Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< May 21	May 23 >

1 May 22

[edit] May 22

[edit] Template:09F9-notice

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, with no prejudice against renomination when unused. Consensus is against deletion now, but there was considerable support for deletion in a month or so. -Amarkov moo! 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

not helpful, not NPOV and creator of the template wanted it to be destroyed when the keyspam mess is over. it is. — Kirils 22:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP - I disagree. I think that it is very helpful, helps direct discussion, serves new editors with an introduction to both a good essay on why keyspam is wrong, and to what are the major policies regarding editing in Wikipedia -furthermore helps automate the categorization of possible hot-spot and tagrets for keyspam for quick response. All of this will be helpful when and if a new wave of Keyspam arrives.

The original author's intention matters very little in any case, it is what the community decides that matters, no one owns content in wikipedia, as you surely know. I am editing the comment out.

As to the neutrality, this is the first time I have heard about this, perhaps some elaboration on the template's talk page might be in order, as I would offer it is bad form to decry something in violation of NPOV and not try to discuss it with your fellow editors so it can be fixed. --Cerejota 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor clarification from "the creator of the template": I never "wanted it to be destroyed". That note was added by User:Gracenotes in this edit. Regardless, Cerejota is correct in saying that it really doesn't matter what the creator wanted (or at least their opinion matters no more than anyone else's). --LEKI (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Cerejota. One 00:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete within a few weeks once the issue has died down a bit more. Since the key already posted in the first section of AACS encryption key controversy I don't think many more people will feel the need to spam it across multiple articles. --Android Mouse 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep for now. If the situation remains stable for a few more months, it can be deleted. --- RockMFR 01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Android's given reasons for deletion; another TFD can be opened up at that time. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 03:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep for now. Wait until it has not been used in mainspace or talkspace pages for at least a month. I don't think it's currently being used in mainspace, but it is still used in Talk: space. After all Talk: space uses are gone, wait a month then bring it up for deletion. In the meantime, consider removing Talk: space usage where it's no longer warranted. davidwr ^09f9(talk) 04:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The template is simply not helpful as it does not represent the current situation anymore. " Currently, there is no automatic blocking of the key number, however this might change if the Wikimedia Foundation issues a legal finding. All inclusion or exclusion of the number is as of now moderated solely by the participation of the Wikipedia editors." it says. Automatic blocking?!? Get real. Kirils 07:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually for a time the key was in Wikipedia's spam filter. Pages containing the key could not be saved (easily). -N 18:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... since it isn't going to be a widely-used template, why not just subst it on the 3 or 4 pages where it exists, and delete the template? Clearly people agree with the content, but why the need for a template? Subst and delete, please. --Ali'i 12:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the edit history, it has changed significantly overtime. When it was created it was meant to be added to spam-targeted articles (an expanding number at the time) and was intended to facilitate rapid updating across articles as the legal situation changed. Perhaps you are correct in that, with the current stability, the need for a template has passed. --LEKI (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep or substitute per Ali'i, it is good to have it on the article in question, however substituting it there may be good. GDonato (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep for now. There's still some fall-out from this controversy, as many people who don't get their news from Digg or typical sources can hear about issues like this weeks after the blowup, and still feel passionately about it. In this case, the legal status of the number is still unresolved as it hasn't been tested in court, so there's the potential for further developments (if a court case is brought which finds someone who posted the key liable, I predict to see another wave of keyspam). With this in mind, don't substitute as the template could be used to reflect such developments. --DrLeebot ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree a "subst" wouldn't be a good idea: my whole keep was intended to guarantee a quick response on the next keyspam. As to it being in only 4 or 5 pages, I think it should be in more pages, because Keyspam was an issue in many other pages. Probably this lack of posting is due to lack of community knowledge than for any opposition to it being in the talk page. I think Digital rights management and a few other might warrant it.--Cerejota 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete and revise - I don't think this is POV (indeed it never expresses an opinion at all outside of accepted guidelines at Wikipedia), but I do think it's a bit specific. If something like this ever comes along again, it might help to have a more general template to stick up there. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 25.05.07 0528 (UTC)
- Interesting comment, worth a shot discussing. In what way is it too specific?--Cerejota 08:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm guessing in that it only applies to this particular case, and that we should instead have a more general template which applies to any case where people get the urge to spam something all over Wikipedia. While this might be nice if we have it, I'd say let's not trash this one until we do. --DrLeebot ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I made a generic version of it at User:Davidwr/spamstringtemplate. Let's discuss it on its talk page, User_talk:Davidwr/spamstringtemplate.
  - Comment:I actually like the idea and proposed implementation a lot... On the tech side, this template also auto-adds the talk page to a relevant category, so how can we automate that in a generic template?--Cerejota 05:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I admit I don't understand its purpose, but this is the most awfullest and emotional looking thing I have ever seen here. At a minimum rewrite it so that it actually says something ~~encyclopedic~~ more professional looking. Blockinblox 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This tag is meant for talk pages and is meant to be instructive to editors who may not be aware of the controversy. This tag should never be used on main encyclopedia pages.
Comment It's been 5 days. About 2/3 of those with an opinion say KEEP at least for now. I recommend debate be closed until all pages using it stop, the controversy dies down and it's safe to subst the remaining pages, or until is is merged into an alternative like this [[draft on my user page. Further discussion should probably happen on the template talk page. I expect this page will be gone by Labor Day. Now is not the time to delete it. davidwr (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep for now still too premature for a deletion. -Pilotguy hold short 13:10, 28 May 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.

[edit] Template:Possible future single

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Found while patrolling Canidates For Speedy Deletion. The given reason was: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is not a valid speedy criteria. Please note this is a procedural nom and that I am neutral.. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete; WP:NOt is not a speedy criteria, but it does fair WP:NOT criteria. Also, I don't see much use for this template, and it is very speculative. Evilclown93 23:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep WP:CRYSTAL ("should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.") allows for this type of future media inclusion, as for example movies, books, and other such media that have relatively long production cycles, and as such can become notable before the actual media is available for the wider public. This template serves a niche purpose, but one that already exists and begs for a template. See for example Template:future album, Template:future book and Template:future film--Cerejota 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As per Pomte. I didn't know {{Future single}} existed. Template:Possible future single (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) in opposition to it can only be construed as WP:CRYSTAL. Hey, a good argument is a good argument...:P --Cerejota 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - a single being released is easily verifiable ahead of its release date. -Halo 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note the difference between this template and {{Future single}}. –Pomte 07:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This is for celebrities who possibly intend to get a divorce soon, no? Well, no, but the naming is positively awkward. >Radiant< 07:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Any article about a single that does not violate WP:CRYSTAL (including the 2 articles this template is used on) could just use {{future single}}. The only way this template might be used is if a record company or artist announces that they might produce a single but have no actual plans to do so. If plans exist, then future single is the template to use. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Pomte brings up a good point about {{Future single}}. If there are verifiable sources about the album, we can say that it is expected. If it is not likely that the album will come out, then there is no need to have a such a tag. Gracenotes^T § 02:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOChidden

The result of the debate was Keep. -Amarkov moo! 00:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this template is extremely bad form by forcing people to have a closed table of contents by default and is forcing certain individual user's preference on a group of people.

There are claims it's fixing an aesthetic issue, but I disagree - each "Table of Contents" already has a "hide" button on it if you want it removed (or you can click to the first link), MediaWiki remembers your preference for an open or closed ToC anyway, the majority of articles with long tables of contents don't use the template, and I can't see consensus forming to change that and people's opinions over the appropriateness of the template could lead to edit wars, and it's making Wikipedia stylistically inconsistent which to me renders any discussions over aesthetic moot. Whatsmore, there doesn't seem to be a way to default all your table of contents to open as default.

I also think it's being misused on some of the few articles it is used on, notably Paris and Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which have massive infoboxes to the right which mean that much of the white space is used anyhow, and International Union of Students where the article is just too short to make it appropriate.

I think it's just a dirty hack that fixes a problem that isn't there in the first place. —Halo 17:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep in the examples you cite it looks fine to me. If you dispute its use on a certain article bring it up on the talk page. -N 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how they are an advantage over the default "Contents" page. Besides the fact it "does no harm" (aside from change the aesthetic to be different from 1.7 million other articles), it has /no advantage/ for /any/ reader and for the one suggested /proposed advantage/ it does more harm than good. -Halo 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep, doesn't seem to be causing any problems, and like User:Nardman1 (N) said, if it causes a problem, just talk about it on the article's talk page. *Cremepuff 222* 21:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I explained why "it's causing problems" above. It's making Wikipedia inconsistent and there is no advantaged gained from using this template over the users own preferences. There is /no correct use/ for this template, therefore it is redundant and should be deleted. -Halo 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep per above. One 23:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per above. --T_{Talk to me} 00:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep In any case, the open TOC is being forced upon us as a default! As editors, we should be able to reach consensus to have the TOC hidden as a default for a given article. This template gives us the ability to do so. Of course, if the consensus is otherwise, we can always use the default TOC --Cerejota 00:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's on by default to help new users navigate, something which, if you disagree with, can be fixed with one click. However, I want all my Table of Contents to be permanently visible /like every other page on Wikipedia/. Please tell me how to do that with this template - I can show you how to hide all contents boxes, by clicking the "hide" button on any contents page, something which will work for the other 1,796,687 articles on Wikipedia that don't use this template. -Halo 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As I stated, we need the ability, as editors, to reach a consensus if we want the TOC open or closed. By TfDing you are basically trying to skip consensus-seeking in each article and force upon us a "default" behavior not subject to community control. A bureaucratic solution to community issue. I do think that it might be possible to add a script that allows for a user default: requesting it or writing it would have been more productive than this TfD. Now you have probably closed the door -or at least delayed- that possibility by jumping the gun to a TfD... --Cerejota 04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - until a better solution is found. I also have reservations with the "TOC hidden" method, but less than with the existing extemely unwieldly, cumbersome and 'imposed by default' TOC template. An optimal solution would be to create a "TOC top-level contents only" - would this be possible? Since we can't tweak the php, it will have to be an "after-apparition" javascript... I'll try to find the time to look into it. In the meantime, the "TOC hidden" template is practical for the overly-long articles it is in and it should stay until we can a) somehow modify the existing TOC to lessen its disruption of long articles or b) find a better TOC solution than the abovementioned template. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Update. - There is a solution. Buried deep, but found it. please see template:TOClimit. THEPROMENADER 08:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
As with the last TfD, there will likely not be any consensus to delete the template any time soon. –Pomte 07:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Denying its use everywhere because it can sometimes be misused is grossly inappropriate. The use of the template can be discussed, mediated, or arbitrated where it is controversial. Does anyone have a legitimate beef with its use on a standard user page or user-talk page? —SlamDiego 11:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep – per the Promenader's comments - I do not think that a template such as this be deleted. –Se bi ~ 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep I believe that there are some articles which the TOC is best collapsed. Yet this still provides the people who are in a hurry to expand the TOC and flip to the desired section. Also, we need to think of other people without accounts—the casual encyclopedia readers greatly outnumber users. As they are anons, they can't just go into preferences, change their own monobook.css, or their own monobook.js and change the TOC setting like we can. If this only concerns specific articles, bring it up on the article's talk page, but not on a TFD like this. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4} 20:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete This is a completely pointless template, the ToC already has a hide button which anyone (yes, even the anon users) can click (the setting is even remembered!), and there is absolutely no valid reason for hiding it by default. Those visiting the article for the first time will have the ToC available to immediately jump to the section they were interested in, or at the minimum a handy bullet-point summary of the article, and for all subsequent visits if they choose to hide it it will remain hidden until they choose to unhide it. ---- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again, if you have a problem with this template being on pages, discuss it on the talk page rather than a TFD. Every person is different—they may want the TOC collapsed on one specific page and have it open on a totally different page. Regardless, if you are so concerned about this, talk it up on talk pages, not here. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4} 21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: At best, that would be an argument for banning the template on main•space pages, not for deleting the thing from all of Wikipedia. And a generalization based upon your intuition does not adequately address those who assert that specific articles are or would be improved by use of this template. —SlamDiego 03:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  - That's why there's article talk pages to discuss these types of things. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4} 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Well, that somewhat begs the question. The deletionists are claiming that those who would sometimes use the template are never right; if this could somehow be shown to be true, then discussion on the talk pages of individual articles would at best be redundant. —SlamDiego 12:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      - This type of logic is dangerous and has been used before by WP:POINT violators to constantly AfD articles they think should not even exist, disrupting the editing of pages that have community consensus to exist. The XfD shouldn't be a tool for the avoidance of redundancy in editing disputes, but a tool to keep wikipedia tidy. The arguments for deletion all are about editing disputes and belong in the talk page of the template, and the discussion on use of the template is for each individual page, redundancy or no redundancy.--Cerejota 05:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        Okay, but you need to make that point exactly where relevant. I'm opposed to deletion here, but I'm even more opposed to being logically careless. Regardless of whether the pattern of argument is “dangerous”, we don't want to beg any questions. —SlamDiego 06:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        I don't think there is any question being begged, because there is nothing wrong with redundancy in discussion. Am going all wikilawyer on your ass: I think you miss the point; XfD are the method we have to delete things in an orderly manner, but its use should be based on clearly established criteria. None of the arguments put forward fall on this criteria, because this template doesn't fit any of them. "Deletionists" are trying to skip the consensus-seeking in the individual pages by trying to get rid of the template altogether. There, you made me do it! :P--Cerejota 08:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        Arguing that a template should be preserved because its use should be debated on an article-by-article basis exactly begs the question, which is of whether its use should be debated on an article-by-article basis. An otherwise invalid argument isn't validated by being leveled against an erroneous position. I'm not claiming that the deletionists arguments are or even might be valid, let alone correct; I noted the invalidity of one argument directed against them. Everything that you've been throwing at me has been irrelevant to what I've said; you are the person who has missed the point, repeatedly. —SlamDiego 11:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep no policy reason to delete. Don't like it, don't use it. Use the talk page. -- Y not? 05:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per Halo. No need to complicate things. ikh (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - just use {{TOClimit}} for these sorts of things. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- What if you don't want any TOC showing by default? {{TOClimit}} only handles subheadings, which is completely different from the function of {{TOChidden}}. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4} 15:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  - If you don't want any TOC showing by default, use __NOTOC__. There's no point in hiding the table of contents by default; it is, and should remain, a user preference. The only possible legitimate use I can conceive is for long TOCs, which can be handled by TOClimit properly. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    - But what if we don't want the NOTOC on there and make it possible for the TOC to be somewhat shown? As I've said previously, somebody may want to have it hidden on one page and have it open on another. {{TOClimit}} only handles subheadings; what if the TOC was extremely long and only had second-level headings? V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4} 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - one of the most useful templates there is - for userpages, disambig and other circumstances. If we deleted everything that can be abused or even is sometimes abused we'd delete every template and policy. That argument has no merit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - You claim you're eliminating "forcing certain individual user's preference on a group of people"; but in reality that's EXACTLY what deleting this template will do. Forcing users to endure an open ToC (especially a long, seemingly pointless one) every time is horrendous aesthetics; clicking the "hide" link won't change that. The choice is best left to the editors of the individual articles. --RBBrittain 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - actually it *will* change that; believe it or not the setting is remembered, so the ToC will be hidden the next time you view the article if you clicked the hide link. The entire argument over this template boils down to editor preference vs. user preference. Use of this template is an editor decision that, regardless of a consensus between editors, will affect all users regardless of their preferences. For this reason I cannot support this template. ---- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} 21:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  - However, if you hide the TOC on one article, it will hide it on the next article you view. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4} 00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Toksyuryel, you're not addressing RBBrittain's point. We can “force” users to start with a hidden ToC, or we can “force” users to start with an open ToC; but, either way, they will be “forced” to start with something; and, either way, they'll be able to change that something with just one click. —SlamDiego 06:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per above. //Tecmobowl 04:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section specific maintenance templates

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

The result of the debate was speedy closure. If such a setup is adopted, these will simply become redirects, not be deleted. No advance discussion is required, though you're welcome to seek approval on the individual talk pages (where editors would be most likely to spot any potential problems). Otherwise, just go ahead and perform the desired mergers (and wait to see if anyone objects or reverts, in which case you can discuss the matter). I'll assist you with the "or section" edits to any protected templates. —David Levy 17:19/17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

These can all easily be replaced by changing the "whole article" versions of these to read: This article or section..., or simply, This... as most maintenance templates already do, including some of the "whole article" versions of these. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox rocket family

The result of the debate was delete. Yannismarou 17:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not in use, and provides a very limited set of options, {{Infobox rocket}} seems to be used for almost all its usecases atm. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, this template is redundant to the more thorough {{Infobox rocket}} template. *Cremepuff 222* 21:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Cremepuff222. Evilclown93 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 03:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Redundat to {{Infobox rocket}} —dima /talk/ 01:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Canada Squad 2000 CONCACAF Gold Cup Champions

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(~~five~~six more; no !votes yet, so it should be ok)Neier 14:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete all - The current prevailing concensus is that World Cup national teams should have templates. Not every confederation tournament, or under-17/21 tournament. Neier 13:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete all regional games, friendly games and youth football. Matthew_hk t c 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per unusually thorough discussion. Punkmorten 15:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete all, unnecesary templates, only notable tournaments need templates. *Cremepuff 222* 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep... how is the Gold Cup not a notable tournament? How about the African Cup? If it were the UEFA championship, people wouldn't be having this discussion. For the nations above, these tournaments are very notable and helpful for Encyclopedia users. It makes no sense to make the encyclopedia LESS user-friendly.Tedzsee 03:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

See {{Czech Republic Squad 2004 European Football Championship}}, {{Greece Squad 1980 European Championship}}, etc. which ARE for the UEFA championship. There is no bias here. Neier 04:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep {{Ghana Squad 1978 African Cup}} This is the template for the 1978 African Cup winning squad. If this is not an important enough squad, you may as well not have any templates at all for any African national teams.--Natsubee 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- The Foootball project has a very [[strong concensus that the individual conferderation tournaments do not require templates on player articles. Linking to the roster page is sufficient, and can provide even more details. This is equal amongst UEFA, CAF, CONCACAF, and all the others. Neier 22:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep {{Ghana Squad 1982 African Cup}} This is the template for the 1982 African Cup winning squad. This is the squad that won the cup for the fourth time for Ghana, at the time an African record.--Natsubee 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mention it on Ghana and the individual players' pages. It does not warrant a template. Punkmorten 08:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note, by the way, that Natsubee says "keep" twice here. Punkmorten 09:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I consider Natsubee's two comments to be for just two of the nominated articles. Also, Matthew_hk voted twice as well. Neier 11:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete all the function were clearly dicussed as unworth for a template. Matthew_hk t c 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete all reasons have been discussed before. Martin tamb 07:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:POV-cruft

The result of the debate was delete. Yannismarou 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a completely unnecessary template. We already have plenty of POV templates that should be used in its place, including the basic Template:POV as well as any of the NPOV/disputed tags. This template is extremely unwieldy, overly specific and just plain unnecessary. — Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as unnecessary and possibly inflammatory - we already have plenty (too many, some might say) tags of this nature that one can use to tag articles. Orderinchaos 09:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hyper-specific and an unwieldy way to say: This article may present an unbalanced point of view. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, redundant to Template:POV. *Cremepuff 222* 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. One 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above heqs 10:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete No need for it. Dave101→talk 21:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete, because the bot has replaced it by the template that superseded it. >Radiant< 08:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Afc moretodo

Delete, replace pages transcluding this with the new. Superceded by {{Afc n}}, which should automatically be placed on new archive pages, and manually changed to {{Afc c}} — ALTON .ıl 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm having trouble figuring out where this was decided. I trust it was and then it can be deleted, but can you please show the discusiion ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If this is deleted, please let me know. I'm running a bot to remove article categories from all the old AFC archive pages - I'm up to about April 2006 now. It also converts most templates to links, using {{tlx}}, to remove categories added by templates and subst's the AFC templates that are supposed to be subst'd (as well as {{unsigned}}). I could easily have it replace Afc moretodo with Afc n with one minor change to the settings. Or is moretodo deprecated and already should be changed? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nocss

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 20:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Heavily deprecated, frowned upon, and not used. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete hiddenstructure, which it depends upon, was deprecated in favour of ParserFunctions late last year which does the job far better. I can't see what use this template has, and it's not transcluded anywhere, anyway. Orderinchaos 09:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Orderinchaos. Uses hiddenstructure. One 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - There appears to be no reason to retain this artifact of something Considered Harmful. Gracenotes^T § 02:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete this does not serve as anything useful to us. In fact, all it does is hide text, which is unnecessary. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4} 02:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Orderinchaos. —dima /talk/ 01:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Drake & Josh episode

The result of the debate was delete. CMummert · talk 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Series specific version of {{Infobox Television episode}}. All uses have been replaced, time to delete. Jay32183 03:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-transcluded fork per nom. Orderinchaos 09:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom - 52 Pickup 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete infobox not needed; such forks pop up often, and there is litte harm in merging them. Gracenotes^T § 02:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —dima /talk/ 01:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the debate was redirect. >Radiant< 08:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fct

Unneeded duplicate of {{fact}}. The meaning is not apparent to readers, so it will only serve to confuse them. — Picaroon (Talk) 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to {{fact}}. --Sigma 7 00:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to {{fact}}. – Riana_ऋ 04:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to {{fact}}. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 04:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to {{fact}}, redundant. Hewinsj 05:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Already used on pages that were flooded with so many ^{[citation needed]}s it was a distraction, ^{[citation needed]} is for pages with a lot of occurrences of ^{[citation needed]} only.84.68.10.42 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect. In this case, being a distraction is good. Despite our general disclaimer, our readers find it far too easy to read uncited material on Wikipedia and treat it as absolute fact. —Cryptic 11:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect. These templates mostly exist for readers, not for frequent editors. The abbreviation is not clear. --- RockMFR 21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC) That is why its only to be used along side {{fact}} and why it has a tooltipAjuk 15:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect and add an option on the Fact template for the user to add either small or large "Citation needed" tags with the larger "Ciation Needed" tag as the default setting and users would have to type in {{fact|s}} to get the smaller "CN" tag. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - This template is VERY handy for using on pages with excessive amounts of unsourced statements. Look at this page, for example. If the lead section would be full of "citation needed" templates, it would almost be unreadable. The reader is still aware about the fact that the information is challenged, due to the sources-template at the top, and the ^[CN]s in the text. This makes it much easier to tag every single little statement that must be sourced in a largely unsourced article or section, without making a text unreadable, and thus contributes to the reliability of the encyclopaedia as a whole. Salaskan 23:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep -- the full-length tag, if used multiple times in a single paragraph, becomes very obtrusive. This shorter tag is essential for marking additional statements and for clarifiing that there are several distinct unsourced statements within a single paragraph or section. --Xiaphias 14:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - May only be confusing if miss used. Ajuk 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I am kind of neutral here--the shorter version definitely helps in making unsourced, but otherwise readable articles, unreadable. But at the same time, the longer version can be used to highlight a glaring fact that is unsupported. gnusbiz 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Amarkov moo! 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing administrator, please note that three of the non-anon keep voters - and I use the term deliberately - were canvassed by the fourth. —Cryptic 08:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kremlin.ru

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Was deleted on the Wikimedia Commons for it being a unfree license template. It is a bad idea to have Wikipedians using a template under a false free license. The reason why it is not free is due to the non-statement of the modification of images. — User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

delete and clear out any images it is used on. ND images have been against policy for some time.Geni 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are no images as of now that used this template. The max number was 5, but I cleared those out after the template was deleted from the Commons (with 4 being oprhans uploaded by me; they were of Presidents Putin (RU) and Arroyo (PH)). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
keep "non-statement of the modification of images" is a Soviet-style inversion of laws of civilized world: everything what is not forbidden is allowed. If it is not so in this particular case, please cite the legal document. `'mikka 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be forbinden in whatever copyright act of russia is when it lists the rights the copyright owner holds (probably Art. 2, Law 72-FZ, 2004 but my russian is non existant).Geni 01:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am looking at Article 19 on the Russian Copyright law; I am seeing mentions of cropping or extracts of work, but I am not sure if that will help us. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

- eh turns out to be article 16.2 which gives the author the exclusive right of adaptation.Geni 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  - So the Kremlin website has to mention they waive that right of adaptation before we could use the images from the site. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
keep as far as I can tell whoever wrote the copyright notice was trying to make it a weak copyleft notice, there is no indication whatsever that any rights (besides attribution) are rezerved. At any interpretation this is a very liberal license allowing commercial usage, cropping, etc. that allows any valid usage of images I can think of. It is close enough to the free as a libre to be kept on en-wiki Alex Bakharev 02:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The requirement of explicit permission for modification generally stems from international treaty, and should be a feature of copyright law in any country that is a signatory to the Berne convention, at least as I understand matters. Xtifr _tälk 02:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you know this requirement, please point at the corresponding document and to the corresponding iwkipedia rule. `'mikka 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

article 12 and I have already explained where this appears in russian law. As for where this kicks in en policy Wikipedia:Non-free content second para first sentance.Geni 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't read it as you do, not to mention that the pare is a guideline, not licence to kill. I don't see how it supercedes the common sense of "what is not forbidden, is allowed". `'mikka 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Makeing derives of copywriten works without permission is forbidden. You got that? You accepted that (if you dissagree please explain why citeing relivant legal texts)? So if we have a copywritten work you can't make derives without permission regardless of what other rights you may have been given (I mean how do you think ND lisences work in any case?).Geni 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your opinion. You got that? The whole wikipedia derives from published and in 80% copyrighted works according to its policy wikipedia:Attribution. We have wikipedia:Image use policy, which says nothing of the sort about which kinds of permission are admissible. `'mikka 15:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

keep. License actually says (and template text should be changed to "All materials on the Presidential website may be reproduced in any media outlets, on Internet servers or on any other information supports without restriction on the amount of material and time of publication. This authorisation covers equally newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV channels and Internet sites. The only condition is that any reproduction or broadcasting of the website’s materials contain a reference to the original source. No prior approval from the Presidential Press and Information Office is required to reprint information from the website." Sounds free to me.

freedomdefined.org would beg to differ. With the current phraseing the text is not a free lisence.Geni 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, not freedomfigters or something. It has its own rules. I say show me the wekipedia rule acording to which the template must be deleted. `'mikka 15:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Um by foundation resolution that is the defintion of free lisences that wikipedia uses.Geni 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you should have started from this, and there would haven't been no such long talk. Also, why the ref to this resolution is not prominently seen in wikipedia policies, like, wikipedia:Image use policy? `'mikka 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, once again it is your reading. I suggest you to re-read it carefully paying attention to three letters E, D, P. (for those who don't want to, this basically means that wikiPedia may have its own rules, different from wikiMedia) `'mikka 23:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Our EDP only allows unfree material under fair use.Geni 12:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Geni's comment above. One 00:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Geni and Zscout370 have got it right. freedomdefined.org is now what determines our licensing per the foundation's licensing resolution, and we go by United States law on en.WP, not non-U.S. law. --Iamunknown 04:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- No they did not. and freedomsomething does not 100% dictate wikipedia. Please take a look as the ECP clause `'mikka 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Even if we use the ECP caluse, we still cannot use this very template in its current wording, since we do not have explicit authorization to modify images. As User:Gmaxwell said at the Commons, we need to have a physical letter sent to the Kremlin and see what that can do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Once again, you continue to confuse commons and wikipedia. Please provide the explicit wikipedia rules from which it follows that explicit authorization to modify is required. I am surprized how long and pointless discussion it is. If you say it is forbidden, provide the corresponding quotation from WIKIpEDIA policy and done with it. Otherwise it is your personal opinion, however respected it may be. `'mikka 17:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okey then can you show where en.wikipedia's EDP allows ND images other than in cases where a legit fair use claim can be made and a free alturnative could not be made.Geni 12:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

- - - - From Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Because of this mission, the English Wikipedia usually accepts only material released under a license that meets the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works." From the Definition of Free Cultural Works: "the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works". How can we assume that we have that freedom if it is not explicitly stated? --Iamunknown 23:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per mikka.Biophys 05:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete with extreme cluebatting. Per zscout, et. al. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unused template that isn't free enough to be used on new images. It would be great if somebody could petition the Kremlin to clarify their stance; if they don't want to prohibit derivatives, they could explicitly say so. Kusma (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is unused besause someone laborously deleted the corresponding images without regular discussion. `'mikka 17:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Because most of them were orphans uploaded by me. The only two images that really used the template is the Lukashenko image and of Putin doing judo stuff. Thats it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
comment I don't really care about this template. What really pisses me off from time to time is that some admins boldly take upon themselves exclusive rights to interpret wikipedia rules without actually having the corresponding policies in place. The wikipedia:Be bold adage does not expand into the realm of policies; it is for editing. `'mikka 17:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- READ. THE. GDFL! All content in Wikipedia must end up licensed under the GDFL, either directly or indirectly through mechanisms such as sublicensing or fair-use relicensing. This is all spelled out in great detail in the license and in various Wikipedia documentation, and has been discussed over and over and over again. The fact that you don't seem to be willing or able to read and understand the issues (and I admit, they do get complex in places) is Not Our Problem^tm. The fact that you refuse to assume good faith of the other participants in this discussion strikes me as a far worse problem than any issues of admin arrogance. (And no, I'm not an admin, nor do I aspire to be one, but I do have to deal with free licenses and free license combinations on a fairly regular basis.) Xtifr _tälk 23:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Instead of going amok you better provide a ref to a policy that says why the disclaimer which says that you may use the material for any purpose and in any amount is insufficient for the GFDL lic. Yes, some of us cannot or are not willing to read and undestand yards of discussions, which are mostly chaotic rants, just like this one. I need to see a clear-cut policy. Your answer basically says "you are an ignorant idiot, and don't mess with what smart people do here". So you better start applying WP:AGF to yourselves before instructing others. `'mikka 16:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are dealing with the people who really really know en copyright policy so if you are not prepared to put large amounts of effort in to understanding why this is a non free license your best bet is just to take their word for it. Still if you want it in full. The foundation has imposed the this as their defintion of free. Project may only include matarial that passes that defintion or is covered by their EDP. en.Wikipedia's EDP can be found at WP:EDP#Policy and only allows non free images under a limited form of fair use.Geni 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What an amazing feat of assuming that your opponent is an idiot, and feeling good! OK. Assume I am a one. I am requesting for umpth time: please show me the exact lines of the policy which (a) forbids the usage of any images from kremlin.ru in wikipedia, i.e., makes the discussed template unusable (b) say that wikimedia imposed their definition of free on wikipedia; I mean explicitely mentioned in wikipedia copyright policies, not on IRC archives, or Jimbo's talk page, or in other places where these "who really really know en copyright policy" talk without us idiots interferring. And oh, btw your the [this does not point even to a wikimedia rule. With such kind of attitude soon people will to hire a lawyer each time an idiot like me wants to deal with wikipedia policies. `'mikka 23:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am stopping any further discussion of this topic, because of persistent refusal to either acknowledge that wikipedia's copyright policy does not expressly addresses the issue or to point to the exact text that addresses the issue. A goodbye hint: if you don't know how to do it, take a look at how speedy deletions are carried out: e.g., "per WP:CSD A7" and done with it. `'mikka 23:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Our Wikipedia:Non-free content policy explicitly says in the second paragraph that anything that does not meet the freedomdefined definition of "free content" is considered non-free. That definition clearly states that permission to modify is necessary for free content. Thus, images licensed under this are not inherently free content. -Amarkov moo! 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with deletion of the template in question? This template is explicitly in category of non-free templates, i.e., there is no misunderstanding as to its status. There are hundreds! of non-free themplates. Why this one is bugging you so? (it is tempting to say it must be the the word "kremlin" :-) Its text says that it is in fact a very free one, i.e., a very informative template it is. It may be easily fixed to address the new trends in terms of EDP. I may agree with zscout that today the template is basically useless. Fine with me. If it were the reason deletion I wouldn't say a word. `'юзырь:mikka 18:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  - No, the word Kremlin isn't the reason why I brought the template here. On our sister project, the Wikimedia Commons, nominated the very exact template for deletion in late March/early April of 2007, Because of the template being non-free, it was deleted on the Commons. Now, with the template being recreated here, the template will also have to be deleted here because it is unfree template worded as a free template that will only be used for photographs of living people (such as Lukashenko or Putin). Fair use photos on public persons, such as leaders, are discouraged to the point they are pretty much disallowed. The template was just put in the non-free category some time ago and wasn't present when I did the TFD. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)