Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 29

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 subst and delete. IronGargoyle 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:AMA alerts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:AMA case status (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:User wikipedia/Association of Members' Advocates/Status (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These three templates were in use as a part of the now-inactive Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, which has been closed down since May of this year. Since the closing, there has been no need for further use of these templates, and it's obvious at this point that there will be no need in the future. I propose to subst any old uses and then delete them. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Substitute and delete per nom. These templates were to keep AMA members up-to-date with info on the project, and are no longer needed (in fact I forgot I had the alerts template on my page). Walton^One 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a former AMA member myself (until its finish), there's no more need for these things. Probably many users are in Walton's situation. Orderinchaos 11:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No need for them anymore Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Subst all uses and then delete, per above reasoning. Sebi (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2007 (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 section.

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:1983 Chicago White Sox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Only Championship teams should have templates. This has been consistent protocol at prior tfds in athletics. All other teams basically fail for WP:ILIKEIT reasons. — TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Even though I was a fan of the '83 Sox, the logic of creating templates for every divisional champion will be to create clutter. Many baseball players with long careers play for a half dozen or more divisional champions. If a template were created for each of these teams, the articles would become overburdened with multiple templates, some of which would be largely duplicative. I don't even see a compelling case for having templates for World Series champions. The templates assume that the reader of an article on one player on the team will want to read articles about the other team members; frankly, I'd be surprised if many users of Wikipedia are actually doing that. Templates that aren't helpful to the users are just clutter. BRMo 23:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• CommentThe Championship banners just follow along with what they do for the NBA, which I think has worked out well. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO, some of the NBA articles look pretty cluttered and not encyclopedic—especially if the player or team was in many championships (for example, Los Angeles Lakers or Boston Celtics). Also, keep in mind that for baseball the banners will be about twice as large because of the larger rosters. I don't think these kind of navigation boxes are useful, even if limited to World Series championship teams. BRMo 02:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the Laker and Celtic Championship nav boxes. I will get to their succession boxes later. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Perhaps we could have articles like Chicago White Sox roster (1983) which could detail info like mid-season trades, etc; but, we don't need templates for each year. Neier 07:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think most teams have season articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:36, 2 September 2007 (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 section.

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. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:La Martiniere Song (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Templates are used to facilitate the inclusion of material common to many articles, such as topic links, former/next post holders, and other common content. Even if a given content is notable and appropriate in multiple articles, then a template is only sometimes the right way to include it (WP:TMP, see below). So this TFD comes down to a decision, should these articles all include the full words of the school song? And if so, should they be included in a template for ease of editing?

A lot of the points raised are quick to deal with:

1. A song published in 1909 is unlikely to have copyright issues, and the Old Martinians Association is probably a reliable source for the song - seems reasonable. (And neither is the main issue.)
2. The ability or inability of Wikisource to handle something does not impact on its appropriateness on Wikipedia.
3. "Associated with several schools, wide interest, notability of song", etc - this is a reason to have an article on the song, not an argument to include its full lyrics in each schools page via template.
4. "No consensus that school songs should not be included" - there is no consensus that we should not pay the nominator $1 million either..... consensus is to be examined, not asserted.
5. "At least one school which has GA status includes a school song" - relevant content for each article is decided mostly on its own merits. Many or most schools do not.
6. COI and accusations of poll manipulation ("Top priority" and self-assessment of articles by editors who are then "fervent keepers") - noted but not especially relevant here; deletion debates are settled by reference to policy related points and communal practices as well as consensus. Please don't in future.

There's a fairly strong view towards deletion in the TFD. Policy-based deletion concerns are:

1. Likely breach of WP:TMP ("Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.")
2. Lack of a wider range of appropriate sources (raised by several editors), suggesting its interest is mostly within its fan base only - the basic definition of -cruft.
3. Finally, one last point not mentioned in the debate - WP:WEIGHT. Is the school song so important that it needs its entire lyrics boxed and quoted in full, and for each school?

Against these, the "keep" views are not very well founded in policy and practice:

1. "It's referenced" - does not signify notability to the extent of inclusion in all schools articles.
2. "Song shows how one man is celebrated" - again a possible reason for an article on the man, not for its spamming on every last La Martiniere school page. (And see WP:POINT - we don't show a man is notable by pasting a song celebrating him on every article of a school he relates to.)
3. "International interest" - Schools in multiple countries probably do not make the school song any more or less notable. If it does then an article on the song, not a template on its lyrics, is the way to go.
4. "Makes editing easier" - WP:TMP says no.
5. "Used on significant schools in the schools project" - does not mean the song is notable nor appropriate to add via template.

Two comments say it for me and I suspect for most of the delete views: "A long-standing guideline is that templates don't contain article text, and a long-standing policy is that Wikipedia does not host source text (such as this song)" (Radiant!), and "not suitable as a template ... this is article content, and if written should be justified as article content--which I think may not be possible either. A external link is the way to handle such lyrics" (DGG).

This isn't what templates are intended for. We do not put the words of La Marseillaise (French national anthem) on all departments of the French government (whether in a template or otherwise), nor the words to popular football songs as a template on every club whose supporters have adopted them, either. The words to a song are notable in the article on that song (sometimes); in other articles the relevant fact to mention is usually that the song exists, plus an internal or external link (ie, "The school song is Vive La Martinière".) At times one might cite an extract to comment on it. But nobody has suggested that is the case here.

This template contravenes WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:TMP and communal practice and consensus on template usage, on several levels... my apologies to the template's creators and supporters. (And the related template with identical issues, Template:La Martiniere Prayer can probably be deleted too.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Template of a non-notable school song that flys right in the face of efforts to cleanup schoolcruft on wikipedia. — Twenty Years 14:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin - the conversation moved on rather quickly from these grounds onto more substantial ones of blatant copyright violation amid a more general discussion of the pages on which they appear. Claims that the content is public-domain have failed to be verified thus far by those wishing to keep the content, which is hosted on a website belonging to the school's old boys association which contains "© Copyright Reserved to Old Martinians' Association" on its main page, and nothing on the page containing the song. No secondary or independent sources have been discovered at this time, and certainly no indication that the material's republication in full - as opposed to in part under the Copyright Acts of various nations including my own (Australia) - is permitted under GFDL. Two users including myself suggested the content be moved to Wikisource and linked from the article as a compromise, although the copyright concerns would still need to be addressed.. Orderinchaos 23:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The lyrics are the copyright of the author of the song not of the Old Martinians' Association. The author of the song died in 1909, almost one hundred years ago, which as far as I can establish by studing the various copyright articles on Wikipedia, places it in the public domain. Wikipedia:Copyrights states In most of the world the default length of copyright for many works is generally the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years. (Incidentally in Australia it would appear that copyright expires after just 50 years. See: Copyright expiration in Australia.) A song which is in the public domain would be expected to be republished in numerous sources. Dahliarose 09:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is only a tiny song which is a trivial part of several articles and is not even in the main body text. The content of this template can only properly be judged in the context of the articles in which it is included. It is not normal practice for article editors to have to provide copyright details in such a short space of time and it is even acknowledged that B class articles might still have copyright issues in the assessment scale. I am well aware of copyright concerns and have expressed doubts about the copyright of school songs in the past before this current discussion even started as can be verified by my edit history. One example is given here. There are two good articles in the schools project - Auburn High School and Baltimore City College which have unattributed school songs of much more recent origin but these editors are not being hounded to clear up the copyright situation in record time. In any case the sources given are more than adequate for the purpose. The demand for primary sources is irrelevant. The song is hardly controversial. The sources prove that the song exists with the lyrics we have given and was written by the author we have named. I think the Old Martinians' Association can be relied upon to publish an accurate version of the school song on its website. There would only be an issue if someone challenged the words used. There can often be numerous slightly different published versions of out-of-copyright songs. Ideally it would be best to verify that the version used is the one shown in the official published school history. This is something that would be done in the normal editing process but such things take time (It takes up to three weeks to order books from my local library via interlibrary loan). The lack of any secondary source is irrelevant. Primary sources can be used in articles but the article requires a substantial body of secondary sources to establish its credentials. La Martiniere Lucknow is the only article using this template which has so far been properly developed and the article has a substantial quantity of reliable secondary sources. The quality of the referencing was acknowledged in the recent re-assessment of the article. Editors cannot be expected to be copyright experts. It would also appear that good article reviewers are operating in blissful ignorance of copyright issues. Positive guidance would be appreciated to help editors understand these issues. Note also that the editors of the Auburn school have recently adopted this song box for their own article. Regarding the use of WikiSource I'm not sure that it would be of much help in the current instance as I don't believe that it is possible to use templates in this way on WikiSource. The lyrics can by all means go on there but if this template is deleted we would have to then manually format and edit the boxes for each individual article which seems like a complete waste of time and effort. Decisions about editorial content of articles should surely be taken by the editors involved in those articles working by consensus. Dahliarose 13:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now received some responses to my enquiries from the people at Wikipedia:Copyright problems who have confirmed that the La Martiniere School song is out of copyright. The thread can be read here Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems# Copyright of school songs.

Only one person has responded, and after seeing the mini-war which took place here some months ago, I would much rather hear a more wide view on the subject. Orderinchaos 00:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Unsubstantiated and poorly researched proposition. Does not meet definition of schoolcruft. This song is referenced and is associated with several schools including one that is "top". The song is out of copyright and shows how one man is celebrated. The template will allow use at 7 or 8 schools. I am surprised that this is not being discussed at Wikipedia:schools project. This template was created after discussion amongst international editors from different countries.
  • NB:I have bolded the word keep - to make it stand out more - Previous comment left by VictuallersTwenty Years 14:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you may have completely missed the section entitled ""Ways to spot schoolcruft", where it is infact the first item mentioned as a "giveaway sign". allow use at 7 or 8 schools - utter bollocks! it is currently used at four school articles (see here). Poorly researched keep, maybe? Twenty Years 14:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Unimpressed by language. Apology welcomed. The seven schools I have in mind are as discussed here The eighth is the generic page about Martinere schools. Songs are a way to spot school cruft. International interest, weeks of discussion and a prime interest by wikipedian project is a contrary sign. Victuallers 15:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
        • (refactored comment by Victuallers)Twenty Years 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Where is this International interest, weeks of discussion and a prime interest by wikipedian project? If it actually exists, cite it.Read comments below regarding primary sources. Twenty Years 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
          • You are testing "Good Faith". However.. if you insist

1. International Interest ... look above to where I said "here". Dahliarose is in England. Moon is in India.
2. weeks of discussion .... look above to where I said "here". 17th July is weeks ago.
3. Prime interest by a wikipedia project. As cited below. Look at the article. Read the first bit of the discussion. On the Wikipedia Schools template it says "Top" ... this means "prime interest".
4. I provided the citation for your accusation of "bollocks" ... have the good grace to apologise ... if only for breaking "good faith" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victuallers (talk

I hate to sound Pythonesque (a la the parrot sketch), but the reason it says "top" is because you put it there. As an editor on the article rating it B and High/Top importance is a complete conflict of interest and it should be independently reviewed. Orderinchaos 10:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The pythonesque aspect is the way that this debate rarely focuses on whether a template is notable (which is what it says at the top), but continues to wander over other stuff and throwing up spurious claims. Moreover I continue to have to do the research to show there is no substantaion in these claims. I did not rate it "Top". That was done (after discussion on the assessment pages) as the records for the 22nd May show, by another editor. At that time I rated it high, but agreed with the change to top. I did not rate it B although I agree that it is, as does the India project. Having identified it as "Top" priority I have then worked on it as has the other editor concerned. Python would tell me I should work only on things that I do not rate as important or when someone else decides things are important then I should do something else. Can we stop making unsubstantiated claims please. Victuallers 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - There is no consensus that school songs should not be included. Indeed at least one school which has good article status Auburn High School includes a school song. In fact what we are now recommending at WPSchools is that songs (provided of course they are out of copyright) should not be included in the body text but should be included as tables. This template satisfies the requirements in the best possible way. It is used on a number of schools, most of which are of top or high importance to the schools' project, eg La Martiniere Lucknow. The song was done as a template merely to make the editing of these collected articles easier. The song needs to be judged in combination with the articles to make an appropriate editorial decision. These particular schools and their founder are quite unique. The copyright has expired so there are no copyright issues. This nomination is completely misguided. I don't think the nominator has understood the debate. I'd just proposed the Martiniere example as a model way of dealing with school songs and a second editor had agreed that the template provided a good model. It therefore seems quite extraordinary that someone should unnecessarily nominate a model template for deletion. The schoolcruft article is merely an essay and not an official guideline. It refers to pupils who edit school articles in an inappropriate way and include a lot of trivia. It has no relevance to top-quality articles recognised by the schools project with substantial content which are edited by experienced editors and not schoolchildren.Dahliarose 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If this school song is so notable, why is the template souced by a primary source (here), not a reliable source? Smells of cruft. Twenty Years 15:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It may also be worth noting, from my read of the source stated that the article only mentions the school song in passing. Its mention of the school song lasted less than a sentence. Twenty Years 08:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The argument about copyright issues does not stand up without a source. As you may know there has been a fair debate at Wikipedia about the entire concept of "public domain" - is this fair use (it fails at least one criteria) or is it GFDL (not established)? I also ask myself what the song adds to the articles to which it is meant to be attached in an encyclopaedic sense, especially given that it is merely republishing something which could be found on a webhost, and does not tell us anything *about* the school, its founder, or anything else. I would not have an objection to an external link at the bottom of the article to the words of the song. Orderinchaos 18:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Belongs on Wikisource if it meets their criteria, but in terms of Wikipedia, it is not encyclopaedic content per WP:NOT and is of uncertain copyright status in terms of republishing. Orderinchaos 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How can templates possibly be notable? However, all the schools for which this template is used are of international repute and have been assessed as of high or top importance to the schools project. There are only about 20 school articles in the whole world which are of top importance. Dahliarose 16:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability had nothing to do with my argument. Orderinchaos 17:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We can only work on so many articles at once and have not yet got round to the article on the composer of the song F. J. Rowe. If you had looked at the article you would have seen that it did clearly state that he lived in the 19th century. I've now briefly updated the article and have established that he died in 1909. Copyright expires 70 years after the owner's death and is clearly not an issue here. Such songs are by nature trivial which is why it was specifically designed in the way it was so that it does not appear in the text of the main article. A team of international editors have been working on this group of school articles and some of the editors felt strongly that the school song should be there somewhere and this was the best compromise. Dahliarose 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Such may be the case in your jurisdiction, but you have to allow for the possibility that the copyright may not have expired in other jurisdictions. This is a question which has come up many times elsewhere. All comes down to the interoperability between GFDL and other licences, and whoever holds the copyright now would need to release it under GFDL or a compatible free use licence in order for it to be reproduced in its entirety on Wikipedia - this is even assuming there is a reason for having it there. Your lack of good faith in this discussion concerns me somewhat. Orderinchaos 04:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Such is the case under international copyright law, there aren't any jurisdictions under international copyright law that allow a copyright, regardless of owner to last more than 95 years after author's death, and that is only given a very narrow set of circumstances. Adam McCormick 16:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Surely the point of templates is to avoid duplication of effort. This one does that. Although use of school songs can be evidence of schoolcruft, the fact that it is used at several schools within a group is significant in itself, particularly given the nature of the connection between the schools. Tafkam 19:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment But is the song notable? Considering it cites one Primary Source? I think not. I wont even begin to start talking about the copyright issues. Twenty Years 08:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - There is no clear consensus on if school songs should be included in school articles. Wikipedia:Schoolcruft is at the end of the day a controversial essay - not a policy or guideline. For most school articles I believe the school song is not notable, but this template records the school song of a few connected schools which have been rated as having high importance - giving the song itself some importance on these grounds. The template is a fair compromise between not including the song at all, and including it in the main text body of the article. Copyright issues also seem to have been resolved. Camaron1 | Chris 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Copyright issues are not resolved (see above). This school song is so notable that it has one source - a Primary Source Twenty Years 08:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Primary sources can be used on Wikipedia for sections of an article in some cases, and the copyright still been issue seems very much up for debate. If it is really necessary the lyrics can be moved to WikiSource and a standard link left to them in the article - with no deletion been necessary of the lyrics themselves. Camaron1 | Chris 10:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • They shouldnt be used to claim notability, as they are in this case. Twenty Years 11:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Very true, though the issue seems to be becoming more about if the lyrics should be on Wikipedia - notable or not. A move and link to WikiSource as a source would be a potential compromise I am willing to accept. Camaron1 | Chris 12:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Agreed with Camaron - seems fair. Orderinchaos 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, in general, Wikipedia articles should not include copies of primary sources like full lyrics (that's what wikisource is for), and even if they do, article content shouldn't be in a template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, whilst not necessarily having any gripes with including school hymns, I do feel that a specific template for this school may not be justified because it is hardly a notable school hymn. I do not believe there is room for a template for a specific school hymn, but one could argue in favour of a template for hymns generically, which includes only the formatting for the name, composer/author and the lyrics verses. Ohconfucius 02:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a template for just one school but for a chain of schools all of top/high importance. They all use the same school song. The song is sung in memory of the school's founder, Claude Martin, who was in himself an extraordinary man. The fact that the song has been sung in his memory in schools in both France and India for the last 150 years or so is surely some indication of notability and justification for inclusion of the song's lyrics. Having one template covering all schools makes the editing process easier so that rather than adjusting all eight or so articles (some are still in the process of creation) changes can be done centrally on the template rather than editing eight separate articles. Dahliarose 08:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your comments regarding that all of the schools are of high/top importance is both false and misleading, you clearly missed this, which is just one of the four. This school song is so notable that it doesnt even have a secondary source? Unbelievable. Twenty Years 08:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring to the attention of all that User:Dahliarose has since gone and changed the importance rating of the article in question (stated in comment above), see diff here. I think that the user in question may wish to either revert his edits, which may be perceived by editors as them making a POINT, there are also conflict of interest concerns there too. Twenty Years 09:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The article in question was previously assessed by another user involved in this debate, User:Victuallers, who had assessed its importance as "low" (see diff here). Twenty Years 09:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there objective standards for high importance within said project? It seems to me all decisions are being made on a case-by-case basis, from reading the WP:SCH page's section on article assessment, and there's no real protection from conflict of interest issues. In the main projects I work at we actually have a schema to help determine the importance of a subject. Orderinchaos 09:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Lyon school seems to have been mistakenly rated. I've changed the assessment and notified the schools' assessment page. The source for the school song is in fact the Old Martinians' Association not the school itself which is in effect a secondary source. I've now added another source though better ones will be available. There have been numerous books on these schools and the song will undoubtedly have been published in several books. Our Indian editor who has all the related reference books currently seems to be away but will no doubt be able to provide better references from reliable published sources. These articles are still under construction and the referencing has been improved enormously in the last few months. Dahliarose 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

School article assessments are by nature subjective but all assessments are disccused at the assessments page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Assessment and other members of the project are free to debate the assessments. Victuallers and I are both members of the assessment team. The La Martiniere Lucknow article was identified by Victuallers as part of the assessment process as an article of top importance. It was precisely because the article was so important that we decided to work on the article and improve it. The assessment came first and the improvements second so there is no conflict of interest. It would have been different if it was the other way round. The coverage of school articles from non-English-speaking countries is particularly poor. Dahliarose 09:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:SCH/A: Assessors who are experienced on assessing school articles. These users do not need to summarise their assessments in the assessment summaries section unless it involves granting an article a quality status higher than Start, or an importance status higher than Mid. Wouldn't you say that this effectively discourages people from questioning your judgements or those of the others listed as "experts"? La Martiniere College (20 Aug) was not posted to WP:SCH/A and the rationales for two of them are one line and inadequate. This, quite literally lost in a literal changelog of ratings, is not "discussion" in any meaning of the word. Orderinchaos 15:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As you have now discovered Victuallers has single-handedly assessed over 3000 of the 4,500+ assessed school articles. With such an impressive workload mistakes will inevitably arise and the odd article, as in this case, might have been missed off the assessment page. You are implying an ulterior motive where none exists. What has happened to good faith? I have only been actively assessing articles in the last week or so though I have followed the process from the start. As you will see from the assessment talk page my name was only included on the list of 'experienced' assessors following a proposal by Cameron. I was not put off by this wording so why should other people be? The articles have now in any case been reassessed by an independent editor and the original ratings fully endorsed. One changed from high to top, one changed from high to mid and all the other ratings stayed the same. There are in any case only four people actively involved in the assessment of school articles who are faced with a huge mountain of unassessed articles. They cannot be expected to write long essays each time. Sometimes possibly inadequate summaries will slip through but you are again assuming an ulterior motive where none exists. Dahliarose 10:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (reduce indent). I gather it was merely a coincidence that your edit to the article happened minutes after i cited that page (i will AGF in this case, and just note that it was a coincidence). The source is from a sub-branch of the school, which is still classified as a primary source (see previous comment regarding what the source says). The other source you have added is also a primary source, from an ex-students page! (see source cited in template here and see his resume here, where it states he attended the school in Lucknow. Please provide secondary sources. Twenty Years 09:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that the project allows people who have substantially worked on the article to rate it, however. I'm looking at the literally hundreds of edits made by Dahliarose, Victuallers and Moonwiki to Claude Martin and related articles. Seems to me like an obvious conflict of interest. Orderinchaos 09:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

La Martiniere Lucknow was assessed on 22nd May 2007. Victuallers and I did not start editing the article until 22nd June. How is that a conflict of interest? The school has even been featured on the front page and no one has disputed the assessment. The other schools are part of the same chain. Their notability only became apparent as part of the editing process to the original Lucknow school. The schools are in India and France. We live in England and have no association with the schools whatsoever. We are only interested in improving school articles, especially those from non-English-speaking countries which are poorly represented on Wikipedia. The assessment process is quite transparent and there is no law which says you can't work on articles you've previously assessed. These arguments are wasting a lot of valuable editing time.Dahliarose 11:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles are of such narrow scope and interest that noone has reviewed them until now. Looking at them myself, as an admin very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, they are mostly a mess. There are copyright issues, issues with every one of the core policies as well as many of the guidelines, and the ratings are disputable as those who rated them made hundreds of edits to them. Interesting to note that 14% of your edits and almost 4% of Victuallers' for the entire year of 2007 have been to La Martiniere related topics, and also interesting that almost all of your contributions to each other's talk pages have been about La Martiniere related topics, despite both of you doing thousands of unrelated assessments. Orderinchaos 11:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So 86% of my edits do not relate to La Martiniere at all. What's the problem? Most of the Martiniere articles still have a long way to go but they are a vast improvement on what they were. We are quite aware that there are still a lot of issues to be sorted out. There are only so many hours in the day. We have focused on La Martiniere Lucknow which is now reasonably well written and properly sourced. I fail to see how anyone could find this particular article of narrow scope and interest. I only started to edit it because it was such an interesting subject matter. I am sorry if you have not appreciated our editing efforts. I thought constructive editing was supposed to be welcomed on Wikipedia not discouraged. Dahliarose 11:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not discouraging editing at all. If 50% of your edits were to the area, I still wouldn't care. Some of our best editors only edit in very narrow fields, and turn out FAs like a production line. The issue for me is solely the conflict of interest situation. In my own project, where I'm quite a prolific editor, I rate my articles only at entry level (usually Stub/Start and Low), and let independent people make the decision to promote beyond Start. On LML, the fact I can see major issues within 5 seconds of opening the page suggests an editor with more time conducting a review would have a field day with it. Orderinchaos 12:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, article content belongs in the article, templates are for metadata. Additionally, per the above, concerns about primary source, lack of external coverage, etc. >Radiant< 07:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by meta data. I understand it as data about data from the Greek meta. Infoboxes are templates and they do not always contain meta data. If you look at "EYE" you will see a featured image of an eye. Its a template. This debate runs from point to point which are all addressed and cited. The purpose of templates is to save effort. If you read the software designers descriptions then you may appreciate that transclusion is one of their cleverest features. The original proposal was on notability. It is notable. Whether a few of the schools are high or low is immaterial - one is Top. Someone above admits that their argument has nothing to do with notability - it should have. If someone adds an extra correct source or corrects an assessment then that is what we should be doing (improving wikipedia). If you want to debate the design of the La Martinere schools then don't do it here (there are several templates). If you want to debate a policy about templates then please invite me... but not here. This proposal is about the notability of one template. Its notable. If you want to test its notability then you can do than by using the assessment service on the schools page. This debate over one template is consuming more useful time, than the template would save. Removing this template will not remove all the templates on the Martiniere pages, not will it remove the song. Let the editors get on with their work. Victuallers 10:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be mistaken as to the nature of templates. Eye contains a number of images, not templates.

A long-standing guideline is that templates don't contain article text, and a long-standing policy is that Wikipedia does not host source text (such as this song). >Radiant< 11:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. posterior compartment
2. ora serrata
3. ciliary muscle
4. ciliary zonules
5. canal of Schlemm
6. pupil
7. anterior chamber
8. cornea
9. iris
10. lens cortex
11. lens nucleus
12. ciliary process
13. conjunctiva
14. inferior oblique muscule
15. inferior rectus muscule
16. medial rectus muscle
17. retinal arteries and veins
18. optic disc
19. dura mater
20. central retinal artery
21. central retinal vein
22. optical nerve
23. vorticose vein
24. bulbar sheath
25. macula
26. fovea
27. sclera
28. choroid
29. superior rectus muscule
30. retina

Its a template!

Could you please provide a link to the appropriate guideline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahliarose (talk • contribs)

No one has been able to provide the requested link. Help:Template specifically states: "Templates are useful for any text for which one wants a copy in two or more pages, and there is no need for each copy to be edited independently to adapt it to the page it is in." Dahliarose 15:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some users could add some secondary sources to the template, or atleast cite them here to even add some sort of notability to the song. ILIKEIT is not a good enough response. Twenty Years 11:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Any comments with relation to the schools' importance to Wikipedia or to WP:SCHOOLS, quite apart from their irrelevance to this template and the reasons it should go, should be viewed in light of the evidence which has emerged that two of the three people who contributed most to the articles assessed them themselves, and they don't appear to have been accorded any wider scrutiny by the project. Those same two people are the most fervent "keep" arguers in this debate. Ironically, I'm coming to the conclusion that the nominator was right in his reference to the essay. Orderinchaos 11:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an update - seems the project is taking steps to ensure this sort of situation doesn't arise again, which is a good outcome in my view. Orderinchaos 13:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For there to be a conflict of interest there has to be an association with an organisation or subject. The La Martiniere Schools are in India and France – we live in England and have no association with the school at all. Victuallers and I were both independently intrigued by the La Martiniere Lucknow article – the only school in the whole world where the students have actively participated in a battle as part of the Indian Mutiny – a far more interesting and important subject than the vast majority of trivial articles which find their way onto Wikipedia. Our only association with the school is that we have tried to improve the article and to ensure that an important school has a suitable article fitting to its subject. Until the school came to the project's attention I never even knew that it or any of the other associated schools existed. The top assessment for Lucknow came first. The editing started one month later. The accusations of schoolcruft are completely unjustified and misguided as are the accusations of a lack of good faith, and have no place in such a debate. I'm pleased to see that the articles are getting a second opinion from another assessor. Dahliarose 14:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The main college article was rated on 20 Aug 2007, while you edited from 22 June to 13 July and Victuallers edited on 19 July. The Lyon one was rated by Victuallers just after your editing ceased, then by you after theirs ceased. While the ratings for Calcutta and Lucknow did precede your involvement in it, the "B" quality rating should never have been given to Lucknow, especially by those so heavily involved in its editing (a combined total of 348 edits). This really isn't an issue of good faith, it's one of intellectual honesty - while I don't doubt you both had the best of motives and had no intention to mislead, you must surely recognise that to rate your own work, then to come in here and expect people to buy an entire argument based on said rating, without disclosing your interest is going to be figured out by somebody sooner or later. It's better to stick to the book and do things the proper way. Orderinchaos 14:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what happened with the B for Lucknow. It doesn't seem to have been notified to the school's project but that was an oversight for which I apologise. I asked WP India and WP Architecture for independent assessments. WP India assessed the article as a B on 10 July. The argument in this instance is not based on the quality of the article but the importance which was assessed quite objectively and there were no objections to the assessments at the time back in May before any editing had started. See the assessment archive here. Regardless of the other two articles Lucknow and Calcutta had already been recognised as of top and high importance. Any oversights of the due process were not intentional. The problem is that there are only about four active assessors on the schools assessment project. If you don't do a job yourself on Wikipedia it doesn't usually get done. Victuallers has probably assessed more school articles on Wikipedia than any other editor (well over a thousand at an educated guess) and deserves credit for all his hard work. There has not been any intention to mislead. Dahliarose 15:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(It wasn't the B for Lucknow that was missing, was just saying that it failed to be reviewed. The main College one was, however, missing.) I'm well aware, and acknowledged, that there was no intention to mislead - and you're underrating him a bit, I counted 3,385 during 2007 alone! I've probably rated about 2,000 in the same period at a guess, so I'm suitably in awe. Strangely, in articles *other* than this little group, the summaries at SCH/A are decidedly better/more informative/useful. I also know how it is with Wikipedia - there are entire sections of the Australian project I look after just about by myself, and when I take a three month break from them, nothing happens for three months. I'm aware of another editor who basically *is* a project on an entire country (with hundreds of native languages and tribes etc) with only rare help from others. So I do know where you're coming from. Orderinchaos 16:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an impressive figure! There are only about 4,500 school articles in total which have been assessed! The earlier summaries were more informative but it was then found that no progress was being made and with another 4000 to do the priority was to get things done. Dahliarose 16:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Didn't realise it was that impressive - maybe someone would care to check them.... or send me a barnstar?
2. Someone again has said there is no template in "Eye" ... so I've copied it in. This featured image will need deleting along weith its template when the people who have this wiki policy about not using template for this kind of stuff can find them.
3. No one thinks that DahliaRose and one of the prime sources "Rosie Llewellyn-Jones " are the same person do they? I'm sure they would both be complimented ... but I suspect not
4. Pleased to see this discussion has cooled down... but we are wasting time. Victuallers 20:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re 2 - I have no idea what you mean. Eye uses the image tag (in several places) to place an image, there is no template of any kind. I'm surprised that you hadn't checked the source code already to determine this. (Actually, on reviewing above, yes, you have found a template which is a GFDL image made by an identified creator and a key used to identify the parts of that image.) What this one relates specifically to is bulk text (as opposed to metadata) being placed in templates. This particular one is also a complete violation of WP:FUC which clearly states Restrictions on location. Non-free content is only allowed in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace. Orderinchaos 23:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1. 1. Sorry don't really understand these definitions. Obviosly the eye template is part of the eye article. Just the one article and contains article content. It was a featured image on the main page - I'm surprised it violates a policy, but I cannot follow the argument as to why it does. When this featured picture was chosen as a featured image this was either missed or not thought important. This is about notability of the template - which is an odd concept. Personally I think a song used for so long to honour one man is notable when it used in several schools - the reason it is a template is just for maintainability. La Martinere Lyons is just a few sentences, an image, (and a few templates) ... and it rated "start". A school policy decision that we store out of copyright songs always outside Wikipedia could be debated. For such small items I think it is marginal. Another La Martinere template does use this technique to refer to the founders will... so you can see that we do use this technique. When we use it semms to be micro management... which I am not very keen on. Victuallers 10:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete regardless of copyright status as not suitable as a template. this is article content, and if written should be justified as article content--which I think may not be possible either. A external link is the way to handle such lyrics. DGG (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can establish it is not normal practice to store brief lyrics and quotations on an external Wiki. Indeed there is an entire, if somewhat dubious, category at Category:Fight songs. I've had a brief look at some of these songs and they have virtually all been written in the twentieth century and are potentially in breach of copyright. There would therefore seem to be even less reason to store out of copyright lyrics on an external Wiki.Dahliarose 11:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

External link - such as to the Old Martinians' website, which has the item published in full with no question about copyright, as they either own it or hold republishing rights. This would be entirely valid. Orderinchaos 14:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I started to try and propose a compromise here and realised that there may not be one as we got ourselves in the situation where someone is going to decide whether to delete this template or not based on reading this long (some may say rambling) discussion. It is regrettable that we are discussing this issue(s) here and not elsewhere in a less confrontational manner. What I was going to suggest is that the template discusses the songs history and importance as well as quoting whatever is necessary to that discussion. Another compromise is to store the song complete in wikisource. Note that the discussion about the copyright is immaterial to this suggestion as wikisource will not take anything they consider iffy. My interest here is to "move on" ... as this is occupying too much time. Victuallers 14:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think deleting it is just the easiest way. The school song is cruft, and non-notable (primary sources), i dont see how it would stay in the article anyway. I am going to have to have a large chat with you (once this is ended) in regard to a few of the other templates which you have created, which i think need to be deleted, which once again, are cruft. Twenty Years 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a pity that this issue was not discussed in the appropriate manner on the relevant articles' talk pages in the first instance. This would have allowed a reasonable time for discussion and a satisfactory resolution of any outstanding issues such as copyright status, all of which take time to resolve. Now that we are involved in this unnecessary TfD debate I believe the outcome will be decided by an administrator within five days or so who will decide that the template should either be deleted or should stay based on his/her understanding of the issues involved. In the meantime regarding the copyright issues I have asked for assistance at [[Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems to see if they can clarify the situation with regard to the copyright status of school songs. I have also e-mailed the Old Martinians' Association to ask if they could confirm that the song is indeed out of copyright. The Old Martinians' website have almost certainly published the song in full because it is out of copyright not because they own the song. How could they own the song when the OM organisation itself was established many years after the song was written? Also there is no such thing as republishing rights. Once copyright expires the song is in the public domain and anyone can republish it. Hence the works of Shakespeare, Jane Austen, etc. are reprinted in various editions by many different publishers. I'm not sure if the song itself necessarily merits its own page, but it is certainly more worthy of inclusion as a separate article than most of these dreadful fight songs. I suspect if the song goes on a separate page then Twenty Years will nominate the page for deletion and we will have to go through this whole time-wasting process all over again. There are many poor school articles which require a lot of work and expansion, with references, etc. It's a pity that we cannot all work together in a more constructive manner for the good of Wikipedia. Dahliarose 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the fight songs should probably be nominated too, for similar reasons. Even beyond copyright, there's a serious question as to their encyclopaedic capability - it's hardly a poem by Shakespeare with loads and loads of critical commentary available from RS, and adds very little. As for me, I'm happy to work with anyone in good faith on anything at any time, once a XfD is decided, the matter's closed as far as I'm concerned. There's no point in continuing debates beyond their logical time and place, and no value in doing so either, as it hinders cooperation. Orderinchaos 16:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - While the copyright is expired according to international treaty and all copyright law that I've read, this template does not significantly reduce workload as it is used on so few articles and it is inherently article content. I have no problem withthe song being on the main page about the school, any other duplication becomes cruft. Adam McCormick 16:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The song is intended for use on seven school articles, only four of which have so far been created. Dahliarose 08:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be intended to be used on seven articles, but it will be used on none of them because it is cruft and flies right in the face of efforts to cleanup AquinasCruft.Twenty Years 08:57, 4 September 2007 (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 section.

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Jewish leaders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This yet-to-be deployed template is based on much confusion and is not based on any universally accepted criteria. It starts of with a large batch of Biblical leaders who were not called "Jewish" in their times and it was only in later ages that Judaism adopted some Biblical characters as "Jewish" and others as not, often from within one family. (The word "Jewish" refers to the people of Judea, a much later time and is used retroactivley loosely.) Thus, according to latter-day Judaism, Abraham and Isaac are considered to be Jews but not their sons Yishmael and Esau. Then, how does one decide to limit some Biblical leaders but exclude others? Taking "a stab in the dark" should not be a substitute for accuracy. The rest of the Jewish leaders on the template are actually all rabbis of later ages, and again, it raises questions about who should be on it and who left out when each age had so many great leaders. The last section raises even more problems because it introduces Conservative Judaism rabbis as Jewish leaders. This ignores the facts of Jewish history that they were opposed by the more traditional Orthodox leaders as heretics and traitors, so that it is impossible to know if any group of latter-days rabbis are acceptable or not because one group's "leaders" are another group's "Quislings." Or how about people like Jesus or his Apostles, could they also be called "Jewish leaders" since they were known to be born Jewish? This opens up a pandora's box. That's why, for example, List of religious leaders with Jewish background was deleted. Finally, no lay or non-rabbinic leaders are included and here again there will never be any way to have universal acceptance as to who should or should not be on it. This template is not well-thought out and will only create problems. IZAK 13:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 13:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 13:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. First of all, this is completely different from List of religious leaders with Jewish background, which seems OR-ish. This template attempts to collect, in one place and for easy linkage, Judaism's primary figures. (The title used in the template is "Leaders in Judaism.")

So, off the bat, secular Jewish leaders are definitely not included in this template. The question of notability and limits is one that any topic-template must deal with. (For example, {{Judaism}}, of which this an attempted spin-off.)

The question of Biblical figures' Judaism is irrelevant. The people in question are recognized as important in Judaism, and that is enough. (Again, "Jewish" here relates to the religion, not the person's lineage, though they are related.) --Eliyak T·C 15:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Template as is currently constructed seems to somewhat arbitrarily include some figures while excluding others. No objections in theory to such a template or (maybe better) group of templates, but this one seems to be almost inherently POV. John Carter 22:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, split, or eliminate all individual names. Most of the categories currently represented are reasonable (although incomplete), the individual selections are not well defined nor well definable. However, it would be reasonable to have Patriarchs&Matriarchs link to a list/article on them, Kings to a list of Biblical Kings, et cetera. If the template is to be restricted to religious Jewish leaders, it needs to be renamed and described. There is no good reason to exclude the heads of state of modern Israel as "Jewish leaders", nor the major leaders of the Zionist movement. GRBerry 00:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• split, any template that includes both Abraham and modern rabbis is overly broad. One for biblical figures and one for modern leaders of movements and organizations would be much more appropriate. As is, this shouldn't exist. Night Gyr (talk/Oy)
• Split I don't have a policy objection. Almost any template in a controversial subject makes some judgment calls that some might disagree withh. But this template makes no sense to me. It's trying to squeeze way too much information into way too small a space. I like Night Gyr's idea of two tiers of templates. Have one template with just a list of categories, Patriarchs, Kings, Prophets, Taanaim, Amaorim, Rishonim, Israeli state politicians, Haredi, Modern Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc., etc.). Then have a template for each category with individual names. --Shirahadasha 05:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete topic is too vague.--Sefringle^Talk 04:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete More specific templates would make better sense. DGG (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Whilst valid if relatively self contained and managable, this one's going to probably be a long, long list, and templates shouldn't be interminable. That's what "List of..." articles and wikilinks are for. The alternative would be to make the template a few most notable Jewish leaders or some similar subcategory, but that defeats its purpose. As a secondary issue, I don't see a problem determining if a person counts as a "jewish leader", provided one is clear if this means a) "leaders in the Jewish community", b) "leaders who were acknowledged jewish" or c) "leaders who had jewish descent even if they had disowned the religion or didn't practice". You'd have to clarify which was intended, but for each of these, reliable verifiable unambiguous sources probably do exist, or reasonable and verifiable criteria can be defined. The problem is I think it's not the sort of template we want to encourage - "Template:American leaders" maybe? (Everyone from Gates, to Carnegie, to Joseph Kennedy, to John Smith of Jamestown, to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Bush...?) It's not a use that's best suited for templates and I'm not sure thats a good avenue to go down.
  
  The only version of it I can see as useful would have entries such as "Notable rabbis", "Presidents of Israel", "Jewish heads of state", and so on - links to lists of notable categories of jewish leader. That one I wouldn't have a problem with. But not a list of actual named jewish leaders.
  
  (Side question of curiosity and classification - would a Nobel prize winning Jewish physicist be counted, if they were described by multiple, notable reliable sources as a "leader" in the scientific community?) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, too vague and undefined (as discussed by Izak and others), too much potential for controversy over inclusion/exclusion, plus I don't see this serving any useful purpose. 6SJ7 00:04, 6 September 2007 (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 section.

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. IronGargoyle 01:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:IT consulting giants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete — Repetition of Template:IT giants. this template was spamming template. United3219 11:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete - "Giant" is not an objective or well-defined term in relation to corporations; seems inherently POV and unnecessary. Walton^One 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - I created this template because the IT giants template was beginning to become crowded and unwieldy... unfortunately, soon after the creation of this template the IT giants template ballooned anyway. I think this information should be merged back into IT giants since that is where it originated. However, I am not above putting that template up for deletion afterwards as well. Paul^C/_T+ 04:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't particularly like the "giant" nomenclature either, but it doesn't appear within the transcluded template code, and as an epithet for the template itself it's ok (or could be moved anytime). —AldeBaer 01:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, as per nom and Walton. For me, {{IT giants}} could go one the same grounds. Both templates have no clear criteria for inclusion at all and so to me are POV. --S.K. 09:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I should point out that I took the liberty to add the content from this template into the IT giants template. Paul^C/_T+ 23:13, 3 September 2007 (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 section.

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. IronGargoyle 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Part of the rejected Wikipedia:User preferences for BCE/CE notation. Not used anywhere, and its counterpart template ADCE was already deleted (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_30#Template:ADCE). — the wub "?!" 11:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete {{ADCE}} was already deleted, which makes this template useless; in addition, much the same arguments apply as in the other TfD. --ais523 17:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Seems to be an uncontroversial delete. —AldeBaer 02:02, 31 August 2007 (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 section.

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Random Text (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template is not helpful. — 122.164.149.253 08:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Subst and delete

• Delete. It really isn't helpful. I don't see any particular use for this. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, wha's this? I don't think inserting 6 random texts are helpful to an encyclopedia.K14 10:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Not much use for the Encyclopaedia but useful for user pages ... for instance Template:Totd-random uses much the same mechanism and although never used in articles it is very useful...^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 12:44, 5 September 2007 (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 section.

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. IronGargoyle 02:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Mediocre American Man Trilogy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This idea of this trilogy was just a side remark the director has only referenced to once during a DVD commentary. The 3rd installmment of this supposed trilogy has yet to be conceieved. --Endlessdan 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. True, the third movie isn't even really in pre-production yet, but the term has been used elsewhere by Ferrell himself. If consensus for deletion is reached, I completely understand, but in that I'd ask that the template be userfied to my userspace. ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 02:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. One guy's offhand comment gets spun up into this original-research umbrella? No. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Iknowyourider. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:29, 5 September 2007 (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 section.

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. While the reasons here are correct, {{Infobox road}} is not fully implemented yet. Therefore, the templates will slowly be phased out. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:MBHighways (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and redirect

Template:Niagara Regional Roads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Saskatchewan Provincial Highways (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:NS Roads and Highways (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

All very large, link farm, top 2 are red link farms, not needed due to {{Infobox road}} browsing system. Precedents set at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 20 and WP:USRD/P. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reasons I gave in the other debate. Easily replaceable by browsing. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above master son^{T - C} 21:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per TMF —Scott5114↗ 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not needed due to Infobox road. Templates would be way too big and categories and lists are preferred over templates. They have also been deleted in the past with clear consensus. (→O - RLY?) 01:01, 3 September 2007 (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 section.

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 Although the consensus in favor is mild, the template clearly fails to provide a pertinent help. Circeus 04:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Largely redundant in view of the other, more expansive Roman Emperor templates in use. Besides, most of the emperors mentioned in this template already have dynasty-specific infoboxes inside the article, like the Julio-Claudians, the 4-Emperor-year and the Flavians. --Steerpike 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Suetonius's work is quite prominent and it makes a natural grouping. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is just that we already have too many templates and infoboxes running through each other for the Suetonius template to be useful anymore. There's already Template:Epochs_of_Roman_Emperors, Template:Roman Emperors, dynasty specific infoboxes like Template:Julio-Claudian dynasty, Template:Flavian dynasty, Template:Nervo-Trajanic Dynasty and succession boxes. --Steerpike 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep with alternate suggestion - I agree that there are too many templates and infoboxes, but I see a redundancy in Template:Epochs_of_Roman_Emperors and Template:Roman Emperors which is not useful. The Suetonius template is useful in that it points to those emperors Suetonius wrote about and helps tie in his views of the dynasties. This is important in making a decision over how much of Suetonius is probably fact and how much is slander/tall tales/propaganda. On the other hand, Tacitus, Dio, Plutarch etc. have equal claims to importance. My suggestion would be to create a large template (much like Roman Emperors) of "Roman Emperor Biographies" with each biographer as a subcategory. Templates are useful in categorizing a topic according to common names in the academic community. Julio-Claudians is a very necessary category, but equally significant are the biographers. Suetonius, for instance, speaks often of the sexual deviance of the emperors. This, in some cases, appears to be slander, especially his claims concerning Augustus and new born babies. Tacitus has a very anti-imperial POV in the Annals and the Res Gestae is pure imperial propaganda. The template of Suetonius encourages a researcher to seek out that biographer's other works for better scrutiny of the original sources and to write a more advanced paper should they so desire. Legis Nuntius 19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note - this template would appropriate for navigating sections in the emperors' articles about Suetonius' treatment of them, but such sections do not exist in all emperor articles. Gracenotes^T § 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove from articles on emperors. I like Suetonius, but this template is redundant given Template:Roman Emperors. (As for the "natural grouping" argument, it's not obvious to me that Vespasian should be grouped with Julius Caesar and not with Trajan.) However, the template would be useful for articles on Suetonius' individual Lives, which are currently treated in sections of Lives of the Twelve Caesars, if those developed to the degree that they were split into separate articles. EALacey 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 02:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think delete. Suetonius is a writer of tremendous importance, but I can't see where this template could be employed usefully where {{Roman Emperors}} and such others could not. — BillC ^talk 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as useless. All twelve were consecutive rulers, rather than selected by the historian from different periods, which would make the grouping useful. It is common knowledge that Suetonius described every emperor of the first two dynasties and interregnum. There is no need to trumpet such a well-known fact for the ignorant. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:50, 1 September 2007 (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 section.

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 move into article talk subpage space, delete the redirect, and merge into the relevant article. It seems that the closure has already been mostly done; I'm just closing this properly for the record. --ais523 14:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This looks like an article - not anything that should be in template space. — bd2412 T 22:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into First Babylonian Dynasty... somehow. Gracenotes^T § 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but we don't redirect templates to main space, so the redirect would have to go. bd2412 T 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe we could merge their history? There aren't that many revisions on the template, so intermingling the revisions shouldn't be that hectic. Gracenotes^T § 02:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 02:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If the template were 'articlified', it would need serious cleanup, but this may be useful. A history merge would be highly misleading, as it the history would then show the article it was merged to changing backwards and forwards between the template and the article (therefore looking like a revert war rather than constructive edits!); probably the most sensible way to implement a 'merge' closure would be to move the template's history to a subpage of the article's Talk page (and mention in edit summaries in the article that that's where the history had gone to). --ais523 17:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea, done. Someone else will have to delete the redirect and work on merging any useful information from it. --Random832 18:30, 6 September 2007 (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 section.

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Not a free license. The New Jersey Department of Transportation permits copying, but not the creation or distribution of derivative works -- and they don't promise that anything is free of third-party copyright interests, either. —-Carnildo 00:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. At first glance, this does look valid, since creation or distribution of derivative works is not required by our policies. But the nom is right; it doesn't promise that there is no third-party copyright interest, just gives an assurance that the department itself allows free use. In fact, it explicitly states that there may be a copyright holder who will complain. -Amarkov moo! 04:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There are two ways in which we can use an image under Wikipedia: fair use, which has some fairly strict restrictions on what qualifies, or free content, which does require derivative works. This license template doesn't fit either category. --Carnildo 07:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but change template to reflect the disclaimer and the requirement for the exact source of the image. Nardman1 01:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no need to keep this if it is only going to be an un-free license. Images taken from the New Jersey Department of Transportation can be tagged with {{Non-free fair use in}} if they are needed and meet WP:FUC. --Iamunknown 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 02:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Woah ... March? That's a long time ago. I hardly even remember commenting here!  :p --Iamunknown 05:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a free content license, and not useful or needed for fair use images. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, and retag all pages using this with {{fairusein}} and {{subst:nrd}}; some copyright tag is needed on the page, and as the current copyright tag is not allowable images using it should be placed into the deletion process for invalid-copyright-information templates. I agree with Carnildo in that Wikimedia's definition of 'free' does require that the creation of derivative works be allowed (see commons:Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses, especially the second bullet point). As images tagges with this template cannot be free use, they must therefore be fair use, and require a rationale. --ais523 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not useful, and not free content license. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Where on the NJDOT policy page does it say derivative works are prohibited? All I can find is Section G. That sounds more to me like it's illegal to hack their server or something based on the "stored on the New Jersey Department of Transportation's Web pages" bit. —Scott5114↗ 04:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  It's the way copyright works: if they don't explicitly permit derivative works, then derivative works are forbidden. --Carnildo 04:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete commercial use and derivative work allowance is not expressly stated; therefore they are not allowed. (→O - RLY?) 00:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: commercial use does _not_ need to be expressly stated; forbidding it amounts to making "non-commercial" a condition of the license - but if you do intend to allow it, you don't need to state it any more than you need to state that it can be used on a tuesday. (however, agreed that it does not allow derivative works. delete). --Random832 18:23, 6 September 2007 (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 section.