase (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is now obsalete due to the creation of Template:SCOTUSCase3, which has parameters to include this and other Templates all in one. Assawyer 06:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 19:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NRV

Template:NRV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I don't think there is a policy regarding articles "with no present value." Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


June 19, 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 04:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Villiannothero

Template:Villiannothero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Used with the tfd nomination Supervillianbox. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect -- Drini 04:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supervillianbox

Template:Supervillianbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Seemingly identical to Template:Superherobox.. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Replace with GFDL and then create redirect. License issues are important, we should not try to make them go unnoticed-- Drini 04:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Note if you dislike the ñu cartoon, then use {{GFDL-nologo}} -- Drini 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL-small

Template:GFDL-small (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I fail to see any reason to have two templates for the same license: GFDL. I think images which use this template should be migrated to the regular template. (there are less than 200 images which use the "small" template) bogdan 20:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and subst Will (message me!) 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All templates created by Template_Master (talk · contribs)

Template:User Liberal Party of Aussie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Aussie Bob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Carlow Crab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Chmorguphast Croboys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Reidsville Adventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Someone Wants Another Shiner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User is BSW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User TuliniKrobi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User RED ROX! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These templates are all orphaned except for their creator and the user page of a non-existent user (which has been deleted). Their links are nothing but red links and links to protected deleted pages. I recommend nuking them all. Editor88 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT as nominated

Template:Talk Archive

Template:Talk Archive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Orphaned template is redundant with the much more widely used {{Talkarchive}}. ~MDD4696 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep per advice from legal counsel. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sxc-warning

Template:Sxc-warning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
According to the policy on the commons Commons:Commons:Stock.xchng images, this template is wrong. (see also the discussion and vote: Commons:Commons:Stock.xchng_images/vote bogdan 13:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is going to take far more than just deleting the template to fix. Each of the 999 pages that have this template need to have their copyright information changed.--SomeStranger(t) 13:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:The prior legal opinion of the foundation was that we can not ignore the inappropriate license agreement of the website. It's clear from reading the forums on the site that a non-trivial folks there believe that their TOC limits the user of the work and that it's not just ignored as the argument was made on commons. We've also had takedown notices sent to us by SXC users. Thus our vote to ignore the SXC license is exactly equal to some other site holding a vote to decide to ignore the GFDL on Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure why the notices were removed after the fact on commons, but I'm going to find out. Can we please hold off on this vote until after I've had a chance to discuss this with our legal council? If there has been some change with indeed makes these images public domain, I'll gladly remove the notices from the images and ask for the template to be deleted. Deleting the template prior to that may just put us in a situation where it must be recreated and reapplied...--Gmaxwell 14:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. After all images which use this template are replaced with a proper one then propose for deletion again. --WinHunter (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 04:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ESCW00

Template:ESCW00 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Replaced with the more complete template {{Eurovision winners}}. Andromeda 09:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 02:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thelema Book

Template:Thelema Book (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The template is redundant to another better-designed template; in this case {{Infobox Book}}. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 18, 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 21:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CategorisationDisputedTopics

Template:CategorisationDisputedTopics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This created by Jim Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) apparently with the aim of casting doubt on the accuracy of category:Pseudoscience (which already carries a note saying that adherents to pseudoscience often dispute it), because it seems he is a wee bit into alternative "medicine". It is pointless, and not needed since any discussion of whether foo deserves to go into a category should be done at talk:foo. — Dunc|☺ 21:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete -- a.) the template brings nothing to the party, b.) single-use templates (or those designed for same) have as much legitimacy as using herbs to "cure" cancer (unless the village Shaman prepares the herbs using Nostradanus' recipes, of course). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it isn't useful. There's no way to determine which topics are disputed, so it's useless to readers. And since it isn't visible to editors of the articles (unless they have the cats on their watchlist), it doesn't serve to improve the article. Guettarda 23:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll recuse from this, but I wouldn't mind a little more good faith and less ad hominem. A number of editors have identified problems with category:Pseudoscience. I don't agree with all of them, and I'm fine with the idea that this template may not be the best way to address them, but they do need attention. I created this template along the lines of Template:CategorisationDisputedPeople, which presumably was meant to help readers be aware of disputes. I'm pretty sure that there are more than a couple fuzzy and contentious categories on WP. I don't agree that debate over inclusion of foo in such categories depends only on foo; obviously it depends on the boundaries of the category as well. More on Category_talk:Pseudoscience. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 02:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Use of this template adds no value to the article. Also, templates created to further a particular POV is a misuse of templates. FeloniousMonk 05:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since I created it, I can tell you that this template was not created to further a particular POV. It was created to help readers be aware of disputes, as I said above, and it parallels an existing template. Other editors have argued that category:Pseudoscience is inherently a POV category. WP:CF says "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category", but in practice this is sometimes ignored. I'm fine with the argument that there are better ways to alert readers and editors to disputes. I'm not fine with having my motivations gratuitously questioned. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 05:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and handle this type of disagreement on article talk pages. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is absurd to have Template:CategorisationDisputedPeople and not Template:CategorisationDisputedTopics. Otherwise, get rid of both. -- Reinyday, 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; I agree strongly with Reinyday's logic. I do have some NPOV concerns about the use of certain categories that are fuzzy and contentious, particularly given these criteria from WP:CG. If Template:CategorisationDisputedPeople serves a purpose, then so does Template:CategorisationDisputedTopics. Happy to discuss this further here, or to discuss other solutions on my user talk page. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 02:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary invitation to have contents disputes--Brownlee 11:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 01:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox athlete turned model

Template:Infobox athlete turned model (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Only used in Megumi Kawamura. Of doubtful usefulness at best. Circeus 17:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. Flowerparty☀ 07:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BBArticleSpoiler

Template:BBArticleSpoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not used, since Template:BbSpoiler is used.-- 9cds(talk) 15:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator please continue discussion at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible--SomeStranger(t) 12:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bibleref

Both of these are being used to create external links to bible verses instead of to Wikisource Trödel 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • and? Not everyone, aka most people do not, approve of the wikisource bible version(s).SF2K1
    • and such widespread use of external links, specifically replacing links to pages within wikipedia is contrary to wikipedia's efforts to provide information that is in compliance with the GFDL Trödel
Given the concern re this change effecting so many pages, I will make the changes to the template to point to wikisource, including conditional logic etc. The version to use on wikisource, as reached through concensus below, and have a test version working to the satisfaction of the administrator closing this TfD prior to any action taking place. Regardless of those concerns and any anti-King James movement sentiment, where a GFDL compliant source exists it should be used in preference to sources subject to other licenses. Trödel 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize to voters for not making my GFDL concerns more explicit - I thought it was obvious Trödel 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the pro to wikisource is GFDL. The pro to BibleGateway is the number of (and flexibility of switching between) translations... including foreign languages. For anyone who wants to study a passage (and I do a lot, I have a degree in Religion), the choice would obviously be to use BibleGateway... at this point in time. BibleGateway isn't hurting anyone, and they are very upfront about the copyright status on the translations they provide. I think it makes the most sense to keep this as it is until either (A) wikisource has a solution that is just as good as BibleGateway or (B) BibleGateway shuts itself down and we have a bunch of dead links. Like I said, there is a pro to both side, but I think it is clear that for an encyclopedic website, it should be more important to give access to the best tools for learning. David Bergan 03:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The amount of pages that would be affected by this delete is enourmous. What do we intend to replace it with?--SomeStranger(t|c) 12:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree, there seems to be a lot of pages that now have links to this discussion and would have to be edited. Wouldn't it be easier to edit the template to point at wikisource instead? Superbeatles 15:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from nom This is very simple - do not edit the pages at all but after deleting the current version which links to an external website, create a template of the same name to direct to wikisource. To use links such as these is not GFDL compliant especially since links within wikipedia are being replaced with links to an external website (see example) It was my first inclination to be bold and just do so edit the template - but looking at the number of links, I thought a proper community decision was needed first before a change that would effect so many articles. Trödel 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not edit to point to wikisource Wikisource currently only has the King James Version and World English Bible. Bibleref and Bibleverse provide the ability to neutrally link to over 40 different versions (including some non-english versions), and in many cases allow the reader to alternate to a version of their choice. The Bibleref and Bibleverse templates currently link to the New International Version (which is one of the most religiously neutral versions available from those that the template is currently able to link to) by default, or to specified versions where given (e.g. the Youngs Literal Translation, where it is important to give this specific translation due to the discussion involved). Deliberately favouring the KJV and WEB over the many other versions is a highly religiously motivated stance (see King James Only Movement for example). Clinkophonist 15:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply from nom It is contrary to wikipedia policy to include such links to copyrighted material - I did not advocate linking to King James Version. If there is a version that is "religously neutral" I would be happy to assist on wikisource getting the text in. Trödel 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Cutting in): Its not really an issue of "religiously neutral", but one of broad access to the most number of texts --which are typically copyright translations. Access to them is often limited to commercial portals who have license to use them, or else link to them. Given that we all can agree there should be a BibleRef template, the ideal place we link to should also have access to the most number of translations, and not attempt to ourselves make a determination of which is best, most faithful, or most neutral. The only non-commercial source with such access would no doubt be an academic one, which, ideally, would be a permanent interface. Bible.cc is interesting, but Im unaware of how it handles copyright, or if its part of some non-profit, or academic institution. -Ste|vertigo 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment I've just noticed that the nominator edits a lot in articles related to Mormonism, a religious group with an affinity for the King James Only Movement, and I would hazard a guess that this nomination is a bad faith attempt to assert the King James Only POV. Clinkophonist 15:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply from nom It is true that this template came to my attention because someone replaced links to Matthew 14 to an external reference. However, a) I dont really care about the King James Only Movement (thanks for letting me know about that article though - interesting reading) and b) that does not change the fact that using templates to create in-line links to an external website is against general policy. {{google}} was deleted for just that reason. Trödel 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't usually participate in these sorts of discussion, but I do think that the Bible references should be directed within Wikisource. First, the copyright regulations of various translations must be considered. The King James Version is public domain; the New International Version is not (nor is it a "religiously neutral" translation; there is no such thing). Second, it is not practical. Having a few article verses linked to, say, biblegateway.com is far from convenient. This is because, at the very least, it removes the user from the Wiki site's navigation, and thus the context and feel of the site. That's to say nothing of problems inherent in outside sources, such as load time, advertising, etc. Third, the further use of Wikisource for references to the Bible may help in increasing its translation options. The real issue here is not the Wikipedia article, but the translations used by Wikisource, and thus it should be dealt with there, not here. Jonberglund 06:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admitting that GFDL is a pro to using wikisource, isn't it better for an encyclopedia to link to the best tool available? I mean if you and I are going to manually look up the verse with BibleGateway (because we prefer it to the KJV at wikisource), why not have wikipedia automatically link us there? GFDL is great, but learning is better. David Bergan 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is no policy that wikipedia is a solely inside job. The ISBN links and the Google Print links are two examples of that. Particularly in this case, since the site that is being linked to is leaps and bounds beyond what wikisource provides, both in scale and usability between the different translations. I my opinion (and this is my opionion), this is a case of WP:Use common sense.--Esprit15d 13:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. per Esprit15d. In addition to there being no rule that says sources or External Links need to be open source (if that were the case, how could we cite any other work of literature, LotR, Harry Potter, etc), I think redirecting to a site that allows the user to choose from over 90 bible versions which one is their default, solves POV issues inherent in redirecting to one of the 2 bibles on wikisource. When we cite a bible verse, we are not attempting to transmit text via the GFDL, but simply citing a source. This nomination would seems to me like an attack on any EL or source that isn't open source. Go to Saturday's FA. Scan through the references. Note all the EL to sites that do not follow the GFDL. Now consider how we could write an article if we excluded all these sources to only the GFDL sources of wikisource, wikibook, and wikinews. Does it makes sense where I am coming from, and how ridiculous this proposal seems to me?--Andrew c 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please see Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. It would seem that bibleref hijacks the intention of wikipedia to link to in-house materials such as wikisource where possible and instead creates a template that is by default a link repository. I understand that some translations are preferable to others by many people, but it is also the policy under WP:COPY to use free sources as opposed to non-free sources where free sources are available. --Vengeful Cynic 16:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There is not a single item in Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files that applies to this discussion. Points 1, 2 and 4 obviously don't, so I am guessing you are referring to point 3, which also doesn't apply since that concerns text that has been copied and pasted to create a new wikipedia article - not links at all. The examples given concern articles created from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica or public domain sites. I am surprised, actually, that you made a reference to WP:COPY since it says (and I quote): "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright." According to BibleGateway.com, all the Bibles they use have been contributed by various Bible societies. So this policy, also, does not relate. --Esprit15d 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My argument was in no way intended to say that the policy exists that explicitly precludes the BibleRef template, but rather that the spirit of the policy is essentially that free, internal sources are preferable to non-free, external sources. This isn't to say that one couldn't list links to secondary translations from WikiSource, but that linking to WikiSource copy is preferable to linking to an external, non-free source. --Vengeful Cynic 18:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "free, internal sources are preferable to non-free, external sources" - right, but you're forgetting the important part of the equations: "free, internal, limited/crappy source" VS "non-free, external, flexible/excellent source" At this point in time, BibleGateway is a better tool for learning and that makes all the difference. David Bergan 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but take vote for which source. Wikisource is not ideal, and no efforts have been made to make its Bible texts altogether well integrated. (Mediawiki doesnt handle large document splitting and linking anyway). Its appropriate to choose a source, and using an academic one is preferable to using a commercial source (such as bible.cc). Given that the most desirable link would be a permanent academic compendium in Parallel Bible form, with the most complete and cross-referentiable texts, at any particular time it should be determined which link is best to use. -Ste|vertigo 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: the ISBN idea is atrocious - a link to an enourmous and overlong page to dig up a link to amazon, bn, etc, is not useful. Ideally ISBN choices could be logged in your preferences, but this too doesnt address the problem that in the quest to be completely neutral, the ISBN page is excessive. -SV
  • Strong Keep and edit the template code if necessary. I really don't understand why this was nominated. Deletion is only a good idea when
1) a page should never have existed in the first place,
2) there is a pressing need to obliterate the page history (e.g. slander, copyright infringement).
There is certainly no obvious reason why either applies here. Whether we link to wikisource or not, whether we link to anything or not, there is still very useful semantic content in these links. --Saforrest 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - My favorite translation isn't featured there (New Revised Standard Version), but it is an excellent resource, upfront about its copyright relationships, where you can easily switch to a different translation or language to get a better understanding of the verse. Until wikisource has a resource equal to or greater than biblegateway's we stay with biblegateway. It just makes the most sense that we use the best resource available through the Internet. I have no qualms linking to wikisource if the time comes that it does an equal job, but until then, stay as is and tell your wikisource friends to get on this project. David Bergan 16:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per David Bergan. --M@rēino 17:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep as above - Bible versions are highly controversial and linking to a site that has everything is the only way to stop the KJV-onlyism vs modernism debates ... but am I missing something? At Baptism, the link to "Matthew 28:19" takes you to http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Matthew&verse=28:19&src=31 ... why does it go there rather than straight to crosswalk.com? BigDT 23:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that that page linked directly to the site was because it was not using the templates correctly. I went and and changed it.--SomeStranger(t) 12:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we remove the TFD message from the part of this template that gets transcluded? Honestly, it's a huge distraction on all of the pages that use it right now. I tried to make it less of one by removing the linebreak, but the template is obviously going to be kept - does the TFD message really have to be transcluded? BigDT 05:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal

Given that there are considerable concerns about the ability to have good references to the bible including references to different versions etc. and wikisource seems insufficient to the task at present. However, I think sufficient concerns are expressed above concerning which version to use etc.

There seems to be two sources that I can find so far that could provide multiple versions as well as meet our concerns, as wikipedia under the GFDL.

  1. BibleGateway.com
  2. BibleBrowser.com
  3. The current lookup - which is just a redirect to BibleGateway in most cases - though depding on the source it will redirect to other locations, including to nccbuscc.org, BibleBrowser (but through a wrapper that places google and other advertisements around the BibleBrowser information).

Thus, I think that the template needs to be at the very least edited to use a different source and use that source directly (not through a redirect from an .edu cite - which could give the reference undeserved credibility).

Therefore I withdraw my TfD listing and propose that there be a discussion of the proper way to cite Bible references - and if the community decides to go with an external site, which external site should it be, etc (I am sure there are many others). I propose such discussion begin at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible. Starting with those monitoring these discussions, to try to narrow the issues; however, no later than a week from now widely asking for comment.

Please close this TfD as keep and direct further discussion to: Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible Trödel 22:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moved to RfD--SomeStranger(t) 20:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monopoly

Template:Monopoly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Monopoly template was just a copy of the London game board layout of the board game Monopoly, copied from the Monopoly (game) page. I considered the template name to be too generic, moved the content to Template:LondonMonopolyBoard, and made the necessary change in the article. Nothing now links to Template:Monopoly; it could be deleted. JohnDBuell 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh valid point, I didn't see that we HAD a Redirects for Deletion section now. If someone would like to move it, feel free. --JohnDBuell 02:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've had one for over 2 years... :) — sjorford++ 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 17, 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 01:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gambling

Template:Gambling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wildly inappropriate, undefined and too general template would have hundreds, if not a thousand entries on it. Also ignores entire subcategorization of gambling categories. Template should be speedy delete. (Adding... also, while making a "Games" template would be similarly absurd, having templates at the level of appropriate categorization is what makes sense. Listing the ten or so Bingo-like games on a 1000 entry gambling template would help no one, but making a ten article Bingo template could be decently useful.) 2005 21:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. You have connoted yourself that the page has potential and needs work. It is a great template and needs to be fixed up a bit. This user, it should be noted, blanked this template and deleted it from all of the pages containing it before putting it up for deletion; an outrageous thing for an editor of 2 years! → JARED (t)  21:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make outrageous allegations. The template, among other inappropriate things, MISCATEGORIZES numerous articles (chosen apparently at random) that have been appropriately and often painstakingly categorized. Instead of focused subcategories, now a thousand articles will simply be thrown in the Gambling parent category in addition to their approriate subcategories. I removed the template from articles that are categorized in sub categories or in other categories. Please next time look at the situation before making "outrageous" statements. Categories exist for a reason. 2005 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did blank it and I shouldn't have done that, prior to tfd'ing especially (although I was going to do tfd in a few minutes). I had a brainfart thinking blanking would remove it from thelisted articles that were now miscategorized. It took me a couple of minutes to figure out that was backwards and I had to remove the mis-categorization from each article instead. 2005 23:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: What is a "type" of gambling? I'm here to vote because the template was added to backgammon, and backgammon isn't a type of gambling. Backgammon is a board game which is sometimes played for money, but doesn't have to be. The thousands of backgammon matches on FIBS, for example, are played merely for fun and for the pride of rating points. Similarly blackjack and poker are card games, not types of gambling, because both can be played without money, but neither can be played without cards. If the definition of a "type of gambling" is an activity where people bet money on something, then let's be sure to include hot-dog eating, weather forecasting, interest rates hikes by the Federal Reserve, and the price of tea in China. Or let's delete a non-useful template. --Fritzlein 23:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree that this would be an inappropriate and useless template to add. The gambling articles are well-organized into categories and sub-categories already, and this template adds no value and will potentially become a huge mass of confusion. Rray 01:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Potentially confusing, irrelevant, and its purpose is better served by categories. A lot of games are gambled on in various ways... Where to draw the line? Grandmasterka 02:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even about what it claims to be about: betting on sports events, dice games, card games, are all types of gambling. Cleanup is not appropriate as there are so many types, and so many that don't fit comfortably into types, that the template will remain confusing IMHO. Better handled by categories. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete impossibly too broad and better served by categories. SchmuckyTheCat 01:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. — Jun. 17, '06 [18:31] <freak|talk>

Template:Prod

Redundant to Template:afd1, and encourages deletion without discussion because it lacks a link to the deletion discussion page. The Crow 18:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 17:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denmark u21 squad

The UEFA U-21 Championship 2006 is finish kalaha 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 00:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User lancerfan

Template:User lancerfan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A userbox for fans of a high school team? Fails WP:N spectacularly. BoojiBoy 14:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catholic order

Template:Catholic order (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There are thousands of Catholic orders. Categories may be better. --Howard the Duck 09:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Relist, lost in process --William Allen Simpson 17:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bee Train

Template:Bee Train (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bad nav template. Templates should be made for, say, a group of work where it's very obvious why they'd be grouped together. When I think of .hack, I don't think of Tsubasa Chronicle, or Noir. This might be something for the See also sections of articles, but definitely not it's own nav template. If more nav templates are made like this.. it could get messy.. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have proposed the template on the talk page and since no one really cared about it, I just went ahead and created it. Moreover, I assume, you don't think of Bald: The Making of 'THX 1138' when you think of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, do you? :) Yet, {{George Lucas' films}} isn't nominated for deletion. Neither are {{Uwe Boll Films}}, {{Alfred Hitchcock's films}}, {{Clint Eastwood}}, {{Roman Polański}}, etc. Here are more examples. --Koveras 09:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas's relation to his films is a lot more significant and known than Bee Train (I stress the known part, as nav templates are for navigation). Same with the others, especially Hitchcock! And actually, I DO think of THX when I think of Star Wars.. -- Ned Scott 09:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, like I said, if you want to show the relation between the different series, this should be done with the "See also" section, that's what it's there for! A nav template isn't supposed to be "oh, also, you might find this interesting", but rather, "These articles are directly related to this article". -- Ned Scott 09:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still say keep. :) --Koveras 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is good to know, but that's not what a nav template is for. This is needless article clutter and ugly. The template is poorly formatted and takes up more space than it needs to, even if it was useful. There's a section called "See also", that's where these notes should go. I see that you are new to Wikipedia? There are many ways to reference information, and there are many ways to make nav templates. Nav templates are supposed to only be used when there is a group of articles concerning one subject. It's also needless, as much of the .hack nav is already done by the .hack nav template. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 17:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox AI person

Template:Infobox AI person (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created in April and never usedor even linked for discussion, of doubtful usefulness. Circeus 02:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 16, 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator (Keep). SomeStranger(t) 23:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YouTube

Template:Youtube (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bad idea for a template, bad precendent. Links to Youtube should go in the External links section. We only link to sister projects in this manner. If the content was really that worthwhile, I would hope that someone would upload it to Wikipedia or Commons. ~MDD4696 23:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least change. Something like template:imdb would be more appropriate ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 04:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to match the IMDB template format — please re-evaluate based on this. — Mike • 23:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also now fixed all the various references using this template (fortunately only a few) to reflect the change. So hopefully, can this be withdrawn? I'll drop a note on the poster's talk page. — Mike • 23:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed delete vote, I see nothing wrong with this template as of the latest revision ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 10:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. El_C 10:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Petition

This template was added to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Justice Court, but I believe it should be listed here instead. This template should be deleted because it merely serves as a tool to attack admins and editors by placing them in a "Shameboard". Please see the above-linked MfD for related discussion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Pagrashtak 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Rise of Islam

The Neutrality of this template is questionable. The templates heading says "The Rise of Islam" and points to articles of war that took place during Muhammeds time, which has nothing to do with the rise of Islam. The template miscommunicates that Islam Rose through war, which is Original Research. If this was not intended then the template heading should read as "Campaigns of Islam"  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. No legitimate reasons for deleting it have been proposed. In fact, the template is encyclopedic and performs a useful function by linking to all the battles fought by Muhammad. The suggested renaming to "Campaigns of Islam" is highly misleading, as there were many more campaigns than these in the history of Islam. The only result immediate practical result of this nomination is that a number of good articles have been disrupted by the tfd message on top of them. Pecher Talk 20:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is Speedy Keep?  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 20:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Firstly, there's no reason to speedy anything this. I am a little worried that a tribe is in a campaign box. I also think the title is a tad histrionic and I would imagine that CltFn would have problems with this since he's a fan of Crone, Wansbrough, and Cook who all talk about the rise of Islam being later. I don't agree with mystic's title either. I doubt it will be deleted and I think conversation should probably start on the template talk page about these issues. gren グレン 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree with gren. I think this was taken to AFD too quickly. There's nothing inherently unencyclopedic about the content provided. Namespace issues ought to be resolve on the template talk page, not through an indignant AFD nom.—Perceval 20:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Of course, it won't be deleted, and this is why I insist on speedy keeping: why wasting the editors' time by pursuing a nomination the result of which is known from the start? If Mystic has problems with the title, he should have raised them on the talk page. Pecher Talk 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the nominator has a right to question our linking those battles (assuming the tribes mean the battles with the tribes) into a campaign box under any title. If the nominator believes that those battles don't form a coherent entity that should be linked on a template then it's not unreasonable to nominate it. Also, this issue goes into whether or not the template should be renamed. Speedy keep is for issues where an TfD has recently failed or where the object of the TfD is so well established that it's unquestionable (which is a very high threshold). This is neither. Now, if enough people vote keep quickly enough it can get an early close so as not to keep that ugly banner around. But, an admin's choice to close a debate early is not the same as a speedy keep. gren グレン 20:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A frivolous nomination. A campaignbox is perfectly appropriate to what was, by any realist approach of history, a military campaign. I suspect this realist approach is precisely the problem the nominator has with this template.Timothy Usher 23:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Pecher and Usher. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Timothy Usher. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per history. El_C 10:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a POV and tell people that Islam is rised by wars only. It is an original research and the neutrality of this template is in question. --- Faisal 12:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current title of the template is POV, it should be changed to either "Campaigns of Islam" or "Campaigns by Muhammed" the current "rise of Islam" is highly inappropriate. if this cannot be accepted it should be deleted.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 20:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Zscout370. SomeStranger(t) 13:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User RuneScape 75

Template:User RuneScape 75 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Originally, J.J.Sagnella marked it for speedy deletion, but since it isn't inflammatory, it doesn't qualify. Since I'm not very familiar with RuneScape, no vote. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for incorrectly listing it. This template is too specific. It could be no more than 10 or so Wikipedians and not wanted. J.J.Sagnella 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on these grounds; we have lots of templates which apply to single digits of pages. As a personal note, I find "noobs" mildly inflammatory; please add emoticon or link to the Noob. Septentrionalis 18:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Creator Even if it is deleted,would it be permissible to keep it on MY PAGE ONLY? p00rleno 18:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you take the source code for it and put it in your userpage of course. I'm struggling to see why you didn't do that in the first place. J.J.Sagnella 18:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thought other high lvl RS users might like... p00rleno 18:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other pet peeve I have with this is the word "noob" is usually used by new players and high-leveled players rarely use the word. J.J.Sagnella 22:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the term "noob" was intended purely to be humorous, and if you/anyone has an issue with the term it can be altered to something like "this player is serious..." etc. p00rleno 01:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not keep, privilege is spelled wrong, and sorry, but you do not have any sort of special privilege to call others noobs. WikiSlasher 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete encourages users to use the word 'noob' in wikipedia talk, which I am against.--

Andeh 13:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I expect civilised, correct grammar and vocabulary, not weak, almost meaningless words like "noob". Wikipedia is better than this. J.J.Sagnella 14:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I choose to allow deletion of said page without further discussion. Upon putting it on my page, i discovered an error which prohibited proper display. I will continue to try to make it work, but just in a personal sandbox. The page may be removed. From the template's creator, p00rleno 18:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can mark something you created with {{db-author}} if there are no other significant contributors (I don't believe there are here; just a spelling change and deletion nominations.) I've done it for you. Grandmasterka 01:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 00:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footballers

Template:Footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, and not an actual template anyway, just a structure for creating articles. Nothing links to it, and WikiProject Football already has standards in place, so this is unlikely to be useful if moved over there. The author of the template also seems to have left Wikipedia. — sjorford++ 13:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (empty) -- Drini 00:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Ferrari

Template:User Ferrari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
redirected to user namespace per WP:TGS, and all inclusions have been altered to the new page. This is now orphaned. Speedy deletion if appropriate. DJR (Talk) 10:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went to look at the template, and there was nothing but a blank page... p00rleno 18:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Pagrashtak 15:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legislative systems

Template:Legislative systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template links to only one legislative system ("the westminister system"), and for the rest it links to five national parliaments. Two months ago I asked on the talkpage if anyone could explain why the template exists, non-one reacted. I propose either deleting it or reorganizing it to a template:national parliament to encompass all national parliaments. C mon 07:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I dislike link templates; but the reason for the choices is clear. The Commonwealth parliaments do follow a common system; the others have all evolved separately. We do not need a template with links to every democratic legislature in the world. Septentrionalis 18:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Allows for the further creation of articles on other legislative systems. I doesn't seem intended to be a links to national parliaments (the Westminster System is not a national parliament. It is a system used in the UK, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and numerous other places). So creating a template for national parliament misses the point. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This template is useless. It should link to articles related to legislative systems not to parliaments. Along with that, it is very incomplete and will probably become a source of disputes if kept. Afonso Silva 12:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator (Keep). SomeStranger(t) 23:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_prussiakstyles

Template:Infobox_prussiakstyles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The template was only used for three kings of Prussia, the last three which were German Emperors. The German Imperial template box has been modified to include the royal titles and this template is not longer needed as no page links to it (and there is a standard template for kings). Charles 05:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Delete, if the royal template has this functionality. But why not just redirect? Septentrionalis 18:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These boxes were created to end a bitter edit war over whether styles could be included at the opening of an article. The agreement was that they shouldn't by at the opening but should be in the article. As a compromise those arguing that styles should be up front, and those arguing that styles should never be used, agreed that styles should be kept in a special infobox like this one. The reason individual boxes in some instances were created was because a single master template caused problems, as the image had to be manually added in, leading to different users using different images on monarch pages and breaking up the uniformity that is at the heart of the design and content. Having one master template for individual countries allowed a uniformity to be kept, with all templates capable of being edited in one move, so avoiding different versions on, say, different Prussian kings' pages. This template is supposed to be used for all Prussian kings (as well as their previous titles), not just emperors post 1871, so allowing the evolution in titles to be seen with the addition of a new box where a monarch received a different title (as with Kings of Prussia becoming German Emperors also) with different accompanying styles. Putting everything in one box is unworkable where, as say with Austria-Hungary, there are far too many variants (Imperial Majesty, Majesty, Apostolic Majesty, and others) to be fitted into a single box. This box fits the criteria perfectly and is used as part of an agreement that ended an 8 month long edit war, so should be kept. I'm puzzled as to why there should be a problem with a form a box that is used in hundreds of articles on WP, and was approved with a 92% consensus. This is simply the standard Prussia version. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What is this overall royal template of which he speaks? Septentrionalis 19:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like a really big idiot. I made a mistake about the general template. However, this template was only for three kings who were Emperors, when there is a template box just for them. I would like to now remove the image of the crown, replace it with the Hohenzollern Coat of Arms and implement this template for the non-imperial Kings of Prussia. The combined template for the German Emperors is totally sufficient and not overcrowded in itself as it only contains two titles a combined style. Again, sorry. Everyone makes mistakes :-( Charles 20:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. I withdraw this nomination. Charles 01:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 15, 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, TFD withdrawn by nominator, new mediazilla:6356 workaround now offered by this template. -- Omniplex 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CURRENTSECOND

Template:CURRENTSECOND (edit discuss links history) is not helpful, see Template:CURRENTMINUTE and mostly redundant with CURRENTTIMESTAMP mod 100. It could be fixed to add a leading zero, but as it's unused deleting it is more straight forward. -- Omniplex 22:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kill with fire. There's a reason it's not a magic word. --Rory096 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Better to have one working template than to use {{#expr: {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} mod 100}} and variations everywhere... especially since that code sporadically produces incorrect results in the form of a negative value. As to it 'not being a magic word for a reason'... as of now it is a magic word, 'CURRENTTIMESTAMP'. Yes, there is a bunch of other stuff in there, but the only unique bit is the seconds and there are at least three methods of extracting them. If we don't want seconds used they should be pulled out of the timestamp not blocked on a per case basis. --CBD 21:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The most expensive part with templates is AFAIK to get its page, parsing it incl. evaluation of inline functions and variables like #expr: or CURRENTTIMESTAMP is relatively harmless. That's the whole point of some parser functions, otherwise say {{switch}} would be more subst-friendly than getting this right for #switch:.
    If you get negative results with "mod 100" it's about minutes or more using two CURRENTTIMESTAMPs, see Help:Variable. For seconds you only need one timestamp, no chance to catch a 59 to 00 condition. Are you really talking about seconds? If yes I fail to see how mod 100 in {{CURRENTSECOND}} could be more robust than doing it directly. The critical point is of course, do folks using a current second understand why that won't necessarily belong to a separately determined {{CURRENTMINUTE}} ? -- Omniplex 08:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As you apparently discovered subsequently, there is a separate problem with 'mod' when applied to large values like the results of 'CURRENTTIMESTAMP'. As to the relationship between 'CURRENTSECOND' and 'CURRENTMINUTE'... if a single method of calculating each is implemented and called in all cases (such as by keeping and using this template) then would the relationship not always be consistent? --CBD 11:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I found 6356 after the comment here inspired by your workaround in CURRENTMINUTE. That it only affects large numbers is news for me, maybe add it to the report. At the moment I consider all math templates as dubious at best, if the same input values (no variable) sometimes give wrong results all is lost.
    {{CURRENTSECOND}} is still a special case, it will never make sense even after the MOD bug will be fixed. The only potentially serious application is {{subst:CURRENTSECOND}} to copy its code into another template. Not yet ready for optional / full substitution, no leading zero, this needs work if it's not deleted. -- Omniplex 03:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the leading zero when I fixed it to avoid the 'MOD' problem, but I'm not sure what you mean about the substitution. The short argument for keeping this is: Seconds now exist in Wikimarkup and we have to deal with that whether this template exists or not - having the template serves only to help standardize how they are computed and applied. Which seems to me a good thing. What exactly is the argument for deleting it? --CBD 10:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating the reasons for a third time certainly won't help, and as long as this MOD bug isn't fixed your proposal to use smaller numbers did the trick. I've updated the complete hh:mm:ss zoo plus m:ParserFunctions/MOD10000 (tested only 50 times each manually). -- Omniplex 10:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - can I simply abort the TFD? With this MOD oddity a common workaround is in fact better than trying it directly. It's still unused though. -- Omniplex 11:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen *fD's closed as 'withdrawn by nominator' several times before. As to unused - I've been wanting to add it to the logic behind Wikipedia:Featured content, but have been holding off pending the results of this discussion. I had used the 'smaller number' method on 'CURRENTSECOND' at first, but switched to the simple subtraction method as it seemed easier for others to understand. I still don't 'get' the underlying concern here, but the current version of this (and the hour/minute templates) seems fine. --CBD 12:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I test that - after searching for some minutes until I found the cookbook in WP:DELPRO. -- Omniplex 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:User NFL-Patriots--SomeStranger(t) 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User pats fan

Template:User pats fan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Duplicate of {{Template:User NFL-Patriots}}. Sports logos are also not allowed in templates under WP:FUP. BoojiBoy 16:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:User NHL-Bruins.--SomeStranger(t) 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User bruins fans

Template:User bruins fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Duplicate of {{Template:User NHL-Bruins}}. Sports logos are also not allowed in templates under WP:FUP. BoojiBoy 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect Template:User MLB-RedSox.--SomeStranger(t) 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User redsoxfan

Template:User redsoxfan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Duplicate of {{Template:User MLB-RedSox}}. Sports logos are also not allowed in templates under WP:FUP. BoojiBoy 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected -- after so many weeks have passed, they have large numbers of uses, appear to have nearly identical results, but the latter seems to include all the functionality at this time. --William Allen Simpson 17:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-nob

Template:S-nob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is redundant. Template:S-reg should be used instead. JRawle (Talk) 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-reg has been altered so that it is only one line high, otherwise it looks excessive. I wouldn't mind whether S-reg or S-nob is used, but there should only be one template. When I checked, the former was used on more pages. JRawle (Talk) 11:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 21:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zimbabwean batsmen with a Test batting average above 50

Template:Zimbabwean batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Navigation template consisting of exactly one name. Delete. Angr (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Pagrashtak 04:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonstmp

Template:Commonstmp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete -- Categorizes templates into user specific category tree (also nominated for deletion). Badly named. This is not the best way to link to Commons, and (unlike Images) there is really no reason to coordinate with Templates that appear in Commons. Admittedly, the language cross-links technique doesn't work for this, but a simple == See also == is a better technique than this infobox. --William Allen Simpson 09:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of an interwiki system

It's apparently difficult to take some time off from wikipedia! Thank the Lord for email and friends!

Comments: Which we are you refering? The editors of de:wikipedia or fr: or ja:??? Or the commons sister project? This template and auto-tracking is for those of us working there and here so we can keep things organized, and pop back (navigate) back and forth with minimal trouble. Typing a succinct url may be easy for some of you, but a nice well-behaved friendly family of templates managing such linkages and documenting such porting of templates (most all of which get exported to those sister project places) is hardly detrimental here on en.wikipedia. So you need to take on a bigger 'we' pov to judge on this one.
Simpson seems to have taken umbrage when I called him to account for a thoughtless unnecessary edit[2] and disrespecting of my time. I admit and apologized for being intemperate, but he can't defend against the fact that his revert was disrespectful. Nor can he be inconsistant and manipulative, at least not and get away with it, by arguing one way on his talk (re: usages belong in talk pages), and blithely claiming a See Also on the template will suffice. Note the edit causing said friction between us was precisely THAT kind of add—a see also with usage in {{see also}}.
Such a seperate 'see also' does nothing to list the ported templates which was the whole point, and would require a second line with a category. Even together they don't have the impact of the graphical template, or I wouldn't have implimented it so it was consistant with the various commonscat templates (See family list: {{commonscat4}}) which are increasingly going to be part of all category pages, here and in the commons. (As a member of the welcoming committee sheparding newbies up the various learning curves, I feel such consistancy is important. Yet another reason for this method.)
He's now expanded that vendetta to affect your time and blow much of my day apparently because I was taking a wikibreak and didn't address his talk while I was away. The cost to wikiP to do it the way we've set this up is negligible compared to the edit time we've already spent dealing with this political nit-pick of an full court attack on me[3].
He apparently made no attempt to distinguish between something for my convienience (Category:Fabartus user page), and something which was put in place as part of a much a larger context and project (i.e. the first category he nominated is much different than the latter two, as is this template, or the related workings on the commons.
In sum, KEEP as part of the system—If you primarily edit here and not on the commons, I agree the categorization may be of little use to you here (OTOH, see these arguements towards the bottom)... but the foundation's scope is much bigger than just en.wikipedia, and these are the best tools we have right now to cross-correlate needs and self-document. If we need only port say four pieces of succession box to link category spaces on the commons, doesn't it make sense for someone to be able to quickly see that another three elements that they need for another use haven't yet been ported, massaged and adjusted in any way? Well, I don't know for sure either, but I've strong suspicions it will be quite useful at times. My crystal ball never did work out, but by categorizing and tagging ported elements we at least have a place to start, check alterations to similar elements, etcetera... Moreover as a closing, albeit, minor point, as we steal the guts of various navigation templates and adapt them to the category space operations needed to cross-link heirarchial branches on the commons in particular, the tagging of the wikiP template could save some duplication of effort as one of us takes the template here to commons user space for modification and testing since the visible 'This is in progress' tag is present for the second and subseqent editors. And I do have a thing about saving and respecting others time and effort—ask Simpson! // FrankB 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fabartus' convincing argument. --Coredesat 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's an interesting organizational project. The difference between this and a 'See also' link is that the template helps to maintain a multi-project category schema rather than individual links. I've seen considerable duplication and confusion in math and date templates as people port them from one project to another without noticing that equivalents already exist. This template could help to prevent that sort of thing. --CBD 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sensible way to see what needs done where, not to mention which tools are already available if one switches to the sister project for a while. FrankB 04:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These kinds of templates are the standard way to link to similar pages on sister projects whenever such links might be useful. If there is a problem with the automatic categorization, that can be fixed. If there's a problem with the page name, it can be moved. There's no need for deletion. --TantalumTelluride 19:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 04:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User stalker-2

Template:User stalker-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I've already subst'd the one page it was on (User:Nickshanks/Userboxes) but I believe that might fall under the typical userbox issues. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 14 Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 13 Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 8

Closing debates

For instructions on closing debates see WP:DPR.

Holding cell

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Holding cell

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=59960959"