Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 16

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. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Project Catholicism 101 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

While the project may be worthwhile, posting personalised ratings of articles, which reflect an individual's rating but could be seen as reflecting a Wikipedia rating, is not. The criteria for the ratings is also highly POV, focusing on Catholicism in a manner that might be misconscrued as agenda-pushing. The template is being used to push a personal rating system and breaches NPOV and other rules. It could also be read as rating whether an article is in keeping with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, again a rating system Wikipedia could not possibly have. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep This template was modeled after templates used by many other WikiProjects, including WikiProject Military history and WikiProject Aztec, which use it (as far as I can tell) without complaint. This template also uses the same rating guidelines as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. It strives to rate articles objectively, and is intended for use in that manner. Any editor is welcome to change the rating. If there is a dispute on the rating, that should be worked out on the article's talk page. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment#Instructions. —Mira 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - honestly, I don't like the rating system either ... it's been nothing but a distraction at WP:CFB ... however, xFD is not the place to settle an edit conflict. BigDT 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, the assessment format is a standard that's been adopted by dozens of WikiProjects. What exactly is so peculiar about this one that they must be prevented from using it? In any case, this is an editorial dispute; neither the inclusion nor the removal of the ratings require that the template be deleted. Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  I don't understand this comment. If xFD is not the place to settle an edit conflict, where is the right place? I presume you mean that conflicts over editing should be resolved ont the Talk Page. What kind of edit conflict are you referring to? Do you mean conflicts over the ratings of quality and importance or something else?

  OK, I looked at WP:CFB and saw the debate over the importance of Big Bertha vs. the importance of Sooner Schooner. I think it is worthwhile to gain a sense of perspective here. My opinion is that, if somebody wants to upgrade the importance of an article, then let them. Doing that is effectively a request that editors give it some additional attention in the near future.

  The WP:GA and WP:FA levels provide a reality check on the quality rating of an article. You can't rate an article at or above GA if it hasn't been classified as a WP:GA article using the standard Wikipedia procedure for doing so. The same goes for classifying an article as WP:FA. Is it worthwhile to debate whether an article is "only GA" or "really A-class"/ Why bother? Is it worthwhile to argue whether an article is "only a stub" or "really a start" or even "B-class"? Once again, why bother? Editors should spend their time improving articles not debating what the rating of the article is in the rating system. They should also not spend time debating whether or not to use a rating system. None of this improves the end-quality of Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs)

  No, what I meant was that removing the assessment features from the template can be done without deleting it; hence, the request to delete it shouldn't hinge on their presence. Kirill Lokshin 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but also move this discussion to a more broadly based forum

Whoa, everybody. Slow down please.

The article rating system in question is part of a growing trend among Wikiprojects. It has been recently implemented in this project after having been successfully implemented in WP:MILHIST, WP:MESO, WP:AZTEC where they are currently being used.

I am willing to debate the advisability of this system. I did not know that having an article rating system breached WP:NPOV and other rules. I don't see how it does but I'm open to hearing arguments about how it does.

The one thing that I would strongly urge is that we not debate just the deletion or retention of this particular use of the template in this project. I didn't create it the template although I requested another user to implement it here for this project.

Thus, I would strongly recommend that we not debate this particular template here in this forum but in some other forum with wider readership so that editors from all the above-mentioned projects can participate. The article rating system might even be used by other Wikiprojects that I am not aware of.

I will comment that while the article rating system does in some sense reflect the personal rating of the last editor to rate the article, anyone can change the rating and thus, in another sense, the rating reflects the consensus of the community of editors working on that project.

In truth, though, I find it difficult to imagine getting into an edit war over the rating of an article. The rating of an article in this system is just not that important. What is important is whether an article has made it to WP:GA status or WP:FA status. This rating system just helps editors find anomalies along the lines of "Wait a minute! You mean the article on XYZ is only a "B-class article"? Gee, we should work on it so that it is at least a WP:GA article. Let's get to work!"

The ratings are intended to be used as a tool for people working on a project to determine which articles have the highest priority for being worked on next.

We're not saying that an article is "good" because we agree with it. That WOULD be a POV statement. We're saying that it is "good" because it meets Wikipedia criteria for quality. Note that WP:GA and WP:FA are ratings within this rating system.

--Richard 00:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

For reference, it's currently used by 42 separate WikiProjects, and over 20,000 articles have been rated (with a further 30,000 articles tagged but still awaiting assessment). This is by far the most extensive—and most successful—system of quality appraisal Wikipedia has ever seen. Kirill Lokshin 00:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"The article rating system might even be used by other Wikiprojects that I am not aware of." Without really looking, it's used by WP:CFB (as mentioned above) and WP:BEATLES, at least. —Mira 00:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Nevermind...

Per Kirill Lokshin's info on the number of projects using this template and the number of articles rated so far, I would ask the originator of this deletion proposal to withdraw the proposal so that we can all get back to productive editing work.

I wrote the above but hit an "edit conflict" with Jtdirl's response below. Obviously, he/she's not ready to withdraw the proposal to delete the template.

Can we move this discussion somewhere else where more people can weigh in with their opinion? I would wager that with 42 projects using this system, you probably have 500-1000 editors who have an opinion. They are not necessarily all in favor of keeping the system but they deserve a voice in any decision.

Alternatively, you can restrict the vote to the Catholicism project but then any discussion should be based on the appropriateness of the template to this project and should not make arguments about this being against Wikipedia standards. Such arguments deserve to be aired and debated in the larger Wikipedia community.

--Richard 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The rating system fails to define objective criteria, fails to define what it is is being rated, and from what I can see in its usage amounts to nothing more than POV judgments, without definition, on an article. That is objectionable. You say that it is following Wikipedia definitions. Where does the template state that? Where is the evidence that it is anything but one individual's personal judgment call? If the template showed some clarity to its reasoning and had some evidence of being other than an individual's personal ratings then it might have some justification. But in its current format it shows no evidence of objectivity and neutrality, and no evidence of mass participation. On that basis it is breaching NPOV and is objectionable and warranting deletion. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV only applies to articles, not to talk pages. It even says so right on the page. (As far as what is being rated: have you tried reading the material at the nice boldfaced links in the template? The criteria are explained at some length.) Kirill Lokshin 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not true. If a template about an article is located on a talk page, NPOV applies to it too. It doesn't apply to discussions. But this isn't a discussion. It is a template. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense; by your reasoning, we couldn't have {{featured}}. There is nothing in the policy—written or implied—to suggest that a WikiProject cannot place templates on article talk pages; or that it cannot, within said templates, include notations about the article that are meaningful for guiding the project's work. Kirill Lokshin 02:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the placement of such templates on article talk pages is recommended best practice. The POV concerns about those which have this rating functionality applied remains unclear to me.--cjllw | TALK 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, the point is that the rating system is intended to help editors. That's why the rating is only on Talk Pages and not on the article page. The quality rating is constrained by the two procedure-based ratings of GA and FA. If you want more objective criteria to differentiate, GA from A-class and stub from start, etc., these can be created. Ultimately, however, it's just not that important. Instead of debating whether something is a "start" or a "B-class" article, just improve the article until it meets the rating or else change the rating.

--Richard 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If there is to be a discussion on this, it needs to deal with all those templates. Not just Project Catholicism 101. Personally, if it helps to improve articles, great!Garion96 (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I'm puzzled by this nomination, Jtdirl I think perhaps you misinterpret the purpose behind templates and wikiproject rating systems such as these. The main intent of these ratings (which as Kirill points out, is explained at some length on the Project's assessment subpage, conspicuously linked to in the template itself) is to provide a WikiProject with the facility and data to be able to manage and prioritise its workload. Given that there may be many hundreds, if not thousands of articles of potential interest to a WikiProject, it's entirely reasonable for the Project to consider which of these articles it would be most beneficial to address first, since clearly not all of them can be worked on at once. "Importance" really then means the priority order as might be determined by the Project. It's also quite valid for the Project to determine this priority with reference to their assessment of which articles and topics form the "core" of the subject area, which articles and topics give significant information, which are interesting and still notable, but perhaps subsidiary, and so on. Nowhere does it say or imply the ratings are to be understood as Wikipedia's judgement of the article's significance at the expense of anything else, and certainly not as a measure of the article's adherence to RCC orthodoxy.

As for the quality ratings, sure there's an element of individual judgement in assigning these as well, although the assessment page does attempt to provide some more objective criteria. Again, the value of these is more for the Project, so that it (for example) can more readily see which articles are in need of most improvement, and which would be potential candidates to fine-tune for FA nomination, or other.

It's really no different if you as an individual editor decided to work on articles relating to some topic or other, made a list of these and then decided which ones you were going to work on first. The advantage of this system is that once set up its ongoing maintenance is largely done automatically by the bot, so it's more of a labour-saving facility than any attempt to impose some agenda.

By logical extension, if Project rating systems such as this one warrant deletion, you'd have to also include the efforts at rating by all other projects, as well as the Wikipedia V1.0 team and its efforts to define what are the "Core" topics within wikipedia.--cjllw | TALK 01:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm indifferent as to whether the template is kept or not, but it would be nice to see it reworded. The phrase "This article is part of WikiProject Catholicism 101, a WikiProject to improve coverage of topics related to the Roman Catholic Church" struck me at first as implying that the RC Wikiproject was claiming credit for the article. I understand that this is the wording used by WPMILHIST and other projects; I still think it's misleading. I'd suggest something more like "This article has been assessed by WikiProject Catholicism 101, a Wikiproject to improve coverage of topics related to the Roman Catholic Church, to help determine editing priority. If you would like to participate,..." Such a rewording would help obviate the impression of Roman Catholic POV that the current tag could be seen as promoting. Peirigill 01:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I would note that not all articles that have this tag have necessarily been assessed. Projects that use similar templates, but don't use them for assessment, use what I think is similar wording. I think adding that phrase would also be misleading. —Mira 02:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not crazy about the template, but if we delete this one we would have to similarly delete all the WikiProject rating templates. Military history comes to mind. These are not part of the article space and thus I don't see how they could violate our NPOV policies. But, as I said, I could care less if its deleted. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Templates are covered by Wikipedia NPOV rules. It is discussions that aren't. The problem with this template is that it is open to wide misinterpretation, states as fact personal judgments on how good or bad an article is, and appears to suggest that it is part of a campaign by Catholics to promote Catholicism, rather than part of an editing process to ensure objective accurate coverage of Catholicism. The latter is POV and not allowed on WP whereas the latter is OK. The process is probably about the latter, but the problem is that it is plastered all over pages in a way that could mislead every reader into what is going on, and what it is about. (I accept fully that that may not have been the intention of its creator.) The template needs major rewording to define what it is about. If military history uses similar wording, then I am surprised that no-one hasn't picked up on it before. That sort of thing (i.e., wording that implies campaigning on an issue rather than neutral editing), with individual personal ratings, is contrary to the point of WP. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, it's my impression that only "reader-facing" templates are so covered. But that's beside the point; as the issue seems to be more about the wording used, could you perhaps be more specific as to what part of the wording you find objectionable? Kirill Lokshin 02:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  "This article is part of WikiProject Catholicism 101." Misleading; it's only part of the project to the extent that project participants are involved in editing the article. Otherwise, the WikiProject Catholicism 101 tag means nothing more nor less than "This article is about a topic related to Roman Catholicism." I recommended an alternate wording above, which Mira questions on the grounds that it turns the focus to assessment even though no assessment may be given. In that case, I'd further suggest not using the tag unless an assessment is involved. Without assessments, what's the point of this tag? Seems like little more than marking territory. I understand that there is precedent for the current wording, but unlike template deletion, rewording this template doesn't undermine other projects' templates. Why tag the articles, anyway? If the goal is to help determining editing priorities, wouldn't it make more sense to create a subpage at the 101 project itself, and give lists of all the Top-priority articles in order from lowest quality to highest quality, then the High, and so on, rather than tagging articles in isolation? Peirigill 04:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagging the articles with these assessments via the template actually allows exactly such a subpage (one listing articles by priority and quality) to be generated and maintained automatically, rather than more laboriously by-hand. When an assessment is assigned via the template on the talk page, the talk page is automatically placed into appropriate by importance and by quality subcategories. Then behind the scenes the hard-working bot (Mathbot) runs through these categories every day and auto-generates an updated listing- see here- as well as cumulative stats and daily log of changes.

Articles which are tagged with the project's banner but have not yet been assigned a rating show up in an 'unassigned' category, so it's easier for the project to identify those which have not yet been looked at.

I'm sure some alternate phrasing can easily be worked out for the template to remove any possible interpretation of implied 'ownership', but will leave that to the WP Catholicism 101 folks themselves to agree.--cjllw | TALK 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I imagine you really wouldn't have liked this version. [1] But, all jokes aside, what sort of wording would be more acceptable? —Mira 04:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute... Referencing this template is not a joke. Most ordinary project templates look like that. An alternate wording that I've seen says "This article comes under the purview of the XXX project. An example is {{ProjectMexico}}. If you want to complain that project templates seem to claim ownership of an article, you would have to challenge just about every project template in existence.

Nonetheless, I am willing to accept that the kind of wording that is standard for project templates may be overreaching. How about something like "The editors involved in Project X have included this article in the scope of the project. Project X is a collaborative effort to improve articles related to X. If you are interested in participating, please see the Project Page."

That doesn't make quite as strong a claim of ownership, just that the article is "in the scope of the project".

Does that satisfy your concerns?

--Richard 05:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To address possible concerns over the rating system, could also perhaps add a small disclaimer re the assessments, such as "The assessments for this article are used to assist the Project in managing and prioritising its workload."--cjllw | TALK 05:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I've done some rewording of {{WPMILHIST}} to address some of the concerns. The linked FAQ also provides an explanation of the exact nature of our ratings; I'm not sure that an additional disclaimer on the template is necessary. Kirill Lokshin 05:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(reducing indent a bit)I like the rewording; it definitely addresses my concerns about implied ownership. It occurs to me that this is likely to be more of a problem in "interdisciplinary" pages; for example, Ambrosian chant is both a Catholicism and a music history article, whereas Ambrosian rite falls more specifically under Catholicism. I should add, Krill, that while I agree that the links on the template lead to explanations of the assessments, it is a little disconcerting to see an article you've written graded as unimportant or practically useless. While I understand the need for rankings in order to further the project, and I acknowledge that explanations are a click away, it might be nice purely from a public relations perspective to put some sort of disclaimer or at least softening language in the template as cjll suggests. Right now, the bluntness of the ratings, without a visible explanation, could be offputting to the people who have contributed to the poorly-graded articles - the very people you should be recruiting. It's one thing to give lots of negative feedback to someone who's requested it, and another entirely to have unsolicited negative feedback enshrined in a prominent place of honor at the top of an article's talk page. Just a thought. I don't like the MILHIST solution, which seems to be to inflate the "importance" rating by making "Mid" the lowest level. It reminds me of fast food where "medium" really means small and "large" really means medium. I can't help but feel someone's trying to snooker me somehow. Peirigill 07:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Actually, we went with that specifically because there were objections that telling people that their articles were of "low importance" would upset them. But that issue is quite beyond the scope of this particular discussion, I think. Kirill Lokshin 12:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I figured as much. Kind of a no-win situation, I realize. Peirigill 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've slightly reworded the Catholicism project template, based off of the military history one. On the matter of a disclaimer, I personally feel it is unnecessary because, as you say, the "explanations are a click away." —Mira 08:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, Mira, but don't forget that you're not the one who has to do the clicking. Why leave a bad first impression, if there's a way to leave a good one? Peirigill 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I was going to make this comment on the WP:MILHIST page but I'll do it here since it really is applicable to all projects using the rating system.

I was amazed to see how much energy had been devoted over at WP:MILHIST on the topic of importance ratings.

It seems to me that the huge debate over at WP:MILHIST over the importance rating is due in large part to the sense that the importance rating is saying something objective about the importance of the article content to an audience (e.g. the general reader or military historians). This is certainly one way to do it but it leads to the potential for contentious debate over the importance rating of an article.

Another way to do this is simply to say that the importance rating is "no big deal" because it simply is a "priority rating" of the article at this point in time that reflects the priority of the article to some subset of editors, not necessarily even all the editors who are currently working on the project.

By this, I mean that rating an article as "high priority" simply means that there is at least one editor who thinks that the article in question deserves attention sooner rather than later. Thus, rewording the rating from "importance" to "priority" simply makes a statement about which articles should be worked on next rather than a more grandiose statement about how important the article is to "the real world".

Here's my rationale: If there is at least one editor who thinks that the article deserves to be worked on sooner rather than later, then the article is getting some priority because that editor presumably is either working on it or is asking that someone else work on it.

Think of rating an article as "high" priority as being equivalent to nominating it as a candidate for "collaboration".

The most important metric of the rating system is not the importance/priority rating or the quality rating but rather the "gap" between the two. If an article is "high" priority but "low" quality, then it needs to be worked on soon so as to raise the quality level. If an article is "low" priority, then the quality rating is relatively unimportant for now. When all "high" priority articles have been raised to a "high" quality (say GA or better), then it will be time to turn attention to "meduium" and eventually "low" priority articles.

Comments?

--Richard 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The ratings are also meant to be used as a filter for the WP:1.0 project, so dropping them on high-quality articles would actually be counterproductive. As far as renaming them to priority: you'd need to convince 42 projects to change the terminology they use. (Not that it's impossible, mind you; just a lot of work that someone would need to do.) Kirill Lokshin 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't quite understand the point you are making about the WP:1.0 project. HOw are the ratings used as a filter and what is the counterproductive action and effect that you are describing?

I recognize that changing "importance" to "priority" across 42 projects would be a huge task. I would want to know first if you agreed that this was a good thing to do or not.

Also, I should point out that the discussion of deleting this template seems to be moot now so we should find a different place to discuss ways to improve the template. Can you suggest one?

also, question to User:jtdirl - are you ready to withdraw your nomination of this template for deletion in favor of helping WikiProject coordinators address the issues that you have raised by changing their templates?

--Richard 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard says: "Think of rating an article as 'high' priority as being equivalent to nominating it as a candidate for 'collaboration'." I don't think anyone disputes the concept once it's understood. The problem is that it's not transparent. You have to read through the project's explanatory page. The change from "importance" to "priority" is a great idea. Who cares if dozens of other projects still use "importance"? I'll address them if and when they start tagging articles I'm editing. At that time, I'd love nothing more than to be able to say, "Well, you know, there is a precedent for this new wording; WikiProject Catholic 101 tried it, and they found it worked for them." Someone's gotta lead by example. It's not as if any change in wording you consider has to be approved by every other WikiProject. Peirigill 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a practical side to this: the bot that maintains WP:1.0/I and the various pages linked there expects "importance" to be in the category names; otherwise, it simply won't recognize them. Any project is free to use whatever terminology it wants, of course; but if this isn't coordinated with the bot (and hence with the other projects using it), that project will simply lose the use of the bot-generated worklist. Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I was hoping to ask about that at this mythical "somewhere else" that I keep hoping this discussion will migrate to someday. However, since Kirill raised the issue, let me ask about how the bot works. Presumably, there is only one bot that services all 42 projects. Is it possible to change the wording in the template AND the created lists so that "importance" is replaced with "priority" everywhere in a project? Or, would changing the wording in bot-generated pages affect all generated pages across all 42 projects? I suspect the latter is the case but I figure it's worth asking just to be sure.

--Richard 18:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the bot (a) uses the same logic for all of the projects and (b) overwrites changes to the automatic pages that it doesn't like. I'm pretty sure this would need to be a change adopted across all projects. (Perhaps the bot could be changed to support either "importance" or "priority", but that's really a question that the creator is in a better position to answer.) Kirill Lokshin 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made a feature request on the creator of Mathbot's Talk Page with a link back here so that he can understand the context of the request.

--Richard 19:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill misses the fundamental difference between a template on religion like this and others, say, military history. Topics like military history can possess objectivity in the way religion can never. Wars start and end on known dates. They have winners and losers. Different wars have different weapons. Religion is by its nature POV. What do you believe? Is there a god? Was Christ the Son of God? Is Catholicism the 'true church'? Are other churches ecclesiastical communities? None of those can be proven. They are all matters of opinion. Even Catholic Church history and theology is POV: different groups place different emphasis on Aquinas, Augustine, etc. Pius XII's teaching on 'natural contraception' was different from Pius XI and Pius X. Even the modern church the hierarchy have one view of sex; the laity a different one. This template is about a by definition POV topic, involves ambiguous wording that does not make clear the to reader that the template is not Wikipedia's but an individual group of Wikipedians, involves a POV rating on a POV topic without clarifying the criteria being used and who is doing the rating: is it is one person? A group? A different editor on each page? Such a template might be capable of some objectivity on a topic with demonstrably objective criteria. But in religion, where the fundamentals are beliefs, therefore POV-based, not verifiable empiral facts this template is only workable and usuable if it involves major rewording, an explicit definition in the template of the meaning of the template, and no POV-based rating system where it is not even stated who is making each individual judgment on each article. Religion by its nature has little in common with the other major projects because it cannot replicate the basic verifiability, objectivity and neutrality that are at the heart of empirical and historical subjects.

I nominated this template for deletion because I did not see how it could be salvaged, such are is the scale of the problems with it, all of them major. At the very least, a whole new concept of template would have to be designed, communicating a different message, with all the pages possessing the current one having it removed. I don't doubt the genuineness of those who created it. I simply don't believe that the comprehended the fundamental difference between what they were doing and what other Wikiprojects do, and the fact that this project, certainly using this template, cannot replicate the fundamental requirements of the other projects because of the nature of this topic. This template is too fatally flawed in its current format to be used and should be deleted. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If I understand your point correctly, you would suggest that the inherent POV-ness of religious topics means we cannot neutrally assess the quality of articles on such topics? Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? Kirill Lokshin 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It is that the fact that religion is not empirical but belief-structured means that comparisons with mainstream wikiprojects and their methodology are irrelevant, because they can objectively analyse accuracy on an empirical level whereas religion, while having some empiricalism (dates, names, etc) is too belief-orientated to replicate that methodology of analysis. So, an article that to one reader might seem well written and also an accurate embodiment of a Roman Catholic view of something (a saint, a theological concept, a liturgical ritual, etc) and so warranting a rating as a good article, to someone else might seem an inaccurate summary of the topic. (For example, in the John Bosco article recently, some Catholic contributors wanted an extreme hagiographic tone and deleted or played down any criticism. Others wanted a critical article that focused on the fact that he had faced rumours over his close association with children and deleted all hagiography.) Getting the balance right on religious biographies seems difficult, before one even goes into areas of theology. Given that hagiography (albeit controversially) is a central part of religious biography, how does one rate the scale of acceptable hagiography, and who does the rating? Who categorises a theological article? Is it on the whim of who gets there first, in which case liberals and conservatives could have a field day warring on ratings? Which analytical stances are used? Pre-Vatican I? Pre-Vatican II? Post Vatican II? NPOV is easy to gauge in empirical topics. It is a nightmare on personal analysis ones. Military history pages, being largely empirical, could relatively easily categorise information, and so be done by individuals. But religion is far more complicated and prone to POV. At the very least a template would have to stress this is the personal view of one editor. It may not be a definitive categorisation. In which case, what is the point of the categorisation at all? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more about the POV problems in Catholicism-related articles, especially the occasional tendency towards Haigiography. However, I think the decisison of whether or not an article is related to Catholicism is a relatively easy one to make. Similarly, the decision of what quality rating to give an article is not a very complicated one because there are not a lot of possibilities. If the article is not featured, it gets a rating lower than featured. If its not a GA, it gets a rating lower than GA. There is a slight value judgmenet of whether to give an article A or GA. There is also the question of whether an article is a B or a start. I think the same about the level of importance. In fact, I think the template will help combat the systemic bias of articles visited only by Catholic contributors because it will inform non-Catholic editors which articles are likely to have been edited by such editors. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, couldn't the same questions be asked of the article itself? Clearly, if two people disagree on the contents of the article, they might disagree on the rating as well (although this is not necessarily the case; both parties to the dispute might regard the article as poorly written, for example). Nevertheless, once the disputes over the article text are settled to the satisfaction of everyone involved, the disputes over the rating should follow, no? Or are you suggesting that reasonable editors on all sides cannot come to a consensus about the quality of the article much like they do about its contents? Kirill Lokshin 22:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the basic problem with the template. It states as apparent fact that this article is x or y. It doesn't state who decided that, when it was decided, where it was decided, was their a vote, a consensus? That is the big gap. It is (much much) easier for someone to come to a clear objective rating on an empirical topic. It is much much harder with religion. But the template gives no means of doing that. If it said: a discussion will be had . . . or this article is rated x. Do you agree? or User:ThePope (or whomever) rates this article as x that would probably be OK. But instead, using the presumption of objective analysis from other wikiprojects it states as fact a rating with no evidence as to who decided it, when, and why. Religious articles need a far more complex methodology than just unexplained apparently out-of-nowhere ratings. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, this might be an issue of our having different conceptions of WikiProjects in general. I tend to view WikiProjects as being both fairly well-defined and cohesive groups (to the extent that a project member's assessment of an article could be considered to represent that of the project as a whole) and fairly autonomous ones (such that disagreements with how the project assigns ratings should be handled internally through the processes established by the project for that purpose). So long as it's clear that the ratings are those assigned by a particular project (and I think this is implicit by their placement in the project's banner template), I don't think they are particularly problematic. (Unless, of course, the project as a whole is incompetent or engaged in POV-pushing; but, in that case, the rating templates are the least of our problems.)

If you view the projects as being either less cohesive or less autonomous, of course, you'll probably disagree with my points here. Kirill Lokshin 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. An individual user's issues with the content of a template should not be resolved by threatening to delete said template, especially with no other discussion on either the template's talk page or the WikiProject's pages first. This is not the way to build consensus. Gentgeen 01:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• 'Strong Keep. The objections raised would be addressed by the removal of the Catholicism wikiproject itself, not this template, which is harmless. --tjstrf 15:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep i've seen many Wikiprojects with this sort of template idea, I don't see the harm in it, especially because the templately certainly doesn't have any advocacy for really anything explicitly in it, and many Wikiprojects like this have nothing to do with religion, it seems to be a fairly common practice. It also seems tied in assessment-wise with WP:1.0, which is probably helpful to those folks. Homestarmy 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the problem is that this template has been put on a handful of articles that don't really fall into the scope of Project Catholicism. There is a general Christanity wikiproject, and 9 individual denomination wikiprojects. If we were to let all 10 projects put their template on the top of say the Jesus article, we'd have a mess. I think if we make sure that the Catholic project isn't claiming articles that could be claimed by the rest of the Christian projects, this template should stay. In fact, I would only recommend deleting the inclusions on inappropriate articles, instead of deleting the whole template.--Andrew c 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, seems like a fairly standard rating system.--SarekOfVulcan 01:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The purpose of this is to provide a priority list from the project participants point of view. It's a standard device and is on the talk page not the article. --ClaudeMuncey 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It is irrational to argue against the usage of anything on the basis of the possibility that it could be misused, which seems part of the argument here. That same argument could be applied to almost everything else related to human existance as well. The template follows the usage of what is now a standard rating system across WikiPedia, and belongs here as much as it does everywhere else. Badbilltucker 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The importance ratings are simply a general indicator of encyclopedic importance to aid in article selection for Wikipedia 1.0. Any editor can change a rating. It simply wouldn't be fair to exclude this one Project and there would be a lot of unhappy editors if all 42 and counting WikiProjects using this scheme had to abandon it. The NPOV point is a red herring, I believe. --kingboyk 10:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This same issue is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Let_me_ask_one_question with a possible solution at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#A_possible_solution. It is also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment#What_is_the_purpose_of_these_Assessment_tags. --WikiCats 14:07, 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:C-CPW (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Copyright tag for one particular person's images. This could really get out of hand. BigDT 22:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion on hold pending retagging of images. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - personalized templates like this raise concerns about the reusability of images. Pagrashtak 01:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Migrate to userspace - We should move this discussion to a wider forum because as
• BigDT and shtak point out, this kind of thing could spread. Personally, I think it would be great if people were encouraged to license their images for use only in Wikipedia and not necessarily for a wider usage outside of Wikipedia. I think we'd get a lot more images if that were the policy. Note that I said "if that WERE the policy". I believe the current policy is that all text and images have to be licensed under GFDL. I don't think it is the policy now and I think we need to have a debate about the policy in a wider forum. For now, we should migrate the template into user space and open up a discussion elsewhere. --Richard 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • See Template talk:Noncommercial and some of the other templates in Category:Deprecated image copyright tags. Basically, anything and everything on Wikipedia needs to be suitable for commercial reuse and that doesn't appear to be likely to change. BigDT 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Against Deletion - Template complies with Wikipedia policy, "Wikipedia:Image copyright tags", where it is required for legal purposes that a legal license be stated between the licensee (the copyright holder) and the licensor (Wikipedia). An "individual", a "copyright holder" is a legal entity just as other entities like corporations, non-profit organizations, and world-wide governments. Precedence in abundance exists for specialized templates for many entities. Deletion of this tag has legal ramifications between the licensee and licensor. Resolution - At present no template exists which suits my desires, nor retains my wanted legal rights to the material as tested by law other than copyright, that I agree hereupon. I am open to the creation of a new tag that could be used by anyone meeting the same, or similar conditions. Several tags exist that could with modifications meet my needs and agreement and I shall set upon creating this tag and submit for review. Firelookout 18:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The question of resusability is actually clarified within the terms of the license.
• The problem is that if anyone can make up their own image licensing templates, that's going to be one gigantic mess. Everyone of them would have to have its language checked to make sure it conforms with WP policies. One concern about yours is that it does not address derivative works. If attribution is the concern, something like {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} could be used for that. You could also use {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}. But letting everyone come up with their own image copyright tags is just asking for trouble. BigDT 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The following number list is for clarity:

1. My allowable contribution to Wikipedia is defined by Wikipedia for which I voluntarily agree by the terms.
2. As a citizen of the United States my contributions are protected by the Copyright Act of 1976 which allow me to retain full ownership of my creation(s).
3. The following text in "Wikipedia:Copyrights" states, "Images and photographs, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone owns them unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain."
4. Since Wikipedia allows copyright material, as such, the entire terms of copyright law are admissible without partial exclusion of clauses.
5. The template {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} exists since the year 2004, precedence is established for the concept of limited license copyright.
6. Deletion of copyright terms without the holders permission is a violation of copyright law.
7. There are hundreds of tags in this category, however my tag has been marked and singled out for special attention.
8. Usage of a template is not religated by policy. The same copyright terms can be applied individually per image/photograph contribution page, thus inducing error or error of omission. The use of a template eases the "trouble" for which all documents can be reviewed, which should be done regardless.
9. All numberred items above submitted: Firelookout 21:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Your tag has been singled out because it is the only personal tag that is not generally applicable. I don't question that you have absolute rights to determine the restrictions for use of your creative works. I don't question that your works can only be used by Wikipedia subject to your agreement. HOWEVER, Wikipedia also has to agree to the conditions and does not have to accept your terms. In my opinion, there are three main problems with your template in varying orders of severity: (1) it does not mention derivative works, (2) allowing each user to create personal copyright templates is a logistics nightmare, and (3) you don't put your images into a category so they all get listed at the uncategorized images page. BigDT 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy. This is essentially a user-specific version of {{attribution}}. If userfied, then it should include {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} so that the bots don't think the images are unlicensed. See Commons:User:Howcheng/byways for an similar example. howcheng {chat} 23:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to BigDT - I am being singled out because I am one individual, maybe the first as opposed to other legal entities that have many tags that are similar, and less explicit. Per your items (1), yes that is true and fixable. Thank you for brining it to my attention and I am consulting to remedy this problem. (2) All the terms, "out of hand", "trouble", "nightmare to manage", are subjective. Many people believe it is trouble to read the license agreements verbatum and most people will simply click to not be troubled by reading the text, however, this does not negate the license agreement. Also, just as you have reviewed my tag, the same SHOULD be done for every license agreement, as it is for all submissions of content. (3) Yes I agree, that too can be fixed and I thank you for brining that too my attention as well. (End of reply). Firelookout 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Reply to Howcheng - I like {{attribution}} in that the tag is clean and close to what I want. The other tag {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} is close to what I would like to have without the notices and sub-terms within the tag. Is there someway to make a tag that we can all agree on. I simply want to continue to contribute my Wildland firefighting images as I am in the field and taking many pictures for this topic. It would be a shame that my content cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Firelookout 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you mind telling me what parts of {{attribution}} and {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} you don't like? Also, take a look at {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Pagrashtak 05:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Pagrashtak, let me say that I want to NOT use Creative Commons, GNU, GFDL for my images (text is ok). The reasons I will not state because it is an un-winnable, un-arguable legal position and a firestorm of controversy that I will not partake in. Thus, I prefer to remain with copyright law. I would like a copyright tag, that allows me to have my name, and an email address (because I get emails from all over the world and I enjoy people sending me comments/compliments.) I do not want the "notes" in the {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} tag, nor other disclaimers or third party instructions. Firelookout 16:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Proposal - How about something like this...Firelookout 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This image is copyright, by {{{1}}}. The copyright holder retains ownership of the image and licenses the image for any use provided that attribution "Photo by: {{{1}}}" is stated within the work, or derivative works. Furthermore, the copyright holder requests a courtesy email of use be sent to {{{2}}}, but not required for use of image.

• • That one looks fine in my opinion. BigDT 12:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It is important to note, that this is a legal issue and requirements must be met. We simply cannot disagree because we don't like it. Taxes and Speedlimits are not open for debate, so the question is can we make a choice that meets requirements.
• Delete - the debate is not about copyright, it's about having this particular note in the template space. If it's for a single user, then obviously it belongs in user space. Qyd 13:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete The comment above culd be true, but we really don't need a license for a single user. It belongs in userspace, as well as that having an image like that isn't a good idea —Min un ^Spiderman 19:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Chalk this up to newbieites - Yo Minun, I think you just taught me something about user space by looking at yours. I am just learning the power of the user space. Until now I had no idea that the "sub page" fuction exists. So as the author of this original template, I can have my cake, be legal, continue to contribute to wikipedia, and be happy. I now change my vote to delete. Please forgive my newbieness, as I didn't know this capability exists. Now is there a way to make a template in userspace??? Firelookout 18:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete An undesirable development; haven't we moved away from retention of copyright?--Runcorn 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but the one by Firelookout looks like a suitable replacement. --MZMcBride 03:00, 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!) 05:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User en-gb-5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template probably meets the criteria for speedy deletion for being divisive and inflammatory: "This user believes that British English is the only real English, and will likely respond to any use of American English with disgust." I assume it has survived this long only because it is railing against the majority rather than the minority group. Consider for comparison "This user believes that American English is the only real English, and will likely respond to any use of Ebonics with disgust." (or Engrish or Spanglish, etc, etc) -SCEhardT 16:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Migrate to Userspace via WP:GUS CharonX/talk 18:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Migrate to Userspace. Mildly offensive, but not so offensive that Wikipedia can't support it, esp. since dialect debates go to the core of Wikipedia's attempt to maintain a uniform style.--M@rēino 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

When I made this template, it was in response to the AmE-5 template, which reads: "This user believes that American English is the only real English, and will likely respond to any use of British English with "How quaint!". Hence, I felt that the British English side was missing a retort, and so created it. Perhaps "disgust" is on a different scale to "How quaint!", but the idea was to capture what most people feel in that situation. Personally I get annoyed at seeing things like "color" and "realize", but deletion is too harsh for this. Therefore, I am Against deletion, and instead propose a rephrasing of the last few words, perhaps changing to something like "mild annoyance" - suitably British. Siraphec 20:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete T1 (or move to userspace) BigDT 22:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Migrate to user space per WP:GUS —Mira 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Against Deletion. If you take offense to this then you're being overly sensitive. Deletion is certainly too harsh. Bababoum 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or migrate it's not so offensive that it should necessarily be deleted but it definitely shouldn't be in the template space, not only for content reasons but also because it will most likely not find general use. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 07:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Against Deletion - it has a light tone, and is obviusly satirical. -Wser 08:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Migrate to userspace Keeping it in the template space keeps it vulnerable to speedy deletion under T1. Note that I'm American, and it really doesn't bother me. I'd be more bothered by it if I was British.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Migrate to userspace per above comments --Richard 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm willing to move both this userbox and its American counterpart into my userspace. If the migration consensus wins out, you may move it to User:Ikiroid/User en-gb-5, and the American one to User:Ikiroid/User AmE-5. Any objections?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Migrate to userspace Reminds me of the British academic who once said that three words came to mind when he saw American English: dog. crap. shoe. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Its correct - • The Giant Puffin • 14:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, Ian¹³/t 15:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Migrate to userspace Userboxes are designed to express opinion, and this one does. It's no worse than the american version. Martinp23 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Valid T1. If we have any other equivalents, delete those as well. --tjstrf 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is an equivalent for people against British English so why not keep it, or maybe just remove the word 'disgust.' As to the comparison with Ebonics, this is a specious argument as such a statement would be racist, and American English is not a racially linked phenomenon. Also I have been involved in a conflict with the Admin who proposed this and happen to have said template on my user page. He is more than welcome to advocate the exclusive use of whatever form of the language he pleases, even pig Latin!! However I am entitled to do so also. If people are sensitive about this then just remove the sentence about reacting with disgust. This will turn the statement into a neutral enunciation of opinion. AntonioBu 05:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's no need to delete this! At most, a slight re-wording is advisable, nothing more. -Piro RoadKill 09:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think anybody should find this offensive and preferring one's own style of English to another is surely natural, not offensive... 0L1 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete prefering one's own style of English is natural, declaring other styles invalid and disgusting is devisive and inflamatory. Eluchil404 16:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It may need a little tactful rewording, however. --Tene 04:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm an American, and I find it hillarious. Of course, I prefer utilising colourful British spellings in my dialogue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwo (talk • contribs)
• Keep but change disgust to something less offensive. 'Irritation' or 'exasperation', maybe. CameoAppearance 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or migrate to userspace, this userbox can be rather offensive to some, mainly Americans. I would also support moving it to userspace as this does not deserve to be in the template space. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 10:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Could it be reworded to "This user contributes exclusively in British English, and wishes you would do the same.", and something similar done to the American equivalent? (Might need to cut the second half if you really wanted to be NPOV about it.) --tjstrf 19:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but re-word Tjstrf's proposal seems sensible.--Runcorn 20:10, 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. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Double-expansion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template is unnecessary, and it refers to a term that I've never seen used on Wikipedia before. Also, I'm sure there's already templates for this purpouse, that say that the contents of an article is likely to change rapidly. The template should be deleted. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - template doesn't make any sense -SCEhardT 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a double-plus-bad idea.--M@rēino 20:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be a doubleplusungood idea, not a bad idea, because it is entirely unnecessary to have "good" or "bad" when "ungood" will repalce "bad." Hbdragon88 00:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Sure delete it I made a mistake on it and I could not fix it. Thanks alot PS Sorry for the incovience. Shinemygrillz 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Double-plus-un-keep (The above note suggests {{db-author}} might work for a speedy.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Per Nom Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Go head and delete it you didn't have to let me know it was nominated for deletion, Mind you. --40 cal:Lil' Scrappie [I ain't playin] Talkin it and spittin blood That's right what you gone do know im da ultimate hustla yall aint nobody im da first king 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC) and please don't comment about my signature.
• Delete Even the author agrees.--Runcorn 20:07, 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 speedy delete under CSD G7. Pagrashtak 16:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Future-singles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template isn't necessary, it's wording definitely isn't suitable for an encyclopaedia, and it is not in use on any pages as far as transclusions are concerned. I think the template should be deleted. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's OK I Don't Mind If you delete it. It was really just a test-template , Sorry for the inconvience. Shinemygrillz 16:05, 16 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 by Violetriga under CSD G4 and protected by Circeus. Pagrashtak 16:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

These really should be speedy deleted, they are exact copies of templates which have been TfD'd before. But I guess it's been a while, so we should probably have another discussion. Delete for the reasons given here and here. These templates encourage voting at the expense of discussion. They may also put unnecessary load on the servers. Rhobite 06:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - has its uses on Commons, in a multilingual environment where gauging opinions and assessing arguments is hindered by language issues. On a single language project, we should focus on discussion. TheGrappler 10:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - not sure how we can reasonably discuss these templates when they've already been deleted, including history. --Ssbohio 13:18, 16 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!) 05:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Orange Islands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is only transcluded in two places, and a lot of the links within it are redundant, especially the Gym Leaders because they have all been merged into one page. Some links within the template don't even have the template transcluded onto their pages, either. It could easily be replaced by a list of links on the main Orange Islands article. Ryulong 04:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Yikes. Looks like one of those really old carryovers from the original PokeNav project (which has since gone inactive). Hbdragon88 08:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and redesign, it still links recurring characters only seen in the orange islands. Highway ^Batman! 10:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom M inun ^(Spiderman) 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note technically, I've redesigned (and greatly improved) the Orange Islands template, so you can't delete on the above votes because it is a different template than the one they voted on? Sorry, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case, i'll improve {{Kanto}} and any other templates, cheers —Min un ^Spiderman 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And it appears theres already a tmeplate for that, we'll just have to change it altogether to give the same kind of information —Min un ^Spiderman 19:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Even with the Redesign, it is still unused in the places where it could be used. Ryūlóng 23:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• I still say delete. Doesn't really aid in navigation that much and the links are as generic as hell - the likes of Charizard, Pikachu, and other items trascends the Orange Islands. The old PokeNav listed things by region; I believe they should be listed by type: characters, cities, gym leaders, etc. Hbdragon88 02:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Only used in 2 articles yet seems to be generic. Transclude it or use one of the other templates. --kingboyk 10:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem wildly useful--Runcorn 19:57, 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. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Serbia and Montenegro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

With both country nowbeing independent, this subdivision footer serves no purpose anymore. It was only use (inappropriately) on Coat of arms of Serbia and Montenegro. Circeus 04:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Template is no longer accurate or relevant. Alphachimp ^talk 04:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wonderfully obsolete. Is it bad that this was the first I'd heard of them being independent of each other. *shame* -- NORTH ^talk 21:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Obsoletion deletion. (Hey, that rhymes!) —Nightstallion (?) 11:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MJCdetroit 12:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Richard 13:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Probably offensive to Montenegrans.--Runcorn 19:52, 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 delete. Mangojuice^talk 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Newbie1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is offensive and violates Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. It is far better and more diplomatically accomplished by the test1 and test2 templates used by most editors. As it is a user talk warning, it has been subst'ed, so there aren't any backlinks. I would suggest either deleting it, or replacing it with the text of template:test1. Alphachimp ^talk 00:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Template:Newbie is a fine template, this however is unusably offensive. Jon513 01:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I know Ed Poor is a respected user, but this is taking bureaucratic powers just a bit too far. Fredil Yupigo01:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. On the one hand, patronizing and offensive. On the other hand, it made me laugh out loud. Noting the Don't bite the newbies policy, I go with the first hand. Picaroon9288 03:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I recently realized that this term is offensive. Don't bite the newcomers, use welcome templates, and try to talk to them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete As someone who got a bit of a rough time when I started here, this template doesn't seem conducive to anything but hard feelings. My instinct is that this might be a snowball situation, as well. --Ssbohio 13:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I don't even like the {{Newbie}} template, myself. No matter how well-written, impersonal "rubber stamp" messages on someone's talk page can come off as impolite. The best way to socialize a new user, is to talk to them, not to throw a bunch of pre-written form letters at them. --Elonka 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctantly delete. We really need to come up with a better way to address n00bs than with "you might be a vandal", but calling them n00bs is, regrettably, now considered offensive too (it wasn't when I started using the internet, but oh well). If I can come up with something better, I'll certainly share it with the community. Until then, I think it's better to stick with the testtemplates and welcome message that we already have. --M@rēino 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-reluctantly. Slightly humorous violation of don't bite the newcomers. -- NORTH ^talk 21:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Yes, it may be gratifying to be uncivil to those that we think deserve such incivility but it's against Wikipedia goals and policies. Should get a speedy delete. --Richard 16:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - WP:BITE Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. And apologize to anyone who has had this used on their page. --tjstrf 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per T1. Its only purpose is to get rid of all those pesky newcomers who don't know as much as the 1337 users. I'd be pretty offended if I received that comment and would probably be provoked into a not-so-nice retort on the talk page of the user who dropped that on me. Neil916 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. You're all right, this was not a helpful idea. What was I thinking, 10 months ago? (I hope no one ever used this...) --Uncle Ed 17:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added a {{db-author}} tag to the template. --Richard 17:33, 24 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 both. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC) This template (Template:Public place) which is for images denotes if the image was taken "on plain view from within, a public place." It was created on October 19th, 2005, and is used by zero images. I believe this demonstrates that it is an unneccessary template and that its category is clutter in Category:Wikipedia images by type. I propose its deletion. Kurieeto 00:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add Template:Owned item to this TfD as it was created by the same user, at the same time, and has similar lack of use; 9 images use it at the current time; I propose that the information be subst'ed in, and the category deleted. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete Agreed. They were criticized on their creation, and have not been used since. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - They are both too general to be practical, and owned item does not provide useful information. -SCEhardT 19:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Generic and unused. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ian¹³/t 15:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both —Min un ^Spiderman 19:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both Unnecessary.--Runcorn 19:50, 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.