Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 10

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 merge histories of {{Carmensandiego}} and {{Carmen Sandiego}}. The latter was created several months after the former, and the only difference is the format. Merging histories to give attribution to its original author. — Malcolm (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Probably replace the new one due when it don't exist the other one. — 65.95.66.242 21:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this appears to be redundant to {{Carmen Sandiego}}. I haven't investigated the history or relative qualities of the two templates in any detail yet, though. Xtifr _tälk 07:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Malcolm (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Currently used on only 1 article (that is currently Proded.) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and most forums aren't notable to have their own article. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 19:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The one article has been A7-Web speedied. - TexasAndroid 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No article is currently tagged with this template. As of now it is not being used. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Very few community boards are notable at all, ones that don't exist yet certainly won't be. -Amarkov moo! 23:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete How can any FUTURE community board be notable enough to have an article? Also, the template is an obvious rip off of Template:Future comic (the categories aren't even different). FunPika 23:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As above, what could possibly make forum notable before it's up and running? Harryboyles 09:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - for the extraordinary instances where this might be needed, a more generalized template would suffice. Nihiltres^(t.l) 15:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion, images re-tagged. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:PD-RoM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I can't possibly see how this template could be acceptable. First, it was created by a banned user, User:Frightner, who has extensive history of POV pushing on Macedonia related articles. Second, every image I've ever seen with this tag has been used to push a POV on Macedonia related articles. Third, it allows for copyrighted material to be released into the public domain, but with conditions. That goes against the definition of public domain, as well as the concept of copyright. No image I've ever seen with this tag has ever had any sort of source for public domain releases. The second clause "disclosure of articles on current topics in daily or periodical press discussing general issues if the author has not expressly prohibited" does not make any sense... Once an image is in the public domain, an author cannot make an express prohibition rescinding that release, thus making ALL media regarding current topics in daily or periodical press public domain. Finally, the last clause states that the image " is entirely free because it is a work of folk literature and folk art".

This template needs to go, and go fast.. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Observation: According to the template: "According to Articles 28-54 of the 'Law on Copyright and Related Rights' of the Republic of Macedonia, this work, although possibly copyrighted, is in the public domain on the grounds that...". The link provided http://www.mlrc.org.mk/law/l023.htm does not contain the term "public domain" at all. Mr. Neutron 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Inconsistent, incomprehensible, and useful only to confuse. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Whether images with this tag are used to promote a POV is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the content of the tag is nonsense. Free for use for teaching or other specific purposes is not public domain, and not inline with Wikipedia policy. JPD (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rework (alternatively, delete but create something better.) And thoroughly review all images currently tagged with it. The template as currently worded is, of course, nonsense, because the author confused the concept of 'public domain' with what is apparently the Macedonian equivalent of 'fair use' (basically, all the conditions described in the first few paragraphs seem to be about the latter.) But the link to the law text is correct, and it is true that the law provides for the 70 y.p.m.a. rule and the special rule that "Works of folk literature and folk art shall be used freely." Why not have a template recording these facts for us, just as we have PD-xyz templates for a couple dozen other countries? I'll prune the text down for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Some of the aspects that might be free use in Macedonia though, are fundamentally incompatible with US copyright law. I was under the impression that our law takes precedence being as it's the physical location of the servers. If Macedonian law provided for all content created by a newspaper anywhere in the world is public domain so long as it is in reference to a current event, that would be fundamentally incompatible with our copyright laws, and as I understand it, ours would take precedence. As such I feel that the tag simply should be deleted. since nearly all of it is incompatible with our laws. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The stuff about newspapers etc. is simply the Macedonian counterpart of our "fair-use" doctrine. It has nothing to do with "public domain" and shouldn't be treated by this template. I have removed that language from the template. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Update: Swatjester, you were certainly right about one thing. None of the images currently tagged with it actually fit. I've orphened the template now and tagged all the images as "no license". Some might be salvagable as historic-photograph "fair use" ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I would advise against deletion. Rationale: some work has already gone into this, and although not perfect is a better starting point than nothing. Unless somebody volunteers to create a new, better one, I would not delete this one. The Macedonian community here is already small and inexperienced enough, lets not delete templates that took work to research and make. Capricornis 18:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is simply copied and renamed from another template. Mr. Neutron 19:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That the Macedonian community put work into this is not a valid reason for keeping. The fact is, they did not: a banned user did, and he did so with the intent of bypassing the valid fair-use doctrines to insert images he so chooses. Considering he got nearly everything wrong, he obviously did not put much work into it. Wikimedia policies and U.S. law trump the amount of work put into the template. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would rather see this template reworked than deleted. The fact that the user who created it got banned doesn't mean absolutely all of his work was bad and has to be removed. For those interested in the Macedonian copyright, it is here both in Macedonian Latin and English Latin. The site is the Macedonian Legal Resource Center. Capricornis 04:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But it is bad. Nearly all of it did not qualify as public domain under US OR Macedonian laws. It was just apparently a bunch of crap he made up that looked legalish. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.}

The point I am trying to make is, as Fut.Perf. knows very well, there has been lots of feuds around Macedonian history in wikipedia, and because of the relative small size of the Macedonians as population and as wikipedia contributors, it is a difficult job to present the Macedonian POV as well, and arrive at balanced articles. Because of the inexperience of most macedonian editors, the other sides in the arguments regularly erase valid and free images only because the some minor wording issue when uploading the images. So, I would rather see someone reworking this template to make it valid, or it stays until somebody does so, as opposed deleting it without a trace, because who knows when will be the next time someone will get around creating a Macedonian template for PD. Btw, from what I hear, the other countries' templates are not much better :) Capricornis 17:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - While the Republic of Macedonia may have named certain things PD, this doesn't mean much as far as US copyright goes. The only way I can see this used is if it is drastically changed to be specific and indicate that another tag is necessary to indicate licensing in the US. I can see a use for this template on Commons perhaps, but here? Shell ^babelfish 19:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm... Genuine question: is this generally a problem with this kind of template? The other similar country-specific PD tags mostly don't seem to have such a disclaimer either. Are they problematic too? As it stands now, this one doesn't seem to differ in any crucial way from the others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • If a work was PD in its country of origin in 1996, then its PD in the U.S. So this means something for works created before that date. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. So far as I can tell, other country specific PD templates just say "the government of X puts all their works of class Y into the public domain", which indeed makes them PD. This says that Macedonian law has different rules on expiration of copyright, which doesn't necessarily mean the copyright is expired here if it is there. -Amarkov moo! 03:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The template is mostly used for documents, since when I read the law, the only thing that are "specially" put into the public domain is national laws and their official translations. The reason why have other various country templates is they put special items into the public domain. Examples would be state awards, symbols and currency. With Macedonia, it is not the case. The rest of the template reads 70 Years PMA or other 70 years stuff that is pretty much inline with European laws. We have templates that fit that task already, such as PD-70. Unless the law changes to include some special cases as I mentioned above, it is not a good idea to have this template around. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You all may wish to check out the related Commons template for whatever reason. 68.39.174.238 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was change to protected redirect to Wikipedia:Protected titles. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The old way of salting recreated pages was to use this template and protect them - however, this has been made obsolete by cascading protection, and the WP:PT page. This template is barely in (transcluded) use any more, and I believe that (like the ancient {{substub}}) we can safely remove it now to avert further confusion. >Radiant< 14:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete after converting the few remaining uses to cascading protection. This template was sensibly left in place when the original system was put together, since cascading protection was new and potentially buggy. However, the newer system has now been proven to work quite well, so there's no need to continue with the older system at this point. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This template is still used because it is easier to protect the page that way, and it is unnecessary to do it manually any other way. The reason for not deleting it was never because of any potential problems with the new system, which always worked well and was known to work well. —Centrx→talk • 03:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The main reason it is barely in use is that every other month or so, I convert the built up instances of it over to transcluded protection. And there are usually between 100 and 200 pages to convert each time I do it. So this template is actually being used a lot more than it would appear just from looking at how many are in use today. (I last converted less than a month or so ago.) I do not have a strong opinion on whether this should be deleted or not. While it would be nice to have less of these to convert, there are obviously still admins around who either prefer this method, or are unaware of WP:PT and it's sub-pages. If it *is* removed, then a final conversion of any remaining instances will need to be done, and a major effort will need to be made to inform any admins still using it that they will be losing this tool, and will need to switch to using WP:PT. Also, I think that there are a couple of varient templates lying around that perform the same purpose. If one of these is removed, I would think all should be removed. - TexasAndroid 15:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-As mentioned above, this is still seeing use, but that's precisely the reason it should go away. WP:PT is a proven method, and its quite simply better. Hopefully, whatever admins are still using this tool will switch to PT once its gone.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding this template is the simplest, most intuitive way to protect a deleted page, so while protected titles is better for several reasons, it is not "simply better"--it is worse in some ways. —Centrx→talk • 03:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can just hope that, and have it be. If the admins still using it are unaware of WP:PT, then removing this template is not going to magically make them aware. They will need to be specifically informed of the newer option. Or else you are likely to have a number of admins quite iritated when their normal tool vanishes, and they have not been informed of the newer process. - TexasAndroid 16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I mean, getting the "word out", so to speak, could hardly be a bad thing.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have put an FYI note on the talk pages of all admins who currently have outstanding salt pages with this template. I'll likely also go through some of the older, already converted pages at some point, but at the least those admins who have used the template in the last few weeks are now informed of this discussion, and of the likely coming need to start using WP:PT saltings. - TexasAndroid 13:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Redirect to WP:PT and protect and we can create detailed instructions for admins unfamiliar with the protected titles process - it is a much cleaner approach. I must admit, though, that on the other hand, this template is clearer for newbies than the note about cascade protection on the edit window. Perhaps we should also modify MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected if/when deleting this article? Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been that way since WP:PT started. Log out and look at Athletico Beccles for example. Prodego ^talk 02:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Aha, so normal users should see the message. That's what I was looking for. As for my changing my comment, I'd like to note that I endorse the redirect solution - it seems like a good way to solve the linking problem. We can probably even use <includeonly> syntax to make special messages appear for admins who don't know the new system. Nihiltres^(t.l) 15:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with TexasAndroid as I was perusing my deletion log to see what has reappeared, I noticed a couple of articles where this was placed by pretty seasoned admins that had been converted by TexasAndroid. If this were deleted, what would appear to the casual editor at such a page? Carlossuarez46 19:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The page would appear with just the text "Template:Deletedpage", as a redlink. —Centrx→talk • 03:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete At some point you bite the bullet and finish the switch from an older method to a newer one. It's been long enough. --MZMcBride 19:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • People are still going to protect deleted pages in the most straightforward way, they just won't have a template for it anymore--unless they re-create this one. —Centrx→talk • 03:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe it is good to have a fallback template when you want to salt an article but have a blue link instead of a red one (no, no example given, just my opinion). -- ReyBrujo 20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't possibly imagine a scenario where that would be so. Why would you link to something that's not meant to be an article?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  As I said, no example, just an opinion. -- ReyBrujo 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  I've found one group of pages that currently use the template where cascading protection is not appropriate. In fact, I skipped over converting these the last time I mass-converted the types of protections. Basically, there are 5 pages currently using this template that are in a state specifically for arbcom that wants to leave the page protected and non-editable, and not currently displaying the contentious contents, but wanting to have the contents accessable during the course of the arbitration case to which they are attached. Allegations of Australian apartheid, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, and several others are in this state. There needs to be something at each of these pages, but not a red link since the history needs to be viewable for the duration of the case. My solution for these would be to create a new template, worded expressly towards the specific arbcom situation, and then replace Template:Deletedpage with the new arb-com template in these cases. - TexasAndroid 13:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - practically archaic now - ReyBrujo if we ever need a template that would suit that purpose then we could easily recreate this one- however just having a template hang around when it will probably never be used is just clutter.--danielfolsom 02:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The template still serves the same purpose it served before. The template is still used on hundreds of pages, which are automatically converted by bot to Protected titles. —Centrx→talk • 03:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I may be a droid, but I'm not a bot. :) There is no automated conversion. It's a manual process that I've been doing every other month or so. And there are not hundreds using it, as there are only 41 articles currently in the category that it puts on pages. - TexasAndroid 11:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I assume you are using an automated tool, and the process can be fully automated by bot. The template has been used on hundreds of pages in the past few months, which is not to say that it is currently present on hundreds of pages after conversion. —Centrx→talk • 20:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Nope. 100% manual process. Between 100 and 200 pages converted manually every couple of months. Only done it twice so far. My conversions are the 3rd and 4rd "Old Salt" pages listed at WP:PT. - TexasAndroid 20:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Obsolete, works better the newer way as then there is no article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it's not doing any harm, and it's worth keeping just as a backup.--Rambutan (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak KeepKeep, HEAVILY used in historical page versions and in notice boards. Also, still occasionally useful. I get a page that is being recreated from time to time that COULD be encyclopedic, but is just not coming out that way now...so after several deletes I've got two choices: jupe it, or tag as {{deleted}}. If it's never going to be a good title I'll jupe it, otherwise I'll salt it, giving serious editors more information about what is going on and how to go about making a useful contribution. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How does this method provide more information about what is going on and how to go about making a useful contribution? —David Levy 04:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • While {{deleted}} tells you more about the reasons the page could be gone, WP:JUPE just makes it gone, until you try to create it and get a link to an odd per-month log of pages that are "banned". — xaosflux ^Talk 05:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Such an attempt (or following a red link to a protected title) no longer results in the display of those links, and it always has resulted in the display of a message nearly identical to the one contained in this template (except for sysops). Have you viewed a protected title while not logged in to your administrative account? —David Levy 06:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Almost forgot about that message, changed keep to weak keep. Still think this is useful, especially for newer admins, as the process of tag/protect, is simpler then going through JUPE. Perhaps run this as deprecated longer? Centrx also makes good points on the template talk about using this for temporary protection, the affect on mirrors, and the simplicity. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obselete to the cascading protection pages, and also gives a false impression of how many articles we have. Majorly (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep not as obsolete as everyone thinks (per 2nd comment). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - There's no compelling reason to get rid of it and it's useful for images. If you click on a redlinked image, that takes you to the upload page but if you use {{deletedpage}} there, then it takes you to the message, which is what you want. --B 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll note that while either salting method prevents the upload of an image under a particular title, neither method is particularly valuable for this purpose (because someone can easily upload the same image under a different title). —David Levy 04:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That's true, but at least with {{deletedpage}}, the good faith user who clicks on a link to the image will see the message and not upload it. On the other hand, if you click on a link to an image that is protected using protected titles, you get taken to the upload screen with no idea that the image was deleted. Then when you upload it, you see "Upload warning" and "Protected page" and that's it - there's no message or anything telling you what is going on. So you have no idea that there is a reason the image was deleted or even that it was deleted. --B 04:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
      • If an inappropriate image is uploaded under a title with potential legitimate use, it shouldn't be protected via either method. Users acting in good faith will be inconvenienced, while the vandals will simply use slightly different titles ad infinitum. Image salting is marginally useful when someone continually uploads an image under a patently inappropriate title (one that a user acting in good faith would never attempt to use), and even that's just barely better than deleting it and walking away. With the old method, it can even be worse, because that causes a page to remain with the (potentially defamatory) title. Under the new method, that title is simply listed on a page covered by our robots.txt file. —David Levy 04:45/04:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Protected redirect to WP:PT; too many non-transcluded links exist for this simply to be a redlink. Chick Bowen 15:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  I like this idea. With a short note at the top of WP:PT mentioning the redirection is because of the deprication of the template. This also helps with the situation of admins who try to use the template after it is removed, as they will get a transclusion of WP:PT instead of the template that they expect, including an explanation at the top of what happened. - TexasAndroid 18:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• The protected redirect idea sounds good. The template itself isn't really needed, and I would favor deletion. The lists of protected pages can be made clearer, if they're confusing. I hav elong thought that it was strange that we still have this template around. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:R from navcat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a collective nomination for this template and its associated cross-namespace redirects. Somebody had the brilliant idea to use categories on the Village Pump as alternative navigation templates: thus, if you look at the bottom of WP:VPM, you see a Category called "To Village Pump (Policy)", and that redirects to WP:VPP, as you would expect. I got a little annoyed when I saw this because categories are not supposed to function as navboxes. They're supposed to function as categories. I concede that this is not the worst of Wikipedia's problems, but...come on. Let's ditch the whole concept of redirecting "Category:X" to "Wikipedia:Y", and suffice with the Village Pump navboxes already in use. A full list of affected pages can be found in the incoming links to the template. — Shalom ^Hello 07:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I agree that this is overly clever, confusing and totally unecessary. If you want to link to something, link to it. Don't hide your link down among the categories. Xtifr _tälk 08:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is more confusing than it's worth, and I don't think people have problems locating the village pump without this. >Radiant< 08:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as namespace abuse/confusion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-Interesting, but more confusing than helpful. If there really is such a need for navigation at the bottom of VP pages (which, honestly, makes sense to me) I'd suggest similar coding to {{Main Page discussion footer}}. That allows the template to be placed in the top matter of a page but still appear at the bottom.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not an appropriate use of the Category namespace, and Fyre2387 mentions an ideal solution to replace it if necessary. Nihiltres^(t.l) 23:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Ditch it I say! Categories are categories, not links or redirects. Harryboyles 09:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. Innappropriate content for a template. There is no reason to display this picture on every enemy combatant article. If the author of a particular article would like to make an assertion that the subject is considrered an enemy combatant, they must do so by providing, reliable, sourced information, just as any other editor would be required to do. A cartoon does not satisfy this requirement. Additionally, this template does not mention the subject of the articles on which it is placed. If a template were being used to provide standard, template-able information, such as in an infobox, the template would need to be able to be customized for each article, something that this templat does not, and cannot do. Regardless of the arguments presented hereunder, it's just not an appropriate use of a template. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This template violates WP:NPOV. It is included in articles about "enemy combatants" relative to the US combat in Afghanistan (and Iraq?) to invite the reader to conclude that the depicted poster is responsible for the combatant's predicament, i.e., that bounty hunters or others falsely accused the innocent combatant of collaboration with the Taliban or Al Qaeda solely to claim a bounty. Absent from the articles I have reviewed is any evidence that the poster was involved or even seen by the bounty hunters or other witnesses against the combatants, so we have a WP:OR or WP:SYNTH problem as well. -— But|seriously|folks  08:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep -- Geo Swan 08:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Disclaimer -- I started this template.
  • What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD) lists four criteria for nomination for deletion. The fourth criteria is: "The template does not satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement." -- If the nomination does not comply with the stated criteria for deletion then I think it should be a speedy keep.
  • Nominator has not made any effort to discuss their concern over this template on the template's talk page.
  • I applied the template only to captives who:
    1. Reported that they had been sold for a bounty to their Combatant Status Review Tribunal, or;
    2. Reported that they had been sold for a bounty to their Administrative Review Board, or;
    3. Reported they were falsely denounced by a local rival or personal enemy.
    4. Some other verifiable source reports they had been sold for a bounty.
  • If, for the sake of argument, I lapsed, or someone else lapsed, and transcluded this template on an article where there was no reference to back up its use, that should trigger a discussion on that article's talk page, or the removal of that template from that article -- not the deletion of the template.
  • Cheers! Geo Swan 08:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 08:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- Nominator wrote, above:

"Absent from the articles I have reviewed is any evidence that the poster was involved or even seen by the bounty hunters."

• • Note: Nominator doesn't say which articles he or she reviewed. I'd like to know.
  • But we know he or she reviewed the article about Sada Jan, when he or sheedited the article. Now this particular article not only cites references where Sada Jan testifies he was sold for a bounty, but this article actually quotes his testimony:

    "I have nothing to say because I'm still saying I'm innocent. I should not be here. I shouldn't even be at this Tribunal. I'm innocent, and I don't know why I'm here. I'm requesting that I'm still innocent. I have small children at home, and I still want to support the new government Actually, the Taliban was very oppressive. You are good people and respect human rights. Whoever sold me took money from the Americans..."

• • So, when the nominator says their is "no evidence", he or she is discounting the captive's testimony.
  • The Combatant Status Review Tribunals have a Legal Advisor. The legal advisor reviewed every Tribunal dossier, for "legal sufficiency". The legal advisor almost always endorsed the conclusions of the Tribunal. But the legal advisor admonished at least one Tribunal for discounting testimony, on the grounds it was hearsay evidence -- pointing out that almost all the evidence against the captives was also hearsay evidence. Geo Swan 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the nominator wrote, above, that the poster was included, on articles:

"...to invite the reader to conclude that the depicted poster is responsible for the combatant's predicament, i.e., that bounty hunters or others falsely accused the innocent combatant of collaboration with the Taliban or Al Qaeda solely to claim a bounty."

• • I suggest this passage is a sign of the nominator's own (no doubt innocent) bias. I assume that the wikipedia's readers are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions.
  • Neutrally written material does not invite readers to conclude anything. It leaves the reader free to draw their own conclusion. Readers are free, for instance, to draw the conclusion that the captives are guilty, and that the Bounty program was an effective means of apprehending guilty men. Readers are free tp draw all kinds of conclusions.
  • It seems to me that the nominator's plan to suppress this material is really a (no doubt innocent) attempt at POV-pushing. Trying to protect readers from material that might lead them to draw conclusions the wrong conclusions is POV-pushing -- even if the wikipedians suggesting it doesn't realize it is POV-pushing. Geo Swan 19:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - This template is being used to easily slap a POV on various already POV-riddled enemy combatant articles. I would have to say the same of {{Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption}}. Neither of these templates have anything to do with the article in question; none of the articles I looked at (for reference, I started at the top of the linked articles and went through at least 20) of them reference the poster and at best, the articles contain transcripts or descriptions of that combatants Review. This is not what templates are used for. Shell ^babelfish 19:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope you can explain this more fully.
    • When you write: "This is not what templates ae used for", are you referencing a policy? A guideline? Or are you referencing your experience of conventional usage. Because, if you are referencing a policy, or guideline, I would very much like to read it. Complying with policy is important. If your comment relies on your experience with the conventional usage is there a forum when I can read comments that would help me come to my own understanding of this convention?
    • Your comment that the template slaps a POV on articles that are already POV-riddled? I really appreciate it when people who have a POV concern can be specific about what they find POV.
    • Cheers! Geo Swan 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: to the closing admin -- User:Shell_Kinney claims "Neither of these templates have anything to do with the article in question" -- they claim they checked the first twenty article. This claim, and the similar claim of the nominator, are wildly incorrect. See User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Taliban Bounty list Geo Swan 12:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a bounty was alleged to have been involved does not make the image relevant. It is not necessary to prove in each and every article that bounties were offered. Hammering on that point in tenuously related articles is POV. -- But|seriously|folks  16:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Or, alternatively, removing relevant, referenced material could be seen as POV-pushing. I would be interested in seeing your explanation of why it is "tenuous". I strongly dispute your claim that the wording of the caption is POV. I strongly dispute that it is not related to the captives. If the captives believe they were captured for a bounty -- as they testified, then the bounty poster is highly relevant.
• I agree with the other poster who said that this was a content dispute, which should have been discussed on the article's talk pages, prior to a nomination for deletion. Geo Swan 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said the caption's wording was POV. Please share with us the sources that connect these men to the poster, so we can be assured that it is not being inserted in their articles in violation of NPOV. -- But|seriously|folks  19:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• In your nomination you wrote the following:

...It is included in articles about "enemy combatants" relative to the US combat in Afghanistan (and Iraq?) to invite the reader to conclude that the depicted poster is responsible for the combatant's predicament, i.e., that bounty hunters or others falsely accused the innocent combatant of collaboration with the Taliban or Al Qaeda solely to claim a bounty.

• It seems to me that this is not only an assertion that the caption is POV, but also some kind of misguided attempt at mindreading. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It seems to me that your suggestion material that is referenced from an authoritative source, based on your prediction of the conclusions reader will draw, does not comply with WP:NOT.
• Just a few lines above you characterized the use of the wanted poster image as "hammering":

The fact that a bounty was alleged to have been involved does not make the image relevant. It is not necessary to prove in each and every article that bounties were offered. Hammering on that point in tenuously related articles is POV.

• Are you really disputing characterzing the poster as "hammering" is not an accusation of a biased POV?
• These are captives who report being sold for a bounty. The wanted poster establishes that there IS a Bounty program. Many commentators, both official and unofficial, discount all the captives testimony, based on the claim that all al Qaeda operatives have been coached to lie. Establishing that the USA did have a widespread bounty program is not "tenuously related" to the articles, it is highly relevant.
• How do you know what our readers are going to conclude from the poster? You don't know. You can't know. For all you know readers could read the image establishing there is a Bounty program, and conclude this is a good thing? Why shouldn't the rest of us regard your characterization of the image as an attempt to push readers to a particular conclusion as your POV coming to the fore? You don't want the wikipedia's readers to have access to material that you are afraid will lead them to conclude that the captives are "falsely accused innocents"? Why shouldn't the rest of us regard this as POV-pushing on your part?
• I continue to believe your ongoing reluctance to discuss your concern(s) on the appropriate talk page(s) -- first -- as damaging to the wikipedia's commitment to consensus building.
• FWIW, your addition of Iraq suggests to me that you have a basic unfamiliarity with this topic. The USA has always acknowledged that captives apprehended in Iraq were covered by the Geneva Conventions -- that is why the CIA had to return ghost prisoners, like Hiwa Abdul Rahman Rashul, back to military custody in Iraq. Geo Swan 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that you are avoiding my request. If you have reliable sources that connect these men to the poster, please provide them. If not, the poster does not belong in their articles, and it is POV to put it there. Your preference that this unified issue be discussed on 30 different talk pages rather than in one place is not something I support. It makes much more sense to discuss it here. And what does the Geneva Convention have to do with this issue? -- But|seriously|folks  21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• And you have evaded answering practically all the points I have raised.
  • It seems like you are trying tor frame this debate in a way where you can evade your lack of compliance with the proper procedures.

You're the one that decided to transclude the poster into all of these articles from a central location. How can you object to it being discussed centrally? -- But|seriously|folks  19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I address this after your next counter-point. Geo Swan 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Let's not use the rhetorical trick of responding to weak arguments our correspondents didn't make, and instead respond to the the arguments they actually did make. Where did I suggest we discuss this on 30 different talk pages, instead of discussing it in one central place? I referred to multiple talk page(s) because we have had earlier interaction where you similarly failed to engage in meaningful prior discussion I believe are required by wikipedia contributors who have a meaningful commitment to decisions based on consensus. IMO the obligation you evaded was to initiate a discussion on your personal perception of POV on Template talk:TalibanBounty.

In our prior interaction, all I did was be BOLD. Once you asked that it be discussed on the one page where it was relevant, I engaged in that discussion there, because it made sense. This is a different situation. -- But|seriously|folks  19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Be bold is, IMO, is a widely misused justification. My reading of that document is that it is aimed a newbies, to encourage them to think they can make a meaningful contribution. I am very concerned when I see wikipedias claim the authority of WP:BOLD when they are trying to avoid prior discussing of controversial edits they want to make.
• So, your response to my concern that you didn't make even a token attempt to discuss your concern prior to nominating this template for deletion is WP:BOLD -- is that your sole justification?
• In this particular discussion you have responded to weak arguments I didn't make as if those were the arguments I made. It seems to me that you have done so in your most recent reply, even after I asked you not to. I think I was pretty clear in agreeing that the dialogue over your concerns should have been in a central place -- Template talk:TalibanBounty.
• In my initial response to your {{tfd}} I wrote:

What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD) lists four criteria for nomination for deletion. The fourth criteria is: "The template does not satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement."

• I don't think you get to claim the template does not satisfy NPOV, and cannot be modified to comply with NPOV, unless you made a good faith attempt to explain your concern first.
  • If I understand your concern, you are not actually disputing that the wording of the template fully complies with WP:NPOV. If I understand your concern, it is that you don't like how the template is used. If we were to focus on the exact wording of the four valid criteria for {{tfd}} -- your concern doesn't comply. Geo Swan 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Can I provide references to show not only that the captive's reported being turned over for a bounty, but also that their captor referenced this particular poster, not one of the several other posters? What proof would you accept? None of the transcripts record a guy who looked like Clint Eastwood hauling them up before a US Marshall, slamming the poster one the table, and demanding the USA pay up. Is this the standard you demand? Or maybe even this wouldn't satisfy you?

I don't want to speculate about hypothetical evidence that would satisfy WP:RS, but I haven't seen any evidence that any poster was involved. -- But|seriously|folks  19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• This does not strike me as a serious reply. So, you are fully prepared to speculate as to how the wikipedia's readers will be influenced by the use of the poster -- but you won't answer a concrete answer as to what would satisfy your concerns. And yet you still want your concerns to be taken seriously? Geo Swan 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I suggested that the poster shows that there was a bounty program. I suggested this makes it relevant. I am very disappointed that you did not show the courtesy to reply to this suggestion. Would you object to the placement of something like: {{see|Taliban bounty program}}. So explain to me -- how is this different?

There's no need to demonstrate that there is a bounty program in each article. In fact, doing so in order to make the detainees' positions more credible is obviously a POV push. Why don't you just wikilink "bounty"? --19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Would it be possible for you to respond to the issues, and refrain from speculative attacks on what you think motivates me? I don't know your inner motives. You don't know my inner motives. Stating that my efforts are obviously a POV psush is a volation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I have no problem with yu saying you think my efforts give the appearnce of a POV push -- provided you are civil about it -- because that wording leaves clear that you recognize the possibility that you recognize you might be mistaken -- that you recognize that you might be mistaken about whether the wording complies with WP:NPOV -- and it leaves open the possibility that even if you are correct that the wording fails to comply with WP:NPOV that it still might have been an honest mistake. I do my best to extend this courtesy to the people I disagree with. And I expect them to try to make this effort on my behalf. Geo Swan 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• I have already told you -- several times -- that it seems to me your concern as to how readers will interpret the poster is based on speculation. You have no idea how readers will react.

• • The wikipedia could use a lot more pictures. We don't ave more because most images are not available under free liscenses -- or in the public domain. -- But this image is. Its use enhances the wikipedia, and not vice versa.

I have no objection to relevant images. This one is being used to push a POV. -- But|seriously|folks  19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• And why shouldn't we regard your objection as simply a manifestation of your own personal point of view? Geo Swan 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One last point -- your position that my inclination to remove unrelated images from articles evidences POV is untenable. Nobody reading the articles will be able to ascertain my POV. You yourself don't even know my POV. -- But|seriously|folks  21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• If you don't think your edit history contains very strong clues as to your POV, then you should go take a look at your justification for putting a {{npov}} tag on Talk:Sada Jan. Note your total lack of any reply to my long, civil, detailed response.
• You are using the "strawman" rhetorical technique again. Nobody objects to the removal of truly unrelated material from articles. You do have an inclination that alarms me -- for making controversial edits, without prior discussion, and without being prepared to offer meaningful explanations afterwards, as if you felt no responsibility to the rest of the wikipedia community.
• I don't find your responses here meaningful. For instance, you still haven't made any attempt to explain why you thought you could skip the step of discussing your concern on Template talk:TalibanBounty -- before your nomination for deletion. By failing to do so you failed to comply with the four criteria for nominating a template for deletion. Yours was an invalid nomination, and, IMO, should have been a speedy keep.
• One of the standards I try to observe is to avoid flat out statements that another wikipedians actions in article space show a biased POV. My perception of bias might be due to a lack of familiarity with the topic. Or my perception of bias might be due to an unacknowledged bias of my own. So I try to confine myself to observations that something appears to be POV, or questions as to why we shouldn't regard those contribution as being POV.
• Questioning the other wikipedian is better than bald accusations of bias because it is a lot less embarrassing for everyone involved. Informing them their edits gave the appearance of POV complies with WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. If we use this phrasing we leave open the possibility that our concern is misplaced. Phrasing our concerns this way is less likely to alienate those to whom we address our concerns. It helps them save face if our concern is well-based. If we use this phrasing it will be a lot less embarrassing for us, if we get a strong, well-informed rebuttal that shows our concern was misplaced.
• I measured up to this standard half a dozen times, and I lapsed once, in this discussion. I am not a child. The fact that you made unsupported accusations that I had breached WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH does not justify my response in kind. My apologies for responding in kind to your unnecessarily provocative language. Geo Swan 14:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Candidly Geo Swan 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As I explained a while ago, if I can read an article and ascertain the author's personal point of view, there's a problem. It's not a violation of WP:AGF to raise that issue. It's a violation of WP:NPOV for it to be there in the first place. Are you denying that you believe the Bush administration's treatment of these men is unjust? Because that sure seems to be your opinion based on what you have written. Again, you have yet to produce any evidence linking any of these men to the poster you've incorporated into many articles. Since there's no evidence that they are related, the poster shouldn't be in their articles. I am not going to respond to your various arguments again, as I believe I have already stated my position. -- But|seriously|folks  21:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• And I offered you a detailed, civil, respectful response. Unless I am mistaken, you did not choose to reply. We are all volunteers here. We don't have to reply to every counter-argument offered to us. But please don't call on me to take your arguments seriously when you choose not to respond to civil counter-arguments. Geo Swan 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent} You are free to choose which of my arguments warrant a response. If I make a persuasive argument and you fail to rebut it, then readers may accept my position. The converse is also true. If I elect not to reply to every one of your points every time you make them in slightly different words, please do not assume that I agree with you or that I haven't already addressed it previously. We could write a book about this deletion discussion, but I for one would not care to read it, nor would most closing admins. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  17:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Subst and Delete The template does nothing more place an image with caption on multiple articles. I highly doubt it is appropriate to every article it is transcended to. But whether the image is appropriate to the article is a content issue that should be addressed at each individual article and not here. But generally we shouldn't be templating images unless they are the flag icons or for meta purposes—FA, GA, article locked, etc. --Farix (Talk) 20:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain what "Subst and Delete" - means? Geo Swan 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, please don't do that. That would embed the inappropriate matter into every article and make it more difficult to remove. -- But|seriously|folks  16:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't agree that the best way is to "rewrite" the template's wording, and then update "correct, NPOV, relevant" information to each of the articles in which it appears? That seems like the best approach to me, since the image+GS's text will still appear in every article, in slightly fixed versions in some, in the original tone in others, etc. I'd rather see an RfC or consensus on how to word the template, but keep it in use so that changes are applied uniformly. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep, while I don't necessarily support the exact wording of the text under the image...that is exactly why this is a perfect example of needing to throw the rules out the window to improve the 'pedia. When somebody writes an improved version, fixes a typo, makes it more NPOV or clarifies the tone...they can do that to *all* the articles in which it appears - rather than just the one Guantanamo detainee whose article they happened to notice it upon. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- if the text is POV then change the text. If the template is inapplicable to an article, then remove it there. It may be true that they're overused but I especially like these sidebar templates when that happens. There are too many of these detainee articles that copy the same text. If it's in a sidebar template then readers who've already seen it won't have their eyes glaze over reading it over again. But when an entire section is duplicated, over and over, then readers are going to ignore that part, which could be a mistake if an editor made changes to that section in one article alone. That's why we need more sidebar templates, not less. -- Randy2063 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep: The template itself has none of the problems mentioned by the nominator. It takes no POV, nor makes any claims as to the innocence or guilt of actual captives, or about the motivations of bounty hunters. If the nominator's issues with the placement of the template are in fact true then these are contextual and relate to its placement within an entry and not to the template itself.PelleSmith 23:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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