Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 17

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:IdolRunnerUps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

What purpose does this template serve? It seems pretentious, so I'm proposing deletion for the same reason the the Idol series finalists category was proposed for deletion awhile ago. The template we have for the American Idol winners (Template:IdolWinners) can suffice, as with the templates for the season finalists (e.g. Template:American Idol 5 et al). User:Arual 22:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 11:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Quite pointless.--Runcorn 21:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this 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. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User PurePwnage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Arguably T1 divisive and inflammatory. The userbox is in reference to a crufty article that keeps surviving at AFD on the strength of puppetry. But at any rate, regardless of the worth (or lack thereof) of the article, this template is inappropriate. BigDT 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this is on par with Red vs Blue and its userboxes if this has to go then so does RvB, by the way RvB was a featured article, so it's alright. --DragonWR12LB 21:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Germanize -- Drini 21:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move to user space per WP:GUS. —Mira 03:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ian¹³/t 15:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• BOOM! HEADSHOT!Keep. Subject is roughly as famous as a dozen other subjects of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media boxes. --M@rēino 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy - this does not belong in template space. -SCEhardT 22:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, threatening, Thuresson 01:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

threatening...to who? Maybe "noobs" when they get "pwned" why don't you watch the series before you pass blind judgement --DragonWR12LB 15:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thuresson's "blind judgement" is exactly why this template needs to be deleted. A new Wikipedia user (who has not watched the series you are referring to) would probably find the template threatening. -SCEhardT 15:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless revised. Regardless of how obscure the series being referenced is, to those unfamiliar with the series (which I wager far outnumber those familiar), it appears hostile and inflammatory to new users. I have no problem with a userbox for fans of Pure Pwnage, but it should make clear what is being referenced, or, at a minimum, not appear hostile. Powers 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy per WP:GUS in consideration of revisions made by User:127001. Powers 14:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Onle newbs who get pwned hard don't want this here. It's just a bit of fun guys, why not lighten up and have a laugh instead of being Nazi's and wanting everything remotely non-serious to be deleted. --Nayl 19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For me, at least, it has nothing to do with the humor value, or lack thereof. It's entirely to do with the fact that unless one is familiar with Pure Pwnage, it looks very much like a divisive, inflammatory userbox. Powers 23:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Al right then I'm open for suggestions on how to keep it and allow it to be uninflammatory. Anything you have in mind Powers? --DragonWR12LB 10:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well the obvious choice would be "This user is a fan of Pure Pwnage". Clearly, that lacks any humor value, as well as any "in-joke" value amongst fans. Not being familiar with the series, though, I'm not really in a position to suggest what might be amusing but not abusive. Powers 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this does not belong in template space. I've watched all of the episodes of the show in question (actually found out about it through Wikipedia) and I enjoy it, but still, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this template simply doesn't belong. --Cyde↔Weys 23:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 11:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see what the fuss is about. Doesn't seem inflammatory to me - except to people that take gaming too seriously... Rambutaan 02:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Subst and Delete, isn't inflammatory but not good for WP:AGF --Nearly Headless Nick 13:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've removed the pwning n00bs part, so it's not inflamatory anymore. (127.0.0.1 ^{on Wheels!}) 11:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant Keep - silly, but does not seem to meet deletion criteria.--Runcorn 21:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this 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 to keep... for now. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Knight Ridder Newspapers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It's not needed anymore. Knight Ridder doesn't exist anymore, and all if its newspapers have been sold. The only pages that use it anymore are about newspapers that were formerly Knight Ridder, and the pages haven't been updated. Jesuschex 14:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep until articles are updated, then speedy as unused. Ral315 (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep at present, then bring back here.--Runcorn 21:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this 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. Note that I'm not an admin, I'm just closing to prepare for archiving. Fredil Yupigo 18:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Film Bond (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The following Infobox is not in fact the template up for deletion, it is merely an illustration of how the standard Film infobox can be used to present all of the information of the Bond Infobox, and more. It is shown here to display the uselessness of the Bond Infobox.

Thunderball
Not the Thunderball movie poster
Directed by	Terence Young
Produced by	Albert R. Broccoli Harry Saltzman
Written by	Story: Ian Fleming Kevin McClory Jack Whittingham Screenplay: Richard Maibaum John Hopkins
Starring	James Bond: Sean Connery Villain: Adolfo Celi Bond Girls: Claudine Auger Luciana Paluzzi
Music by	Score: John Barry Song: John Barry Don Black Performed By: Tom Jones
Cinematography	Ted Moore
Distributed by	United Artists
Release date(s)	21 December 1965 (U.S.) 29 December 1965 (U.K)
Running time	130 min.
Language	English
Budget	$11,000,000
Preceded by	Goldfinger
Followed by	You Only Live Twice
IMDb profile

Delete This is ridiculous. Why should Bond films have a seperate infobox? All of the information cited as "unique" can easily be covered with the standard Film Infobox. For example: Person playing Bond? Only name listed in "Starring" section. Because, honestly, who else stars in a Bond film except for the person playing Bond? No one, that's who. Secondly, Music. Why not just list performers of the song, and the composer under the single music section? All you have to do is add a little "(song)", or "(score)" to each name! And Preceded by and all that junk is already a part of the standard infobox. It just does not conform to the Film Project, nay, any other article. It makes no sense whatsoever. Do the Beatles have their own Infobox? I'm as much of a Bond fan as the next person (seriously, I am), but can we please get rid of this preposterous template? ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This was previously nominated and survived. See log. IMHO there are over 21 films that use infobox, it's not a small number and there are more important or interesting and unique facts that people want to know from a Bond film rather than just the generic information. Who is Bond. Who composed the music. Who performed the music. This is important stuff for Bond films that we can't do on the generic film infobox. I've discussed adding a Bond girl and Bond villain field, but some feel it may be too much of a spoiler for some films. I don't see this as being a big deal. As I noted in the last nom we allow differing character infoboxes tailored to individual films/series/novels etc, whats so wrong with this? K1Bond007 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC).

Keep. It is just an overview and you can see just basic stats about film, like running time, is that in the article?, It is good to see easy-to read template for those who don't want to read things like PRODUCTION. (Broncopaul 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

Keep per K1Bond007 Cyclone49 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep per K1Bond007. Bond films are a unique case as well since there is additional interest in things like who performs the theme song that your average movie does not have. 23skidoo 13:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is Bond?

• Starring

Who composed the music?

• Music

Both can be fulfilled by the standard infobox. For Thunderball, for instance:

• Oh my! It seems that we have not only got all of the information that is provided by the superfulous Bond Film Infobox, but also some extra information! Remarkable. See what I mean? Why the hell should Bond articles be a law unto themselves. It gives a feeling of continuity if all films have the same template, and these Bond articles are disrupting the continuity. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, a nice hot cup of WP:CIV would go down well. But delete as redundant, per the perfectly argued if overly wise-acre fourdot. - brenneman ^{L} 11:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oops. Just looked at my comments a day later. I suppose I was a bit out of line. And what's worse, I'm in a fouler mood at the moment. Sorry to those who were offended. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain my pov on the infobox. You made a nice attempt at adapting it, but what we have with Bond is better looking and allows us to expand in the future if ever we come to a consensus on whether the main villain and girl should be listed (as in character - not starring). People want to know those things first and foremost. As I've stated time and time again there are 20+ films and some information for Bond is more pertinent than others so it only makes sense to allow it to for easier access. I don't see how this is disrupting. It was tailored to look like the Film one so that it didn't do that yet still allow Bond to supply readers with the unique information they're looking for. K1Bond007 06:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I still stand by my keep as well. The one on the right looks much more cluttered and messy than the Bond-specific one. The Bond series has over 20 movies, and is almost a genre in itself. I wouldn't have the slightest problem if other extremely long running movie series (how many others are there that are this big?) got their own tailored infobox. I really don't see how this is disrupting Wikipedia at all. Cyclone49 01:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, how about this: (refer to infobox)

See? Same thing achieved, and I didn't even have to alter the template. This is disrupting because it's their the only films that have a different template in the whole of Wikipedia. And that just isn't right. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep - harmless variation. bd2412 T 00:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Well established. ~ trialsanderrors 04:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a case of it being well established or harmless, it is a case of it being useless. There are thousands of films on Wikipedia, all using the same template. Out of those thousands, only about 24 do not use the template. That's just not right. As I have illustrated, the same information, and more, can be presented using the standard template! As much as I love them, Bond films are no different to any other film. They're not special in that sense. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 04:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this useless waste of bandwidth. If Stargate (film) has to comply and use the original infobox template, then so do the Bond films, you spineless goons! Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 08:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The tone of the above vote casts doubts as to whether it should be taken seriously. In any case, Stargate was one single film, as opposed to the Bond films which are a series. 23skidoo 01:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Another Comment. People here are saying that the Bond series is almost a genre on it's own. Well, that's interesting, because every genre of film still uses the same infobox. Except for this one. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 08:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Dekete Redundant. And on a purely subjective note I think the film infobox looks clearer. --Daduzi ^talk 11:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 11:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Daduzi. Chaos syndrome 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and all other useless infoboxes. User:Angr 10:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per K1Bond007 --Qyd 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it presents a useful method of presenting information in a related set of films --NeoVampTrunks 22:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. useful film infobox. --Madchester 01:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What this InfoBox may use is a revamp: Instead of being a tweak on thestandard FilmBox, we could have things like "Bond: Villain: Henchmen: Bond Girl: M: Q: Moneypenny: Car: Locations: Theme:" Type of thing. These Bond elements live through the series and are often looked up by fans. Bond deserves its own InfoBox, maybe reworked a little bit. rfernand 04:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely all of these things can be done very easily within the current film infobox, however. --Daduzi ^talk 05:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • People don't seem to understand that the infobox to the right of their screen is not in fact the Bond Box, simply the normal one. Rfernands, Madchester, and NeoVampTrunks' rationales are very weak. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 04:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Like another poster mentioned above, I would suggest that you show some civility and to assume good faith. There's no problem with disagreeing with other editors, but to belittle other users' comments as being "weak" is not appropriate. Thanks. --Madchester 23:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Sorry, not meant that way, what I was trying to say is that your reasons to keep do not provide enough context, and do not argue the point well enough to be properly considered. Not trying to be a personal attack, sorry if that's what you interpreted. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 04:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.--Sina 08:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'keep per above --Banana04131 23:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this 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 deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:ESRB AO (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:ESRB E (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:ESRB EC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:ESRB Eplus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:ESRB M (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:ESRB T (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These are intended for use inside {{Infobox CVG}}. Now that rating images are not used, there is no need for templates within templates to handle ratings. Similar templates have been deleted in the past. Pagrashtak 04:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all--Runcorn 21:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this 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. Note that I'm not an admin, I'm just closing the TfD. Fredil Yupigo 18:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mergedisputed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Back in November, I redirected this template to {{merge}} and posted a lengthy explanation (which I've duplicated below) at Template talk:Mergedisputed. In January, an anon reverted, stating that "if you feel strongly that a merge is objectionable, then this should be the correct template." I requested that the anon address my specific points, but he/she never responded. I meant to bring the matter here for discussion, but it slipped my mind until tonight. Aaron Brenneman decided that he agreed with me, so he restored the redirect. JJay reverted, with the advice to "put it up for deletion if you are opposed to the template."

The following is a slightly updated version of what I posted in November:

1. When this template was created, it served a valid purpose. At the time, the primary {{merge}} tags indicated that the articles "should be merged," without allowing for the possibility that this sentiment was less than unanimous. Subsequently, a clear consensus emerged for the current wording, which merely states that the merger "has been suggested." It can be assumed that a great many of these suggestions are disputed by one or more people; thus, this template has been rendered redundant.
2. Because of the above, relatively few users switch to this template when disputing a merger proposal. (Out of approximately 10,000 articles containing merger tags, this template appears in fewer than 60.) This creates the false impression that the articles containing the {{mergedisputed}} tag are the only ones for which a merger has been disputed.
3. An addition to this template was the separate categorization of disputed merger proposals (a goal with which the above issue interferes). There's no practical reason for this, as relatively few people will bother to check such a category. (Meanwhile, articles were removed from the category that many people do check.)

Obviously, I seek to redirect the template to {{merge}}. —David Levy 03:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• The template is redundant to another better-designed template. We should attempt, whenever possible, to keep meta-discussions away from article space, and there's no reason for the additional information to be provided (in screaming bold letters) that it's disputed. Normally anyone nominating something for deletion but suggesting something else gets a trout-slap, but I too would support a redirect, and if there is a "request for redirect" page I don't know where it is. - brenneman ^{L} 03:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good nom, but I think it serves a useful purpose for the article to show directly that a proposed merger is disputed. It encourages participation when participation is required. Many proposed mergers do not generate discussion and are not disputed. For these, the standard template works fine. But disputes should be advertised to get contributing editors to respond. The category is also very useful as a means of seeing which proposed mergers are disputed. Having scanned it, there are a number I might want to get involved with. I also disagree with User:Aaron Brenneman's logic. Merger, POV, Hoax, Disputed templates all go on the front of the article as a means of attracting attention in order to resolve disputes quickly. There is no reason that merger proposals should not receive the same attention if necessary. --JJay 03:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What you wrote above might make sense in theory. In practice, it simply doesn't work. A huge number of merger proposals are disputed, but very few editors use this template. The reason (as noted above) is that the standard templates' current wording makes no claim that the suggested merger is undisputed; it's entirely neutral. There's no valid reason to convey the false impression that the handful of articles containing this template represent unusual cases (and that the other merger proposals are undisputed).

If even one person out of twenty respondents disapproves of a merger, it's "disputed." Does this mean that we should replace the standard templates with this one, thereby assigning the lone dissenter's opinion undue weight (and moving the articles to a relatively obscure project category)? If not, who gets to decide what officially qualifies as "disputed"?

Participation in merger discussions always is desirable, and any opinion (whether in support or opposition) should be taken to the talk page, regardless of the opinions expressed by other editors.

You cited a couple of other dispute-related templates, but they pertain to disputes regarding the articles' content, not merely to the manner in which it's presented. —David Levy 04:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the current merger tag's wording is not particularly relevant to this discussion (unless the wording is changed to reflect the possibility of dispute). This template helps to resolve disputes, something we should be striving for, particularly if a "huge number" are disputed, as you have claimed. The fact that few users use the template does not have any bearing on its utility and making the link betrays a certain logical fallacy. An alternative explanation would be that the template is being used, but the disputed merges are being resolved more quickly - hence the small number of articles in the category. That is because the template focuses attention on the issue. You seem to be arguing that merger tags should remain indefinitely on articles. I disagree with that strongly. Your comment about one user out of twenty disputing a merger is also an extremist example. In that case common sense would prevail - and frankly one user objecting to twenty is not going to last too long, with or without this template. What is far more common, in fact, is that a user tags an article for merger- often without providing any substantive reasons - and numerous users object. The result is frequently an edit war over the template. I find it strange that you think this minority "suggestion" should perpetually take precedence. I also find your comment denying that mergers relate to "content" but instead solely "to the manner in which it's presented" somewhat bizarre. Mergers have a substantial impact on an article's content and often the entire approach to the subject. Finally, for those who argue that a merger dispute should not be given attention through a template, I say why do we put the basic merger template on the front of the article? Why not just use the talk page? If we are going to indicate to uninvolved readers that an article may be defective due to a non-performed merge (through templates that can remain for years), we might as well indicate that editors think the merge is a poor idea. --JJay 00:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond to your comments individually:

1. The templates' wording was changed to reflect the possibility of dispute (and encourage discussion), and this was my doing (diff). Previously, the tags indicated that "this article or section should be merged with _____." Therefore, a separate template indicating that this was disputed made sense at the time. Our current wording, however, merely conveys that a merger has been "suggested," and it invites readers to discuss the matter on the articles' talk pages. It neither states nor implies that this is uncontested...except when someone arrives at that false assumption upon seeing {{mergedisputed}} in another article.

2. The template is seldom used because it isn't very useful. It's been in existence (and well documented) for over two years, but it was largely abandoned roughly a year ago (when the main templates' new neutral wording prevailed in a straw poll). Your theory that it isn't used in many articles because its insertion leads to rapid dispute resolution is patently absurd, and I assume that this was a facetious suggestion on your part.

3. No, I am not "arguing that merger tags should remain indefinitely on articles," and I don't know what gave you that idea.

4. You, like FrankB, are missing my point about what constitutes a "disputed" merger proposal. I'm not claiming that this template is likely to be abused by a lone dissenter. I'm asking you to explain why its insertion by such an individual would constitute abuse. If one person contests a merger, it is "disputed"! Shouldn't the template then be used? If not, why not? What number of opponents is required before we should switch to this tag (2? 3? 4?), and who gets to decide?

5. Again, I never claimed that a "minority 'suggestion' should perpetually take precedence." (Please stop attacking this straw man.) If "numerous users object" to a merger that only one user advocates, that's called "consensus." In such a case, the discussion ends and the merger tags are removed. There's no need to insert a special "disputed" tag in the interim.

6. You cited {{POV}} and {{Hoax}}. Those templates pertain to contentions that an article contains slanted or inaccurate information. This is vastly different from the contention that an editor's suggestion to merge legitimate content is ill-advised. We inform the readers that a suggestion (which may be good or bad) has been made, and there's no logical reason to inform them that someone happens to disagree. Why not let them decide for themselves and provide their own opinions?

7.Your belief that the standard merger templates imply that articles are "defective" is silly. The wording is 100% neutral, and even an article that should be merged isn't "defective." —David Levy 02:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, but in my view, your specific questions (I.e. If one person contests a merger, it is "disputed"! Shouldn't the template then be used? If not, why not? What number of opponents is required before we should switch to this tag (2? 3? 4?) are all resolved, like with any template, through common sense. I have seen no evidence of abuse with this template, nor has any been provided...and abuse would not really be an argument for deletion, in any case. Most of the rest of your comments are either speculative or opinion, and it is already quite obvious that I disagree. There is thus little to be gained by continuing this discussion here. I will say that I see little reason for the hyperbole: i.e. "patently absurd", "facetious", "silly", etc. --JJay 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Again, I am not arguing that the template is likely to be abused. I'm noting the simple fact that any merger suggestion to which one person objects is, by definition, "disputed." I've stated this very clearly, so I can no longer assume that you've honestly misunderstood me. At this point, it's obvious that you find it easier to argue against a straw man than to actually address my real points.

2. I used all of those terms quite literally, so I don't know why you believe that they constitute "hyperbole." My belief that your theory was "facetious" was an assumption of good faith. Otherwise, you were seriously attempting to pass off a patently absurd claim. I don't know of a more polite term than "silly" with which to describe your belief that the standard merger templates imply that articles are "defective," which simply isn't true. Again, the wording takes no one's side, and even an article that should be merged isn't "defective."

3. I'm stunned by the fact that someone with no qualms about deliberately and continually misrepresenting my stance has the audacity to complain about my choice of words. —David Levy 21:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Delete or Keep, but not redirect. That's a slippery slope and confuses the unwary editor. If anything, it could be changed to reflect it's depreciated, along the lines of {{category redirect2}} which mirrors the commons practice of warning of an obsolescent but historically previous 'good category' vice willy-nilly creating redlinks. In such a case, if it's used, someone can see they need to change to the {merge, mergeto, mergefrom} set by inspecting an embedded usage note. This by the way has the benefit of maintaining history fidelity. Once changed, it should be locked. —The preceding unsigned post was added by FrankB at the same time as the comments below.

Keep Delete—if nominator is one to fix all the links where used. It's used at least 30 times, I may use it more now that I know about it. I found neither sides arguements overwhelmingly compelling, but the drawing attention of talent to a debate has a logical merit of it's own. Personally, I want all these to have a expiration date code so I can remove them when they've sat for over a year without word one being said on a talk about the matter... including an initial reason from the nominator! So go with the status quo ante; attracting attention can be good. Causes less distruption in the lives of those who consider it a useful tool. When one idiot is going against a concensus, it can be removed by the majority who will have no trouble getting bodies to avoid 3RR, not so for the one bad apple. I would support muting the screaming bold lettering into something professionally understated. It could be shrunk at least 15px from what I can see of it, if allowed width of 100%. Alternatively, it could also be coded to replace each of the three in the family, preferably the mergeto and mergefrom preferred pair by incorporation of a control code such as 0, 1, 2 and generating the appropo merge, mergeto, mergefrom (disputed) equivilent. // FrankB 06:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your response (containing two levels of indentation and a pre-struck comment that makes it appear as though you changed you mind) was very confusing. I added a notation to reduce the appearance that the first part is a separate, unsigned post.

No offense, but you seem not to fully understand the merger process. A page isn't "nominated" for a merger, nor does such a proposal carry an "expiration date." Any articles may be merged by any editor in good standing without prior discussion (subject to reversal, of course). The use of the appropriate tags represents a merger suggestion on the part of someone unsure of whether to proceed or uncomfortable performing the merger him/herself.

If you come across a tag that was inserted long ago without generating discussion or action (which is very easy to determine by simply glancing at the article's history), you should remove it only if you disagree with the suggested merger, not simply because the tag has "sat" for a while.

The tag is used in fewer than 60 articles out of approximately 10,000 containing merger tags. Do you believe that there aren’t significantly more than 60 articles out of 10,000 for which the suggested merger is disputed?

You've missed the point when it comes to debate regarding what constitutes a "disputed" merger proposal. Sure, it's easy enough to silence a lone dissenter (who should not be referred to as an "idiot"), but how is this appropriate? If even one person opposes a merger, it is disputed! Otherwise, where should we draw the line? Is two opponents the magic threshold? How about three? Do we really want to encourage edit wars over whether a merger proposal is "disputed"? (I've seen this occur.)

I don't understand why you believe that redirecting the template is "a slippery slope and confuses the unwary editor." We frequently redirect deprecated tags to their replacements when feasible. This results in far less confusion than if an editor were to unknowingly insert an inexplicable "Don't use this template!" message or redlink into articles. —David Levy 11:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, it's informative of the discussion. Highway ^Batman! 13:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't have a template called {{mergesupported}} (nor do the standard tags convey such a message), so why must the fact that a merger is disputed be indicated within the articles? And would you care to address any of my other concerns? —David Levy 14:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge erm... Redirect — This template adds unnecessary complication to Wikipedia while providing little or no benefit. The last thing we need is a dispute over whether or not a merge is disputed (and I can seriously imagine this happening). And I say good idea bringing the discusson here - no trout slap needed -SCEhardT 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and a suggested improvement to add a field allowing the applicator to designate which of the two articles further discussion should be posted. The template makes note that a third unconcerned party has reviewed the discussion and found it to be recent but in dispute, which clearly delineates the set of articles from a category of unreviewed. Another field might be added to note the date the template was applied. Just suggestions. Ste4k 22:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What led you to believe that "the template makes note that a third unconcerned party has reviewed the discussion and found it to be recent but in dispute"? That's patently false. This is used by a tiny number of editors to insert their opinions (opposition to suggested mergers) into articles. To what "category of unreviewed" are you referring? That simply doesn't exist. I'm afraid that you don't fully comprehend the merger process. —David Levy 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or somehow use #switch to implement this into the {{merge}} template.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a majority/plurality vote. Please provide justification for your position. —David Levy 23:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• There seems a lot to wade through but I think I'm swayed by the argument that this is only used in 60 out of 10000 cases and surely more than 60 merges are disputed. I think it best to keep just the neutral version and let disputes play out on the talk pages. Delete (and if I understand the argument, no redirect either... AWB the 60 usages to the stock merge) ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and promote its usage. It has a well-defined and useful, though perhaps not strictly necessary, role in the merging process, and from my experience is more likely to start actual discussion of the merger in question than the standard version. Also, am I the only one who sees a parallel between the PROD and AfD processes and these two? --tjstrf 03:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Not strictly necessary? This template actaully makes discussion more difficult to conduct, at it A) Sets up an adversarial paradigm, and B) Splits discussion across two pages. - brenneman ^{L} 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've looked at some of the articles where this is used, and they appear to me either a bit old and doing very little, or very new... and doing very little. - brenneman ^{L} 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      1. Added 12 January 2006 Nothing seeems to be happening.
      2. 11 April 2006 Revert war over tag nothing happing on talk
      3. 14 January 2006 nothing happening on talk
      4. All very recent [1] [2] [3]
• Delete or Redirect. If a merger has been proposed, it can be disputed on the talk page. This tag doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than confusing people. Thesocialistesq 13:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and use it. Most merges run toward a concensus, and the standard tag is fine. Some don't. Mindless merges proposals are a bugbear here; no way to get rid of them. The tag helps by signaling that new thought is needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meggar (talk • contribs) 04:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC).

When you say that "most merges run toward a consensus," do you mean that only 1 in 166 proposed mergers are disputed? (That's how many use this template.)

The purpose of the tags is to announce the fact that a merger has been suggested. That someone happens to disagree doesn't change that, nor does it necessitate the use of a special tag. We use tags to announce all sorts of proposed article changes, but we don't switch to {{afddisputed}} when one person votes "keep" or {{movedisputed}} when one person votes "oppose." This tag conveys no additional information other than the fact that one person disagrees with the proposal.

I don't understand what you mean when you state that there's "no way to get rid of" "mindless merges proposals." If consensus against a proposed merger is established, what's so difficult about removing the merger tags? How does this template help? Why must people be informed of other users' opinions before they express their own? —David Levy 05:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundant and unnecessary. Powers 13:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I would say. Differentiate between regular undisputed merge proposals (the great majority) and the few where there is a tug of war going on. Theoretically, no one would merge an article for which the merge was disputed, at least without showing good reason, because they would read the talk page first. However, it practice, it could happen, especially if the talk page is long and convoluted. I think this tag gives the "other side" a chance for equality if someone slaps a merge tag on an article against consensus. Rather than edit-warring over the merge tage, the "other side" can add this tag. This will prevent a possible merge while the dispute is active. Herostratus 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What you've written simply isn't true. "If someone slaps a merge tag on an article against consensus," remove it! If the discussion is ongoing, let people know and allow them to decide for themselves. (See the "Discuss" link?) This template doesn't "prevent a possible merge." In the rare instances in which it's used, it merely conveys the fact that one person objects (the converse of which never should be assumed). —David Levy 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. — Instantnood 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is not a vote. Unfortunately, many users are treating it as one (with little or no attempt at discussion). I suspect that most of you aren't even bothering to read my comments. (You certainly aren't addressing them.) Perhaps this isn't the most appropriate forum. —David Levy 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is still serving a valid purpose. It tells readers there's no clear opinion towards the merge proposal. If it's underutilised then promote it. — Instantnood 11:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. Firstly, as I noted above, the template is properly documented (and has been throughout its existence, spanning a period of over two years). It was widely used until the standard merger templates' new, consensus-based wording (established roughly a year ago) rendered it obsolete.

Secondly, the problem is that unless someone misunderstands its actual meaning (which appears likely), this tag only "tells readers" that one person opposes a suggested merger. When this template is occasionally inserted, it's usually by an editor who sees one of the standard merger tags and disagrees. This is not inappropriate, because even a merger proposal supported by twenty people and opposed by one is legitimately "disputed." The standard merger tags include no indication that a merger proposal is undisputed, so how is stating the converse useful? This only confuses readers by implying that a major distinction exists between the articles tagged with this template and the thousands of other articles. In this very discussion, someone expressed the 100% incorrect belief that "the template makes note that a third unconcerned party has reviewed the discussion and found it to be recent but in dispute." This is precisely the sort of misunderstanding that makes the template harmful. It leads people to believe that the disputed merger proposals are routinely separated by a "a third unconcerned party," meaning that all of the articles containing standard merger tags are undisputed (so there's no reason to bother reading their talk pages or participating in discussions before proceeding with the mergers). And again, to someone who correctly understands the template's meaning, the only additional information that it provides is that one person contests the proposed merger. —David Levy 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox route (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Predecessor to {{Infobox road}}. Has since been made obsolete by Infobox road. Another template, {{Infobox Route}} also exists and is a redirect to Infobox route. No articles link to it and should be deleted along with Infobox route. TMF ^{T - C} 02:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• This template should be deleted. My vote is Delete. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. — Instantnood 11:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Why a redirect? The tags and flags used by the two templates are, for the most part, incompatible, making a redirect pointless. One example is that Infobox route uses "formed="; Infobox road uses "established=". --TMF ^{T - C} 16:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant.--Runcorn 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this 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 speedily deleted under pseudo-CSD G8 and G2 Pagrashtak 04:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to nominator: talk pages with no corresponding page can be speedily deleted under CSD G8. Mark the talk page with {{db-talk}}. Pagrashtak 04:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Piety-stub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template is empty. looks like an "experiment" patsw 01:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this 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 to redirect. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Db-unused (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

"Unused" is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. Images claimed under fair use can be speedily deleted for being orphaned, but {{Orphaned fairuse replaced}} and {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} cover that. Pagrashtak 01:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, has no useful function. Any other than fairuse images that are orphaned need not be deleted if licensed, so kill it Jim. // FrankB 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - perhaps the template itself should be tagged with {{db-unused}}? There would be some irony there ... ;) BigDT 13:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Redirect BigDT 14:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{db-unfree}}, which is a CSD. This seems quite a sensible thing to type when attempting an I5 deletion, and I'm in favour of having as many synonyms for the db-templates as possible. --ais523 13:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a great idea ... I agree BigDT 14:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{db-unfree}} to reduce difficulity of figuring out obscure template names -SCEhardT 18:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per other comments. I was going to quip, why not speedy this speedy template? Hbdragon88 04:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; I don't see Redirect to Unfree as appropriate.--Runcorn 21:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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