Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24

< June 23	June 25 >

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 per consensus and arguments towards avoiding instruction creep. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. After deletion, redirect to {{notability}} per Nabla. This will avoid the disruption from the wholesale deletion of a policy/guideline template that is alluded to by Ned Scott, and will also not damage the good-faith efforts of editors with concerns regarding the notability of particular episodes to tag these episodes as having unclear notability. IronGargoyle 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dated episode notability (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is similar in style to a prod -- 'cept it isn't a prod. The main purpose of this template is to set a deadline of when a page must be "cleaned up" (since when did we have a deadline?) The template is the result of a messy and long discussion at Wikipedia:Television episodes. It's quite arguable whether this template is part of the guideline -- though I don't believe it to be, due to its unencyclopaedic nature/non-NPOV. Matthew 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you cited "WP:DEADLINE" which I actually didn't know had a page, and when I viewed do you want to know what I saw? *Clears throat* "to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established". That's funny, because this template wouldn't exist in the first place if this was the case with these episode article. Also, "Above all, creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea". As WP:BAI states, "Any subject which can only be documented by reference to the original, be it film, recording or picture. Have you watched every single episode of Star Trek until you can document the proportion of sacrificial red shirts who have black hair? That'd get you a barnstar at Memory Alpha, but probably a WP:CSD here".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per my previous nomination of it yesterday (which was improperly speedy closed by the template's author). It is duplicative of existing templates and has been added indiscriminately across the project without actually reading the articles in question. -N 23:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Undid a speedy keep by User:Ned Scott, author's template. Ned Scott is not an administrator and speedy keeping a template he wrote is inappropriate. -N 23:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

At any rate I believe TfD to be the correct venue for this. Therefore as of right now (25 June) I will exercise policy (WP:IAR). Matthew 23:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It's designed to give a deadline to establish notability. Regardless of what Matthew thinks, notability is not inherited. Just being a television episode is not notable, in case anyone hasn't seen the crap that is on television nowadays. There is nothing non-NPOV about it. It doesn't play favorites. It puts problem articles in a category where they can be reviewed later by the community. It doesn't single the community down to a few, because there is another tag that alerts that televisions show's community to the current review of an episode article. Unfortunately, people think Wikipedia is just a higher form of TV.com, and that they can create episode articles merely because they can write a plot about them. There is a general notability tag, but this one is specific to WP:EPISODE. There are thousands of episode articles that cannot establish notability, notability being any form of reception (i.e. critical reaction) to the episode. Some episodes can, and that should be established; most cannot and they should be merged in with parent articles. There isn't a consensus needed for the idea that they should be merged, it was established a long time ago. This tag only puts that consensus into action by providing free peer reviewing for all television episodes, to determine if they can possibly establish notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep My being the template's author has no significance in the speedy close. "If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place." In addition to Matthew not even having a clue about how the template is supposed to be used. (he cited NPOV for a cleanup template). This is painfully, clearly, totally obvious, that this is nothing more than editors who disagree with the guideline trying to retaliate. Trying to TFD this template is not only something not supposed to be done, but it's disruptive. -- Ned Scott 00:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OWN would be the relevant policy. -N 00:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Correcting a problem I know is wrong has nothing to do with OWN, especially when the instructions are written in plain English. How dense can you be? -- Ned Scott 00:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe one could argue WP:OWN over the way you guys "protect" these television articles' very existence. Whenever someone comes along and says "this really should be merged with the parent article" there's nothing but edit wars to fight it off.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Episodes watched by millions in many different countries, and bought by thousands on DVD are notable. I sympathise with the concern about the state of many articles, but we don't delete everything in the cleanup cats on that basis (yeah, yeah, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). This TFD is genuine and should be allowed to run its course (someone heavily involved in its creation and management making closing this is naughty) despite the inconvenience to certain people who are flooding the place with this. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be television shows that are notable. You don't give minor characters their own page. Show cultural impact, critical reaction. Simply saying "it's watched by millions" doesn't account for anything but 1 line of prose.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The sheer amount of people that watch an episode make them notable -- just like a CD is notable for being purchased en masse. Nobody denies that lots of these articles could be significantly improved, I've cleaned up a fair few myself. Matthew 00:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Gee, last time I checked they had reception sections too. People watch the show. The show is notable. Technically, by your definitions, every character of every show is notable because at any given episode they are watched by "millions", and thus that is notability enough for them to have their own article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a deletion tag. It is pointing out that if an article does not assert notability, it will be considered for deletion, redirection, or merging. Also, our guidelines on episodes state that not every episode is automatically notable. The consensus that these articles are not notable automatically will exist regardless of the template, which is specifically why we are asked to not TFD templates like this. If you have an issue with the guideline, you take it to the talk page of the guideline. -- Ned Scott 01:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above reasons. Why do people think the deletion of this will "save" the episodes? Merge tags and cleanup tags can replace it. It won't make too much of a difference (just a little more annoying). TTN 00:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, annoying is you adding the template at the rate of 13 edits a minute. There's no way you could have evaluated all those articles for cleanup in that time. -N 01:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If you have an issue with TTN then take it up with him. Taking it out on the tag is absurd. -- Ned Scott 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or reword - too vague - the only articles that fully satisfy all our guidelines are featured. Addhoc 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The tag isn't asking the article to satisfy all our guidelines, it's asking the article to assert notability. -- Ned Scott 01:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That isn't how its currently being used, see Road to Audition. Addhoc 01:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, the wording is clear and in bold: An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline for television episodes.. It says nothing about cleaning up the article, or putting in production information. It's clearly about asserting that the episode is notable. Saying "millions watched it" doesn't prove anything other than "millions of fans watched it". Not only does that require an actual source, but it's 1 line of information. You're also more likely to find the Nielsen ratings for an entire season, as opposed for each individual episode. Road to Audition doesn't mention any type of receptive information. If being nominated for an award is the only thing it is notable for, then why can that not be said on a "List of" or "season" page? It's one line of out-of-univser information. The plot section out weighs everything else on the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's precisely what I'm saying - the only perfect articles are featured, so a stub isn't going to be perfect. On this basis you could tag every stub or start class article. Lastly, this template is being used to justify redirecting articles, instead of merging them. Addhoc 10:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, how can you say that when we haven't even reviewed the first one? Looking at the Raven episode you gave, with nothint but a plot, the only thing to merge would be the fact that it nominated an award, and I wouldn't even break a sweat putting that at the bottom of a "List of" or "Season" page. Again, this appears to be more of a lack of understanding, as episodes have only been tagged and we haven't had the first assessment or review of an article yet. Assumptions are being made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- This template is part of a solution resulting from this issue. It is designed to let concerned editors know that the article does not assert notabiliy, and gives them ample time to do so. It does not delete the article, since it will always be in the history and can be undone by anyone. Alcemáe T • C 02:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Stong Delete the template is superfluous (we already have "prod") and the whole date thing simply encourages the immediatist agenda. We must slow down the DIME Cabal. Ursasapien (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you even have the slightest clue about how this is supposed to work? This is a new process of review that we are setting up to help separate good episode articles from non-notable episode articles. The datestamp is nothing more than a way to keep track of what has been tagged and not cleared up. -- Ned Scott 21:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I absolutely know what this template is all about. "Do you even have the slightest clue" - seems a tad uncivil. I assume this template was created to solved a perceived problem. I agree with Matthew that WP should have no deadline. Slow down, take it easy, and gradually work to create the best encyclopedia. After all, "Rome wasn't built in a day." This template is needlessly inflammatory and threatens a deadline, when there is no need. Let's debate each articles notability. There is no need to slap a threat on thousands of articles because some editors feel "90% of episode articles are pure crap." Ursasapien (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So you think that all articles should be left, since there is no deadline? There is no deadline, but that is not an excuse for leaving vast amounts of articles that not only violate WP:EPISODE, but WP:N as well, in existance indefinitely. This tag allows them fourteen days to make sure it's ok, instead of redirecting it on sight. These articles should not have been created in the first place. The devised system is much better than mass redirections, which could very well be an appropriate course of action. Alcemáe T • C 05:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise "These articles should not have been created in the first place," so yes I think YOU HAVE 14 DAYS STARTING NOW! is way too menacing. I think a better approach is to point people to the light. Have the project members working on this develop a list of FA/GA episodes as a guide. Then we all can work to improve the articles that are not good. I do not see the big rush and I do not see how this process is making a better encyclopedia. I believe strongly that 95% of television programs and at least 70% of all television episodes are notable and have the potential to be developed into a good article. Honestly, "Where is the fire?" Regardless of whether you have an opposing view are not articles are shaped by consensus not coercion. Ursasapien (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

70% of all television episode articles are notable? Are you kidding me? I don't mean to be rude, but that is some serious delusion. It's not YOU HAVE 14 DAYS STARTING NOW! It's "Technically, this article very well could be redirected on sight. However, as some people dislike the approach, a lengthly discussion decided that problem articles should be given fourteen days after notificatino to get up to standards, at which time they will be assessed." And the template does point them, it has a link to the guideline on episode pages. And develop a list of GF/FA articles? Way to read the guideline. And this "you are all immediatists" argument is really silly. Your basically saying that we should let articles exist forever, just because there is no deadline to fix them. Alcemáe T • C 05:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating the extreme incivility and condescension that sometimes exist on WP. I have read the guideline, thankyouverymuch. I get it that you think that we need to immediately delete/redirect nearly every television episode article (90% of them anyway) on Wikipedia as of yesterday. I simply do not agree that this is what the guideline points toward. I am not advocating we wait forever, just that we wait a little longer than 14 days. Again, where is the fire? More to the point, what is the need for this template? Simply, be bold and do what you think is best. Ursasapien (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Extreme incivility? Really? Just curious, but if you had read the guideline, why did you suggest we do something already on there? I don't think we need to redirect 90% of the articles, I think that some can be made better than their current state. (I do agree that most of them cannot, but there are some that can be, and I dont think they should be redirected). Until then, they really shouldn't be their own article, but since I am but one person, as TTN was, it needs to be brought before a wider forum than just one user. And if not fourteen days, then what? Sixty? One year? A time has to be set. It was, per consensus, at fourteen days. I don't really think longer is needed; enough contributions can be made in fourteen days that would demonstrate its ability to show notability. (ec) Heh. Last time someone was bold, people got angry And the need for the template is so that that incident is not recreated. Alcemáe T • C 06:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we are getting off-topic, so I took this discussion to you talk page.Ursasapien (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- Regardless of the issue whether this template should be kept, it is unarguably being used improperly. As far as I can tell, episodes are being tagged randomly without any regard for quality and/or notability. If you're going to use this template, at least start with the completely hopeless articles first and then go from there. The sheer scope will result in a flood of articles that will not be able to be properly assessed. Hegria66 07:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Randomly? Maybe, but most of them fit the criteria (I cannot be definitive, as I have not tagged them all). But even if it is, when they are reviewed, that will come to light, and the article will be left unchanged. Start with the hopeless articles? That would be the vast majority. And we can properly assess them, as there is no deadline, we can take as long as we wish; that even gives other articles longer to be fixed. Alcemáe T • C 07:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but once we pass the "event horizon" when article start pilling up en masse to be reviewed, there will be so many that we will not be able to properly review all of them before 2013 or so. Hegria66 08:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you doubt the randomness, check the article "Brains and Eggs", which I created. It does not have a "trivia" section or any other of the big "no-no's" when it comes to episode articles. It is the pilot episode of a long-running series (3rd Rock from the Sun) and has a start on including real-world information. I think that's pretty good for an article that's less than two weeks old. Hegria66 08:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - It's a back door AfD template. Do it the right way. - Peregrine Fisher 08:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How on earth is this a back door AfD template? We're setting up a review process that would be a step before AfD, and give good articles a way of not being lumped with the non-notable ones. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. 1. This template is the result of a long discussion, as Matthew claims, but that is surely a positive. 2. this is not a prod, as it does not propose deletion, but a case-by-case assessment 3. The POV is the same as any clean-up tag such as {{plot}} {{trivia}}. 4. It does not give a deadline for the article to be improved, but to assert in some way its notability...on page, on its talk page, on the parent talk page. 5. The fourteen days is not a time-limit before deletion, but a warning about categorisation and review... most clean-up or reference/notability tags categorise immediately. 6. It leads to REVIEW. if something has been tagged unfairly, that will come out then. If some need work, then they will receive help. If some just aren't notable, well, it's Wikipedia policy to remove them. 7. It's not mergist, deletionist or any other like label someone wants to throw at it. If anything, it's 'reviewist'. 8. Wikipedia does not demand that all articles are perfect before they exist. But it does hold that some things are not worthy of having their own article, and never will be. It has a well accepted guideline on this: WP:NOTABILITY, and this process follows that guideline 9. this template has an advantage over the standard notability tag, since it directs the article to a specific TV category, so can be assessed according to the specific requirements of that genre 10. the whole process was created to improve discussion, transparency, involvement of editors etc. This is an improvement on what occured before (which allowed anyone to be bold and merge, redirect, list for AfD etc without any centralised or coherant procedure). 11. If anyone has concerns about the wording of the template, its application or use, or the review process following, then their contributions would be welcome at WP:EPISODE and WP:TV-REVIEW. 12. If anyone hs concerns about particular editors' use of the template, then it is more appropriate to bring their concerns up with that editor. 13. If anyone has concerns about the use of the template on a particular article, then bring it up on the talk page (or the parent article talkpage). That, in effect, is what the template is requesting. Tagged items will not be merged or redirected blindly. Gwinva 09:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Gwinva, the reality of how this is being used is somewhat different to your good faith comments. Addhoc 09:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Oh really? I don't believe we've deleted any article. I'm pretty sure that having a long discussion about is better than blindly going "do this". It seems that what is really going on is that you guys have a total lack of understanding of that the template actually is, hence all the "it's about deletion" talk coming out. The funny part is, the "it's about deletion" continues to flow even after several people have already explained that isn't what it is. And it isn't random. I believe when TTN was using it, it was pretty consistent. Show me some episodes that established notability but were still tagged. Just because an episode has a lot of junk on the page doesn't mean it's established anything but junk. Don't mistake page size for notability; the majority of pages contain nothing but fluff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Will ^(talk) 11:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As I was trying to indicate earlier, I believe the article "Brains and Eggs" had already established notability at the time it was tagged. For the record, I have NOT advocated the deletion of this template; I have merely pointed out that I believe it is being misused. Hegria66 12:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than being a pilot, it's missing a lot of information. That is what the review process would indicate. Seeing that it is a pilot, I would assume (and I could be completely wrong, I wouldn't actually know because we haven't reviewed a single episode) the consensus would be to keep on the condition that some sort of reception section get establish. The fact that the show is a pilot means it has a higher probabily of actually finding third party sources that have reviewed the show. You are also more likely to find out how well the show did when it debuted (the Nielsen rating). The template doesn't say "this episode is not notable, delete it", it's saying "please show how this episode is notable".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Ned Scott and Gwinva. I also find Ursasapien's comment rather offensive (satisfying three if not four of those ideologies). Will ^(talk) 11:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. If the template is being used improperly, then correct those who are misapplying it. I think that notability of television episodes is an issue that needs to be addressed and this template is a decent start. Bringing in more editors to review articles is beneficial. Chaz ^Beckett 12:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This template goes directly against the very spirit of wikipedia. Isn't the purpose of wikipedia to allow people to edit pages freely without deadlines? It takes a long time to edit articles, and episode articles aren't the easiest things to condense while still maintaining a quailty article. It can be done, though. This template does nothing but disrupt the hard work of thousands of wikipedians who just need time to correctly write an article. The rampage of User:TTN and User:Ned_Scott needs to stop. They are going against every wikipedian guidelines by trying to destroy the work of hard working wikipedians. Being bold only goes so far, and they have crossed the line. dposse 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - You aren't assuming good faith! These people are trying very hard to improve wikipedia and correct mistakes. Seraphim Whipp 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Um, when guidelines say "if articles contain little content, consider merging them". Notability is apart of Wikipedia also. Check the episodes articles, it is not like they have not been in existence for quite some time (the Smallville articles have been almost a year). These articles have had plenty of time to develop, or in the least (which is what the tag asks) establish some kind of notability. An article full of fluff trivia doesn't establish notability, especially when a good portion is taken directly from IMDb. Also, "hard work" doesn't translate to "correct work". You can put a lot of hard work into something and never actually establish notability. On the other hand, you can easily establish notability and leave the article like that without having to expand it. The operative word is "notability", which these articles have not established. Saying "it was nominated for an award" doesn't establish anything. It's on the right track, but that's a line that can easily be merged with a larger article. I find the hypocracy amazing. As Seaphim has pointed out, we work hard, but apparently you work harder. You claim someone is "OWNing" the template, but insist that you aren't "OWNing" the article by preventing a tag you just don't like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm reading the template wrong, it isn't imposing a deadline as much as notifying editors that further review may be necessary if the article doesn't assert notability. It isn't stating that the article will be deleted in 14 days or even nominated for deletion in 14 days. It essentially says that in 14 days it will be placed in a category where it will undergo a review of its notability. Article are supposed to assert notability when they're created, but as you point out, this sometimes isn't possible. Giving a two week "grace period" before a notability review (not deletion, keep in mind) seems rather fair to me. Chaz ^Beckett 15:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to point out that this review is not for a select group of editors, some "CABAL" as some have insisted (which I find funny, since they obviously don't understand the concept), but for anyone and everyone that wishes to join in. Like a peer review, it's open for everyone, and a separate tag/notification will be placed on both the article and the parent article to inform as many editors as possible without being annoying to the public (i.e. placing a new tag at WP:TV every time a new article is up, it's easier just to let them know the review process has been opened and they are welcome to stop by at any moment to comment on any of the articles). 15:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Chaz, Gwinva and Ned Scott. I would add to the discussion but there is no more I can add to these peoples excellent points. Seraphim Whipp 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The whole idea of a notability template is just stupid and inconsistent. ALL episodes of a TV show are notable in their own right. Angie Y. 15:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This coming from the person that vandalizings TTN's page, because they don't like him. Show me where it says "TV [episodes] are notable in their own right".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You're obviously free to have this particular POV, but do understand that it's not shared universally. Episodes of popular shows usually are notable, while episodes of obscure shows may be non-notable. Chaz ^Beckett 15:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • • What defintes popularity? Smallville popular to some, but not as popular as CSI (that's 4 million viewers to 12 million). Saying "it's popular" is subjective and not an establishment of notability. Saying "it's popular" is equivalent to saying "it has so and so many google hits". As is the case for articles for deletion (which we aren't deleting anything anyway) the number of google hits is irrelevant. The only thing that template does is alert editors to a problem that has been prevalent for a very long time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Why do people have such a hard time with WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS? All three indicate that without real sources, the topic is not notable. They needs to assert themselves; they are not automatically notable. TTN 15:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per TTN, Ned Scott, et al. The episode notability guidelines are a good model of clarity and balance and this is a useful tool in conjunction with that. Eusebeus 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom or at least remove the completely arbitrary 14 day deadline. Tim! 16:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd be more inclined to support the inclusion of this template if it didn't have the deadline. There is truly no rush for us to clean these pages up, while an easy job:, it still takes time. Some episode articles do actually benefit from a merge (but there's still no rush to do it). Matthew 16:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What does the template state? It says after 14 days the article will be added to a category for further review. It says nothing about "after 14 days the article will be merged". The actions taken upon the article are irrelevant to the 14 days. The 14 days is merely giving an oppurtunity to find something that establishes notability, not clean up. It seems everyone is hung up on this "clean up" idea. No where does it says "you have 14 days to get this article to GA status, or FA status". This is about proving notability. You can't say "it's notable by itself," because that isn't verifiable. You have to show that it is notable, and having a bunch of trivia lists doesn't do that. The idea that the community of editors came up with was (and this would be apparent if more people read the actual discussions instead of blindly looking at one thing and screaming bloody murder) was if people could establish notability on at least some of the articles that clearly do not already show that (i.e. you can't claim "here's your proof" and point to an article that has been GA status or FA status already), then more time is easily given to allow to the establishment of the rest of the episodes. We aren't going to say "oh you proved it on these 10 episodes, but not on these 10...so..redirect". It's more likely going to be "you've done a good job establishing it for these 10, we see no reason why we cannot give more time for the establishment of these other 10". Once establishment is provided, this tag can be removed and other "clean up" tags can be put in its place where needed (i.e. plot, trivia, etc). The review process might point out problems with the body of the article, and suggestions for improvement, but that is not the purpose. The purpose is to assess the notability of these episodes. You say "some episodes articles do actually benefit froma merge", but I don't see too many shows that have some episodes with their own articles, and some without. I might see some created for 3/4 of the series, but what's in there might need to be merged. No one is stopping to say "hey, this one probably should be merged"; it's going more like "hey, all the others have their own, got to make it even" (regardless of whether or not it needs its own article).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You speak a lot of "we" and "review"... who is "we"? Also, you do realise ANYBODY may remove these tags. The tag is added because an editor has an opinion, if someone thinks otherwise then they may freely remove the tag -- Wikipedia users are under no obligation to bring an article to a person's desires. Matthew 17:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We is anyone that feels like contributing. This is a general cleanup tag, so it cannot be removed without good reason (as with any other cleanup tag). Notability on this site is asserted by reliable sources, so your take on it really doesn't amount to much. You cannot just claim that they're notable and leave it at that. Before you say anything, there is no binding resolution to do anything with them after being tagged. It is just an organizational thing to start discussion, gather consensus, and other things. TTN 17:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Which "we"s would you like clarified? The non-existent CABAL Ursasapien accused the editors at WP:EPISODE of being? The "We" of anyone and everyone that wants to review and article? You're right, anyone can remove a tag if they wish. Removing a tag doesn't change the article though. Removing a tag doesn't automatically grant some notability halo over the article. Wikipedia users are under no obligation to create pages that cannot satisfy notability criteria either, but they do that. Your argument is what, that you don't have to do anything to improve the page, to establish the notability of the article, to make Wikipedia less of a laughing stock? Ok. That wouldn't be anything new from how I've seen the pages handled. I keep hearing "they'll be fixed later," "'I'll' get them into better shape", etc etc...but actions speak louder than words and at this moment the majority of episode articles seem appear to be keep quiet.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I have mixed feeling about this whole process, as it began as an offshoot of my protest of TTN's actions some time back. Personally, while I accept that a fair number of television articles are weak, I don't have a problem with their existence, and I can actually see a valid role for them here. (Wikipedia offers an environment where speculation and fan theories are strongly discouraged, something the suggested option like Wikia and TV.com do not provide.) However, the subject of this TfD is not about the process, it is about a notification tag. Tagged articles are not automatically deleted, nor are they locked into same - the primary thrust is to merge or redirect. This is different from a prod or an AfD, because under those processes the information is lost. The tag gets placed on an article because an editor has an opinion. If yours differs, and you can back it up, then act on it. Look at the article in question, improve it if possible, or (if you agree that it isn't ready for article status) participate in integrating it into a parent article. If you have issues with the review process, then get involved with the process. Read through the episode guidelines, propose changes, take part in the reviews, and keep tabs on what is happening. Watchlist Category:Episode articles not asserting notability, Wikipedia talk:Television article review process, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage and participate in the discussions. Don't attack editors like TTN personally, as that accomplishes *nothing*. Instead, monitor the process, make sure that reviews are carried out in a fair, transparent manner, and that articles are assessed and judged on their *individual* merits rather than as a block. As I indicated earlier, I don't support the mass redirect actions - I think they're misguided and are damaging the encyclopedia. However, deleting this template will not stop the review process, it will only make it harder to follow. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - I don't really like the deadline that this imposes - it feels like it's been designed to pressure editors, which isn't very condusive to a pleasant working atmosphere. The speed with which it has been rolled out suggests that not a lot of thought has gone into its placings. Also, it looks very messy to the non-editing readers who may be browsing Wikipedia, which is surely diminishing the whole point of this project. Bob talk 21:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - You could say that about many of the templates in use in the project. Does it mean that we shouldn't use them? Well no. A lot of thought and effort has gone into creating the template and it is the result of long discussions which had consensus. If you disagree with its usuage ("not a lot of thought has gone into its placings"), then that has little to do with the actual template itself. Seraphim Whipp 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Response, the difference is that many of those are warnings for the public, i.e. of a non-neutral point of view, whereas all this seems to be is to pressure the writers of these articles. To my mind, this isn't the most constructive way to achieve the agenda of those who want to delete episode articles. Bob talk 21:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not to pressure anyone. TTN redirected articles en masse, which really miffed some people. So, in an effort to give people who care about the article time to bring it up to standards, the template informs them that the article does not establish notabilty (which is, quite possibly, grounds for automatic redirection or deletion), and if they wish for the article to stay, someone must provide sources. Alcemáe T • C 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In a sense, clean-up tags are meant to put some pressure on the editors. There's nothing wrong with that. Not to mention that one doesn't have to make a finished product to "save" the article, they only have to show the potential. We also have yet to make a time limit for the review process, or anything like that. The 14 days was just a number chosen as to when to start a review process.

Normally, we wouldn't wait, and would just go directly to a review process. But giving 14 days allows for easy fixes to be fixed without the hassle of the process. If the template is deleted then we will have no choice but to simply take articles directly to review. Removing the notice (alerting editors of the issue, giving them instructions on how to fix it) makes it harder for those who want to preserve their episode articles. -- Ned Scott 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as against general deletion policy whatever the group may want, the general rule is that we have three types of deletion and three only. Proposals for a 2 week period to improve articles before deletion have been repeatedly rejected by the general consensus. If we allow individual projects to establish new types, the result will be confusion.

More specifically, this project intends to put things into a special intermediary category, to reconsider. I suppose they can keep track themselves of what they want to do, but they shouldn't pretend it's policy. I might feel differently with a milder wording "an editor has suggested that ... DGG 22:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get deletion from? At most, the articles are redirected. This is not any sort of process that is binding. It is just an easy way to gather discussion, consensus, and to look over the articles. TTN 22:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm unsure how something unrelated to deletion would be against the deletion policy. Could you re-examine the template and elaborate? Chaz ^Beckett 22:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This reminds me of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, in the sense that people would swear up and down that movie was so gory, when in fact it had almost no blood in it, or gory scenes in general. As with this, people constently keep going by this "deleting" thing, when that isn't what this template is about. Notice that the word "deletion" is at the very end, because that is the last thing anyone actually wants, but it doesn't change the option. If the template only says, likely to be considered, which would be based on a decision from the community as a whole (and unlikely decision). But I highly doubt that "deletion" would ever actually occur, and I would personally have no problem with the word being removed, as the consensus at the guideline page was generally for merging and redirecting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• This sums up everything I find offensive about this tag. It screams "Your article needs cleanup just because it exists". That's what's wrong with this template. -N 23:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What is redeemable about that article? No assertion of notability. Cultural references does not qualify. Alcemáe T • C 23:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "This is what I find funny", you are pissed at TTN's action, the tag has nothing to do with that. I just looked at the article, didn't see anything that "scream" notable. I saw a huge plot, a short list of characters, and huge list of cultural references that were uncited. Nothing about the episode itself being notable. So that seems somewhat a just tagging.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe he is referring to the edit summary not the article itself. TTN's assertion that he can assess articles without so much as looking at them is the perfect example of how this process should not be handled. Regardless of whether this is an action that some editors feel needs to be taken it has not been handled well. Stardust8212 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I took his comment to mean that he didn't read the entire article, but look at what the content was (Plot-Character-Cult Ref) which were not things that would typically establish notability, unless they are filled with the wrong information and need to be renamed. Who an episode references is not notable, but if the episode itself has impacts on other media is. Difference betwen Cult Ref, and Cult Impact.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That episode is one of 13 he added the tag to in a single minute. I'm fairly certain when he says he didn't look at it he means it. -N 00:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that every is doing some assuming, and we all know how that makes us all look. Shall I look at the other 12 episodes he tagged and see if they compare to the one you brought us?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I said that I looked over it. I look for sources, and if there are any, I take a quick look at them. They haven't been up to snuff as of yet. The second part was that even if I did not look over it, the tag still stands. That is no reason to remove it.TTN 00:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This has potential though it's a little bare, and some of the information is irrelevant (like the part about being included in the season 3 box set...um, duh. If it wasn't, that would be interesting to note). A review for this episode would probably assess that information, provide some commentary on how to expand it and either bid it adou, or say "we'll be back in a month (or something) and see how you've come along). The rest of the information in the article is uncited and not that relevant (mainly a lot of the CF info).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of the first 20 episodes, I found these, Bendless Love, The Luck of the Fryrish, Parasites Lost, Amazon Women in the Mood, which showed potential. They have weak sections that don't particularly establish the notability well (they do it a whole lot better than the other 16 that I saw, but they are weak none the less. I would assess them as "potential with room for improvement" and vote to extend their "life" (so to speak). Again, like I said with the other, the review for these would probably yield lots of examples to improve the establishment of notability. The reviews are in the best interest of every episode article on Wikipedia, as I've said they are the equivalent of free "peer reviews", except we aren't going to go into detail on what to do about the body of the article, there are clear guidelines for that. This article, A Tale of Two Santas has a broadcast and reception section, and I assume you label them as such everywhere else because of what you have in this section. Stuff about not airing on time and being pushed back. Interesting to note, but not something that is notable for an episode. I mean, ok...it was pushed back. I know plenty of episodes that happened to. It is also not that uncommon to produce an episode for one order, and have it played in a different one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete[neutral, as I may not be able to follow the discussion in the following days]. I agree with the concept that there is too much TV fun-cruft around, including almost line by line episode plots. BUT adding another template will not help, quite the opposite, it may make it harder for those unfamiliar to tag properly, possibly leading to a tag-and-re tag overhead workload. The deadline is no policy [useless, just categorize imediately], and a dated tag, used in a first in first out way, the usual way, would do just fine. merge to {{Notability}} is an option. It is already dated, and it's text change according to one parameter, could 'episode' be another one? And could the template be also used to feed into different categories defined by the same parameter? - Nabla 13:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No one claimed it was policy. There is a huge misunderstanding regarding this template. First, it's letting people know that the notability of the episode has not been established. It doesn't claim it isn't a notable episode, just that it hasn't been proven. We could care less if it was a stub, or "start", so long as it established notability in the least. If we merge the dated tag to "notability" then the category itself would be overrun with pages that are not simply episode articles, and determining which are which would only make things harder. The categoy is sectioned off alphabetically, not by television show. So any random article not about a TV episode would be put in the category, and indistinguishable from every other name there (with exception to the obvious "Name (TV series title)" episodes). If someone is improperly tagging, then they should be spoken to on how to properly tag, not delete the tag so that it cannot be improperly used. If that was the case, we should delete just about every tag, because there are instances when every one was improperly used. Again, the deadline has nothing to do with forcing people to do anything. The "deadline" happens no matter what work you do, because all it is saying is that after 14 days it will be listed in a category for review later. You get more than 14 days, because there are way too many episodes out there to review at one time, and some take substantial discussion. People should actually read the other articles to get an understand of how everything works. I have to assume they haven't because of some of the reasons for this templates deletion. Understanding the process correctly lends to understanding the need for the template.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right in that I have not read the full previous discussion, but I guess you'll forgive me that, just as I forgive you for not reading in full my few lines above: I understand the concern about categorization and that is why I suggested that "Notability" should feed into different categories. Point taken on policy, striked, and replaced by "useless deadline". The template is useful, but *redundant*, because either an article asserts notability, so a "Notability" tag (i.e., asserts but may not be enough) would do; or it does not assert notability, and it is speedy deletable. The remaining question is if being an episode is a assertion of notability or not, but that is not the issue here. Nabla 15:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem we've had on several AN/I, as people get really pissed if someone just comes along and deletes/redirects/merges an episode because it doesn't establish notability. There was a huge AN/I about TTN over that, because he was redirecting mass episodes that didn't assert notability. The discussion afterward was to devise some form of alert to be added to the pages which says "this episode doesn't establish its own notability, after 14 days it will be added to a category for review". The pages have been in existence for quite a long time, with almost no work to establish notability, but that doesn't mean that we will not, are not, getting lots of outcry over redirecting pages that do not meet the notability criteria. You say "speedy delete", but you cannot image the drame that word ("delete") causes, even when we don't want to delete anything, just merge it into a more appropriate page. I understand your concern about the "deadline", but that was something created to ease the tension between the articles that are tagged and when they get reviewed (which isn't exactly 14 days later, since some articles require extensive discussion). I don't know code that well, so I don't know if you can actually make the "Notability" template (the general one) put articles into separate categories by mediums. I think that would require that every article is already properly categorized, which isn't always the case. If that could be accomplished I think you could have a good proposal for this templates removal. Then again, a "cleanup" tag works the same way. We have a "cleanup" tag, but yet have specific tags for specific clean ups (e.g. "plot", "copyedit", etc). Cleanup is cleanup, so why would we need to be specific about those others and not about television episodes. The notability tag (the general one) doesn't like to any of the Telvision related guidelines, just the basic notability guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Categorising using the same parameter that is used to select the tag's text and link looks possible. You may want to experiment with the template User:Nabla/Test, transcluded in User:Nabla/Test1. I am not sure if this kind of categorisation is good and wanted, but I presume it could be useful. - Nabla 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nabla, having another notability tag is not a reason to delete this. We have separate notability tags for many things. The template, the process, will all be explained as this thing gets off the ground. The 14 days is a way to allow easy fixes to be fixed, sparing them from being marked as requiring further review. Note that almost all of our cleanup tags can now be dated and tracked as such. This is a useful emerging tool for editors. We've barely gotten things off the ground and people are trying to snipe the process before it's fully developed. This template hasn't even been given a chance by those who wish for it's deletion. So I'm sorry, but you don't know what will work well and what won't, and this template won't be deleted for such nit-picky reasons. -- Ned Scott 20:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice... I am trying to help, and even taken the time to suggest and code what I belive may be an improvement. And your reponse is that I am trying to delete out of my "nit-picky reasons"? - Nabla 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, but this was all done with a good amount of thought being put into it. I respect that you believe your suggestion to be an improvement, but you're assuming we haven't thought of this already. The rationale of the nom is different from yours. They want to delete the tag because they don't believe it should exist in any form. I'm glad you are going neutral on this for now, as deleting the template won't help us improve the process (not at this state, at least). -- Ned Scott 00:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And merging a specialty template with an existing one won't make anything easier to use. -- Ned Scott 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It may because then editors will need to know of less templates. If I see a book article of questionable natability I tag "Notability|books", if it is a website I tag "Notability|web". Easier than needing to use, say, "BookNotNotable" and "UnimportantWebsite". - Nabla 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, but jesus man, we're human and this whole thing is just getting started. Without question, a more efficient system will always be pursued, but right now it's not a good idea. The way the template works is too different, the template will be subjected to lots of changes (with would tax the servers more if the tag's usage was higher) as we tweak things, and there's no dire need to consolidate such templates at this time. If this whole thing works out well, you bet we'll apply this change on a greater scale. -- Ned Scott 00:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's kinda cool. Again, I'm not familiar with coding (I usually copy other things), but since you made it so you can make it explicitly "television", "film", "numbers", etc...can it be made so that not only does the television specific one include links to those specific guidelines (so as not to force people to jump from page to page), but have that sole one put articles in a category for easy finding during the review? I'll bring your examples over to the template and see what others thinks (it's sometimes hard following all the banter on this page when you've been away for awhile).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean having a category for episodes but not for others? Sure. Although I'm no template expert (this fix was my first "real" large try) they have a rather powerfull programming language. One downsize is that templates could be made sooo complicated that it would take more than the average guy-not-afraid-of-some-code to understand. (I'll be away from the 'net for the next few day... which is perceived as a looong time here) - Nabla 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

reword Just remove the thing about the deadline. Buc 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep the dated template, just remove the wording on the actual tag?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The time-stamping is a key function to making the process work. In no way will it be removed. -- Ned Scott 20:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per The JPS at top. Kuralyov 23:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Stating it doesn't prove it. You can "it's watched by millions, and bought by millions", but someone's word is not verifiable, and thus not an established notability. It makes no sense that we remove any comments by people because they do not add reliable sources, but if some editor says "they are watched by millions...." then we take that as the word of God and thus more reliable than any third-party source. Riiiight.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is that every episode is not inherently notable. If you have an issue with that then take it up at WT:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• General comment It is unclear from much of this discussion whether we are debating the template itself, or the process for which it was developed. This is the reason why this discussion should not be taken place here but at the review talk page, as suggested in the TfD guidelines: "If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place". On the legitimacy of the proposed review process: it is not run by some cabal or club of editors, neither is it the consensus of a few yes-men. The discussion was initiated following a heated debate at AN/I by people from all 'sides', in an effort to find middle ground. The discussion was 'advertised' at ANI, the Village Pump, and at all the television WikiProjects inviting contributions from all. Consensus was reached, and the review process proposed. Until it is trialled (to ensure it works), it cannot be confirmed. This template is an important part of the process. The wording of the template was discussed at length, and the 14-days was considered an integral part, as the discussion at ANI showed that most people wanted warning of a review process: it is not a deadline but a concession. Let's see how it works before destroying the template. Certainly, it shouldn't be deleted due to suggested replication of existing templates..it offers something new, hitting the middle ground between clean-up tags (which identify a problem but offer no review) and the prods and AfD's, which propose deletion (where this is striving for review, improvement, merging to RETAIN information). Let's run with this process for a while, and fine tune it together. If, after serious trial, it doesn't work, then bin the lot. If it works, then it offers a process which could be developed for other areas of concern, with templates adapted as per Nabla's suggestion above. So, my Proposal: suspend discussion here, and develop the procedure at WP:TV-REVIEW. Gwinva 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely delete This is redundant. If WP:EPISODE is a concern, it can be cited in a prod or AfD. --WikidSmaht (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, this has nothing to do with deleting any articles. Apparently this is something harder to understand that I am aware of. This TfD is based on an editors opinion that all television episodes need their own article, when they don't. The template, as has been stated many many many times, is about alerting editors to a review that will take place, in no sooner than 14 days, based on the lack of established notability in the article. This has nothing to do with deleting an article, and the normal notability template doesn't cover what this does, or perform the same categorizing function that this one does. It would be more beneficial if people actually read all the pages this template is based upon, instead of simply looking at some random comments, when others have already admitted they haven't read through the pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Regardless of the nomination reason, redundancy is MY reason for voting to delete. We already have notability templates. Also, the template explicitly mentioned deletion until the 28th, 4 days after this AfD started, and hours after both my vote and your response. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I know. Look further down, you'll see I made a comment about the "deletion" being on the template and that it was corrected. It was removed because were aren't after deletion. If someone wants to delete they can go to AfD or prod the article. Also, have a general notability template, one that does not cover the explicits of this template, nor contain links to relevant sections. Also, the general notability template does not turn into a review template when the review process starts, this template does by simply putting "yes" into the review field in the code.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, for reasons stated above --Legolas1987 7:54, June 28th 2007
• Keep Deletion of this tag doesn't stop the episode from going to the article review, editors can still bring them there since it is an active part of wikiproject television, this is just a nice warning to people that the episode might be redirected, etc. if notability isn't established soon. The 14 days, that many people seem to have a problem with, is just a time until it might go to review, it's not a countdown to deletion like a prod, or even a countdown until the episode is automatically merged and redirected, it's just a countdown until the article is put into a category that allows easier access for article review. Therefore it should be kept. Phydend 16:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - pointless and prone to abuse. If you want to contest notability, there's other ways to do that already; this one just shifts the burden of explanation from the person contesting notability to everyone else. And as others have already pointed out, we don't set deadlines, anyway - period. -- Schneelocke 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. "Prone to abuse"- How? By people using the template too much? If your qualm is that episodes will be tagged indiscriminately, and I can only speculate as to what you meant, then you should realise that whether or not the tag is placed "indiscriminately", the episodes will have a fair review that everyone is welcome to particpate in. No article will ever be perfect so why would it make a difference if an episode that was alright, got reviewed? Deleting this template will not make this process stop. It will just make the process more difficult. I have an unfortunate feeling that for some, that is the reason that they would like to see this template deleted. Also it is not the responsibility of the person tagging an article for notability to find sources for notability (as with any tag). This way allows the editors familiar to the article, to make improvements to an article that they want to keep around. It's not a deadline. It is just notification that a review will take place in 14 days if notability cannot be established... Seraphim Whipp 19:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, last time I checked, verifiability states that the burden of evidence is with the person adding the information. So, if you create a page, the burden of proving notability lies with you, not with everyone else. I think what has been going on here is that people have been creating pages under the guise that someone else will come along and fix the page and establish notability. Sorry, that isn't how verifiability works, and that's a policy page. Also, there is not more likely a chance of someone abusing this template than there is of someone abusing the general notability template, or the plot template, or every other template. Secondly, there is no true deadline. The template may need to be reworded so that it doesn't sound like there is a deadline, but the 14 days is merely letting people know when they can expect the article to go up for review, that's it. It doesn't determine the outcome of the review in anyway shape or form.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT - A correction has been made to the template. The editors who devised the template forgot that there was a comment about "deletion" being a possible solution. We've removed that, as that is what an AfD is for, and we are not trying to delete anything. We also reworded the template to sound less like a deadline for action. The 14 days is only supposed to be friendly notice for when you can expect a review to commence on the article, it has nothing to do with what someone's actions as an editor are. The 2 weeks is beneficial to people who choose to review articles on a regular basis, as it limits the amount of articles that appear at one time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is non-useful. SchmuckyTheCat
  • LOL, non-useful to whom? Please explain, as that isn't a very clear argument for deletion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your assumption that not every episode is notable, but that isn't an argument for this page. I'm mentioning it because you're going to every single dissenting vote that doesn't agree with you to comment on it.

It is non-useful because it is a big giant ugly stain on every tv episode article that results in edit wars about the template [1], not the article, wasting editors productive time. It claims there is some "magic" process that automatically removes the template after a few days and then... does what? Does this magic process re-write the article? No, it probably goes to a discussion page where a small clique of users will delete it because their notability guideline, but not a more encompassing wikiwide consensus, says it is non-notable. It's an excuse for a small group of editors to say "LETS GO DELETE STUFF!" and then they do it because not enough people put it on their watchlist.

I provided that diff above, to show how useless this is not just as an excuse to edit war, but as an example of HOW IT WILL BE ABUSED. That diff is on the pilot episode of a TV show that has been on the air for 12 seasons. The pilot episode is inherently notable as it introduces the characters, sets up their surroundings and defines the tone of the show. SchmuckyTheCat

It goes to a discussion page that is linked on the template once it is being reviewed. And again, nothing is being deleted. It is being redirected per various guidelines and policies, which can be undone by everyone. A small clique of users? No, this guideline, review process and the template have resulted from discussion, which had consensus. A tag is placed on the parent article, which should be on watchlists, this point was even brought up in the discussion. Also, nothing is inherently notable. It is notable if it has reliable sources. If it does, it will be kept. If not, the review will probably decide to redirect it. Alcemáe T • C 22:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I went to WP:EPISODE. What a horrible guideline. I read the talk pages looking for discussion showing consensus. I didn't see any. I've raised the issue at the talk page.

And yes, major tv shows have reliable sources. An individual episode might not, but is still notable BECAUSE OF THE SHEER NUMBERS INVOLVED. However, many of them do, because of DVD commentary and books. Do you propose to merge all this content back into the TV show article. Good luck with that. SchmuckyTheCat

There is no need to call the guideline horrible. If you think it can be improved do so. Judging by your comment about notability here and consensus at the talk page, I think you might want to look at those particular guidelines and policies again. Notability means it has reliable sources about it, not that millions of people watched it. And thank you for your wishing of good luck. Alcemáe T • C 23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The "horrible" guideline is the result of consensus going as far back as 2004, based on wikipedia policy. I'm not going to go into it all here, but it is worth reading the explanation at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#Concensus?? if anyone has any doubts about consensus or policy. Gwinva 07:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think "it's ugly" is a real reason for deletion. If it wastes your time to "edit war" which you shouldn't be doing, then don't revert. I've seen edit wars get started over something as stupid as a particular word choice, at least this has more merit than that. I find it so funny that you keep saying "delete delete delete", when you obviously haven't read a single comment on here (except those that say "delete") nor have you actually read any of the TV guideline articles, because you'd notice that the review process is not about deleting anything. Secondly, we alert everyone that is necessary when it comes to those articles. What would be annoying would be if we put a notice up for EVERY article that gets reviewed on the WP:TV page, or Village Pump, or anything that isn't related just to that show. Why? Because there are far too many shows to continuously go "hey, there's another review, for the 100th time, going on..come join". We already notified everyone about the proposal for the review process. Sorry, ntohing is inherently notable. Why? Because of verifiability. You say "it's notable", I say "prove it with reliable sources". It may be notable to the fans of that show, but not to an encyclopedia UNLESS you can show it with reliable sources. Pilots generally are much easier to establish notability because they generally have lots of writing about them, by reliable sources. Episode 13 of Season 2 may be nothing more than a filler, and have nothing notable about it. You can't add information to Wikipedia without reliable sources. You cannot establish notability without information that supports it. Do the math: Notability is based on information that establishes its notability, and that information needs to be from a reliable source. If you can't accomplish it, then maybe you should worry about expanded the larger topic that episode falls under.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per TTN and Bignole above. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• What is WITH TTN (whoever he/she is) and Ned? By creating this template, they are limiting the rights of every editor here and giving inclusionists like myself a headache. (In my opinion) Two weeks, heck ANY limit at all, in unfair and VERY unreasonable. Wikipedians edit on their own time, whenever they wish. Forcing them to edit is just dumb. Angie Y. 20:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me like you have a problem with the guideline and the review process itself more than just the template. I encourage you to discuss your concerns here, here or here. At the risk of sounding repetitive: rights? Editors don't have the right to write an article that doesn't follow policy just because they think it should be an article. There is no deadline, but these articles can't exist in limbo forever. Two weeks is clearly sufficient to demonstrate potential for improvement. And again, saying that we edit on our own time is not an argument, as it does not change policy. I  ^{(said) (did)} 21:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Angie, the policy on verifiability is clear, the burden of providing reliable sources for your information is on the person that puts the information on the page. If you think an episode is notable, then you must prove that, and to do that you need reliable sources. If that isn't accomplished then it is subject to removal on the spot. Now, most people will tag a sentence with a "fact" tag and move on, but they are under no obligation to do that, nor provide the source for another editor. This template is simply giving editors a 14 day notice that the article does not establish its notability, and will be subject to review by anyone that joins the discussion in no earlier than 14 days. You don't have to do a single thing until the day it goes up for review if you like. The 14 days is simply to allow you the appropriate time to find some reliable sources to show that it can be done. These articles have had ample time to establish notability (I have personally seen many that are almost a year old), but have not done so. If you don't care for the process then take it up on the other pages. If you don't care for the editors then take it up on their talk pages. This template is merely a tool for a process that is currently going on, and will continue without the template. Would you rather we review the articles immediately, without forewarning? Would you rather we took TTN's actions and redirect/merge on sight, as they've had plenty of time to establish notability (since most are not 3 day old articles that are being scrutinized for almost 12 month old or more articles)? This template is extremely fair given the fact that these articles are not some "newborn" on Wikipedia that is merely being picked on, but articles that have been existence for awhile and still have not managed to established notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No! I'd rather not! I'm an inclusionist. Angie Y. 02:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Be whatever you want, that doesn't change the fact that you have to cite your information. This is an encyclopedia, is it not? There's enough uncited crap on here already. If you choose not to provide sources for you information, then please do not complain if it is removed. Regardless, that has nothing to do with this template. The template is a tool for providing notice to articles that have a problem. It isn't an action template. It doesn't dictate what will happen to the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Pointless. It would be better if it just said "this article fails to assert its notability, see the talk page for concerns" and then the editor who adds the banner starts a discussion on the talk page with specific concerns (no quick tagging). If nobody's around to respond to that then they're not going to be around for the "review" in 2 weeks. Any suggestion that this will work better than starting a discussion is merely based upon the fact it centralizes the discussion and moves it to people who might not be knowledgable about the TV show. The best thing to do is raise the concerns with the editors who know the episodes as they will know more about how to assert it's notability. Tagging it and then in 14 days having a review may get a good turnover of redirected articles and merges, but it's making it easy to avoid concensus and discussion also. 71.50.132.243 17:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. How is it making it easy to avoid consensus and discussion when the tag is placed on the article for all to see as well as a note being placed on the talk page? The concerns are raised at the review and the discussion takes place there too. There's no subterfuge going on here. It's simply a process to improve wikipedia which the template aids. Seraphim Whipp 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

see comment in reply to Bignole below 71.50.132.243 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Anonymous user, centralized discussions is where consensus works best. As Seraphim pointed out, we place "review" tags on the talk pages of parent episodes, and a new feature on the dated template above is to add "yes" to the "review" section of the template, which automatically changes the template to say that the article is under review. So in effect, you have the article in question with a tag that says it is under review, the article it will be merged to has a note on the talk page that says it will be under review, and a note on the main article page that says it will be under review. So, really, your argument that it will make it so people who know the show won't know about the review is moot, as even people who don't know about the individual episode articles, but know about the show get notified.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

All of these actions do not need a template. The "List of episodes" or main show article are a good place to hold a centralized discussion, and it's easy to simply put a comment on a talk page saying that it should be discussed and where a discussion should take place. This is pure beaurocracy and it's an overcomplicated way to start a discussion, something that takes place on wikipedia all the time. The time limit can cause problems because it's easy to be away from Wikipedia for a while, especially those who contribute to articles and are not more involved in the functions and such of it all. For example, going away for a month would cause the editor to not be notified of 14 days, not show up for the review and most likely miss it. Usually there are few, but dedicated and knowledgable editors who write articles on episodes, and those are the ones who should really be in the discussions. That is an important factor as a lot of articles grow differently. How long is the review process going to be open? Days? Weeks? This template is a pointlessly overcomplicated and beaurocratic way of opening a discussion, which forces a decision to be made possibly excluding editors. Nothing that's been said that this template is for doesn't exist already, and it's being done wrong 71.50.132.243 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why, if you go visit the review page you'll see that there is a comment that states if you do not agree with the consensus you may place the article back on the review page for further discussion. In other words, if someone was out when the article was redirected, they can simply request that it be opened up for discussion again. Simple as that, says so on the page. What's pointless is people discussing things that they could have found the answer to had the actually visited the pages themselves. The review process is open for 2 days, unless there is a lengthy discussion taking place then it stays open for as long as necessary. Reason being, the articles have had a 2 week notice of review already, and they've had their entire existence to establish notability, which means they have had plenty of time for action. An article may grow indifferently, but you still have to assert notability when you create it, or its is subject to deletion immediately. We aren't even trying to delete it. We don't care if the article becomes GA or FA (well, we do, but we aren't treating it like it has to). We only care that notability is established with reliable sources. There is nothing overly complicated about the template. It states the article doesn't assert notability with reliable sources. It states that the article will be placed in a category for review in 14 days (doesn't say a review will take place in 14 days, just that it goes into a category where it will be reviewed when time permits). That's it. A review tag is placed on all the appropriate places, so if anyone doesn't show up then they wouldn't have shown up regardless of whether the template was there or not. The problem with doing everything in each individual article is because there are thousands of articles that share the same problem. Then, even if you take care of it all on a LOE page, where does that leave you when someone comes calling to the WP:TV project and wants to know the history of what happened to better understand why notability needs to be asserted asap? Start linking to every LOE page one can think of? This project archives every discussion into a clear table to find articles. You don't have to run around looking for the discussion, you simply go into the archive (stated there that is is separated by show name) and find the show. Also, like I said before, there are a ton of these articles and it would become overly complicated to have to search for every discussion taking place. I don't personally want to keep track of every single LOE page, or individual episode page so that I can keep up with discussions. It's much easier to bring everybody to one generic page for discussion so you only have to save 1 page to keep up with the talk. You don't hold FAC discussions on the talk page of that article, because you want to solicite the opinions of more than just the people that edit that page. You want the opinions of people outside of that page. People know about this project, it was advertised on other community pages, like WP:TV. These articles have had long enough to establish notability, and they are only getting more time now. If you do it via individual LOE page, you'd spend forever going through them all. Considering how much time they have already had, the process you are suggesting is too long a process. Spend that time working in a sandbox to establish an article's notability and then un-redirect the page and put in the information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

None of the things you described actually need a tag. If an article cannot assert notability then go ahead and merge and redirect it. But if a discussion is desired then you can post a message on all the pages concerned saying there's a discussion going on. This template is not needed. The 16 day time limit is too short considering the way episode articles are created over time. 16 days is better suited for articles with many people who are knowledgable about the subject, but episode articles are often made by fewer people. Notability isn't decided by the WP:TV community but by the subject itself, so it is more important to involve the people who know the subject. So firstly, this template is not needed, it should be reworded as a guide to what the article needs to have to be notable so it will actually be of some use. Secondly the remove the time limit for a discussion to take place. be bold if the article does not assert notability enough and merge it somewhere, but this whole system is dancing around starting a discussion when it can be started as easily as posting a few messages on some talk pages. To summarize; If you want a discussion, start one, post messages etc. but you don't need a template to do that, and you shouldn't have a time limit. If you have real concerns that the article shouldn't exist then just redirect it. 71.50.132.243 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Obviously you haven't seen what happens when people are bold and do that. They wanted to be notified, and this template and review process were created to accomodate that. I  ^{(said) (did)} 19:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've read up on the history of this. The only issue I'd have with that is the multiple redirects in the space of such a short space of time. It looks like TTN might not have spent enough time on each article to consider all the info (beyond those that are just plot summaries). Apart from that, I'd support merging and redirecting problem articles per the policy WP:NOT. Also another thing seems to be that this activity has caused discussions to occur, so it shows another way that using a template to start a discussion is redundant when simply following policy brings it to people's attention. 71.50.132.243 19:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You must have missed that long AN/I that took place over an editor who was doing what you just suggested, redirecting articles on contact who do not establish notability. Sorry, but this process was a way to avoid lengthy AN/I, and to be fair to less experienced editors who might not understand why their article was redirected. 16 days (which it is more than that) is not too short. It's asking for established notability, not FA status. If you cannot establish notability then you shouldn't have created the article in the first place. The review process is a way to be fair to editors who don't understand the problem. We've had people who were not part of the initial discussion for consensus on creating a review page, who worked on some of those pages, and who agree that they should be merged. The template helps to categorize the articles for quick finds in reviews. The "two day" rule is generally for all those articles that have nothing but plot summaries or trivia sections with no reliable sources, and no clear potential of being notable. You should probably go read through the AN/I archives, because User:TTN has been listed there several times for the actions you are saying we should take. It was his actions that led to a discussion on how to handle these episodes. It was at that discussion that it was decided we should create a page where we can review them together without having to run around Wikipedia to find every discussing taking place on redirecting/merging problem articles. It was at that discussion that it was decided we needed a tool to help us organize and alert editors about when a review was going to take place so that they could try and find some reliable sources to establish notability (not necessarily work on all the articles, but at least show that it can be done if given a bit more time). The template's time limit is as much an alert to editors as it is an assistence to the review process, since it doesn't put articles into the review category until 14 days after tagging, this way we don't have a mass of hundreds of articles sitting in this category, with no clue as to what show they go to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the first time it was brought to people's attention, and nothing changed then. If you redirect on sight, people complain. If you try and establish a system, with time (which shouldn't be given in the first place, unless the article is brand new) for improvement, or at least awareness, people complain. The operative word in there is complain, because that's all anyone wants to do nowadays. No one wants to improve Wikipedia, they want to complain when their favorite article is moved. WThey want to complain when information that isn't cited is deleted. When someone comes along and creates a more refined way of dealing with the episodes, what happens? They decide if they can't beat that, they'll destroy it from within. The whole idea of this TfD was to try and remove a tool that was doing nothing but assisting in a process that is already long enough. Deleting the template won't change the review, so you're right that is isn't needed in that aspect. But the template itself is a functioning part of the review, as it helps to organize articles into a category for review at a later time. The words on it are meaningless in every way except that it says "please be prepared for a review of these article in about 2 weeks". It doesn't say what will happen, nor does it say you must do anything. The template itself is a compound template, where once the article is up for review it changes to notify people of the view process. You'll note the differences between what the template looks like that is linked above, and what it looks like Here. It serves a purpose. You may not agree with that purpose, or agree that it is a functioning purpose, but consensus on its development that it does. Read through the "delete" responses above yours. You are probably the only person that thinks it should be deleted merely because it doesn't have a purpose (your opinion), but still thinks that articles that do not establish notability should be redirected. Read the other "deletes", and you'll notice that everyone else want it deleted because they don't think these articles need to establish any form of notability. They want to keep all the articles just the way they are. Hence, if you don't like what people are doing you try and dismantle their means of operating. What's pointless is this TfD, as the template is in practice, and working just fine. Other than you, the only complaints are about the actions toward the articles themselves, not about the template.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You've basically just explained why this template and whole system doesn't need to exist. You said in a previous comment that it was brought in to satisfy people who complained and "do not understand". The policies have existed for a long time with consensus so there's backup when redirecting an article. I don't want to base my delete comment on the actual notability of the articles that are problematic, like whether they inherit it or not, but I want to base my comment on the template itself. A review can take place without it, a discussion is not always needed. If a discussion is to take place then it doesn't need a template on the article for that to happen. If an article doesn't have any secondary or out of universe sources then it doesn't assert notability. By having a system to bring people together to have a "review" to discuss the possibility of asserting notability, it makes it sound like showing it's notable is too difficult. There's another guideline already inplace for this as well, WP:NOTE. Everything you need already exists and this template, along with the process it's part of is redundant. If the article needs sources then add one of the many existing templates to the article. If the article lacks TV Episode type information then create a template that calls for that to be included. If the article can't assert notability, then redirect it. No large scale review process is needed, discussions can be started without a template like this on the article. 71.50.132.243 20:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The point of it is to discuss as much as possible. People have and will complain if they're somehow left out. I would just go for messages on the talk pages if it were possible, but there has to be little room for people to compliain about a lack of discussion, consensus, or anything like that. TTN 20:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's where the conflict comes in, the discussion gets closed not long after it's opened, so if some editors contributing to these episode articles are away for any period of time, They will have missed the discussion. As episode articles tend to be worked on by fewer editors then this is more likely to occur than more prominent articles. So if a discussion is opened, it should stay open until people involved get a chance to comment (unless they're away longterm). If, which I'm kinda suspecting but wont assume is the case, the discussion is being opened to get a consensus and justification to redirect it, basically just to hammer home why the article isn't notable, then this template and process is truely redundant. There needs to be a justification to keep the article, not redirect it. Redirecting is not a permanent process and the information is being recoverable. This process and template seems to be out to satisfy those who complain. 71.50.132.243 20:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right it is out to satisfy those that complain. Why? Because you can't please people on Wikipedia. Here is the problem. The majority of television episode do not assert any form of notability. Some are close, but lack reliable sources, and even less have fully attributed notability established (those that do are generally ones that are GA or FA status). You say "here is WP:NOTE" and they say "it's a guideline, so we don't have to follow it". You redirect per the guideline, you get undone and then they say "where's the consensus". Now the dilemma. It is far to costly to have an individual discussion on each episode article. There are way too many, most would end up getting lost in translation and just left. They're a problem on Wikipedia, so they can't just be left. Now, one could simply argue "well just hold the discussion on the LOE page". Yeah that's good enough, but all the editors for those articles probably are the ones that hang out at the LOE page, so it's a bit one-sided. There is a notice on WP:TV about reviews of articles, why, because people that hang out at WP:TV don't necessarily watch every television article on Wikipedia. There are people there that agree that most episodes shouldn't have their own article (that was how WP:EPISODE was established). It gets a little old if you constantly notify WP:TV, for outside opinions, on every single television show, or television episode going under review. That is one reason why we have it all at one place, so you can stop by any time and review some articles (kind of like an FAC, in that you can go to the general FAC page and review articles there). Here's the other problem with having discussions solely on those articles pages, without a template on the main page directing to a discussion. Any random editor that happens by will not know there is a discussion taking place unless they happen to go check the talk page. With the template up, there is a great possibility that editors passing through will see it, and either go find some attributle information for notability, or come join the discussion on how the article hasn't established notability and should be merged with a parent article. You can't do that without a template because then you are just hoping someone checks the talk page. So yes, the whole process is to calm some people who complain about the redirecting on sight principle. They want consensus on everything, well this process is their consensus. The best possible scenario is having the template up on the page, as anyone can find out there is a review going on. Remove the template, and blind the community to what is actually happening and shrink your own demographic when it comes to finding outside opinions on articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom and reasons stated above--Sugarcubez 01:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. These TV episode articles clearly aren't going anywhere, so why plonk a big ugly box at the top of every single one of 'em, unless to make a point? Nominate them for deletion, by all means, but bodging up a vague template and slapping it on any page that happens to annoy you is just disruptive. Flowerparty^☀ 02:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You do realize what your suggesting dont you? We AFD thousands of articles? AFD would be backlogged for weeks. Besides, even if we did that, people would still complain. With this review and such, there't time to demonstrate the ability to be improved. I  ^{(said) (did)} 02:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear the "it's ugly" argument again. The articles aren't tagged because they "annoy" editors; they are tagged because they lack notability and verifiability. Some articles have potential, so your argument of "These TV episode articles clearly aren't going anywhere" is a bit of a logical fallacy. Have you seen some of the GA and FA episode articles...? They're very good and if we can improve any episodes to those standards then this template and the review process have all succeeded in purpose, which is to improve wikipedia, either by removing articles which don't stand up to policies or by improving those which can become better. Seraphim Whipp 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Flowerparty, this whole "they aren't going anywhere" mentality is what started this problem. It's mindsets like that which have allowed countless articles to be created, unchecked, who never establish notability. This is one of the prime reasons Wikipedia is the laughing stock that it is, because we'll make anything an article. There is a reason we have notability guidelines. For people paying attention, no they aren't policy, but that's because policy is based on more strict ideas, whereas notability is different from subject to subject. You say the template is ugly, I say the articles are ugly. They're a big ugly smear on Wikipedia, because they're nothing but fannish information, which never establishes any form of notability. Sorry, but AfDs are reserved for special cases. There are far too many articles to AfD. What annoys me is the fact that you have allowed pages to be created without establishing notability. Yes, I'm singling you out because you, Flower, have felt the need to assume that we are merely a bunch of rogue editors that just don't like looking at bare pages. So I must do some assuming myself, and assume that you must work on some episode pages. Sorry, I could care less if a page is a stub. What I care about is the integrity of this encyclopedia, and the second we start turning ourselves into low rate TV.coms and IMDbs is the second when any ounce of respect for this place is utterly lost. The fact that you don't like the template is not relevant here. If you don't like it, then feel free to rewrite the notability guidelines. Better yet, rewrite the verifiability policy, that states one must provide reliable citations for anything that is challengable information. I find this idea of "inheritently notable" a big ass challenge.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tally: I know this is not strictly a voting thing but the discussion is getting quite lengthy, so I thought a tally might better show the direction we, as a community of editors are leaning. By my count, we have 1 (one) neutral, 1 (one) reword, 12 (twelve) keep, and 20 (twenty) delete. Ursasapien (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tallies are irrelevant, as "Keeps" could outnumber "Deletes" and an article can still be deleted. The same goes vice versa. Right now there is no clear consensus, because most of the deletes aren't even sharing the same reasoning, let alone is that reasoning even close to what the template is. I don't know how many "Delete because this isn't a prod" I saw.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Tallies are irrelevant" - well, in a way "yes" and in another way "no". I am quite aware that this is not a democratic voting process. This is a discussion to move toward consensus. Voting is just an imperfect measure of consensus. I do not want to end debate or rush this process. I want the helpfulness of this template fully explored. However, I have read line upon line of this discussion and much of it (to me) amounts to nothing more than a fillibuster. The same arguments repeated over and over. There also seems to be an active assumption that those who would like this template deleted simply do not understand it. There may be many valid reasons that editors may feel this template needs to be deleted. Many of the "keeps" do not share the same reasoning. We are all simply looking at different facets of this issue. Let's all assume that intelligent people can have well-reasoned disagreements. My sole purpose was to begin to summarize the discussion so far. My first step was a tally. Then I hope to come up with a "Summary for Delete", which will in turn encourage someone to post a "Summary for Keep". Ursasapien (talk) 06:57, 3 July 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. Wizardman 01:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:UC Riverside (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant to {{University of California, Riverside}} and unused.. --Dynaflow babble 23:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and borderline speedy. Looking through the contribs history, I noticed that the original author, Asiananimal (talk · contribs), nominated it for speedy, but another editor mistakenly removed the speedy tag. (Asiananimal didn't use {{db-author}}.) Aside from that, this template is clearly redundant, and {{University of California, Riverside}} is better looking and does a much better job. szyslak 11:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No need to keep this duplicate, un-used template. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:22, 30 June 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. Author request, and template had no content anyway. Thatcher131 18:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Please delete for I created this without any proper knowledge.. Dreamy 23:31, 24 June 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 21:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:S-pvc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant duplicate of Template:s-vac that produced the exact same results. It now redirects to s-vac and all instances of s-pvc have been removed from succession boxes. I propose that it should be deleted. Waltham, The Duke of 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete easier for editors to see only one name for one template to avoid confusion, as they are all three-letter abbreviations. –Pomte 21:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant and confusing. Alkari (?) 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above.
  –Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 05:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No need to keep this template if it has been superseded and is no longer used. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:20, 30 June 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 21:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:S-npr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant duplicate of Template:s-new that produced the exact same results. It now redirects to s-new and all instances of s-npr have been removed from succession boxes. I propose that it should be deleted. Waltham, The Duke of 22:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete easier for editors to see only one name for one template to avoid confusion, as they are all three-letter abbreviations. –Pomte 21:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant and confusing. Alkari (?) 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above.
  –Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 05:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No need to keep this template if it has been superseded and is no longer used. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:20, 30 June 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 Divisive, does not further the encyclopedia, someone making a POINT. Thatcher131 16:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Expert-subject2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Merely a duplicate of {{Expert-subject}}, but with a POV-ish "Several have already been chased away by this page's amateurs" rhetoric. Designed by editors unhappy with the consensus at cow tipping. — Whydoesthisexist 20:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and because neither of its editors saw fit to document it.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - First, Whydoesthisexist is just someone's sockpuppet, see Special:Contributions/Whydoesthisexist showing this nomination as his first contrib. Second, I don't know what Jeff G. is talking about, "document it". Second, I made it because it is 110% completely true for that article (and others besides). ---C.m.jones 23:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I had been editing under my IP, but had to create an account in order to properly list for deletion your other silly project: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cow-tipping Whydoesthisexist 02:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - C.m.jones has been blocked several times for ill-behavior at Cow tipping, and seems to have created this tag in revenge. Anyways, the tag seems to exist for no reason than to be used to lob attacks against the editors of any page it is added to. - Merzbow 00:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - that's not AGF. I created it because it is true. You can read about lots and lots and lots of experts who were once at WP who have experienced similar things, including having been blocked for trying to work some sense into articles. Here's just one of the latest examples among WP's vast and ongoing brain drain, from just three days ago: User_talk:ScienceApologist#Departing essay ---C.m.jones 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please point me to an "expert" of cow tipping. Whydoesthisexist 00:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, how many dozens or hundreds do you want? One, there is the fact that there are three types of "cow tipping," one that is particularly historically rich and the article could have lots of public domain images and for the other lots of free images. For the pop culture aspect, there's lots of books on cows, many that deal with the matter. That article could be seven times longer, easy. But never mind, have your little club, keep causing The Great Wikipedia Brain Drain. Your own actions prove what the template says. Here's another nice read for you: User:Raymond_arritt. ---C.m.jones 01:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• If it is that easy to expand this article, then just do it. Whydoesthisexist 02:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the relevant link, Jones. I particularly like Raymond's quote "This community's reluctance to rein in abusive editors leads me to ask what is the purpose of Wikipedia", which happens to be the first sentence on his page. If you want to judge this by the length of one's block log, I'm all game. - Merzbow 03:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Oh, honestly, we both know full well how that game is played. --C.m.jones 03:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I am convinced that Wikipedia needs a plan to recruit and retain experts and other serious citizen-editors. However, the snarky language of this template does nothing to further that goal.Proabivouac 03:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't really see any use for this template, even if it were not made specifically for a certain dispute. Wikipedia doesn't rely on experts: indeed, it's pretty hard to tell who's an expert here and who isn't. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It does not help to be critical of the current contributers, and is a copy of another template, with a POV twist. Alcemáe T • C 03:14, 25 June 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 keep. IronGargoyle 23:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}
The editprotected template above is actually for {{see}}.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made an editprotected on {{see}} recently; is that the edit you wanted? If not, please place the tag on the talk page of the affected template, with a detailed description of what needs to be done. --ais523 09:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was the edit I wanted, thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

We have waiting many months to know why this template has superseded {{see}}. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GunnarRene#RV_request_of_.7B.7Bfurther.7D.7D & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:See#Why, Gunnarrene has mentioned that the deprecation tagger is not responding, and is absent. I have asked posted on rfc and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Further#Horrible_Mess, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Further#Link, & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Further#Why_see_-.3E_further_information.3F all ask why is this template so much more complicated and harder to use, & why it even exists. Why do two templates exist when they should be performing the same function?199.126.28.20 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the principle of least astonishment. I've never liked this level of freedom in linking in navigational templates, because it seems to always lend itself to quirky constructs like these:

For further information, see the Wikipedia article about [[Jogging]].

Self-reference, creates problems for mirror or fork sites

For further information, see [[Religion in the United States#Belief in God|Belief in God in the United States]].

no such article, though it sounds halfway plausible to some readers

For further information, please [[Adobe Flash|Click Here]].

We aren't giving out free iPods and ring tones. Also useless in a paper copy.

— CharlotteWebb 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this is CharlotteWebb's vote, copied from the previous TfD debate. She has informed me that this IP is not her. There appears to be a bit of canvassing happening; I encourage editors to not vote because they were told to come here, but because of their own logic and reasoning. Gracenotes^T § 03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not very familiar with the quirks of using this template, but I read through the previous TfD debate, which ended in Keep on 19 May, and I'd like to know what has changed that makes the case stronger for deletion. Also I have not seen a response to all the technical difficulties that were mentioned if occurrences of {{further}} are to be mass-replaced with uses of {{see}}. If 'Further' is really undesirable, why not at least begin by deprecating 'Further', and not insist that it be immediately deleted. A small beginning would be to edit the 'Further' documentation so that it doesn't still say that it supersedes 'See.' Pomte's vote in the last TfD was to 'Keep all and undeprecate {{see}},' and that still appears a logical stopping point. EdJohnston 04:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - There is no reason to have two templates that output the same thing. The {{see}} template appears to be the superior one, so this should be converted to that. — Omegatron 04:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I really dislike both of them. Why can't {see} actually read "See: [foo]"? Why does it read "further information"? It's awkward. And yes, I was canvassed. Stevage 07:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is no superior template; they are each used in different circumstances. –Pomte 16:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I recognize the flexibility, and I think it's useful. DGG 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The nominating user 199.126.28.20 (talk · contribs) canvassed about nine user talk pages and claimed to be banned on the talk page of Hdt83 (talk · contribs) in this edit and this other edit, but did not provide the username of the banned account. In any case, on to the question at hand, which boils down to "why do we need both {{see}} and {{further}}?". First, some examples of how they work:

• Examples of {{see}} including some from {{see/doc}}:

Example with one parameter

{{see|Year Zero (alternate reality game)}}

Further information: Year Zero (alternate reality game)

Example with multiple parameters

{{see|Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda|Downing Street memo|Bush-Blair memo}}

Further information: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Downing Street memo, and Bush-Blair memo

Example of linking a category

{{see|:Category:Wikipedians}}

Further information: Category:Wikipedians

Counting example 1

{{see|1}}

Further information: 1

Counting example 2

{{see|1|2}}

Further information: 1 and 2

Counting example 3

{{see|1|2|3}}

Further information: 1, 2, and 3

Example using this anchor

{{see|Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:further}}

Further information: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:further

Example using this anchor with piping via the artificial {{!}}

{{see|Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:further|this anchor}}

Further information: this anchor

Broken example using the diff that started this page and the 1= hack

{{[[Template:the diff that started this page|the diff that started this page]]}}

Further information: [[the diff that started this page]]

• Multiple parameters do work the way you expect them to, with vertical bars. However, there are two spaces, rather than the proper one, after each and every comma (BROKEN CONFIGURATION). You don't have to use square brackets, they are provided for you. This is more of a beginner template. You may only use piping if you know about the artificial {{!}} or another similar hack. You may not use URLs. You may not get any separator more esoteric than a comma, a space, or the word "and". A fixed version of it follows in comments.

Would you agree then that templates like this should be included for {{mainarticle}}, {{seealso}}, & {{details}}?199.126.28.20 01:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Examples of {{further}} trying to achieve the same outcome as above:

Example with one parameter

{{further|Year Zero (alternate reality game)}}

Further information: Year Zero (alternate reality game)

Example with multiple parameters

{{further|Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Downing Street memo, and Bush-Blair memo}}

Further information: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Downing Street memo, and Bush-Blair memo

Example of linking a category

{{further|Category:Wikipedians}}

Further information: Category:Wikipedians

Counting example 1

{{further|1}}

Further information: 1

Counting example 2

{{further|1 and 2}}

Further information: 1 and 2

Counting example 3

{{further|1, 2, and 3}}

Further information: 1, 2, and 3

Example using this anchor

{{further|Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:further}}

Further information: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:further

Example using this anchor with piping via the artificial {{!}}

{{further|[[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:further{{!}}this anchor]]}} (sorry, had to use nowiki, this syntax broke {{tlx}})

Further information: this anchor

Example using the diff that started this page and the 1= hack

{{further|1=[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_24&oldid=140204570 the diff that started this page]}} (sorry, had to use nowiki, this syntax broke {{tlx}})

Further information: the diff that started this page

• Multiple parameters don't work the way you expect them to, you have to use commas instead of vertical bars because this template processes exactly one parameter. You have to use square brackets, they are not provided for you. This is more of an expert template. You have more flexibility with exactly how you want to present the information. You may use URLs, piping, etc. (anything that will fit in one parameter), including the artificial {{!}} and 1= hacks.

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased to announce the birth of a brand new baby sister for all of the templates discussed in this section. Her name is {{go}}. Please try her out. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work, but why have a template to display static contents of other templates? Why would someone use {{go|further}} instead of {{further}}? There's a shortcut for the way you did the #switches. –Pomte 21:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the props. Need I point out that this is a discussion of whether or not to delete {{further}}? Should this TfD result in "do not keep", replacement with {{go|further}} should be a simple process. Replacing {{further}} with {{see}} would break so many pages. Please elaborate on the shortcut (I tried to get uc or lc to work, but haven't been successful at that yet). Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:34, 27 June 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 deletion of both template and images. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 April 22. The result of the discussion was keep. I want it reconsidered for deletion because I do not think that Jimbo's express intent as expressed in our copyright policy was given enough respect by this template or by the participants in the original discussion.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not going to give my opinion either way but stuff like this should go to WP:DRV because you are questioning the reasons why people voted for delete. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV did not appear to cover this case (reviewing a keep). Perhaps it needs to.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I misspoke. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Have you had a chance to think about your opinion on this template?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Material from Saddam Hussein's government is very useful for understanding historical causes of the modern situation in Iraq. If we can legally use the material, we should. It's not like there's anyone in Iraq who could legally claim the rights anyway. I think we should take material covered by this exception down only if someone appears and claims the rights to it. -N 14:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with the previous consensus to keep, and, it claims here that "Works originating in one of these countries thus are not copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries." Although Jimbo also claims that we should respect their copyrights, but it basically says that we don't have to. It's nice to do it, but not necessary.  hmwith  talk 15:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You question Jimbo's dictatorship?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nooo, no, no, no! I'm am re-iterating what he said. I am agreeing with him. It would be nice to do it, but he says we don't have to, and that's correct.  hmwith  talk 15:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Our copyright policy clearly states "Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of these nations as best they can, the same as they do for other countries around the world." This template violates that policy by disrespecting the laws of the Iraqi people. Once Iraq joins the WTO, its copyright protections will probably be extended retroactively, and the WMF could immediately be sued for hosting any infringing works that use this template to justify remaining here and haven't been shown to meet our non-free content criteria. I don't want that to happen.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it says that we should but it also says that we don't have to, and that there's no laws against it ("Works originating in one of these countries thus are not copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries"). To me, it's like saying, "don't talk back to your mother". Yeah, it's not nice, but will you go to jail or break a law if you do? No. It doesn't personally matter to me whether or not it's deleted. I'm just going by what the policy says. The template should be kept, just reworded so as not to say they're in the "public domain". This isn't my opinion, but US law. hmwith  talk 13:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Commons. This content of this copyright tag was copied and pasted onto a commons image to give claim to the libre nature of the image. I nominated the image for deletion as the tag wasn't real, but just a C&P job and questioned the validity of the claim. The discussion continued along the lines of the unverifiability of the explicit copyright release and so forth. The image was deleted based on these arguments which, in my view, calls this specific licensing into question--and therefore until explicitly proven, should not be used. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Commons deleted it because Commons doesn't follow the quirks in United States law (except for images with provenance in the United States). The English Wikipedia does follow the quirks of American law. -N 18:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Not really true. The Wikimedia Foundation is indeed subject to the laws of the USA and the State of Florida. However, regardless of what language Wikipedia is subject only to the contractual relationship editors engage in with the Foundation called the GFDL. Yet, ultimately, this is irrelevant, the issue here is if we choose to ignore copyrights of countries the USA doesn't have reciprocal agreements with or if we do not. And it is this choice that we make as a community, not law, that matters.--Cerejota 06:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Jimbo, we are expected to respect the laws of other countries even in the absense of a reciprocal copyright agreement in the US (and I have no doubt there will be one eventually). Please also note, works published in non-RCC countries are legally considered "unpublished" in the US, not public domain. Signing an RCC would lead to retroactive protection of everything still under copyright in Iraq and prohibit any further use of such materials. IF something is out of copyright in Iraq, I would be prepared to consider using it here, but the tag never explains why one should assume that "All photographs released by the Iraqi state and Ba'ath party organs before 2003 invasion that are without a clear copyright notice are assumed to be in the public domain". I would assume that the new government inherited any copyrights held by the old. Altogether I find it dubious and not generally in keeping with what Wikipedia hopes to accomplish. Dragons flight 18:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Question: The template states: "All photographs released by the Iraqi state and Ba'ath party organs before 2003 invasion...". What WP:RS are/would there be for such images? 8/9 of the images tagged are either specifically listed on their sources as being copyrighted, or have unverifiable sources at this time. Given the images tagged at this time, are there any specific sources w/in the Iraqi state and/or the Ba'ath party pre-2003 available to us for licensing verification? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

172 could pipe up with more specific sourcing for its uploads, and most of the images could be shown to meet our non-free content criteria.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Per Jimbo. (To satisfy the iconoclasts!)

I have had this discussion before, and it is always the same argument from the copyvio advocates: that we should respect copyright unless it is from some country we do not agree with the government, then copyvio is A-OK.

That is complete bantha pudu.

If the GFDL nature of wikipedia is to hold to a challenge, the community must show a complete respect for the principle of legal copyright, above and beyond de facto enforceability. Period. The geo-centric bias on respecting copyright only when there is a reciprocal relationship with the USA is a violation of WP:5P, specifically WP:NPOV and WP:COPY.

Now, this doesn't get into the contents of the template itself, which are complete and utter WP:OR, and a transparent attempt to create policy without discussion.

To my knowledge, when the CPA dissolved the RCC, it didn't remove all the RCC laws, only the constitution and some specific laws. Saddam Hussien was tried and hanged under laws that pre-date the RCC, for example. So the logic that the copyright laws in Iraq created by the RCC are no longer valid needs to be substantiated. To my knowledge neither the CPA nor the current Republic of Iraq have modified copyright law from the RCC period.

Perhaps ArbCom needs to rule on what the policy for wikipedia regarding copyright under regime transitions, and of non-reciprocal copyright enforcement. This free-for-all has to stop.--Cerejota 19:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Changed opinion because, having studied the arguments, I agree that sourcing problems, possible third party copyrights (PBS claims a copyright on one of them!), and current policy that actually says Iraqi copyrights must be respected, I can see no place for a template like this. Possibly the policy might be revisited, but until then, this template and any images that cannot remain otherwise should not be here. -N 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. We're here to build a free encyclopedia with free images, not the "almost free encyclopedia with lots of images that we just use because nobody complains about it". Lupo 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We observe North Korean and Iranian copyrights, and I see no reason not to extand that to Iraqi copyrights. --Carnildo 00:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Lupo's statement pretty much sums up my opinion. --Iamunknown 02:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Lupo. Cumulus Clouds 05:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• I obviously think it should be deleted since I tried to have it deleted already, and for the same reasons I stated then. It is dubious to say that all copyrights are void in all countries (instead of just the US) and it is even more confusing now. Any of these images that are actually needed can likely be used under fair use. Those that wished to rewrite this template should do it themselves and certainly not under a title that involves OldRegime (that is to say, make a template for works that were out of copyright, have not been ressurected by the new copyright laws written for Iraq or any international treaty, etc), but to keep a template with clearly dubious assertations until such a time as someone can spend significant effort to get to the bottom of this is foolish. (BTW, what is up with the sudden interest in this now? Nearly no one cared before and I couldn't be around to argue the case and 5 other people show up...) Kotepho 08:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The triggers were this edit and the three which followed.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, I dare to question Jimbo's dictatorship. In this case I disagree with him. Although copyright policy is not my area of specialism, it seems to me that this revolves around the idea of optional application of copyright law which is not enforceable in the United States. Thus, we're under no legal obligation to respect this copyright, and my philosophy is that if we can (potentially) improve the encyclopedia by ignoring a law that we don't have to follow, then that's a good idea. Walton^talk 17:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:COPY. Feel free to raise your argument there. I completely and utterly disagre with the view that we must be amoral, unethical morons that are limited solely by the law of the land rather than a sense of common decency. Like Lupo above, and unlike apparently yourself, I don't want to build an "almost free encyclopedia with lots of images that we just use because nobody complains about it"--Cerejota 06:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The relevant section of WP:COPY reads According to Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office...Iraq, Nepal, San Marino, and possibly Yemen have no copyright relations whatsoever with the U.S....Works originating in one of these countries thus are not copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries...Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of these nations as best they can, the same as they do for other countries around the world. (emphasis added) As such, the policy page does not explicitly say that it is policy to respect the copyright laws of such countries; it just says that Jimbo recommended they should be respected. I disagree with Jimbo on this, because the most important thing is using whatever content we (legally) can to build the best possible encyclopedia. And if you're going to bring "ethics" into it (which is hardly an NPOV way of approaching this), then I see nothing "amoral" about ignoring the copyright claims of one of the most vicious dictatorial regimes in history. Not that I generally bring my political stance into policy discussions, but I'm not the one who's trying to make this into a debate about what's "unethical". Walton^talk 10:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have a real problem with "because Jimbo said so". Honestly, I don't think he wants that. He didn't express his opinion here. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And I have a real problem with people who ignore whatever comments others made to concentrate on irrelevant iconoclasm. In this specific question I agree with Jimbo's opinion, which was given in the context of one of the first debates around respecting the non-free nature of content from countries other than the USA and outside of reciprocal treaties with the USA. To humor you, I have stricken my "Per Jimbo". Perhaps now you can concentrate on the matter at hand.--Cerejota 06:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a right to give a comment and not say delete or keep. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Hurray for dictatorship. :) More importantly, I agree that it should be deleted per Dragon's flight e.a. Garion96 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I see a lot of arguments that boil down to "we don't have to respect RCC copyrights, so we won't". Well, even if we don't have to, it's still the right thing to do. szyslak 11:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats pretty much it! --Cerejota 06:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is the right thing to do, to delete this template so that we can better respect the copyrights of those nations with which the US does not have reciprocal copyright arrangments.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Regardless of "optional" copyright status, this does not appear to be the right thing to do. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:17, 30 June 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.