Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Not deleted/November 2005

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Template:Philosophy topics

consensus not to delete.

9 Keep; 6 Delete; 2 Rename; 2 Portalize

Edit Notice: Okay, I scaled it down. Take a look at it now. Not as intimidating; a good side-door into the field of philosophy. The removed list is alive and well on Wikipedia's lists, and links have been provided on the template to that material. There wasn't/isn't enough to make a portal, since the template was/is nothing more than a sequence of topic lists. For a comparison, see this template:Spirituality

24.18.171.99 00:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Main problems of this template:

  • Size: over 200 entries and growing
  • Cohesion: for a large number of articles where it is inserted, only a fraction of the link provided are usefull
  • NPOV: especially the Major philosophers section is an invitation to NPOV problems
  • Use for link spamming: Two contributors consider it a good idea, to have external links in the template, effectively putting them in over hundred articles

Pjacobi 18:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of the template:

  • Size: this can be refined over time, toward the goal of making the template of optimum usefulness, which is a much better option than summarily deleting the template. Then again, perhaps 200 entries is the right size for a concise map of philosophy, which itself is pretty complex.
  • Cohesion: this can be improved upon as well. The template was just created, and has yet to be categorized sufficiently. I thought it better to get the material up there, than worry about formatting. Even so, it looks pretty good, and now that it's there, everyone can play with it and improve it in the Wikipedian way. As for the usefulness argument, having a map while you are trying to navigate the complex maze we call philosophy is highly useful. A user can rapidly achieve a good understanding of philosophy by using this template. Besides, if the template is more of a hindrance than a help for a particular article, then it would be better to remove the template from the article, rather than delete the template from the Wikipedia. I believe a better option would be to add more refined templates in addition to this general template which could naturally follow in a complementary fashion. But above all, if a template is useful in more than a single article, then it deserves to be a template.
  • NPOV on major philosophers: the majorness of a philosopher is easily verified. Besides, the NPOV argument needs to be made on a philosopher by philosopher basis. Which ones aren't major? Simply axe the minor ones from the template itself. Here, Pjacobi is worrying about a problem that hasn't even surfaced yet, the same problem that threatens the entire Wikipedia at all times. If his logic were extended to the Wikipedia as a whole, that would mean deleting the Wikipedia itself. The list of philosphers is one of the most useful features of the template!
  • "link spamming" - Pjacobi's choice of words is highly rhetorical, and I object to his manipulative labeling here, as the links do not fall under the definition of spam at all. They are external resources, very much like Wikipedia itself is a resource, and precisely the sort of links that are encouraged in Wikipedia articles. And since these links are to general resources on philosophy, they fit the context and scope of the template perfectly. These are the links Pjacobi is having trouble with: External Online Resources: Introducing Philosophy Series. By Paul Newall (for beginners) | Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names | The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Guide to Philosophy on the Internet

Keep

P.S.: Infinity0, sorry about removing your topics, that was done inadvertantly during an expansion. My apologies.

24.18.171.99 19:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Portalize, agree with Infinity0's idea. - SimonP 20:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Now much smaller, and no longer needs to be done away with. - SimonP 00:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually portalising was Pjacobi's idea. I don't know how Portals work, but I was given the impression there isn't enough to make one, from the content atm. However, a separate portal would be more useful than this huge nav menu - the nav menu should be kept, but scaled down. Infinity0 20:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portalize Actually, it's a shame it doesn't exist yet. Jules LT 21:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Actually the Category:Philosophy is already portal-like, and making it a real portal has already been evoked in the talk page. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy to see people who might be interested in helping. You should join the wikiproject, btw Jules LT 22:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portalize. Plus, it only deals with Western philosophy and completely ignores philosophy from the Middle East, Northern Africa, South Asia, and East Asia. —thames 21:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I actually found it very useful. While it does need to be scaled down a bit, or maybe just be relabled to "Western Philosophy," it's definately not something you want to just chuck out the window. Let's fix it, not get rid of it. I suggest we make it look more like the Creationism Template, which I think is pretty good. --Michael 22:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creationism template serves a pretty small category. It's a category of the philosophy of religion, which in turn is a category of philosophy, which is HUGE. Perhaps a smaller category like epistemology could use the creationism template format effectively, but philosophy needs another approach than the creationis template referred to above. See the other one: Template:Creationism. 24.18.171.99 06:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these should be in a category, not as a template, articles are too varied - humanism, for example - some people call it philosophy, others something different - it's fine to be in a philosophy category, but doesn't necessarily make sense to display that huge mess of other stuff at the bottom of the page - people interested can click on the category and get to all the same info, yes? Tedernst 16:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, although you can be sure that I very quickly removed this monster from the pages I watch. I can't imagine this is likely to get very wide acceptance, but go ahead and try. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like the idea. It is a bit too big for its use now, but I don't think it should be deleted. The most drastic change I would approve is to move it somewhere else (i.e. Philosophy Portal?). ANYTHING but delete though. FranksValli 19:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Template:Western philosophy. The current template is incredibly biased, which can much more easily be solved by renaming the template than by trying to make an already-too-large navigation box even larger. -Silence 19:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Western Philosphy, and reduce more. I'd roll together the Concepts and General Philosophy sections, removing a bunch of the concepts and the Western/Eastern Philosophy entries. And remove major philosophers until it was a bare-bones list. My suggestions: cut Bentham or Mill, Francis Bacon, Confucius, Democritus (?), Galileo Galilei (not really a philospher in the modern sense), Laozi, Ernest Nagel (unless someone expands his wikipedia entry), William of Ockham (?), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Ayn Rand, and either Moritz Schlick or the Vienna Circle (don't keep both if the idea is to slim this down). And add some pre-Socratics, like Parmenides, or Empedocles - or if there's an entry, pre-Socratics as a whole? Once a real Philosophy portal is activated, though, I'd delete this.--Andymussell 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Large, clumsy, inherently incomplete, inherently PoV. Replace by a template with a link to Western Philosophy. Lists should be in list articles, where there is room for a complete list, with footnotes. Septentrionalis 03:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Incomplete, and making it complete would make it far too large, and it already is far too large.

Keep Not perfect, but nothing's perfect. I find it useful, and the categories judiciously chosen. The suggestion above to delete Confucius is absurd. William of Ockham is often quoted, though not a major philosopher, so he should stay. Bacon is major. Rand is not, but again, often quoted, so keep. Rick Norwood 15:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Attention: Template now streamlined, and considerably smaller.
  • Attention: I don't think there should be a western philosophy nav without an eastern philosophy nav. The template is small enough for me to re-inserting the eastern references. Infinity0 17:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attention: The size of the template has been cut nearly in half (yet again), so that now it is very sleak and streamlined, with room to grow to offset further POV objections. The philosophers have been moved to their own template:Philosophers, which we may find a use for in the future. 24.18.171.99 00:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Eurocoins

Redundant with {{EU coins menu}}. The latter is definitely better, in my opinion; therefore, delete redirect. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: User sgn-4

delete: created by mistake and quickly blanked, this template is not used anywhere, is not helpful, contains several errors which could be frustrating to users unfamiliar with wiki code and is not needed. See discussion here and here. I prefer not to have this template at all but will not object to keeping it if other users feel strongly about the need for it and correct the errors. If not then it should be deleted until someone makes a working template! ntennis 01:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Main problems now rectified. I retract my vote. ntennis 00:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see no reason to delete. Other languages have level xx-0 through xx-4 as well as xx-N, why should sign languages be any different? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Angr, and also I just added a description of it at TEmplate:User sgn. --Nlu 12:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:infobox band

  • Keep: this is an important infobox for poeple who simply want quick info on the band. Instead of having to read the entire article, people can look at the infobox and quickly get the basics on the group.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 17:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jon Harald S�by \ <st the usefulness of this infobox. It merely repeats content already present on the article's lead section (or that could easily be implemented on the lead section, such as recording label), adding only a non-vital list of band members. It clutters articles without bringing any real benefit to the reader or editor. --Sn0wflake 16:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe it is useful, it points out the years they have been active, I believe it's good for on the go glance if you only need basic insno [[:na:User:Jon Harald S�by|na]] 17:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly Keep: Very good source of quick info with an image. --Glass Jore
  • Keep. It's a good idea with plenty of precedent behind it. Should we delete country infoboxes because the info is already present in the article? No, it's not a question of repitition, its a question of ease of use and aesthetics. This isn't going anywhere.--naryathegreat | (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Considering the purpose of templates is to allow the display information using a common interface. To propose deletion of this infobox, that is useful, is to threaten the purpose of templates altogether. The only way this template would clutter is if someone implemented it so -- which could just as easily happen even without a template. Quadra23 00:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nearly all templates display information that can be gleaned from the main article itself, and this template is no exception. The point of templates is to present generic information in a concise, uniform way, not to be a crucial part of the article. � Prizm (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User CRS-4

Oh yeah, and what about all the other joke templates on user pages, like Pig Latin, etc. etc. etc.?? Codex Sinaiticus 23:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, have another look, I have now updated it slightly...Codex Sinaiticus 14:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but isn't the whole point of the joke templates to effectively mimic the real ones so as to surprise and delight readers who take a closer look and see that something's not quite right? When the left box of the template is so long, it is too immediately and blatantly clear that the thing's a weird template, the result being that the humorous surprise impact is enormously minimized. Is there any way to make it look like any normal language template while lessening the possibility that anyone will mistake it for a real code (though with templates as outrageous as this, I doubt that's a big problem; only subtler joke templates will need to account much for that)?
Likewise, a lot of the point of Babel templates, even joke Babel templates, is surely to find other people who share the same interests or backgrounds through categories. And remember that we do have categories for many absurd "languages": Category:User 1337 is quite a huge one. What about the possibility of putting it, and all other pseudolanguages, into a "joke languages" (or similarly named) category, so that (1) they don't clutter up the real language category, (2) it's easier to tell the real ones apart from the fake ones when the joke is subtle, and (3) we can make categories for even the fake languages (that are popular enough to merit it), again, without the clutter. -Silence 07:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokeimage


Template:GameScreenshotInfo

Along the same lines as Template:GameCoverInfo, and I think it should be deleted for the same reason. JYolkowski // talk 16:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Project_namespace#Discussion, per

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place.

There is no operational alternative for the "Wikipedia subcat guideline" template yet; destroying it would cause problems for several active guidelines.

The discussion about the template on the "Template messages" talk page as mentioned above, was listed also on wikipedia:current surveys

So, please turn to Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Project_namespace#Discussion for further comments and/or improvement proposals. --Francis Schonken 09:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Instruments

In variation to Wikipedia:Babel, this page contains dozens of templates such as {{User horn-1}} ("this user is a novice hornist") and {{User org-4}} ("this user is a professional organist") and accompanying catagories. Nearly all of those aren't actually used. At the risk of going out on a limb, I would propose simplifying it a lot by removing the "skill levels" and simply leaving Category:Wikipedians by instrument. Radiant_>|< 10:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Totally harmless. As long as they serves some kind of community purpose and doesn't interfere with anything important, why get rid of things used in userspace? I would, however support getting rid of the categories for each skill level and just lumping as "Hornist", "Organist" etc. unless those categories get overly populated. The templates themselves, though, should stay. -- Tyler 10:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMO even levels should remain, because being able to play "Frère Jacques" is not the same thing as being able to play "The Flight of the Bumblebee" or "Eruption" by Van Halen. However, I might agree that four levels are not strictly necessary, maybe three or even just two would suffice; anyway, since they don't harm, they could as well stay. --Army1987 20:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that not only should the levels be left, but all the levels. I agree with Army1987 about Frère Jacques/The Flight of the Bumblebee, and while there may not be many higher level players for some instruments (for instance, there are currently only 3 professional saxaphone players) the fact that there is ONE is grounds for keeping that level. And for the sake of continuity (for lack of a better word- someone substitute the one I'm looking for) there should be the same number of levels for each one. Eventually (in theory at least) someone will fill themselves into each one- the same theory that Wikipedia eventaully approaches perfection.

Wildyoda 03:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean consistence. However, to avoid having many underpop'd categories as Tyler says, we could keep the templates, remove level-specific categories and replacing [[Category:User {{{instrument-cat-code}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]] with [[Category:User {{{instrument-cat-code}}}|{{{level}}}]]. This way there will be one category per instrument, but users will be sorted by level. (This is just an idea, IMO as long as those categories don't harm they can remain.)--Army1987 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fair use-firefox

Delete and retag images as {{Logo}}, unlike the Disney logo ting this is not used for subcategorisation (it puts images in the generic Category:Logos), also it only apply to like 4 images (one of wich I nominated for deletion because it was only used on a userpage). Moreover the purpose of the template seems to be to validate the use of FireFox logos on userpages based on the fact that FireFox says that you can use the logo on your webpage to promote FireFox. IMHO this permission means little as Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy explicitly states that "fair use" images should not be used on userpages (or templates). --Sherool 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: IANAL, but as far as I know once you're granted permission to use an image on, say, your web page, the use of it in that context ceases to be fair use. Lord Bob 16:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As to permission for "promotional usage"--promotional usage tends to run counter to WP:NOT a soapbox. Also, on the page for button programs, it says at the bottom "Usage guidelines for the new logos is currently under development."[1] I'm not sure exactly what to make of that; it sounds like the conditions are subject to change.
For uses other than as a promotional button on a web page, there are restrictions to personal or non-commercial uses: "Sure, if it's just for you, or if it's for others and no money or other consideration changes hands" [2] All in all, it sounds like a grey area with no compelling justification for why we need to do this.
IMO, we should stick to fair-use {{Logo}} for these, and abide by the restrictions that entails: using the image in articles as identification or illustration when the product or trademark owner in question is a subject of discussion. --Tabor 18:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rewrite & rename:
    1. The copyright holder, firefox states that they are ok with the usage of the image on web pages, hence we have a greater level of permission compared to the standard "Fair use". And as far as copyrights are concerned the copyright holder granted me the permission to use the firefox logo on my userpage for a "promotional usage".
    2. It is plainly "kawaii" (cute) to have the firefox logo on my userpage rather than an annoying "FF" in its place.
    3. If I can say "I like firefox" on my userpage, I should also be allowed to use the logo as well as far as WP:NOT is concerned.
    --<Cool Cat</ <<Talk</ 20:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is way too specific. Just use {{Logo}}, in combination with other existing tags if any apply. JYolkowski // talk 22:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The Problem is logo doesnt do the level of usage of the images we are granted by copyright holder. --<Cool Cat</ <<Talk</ 14:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep re-write somehow. I'm out of my league here, but could {{Promotional}} be of any use? - RoyBoy <800 00:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 19:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cool Cat, and "not a soapbox" does not apply to user pages. ~~ N (t/c) 23:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template serves a very specific purpose, but said purpose is valid and unserved by other templates. When placed on a user page, this is not an example of fair use (because the copyright holder has provided explicit consent). While Wikipedia is not a personal hosting service, we're permitted to include some autobiographical information on our user pages (especially when it pertains to our Wikipedia participation, as browser selection does). —Lifeisunfair 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just how would you clasify these logos anyway? Free use? Defenently not, they are copyrighted and trademarked, and have several restrictions. Used with permission? That runs afoul of WP:CSD#I3. Promotional? All promotional images are still used under a fair use rationale. Conditional use? Nope, they must allow derivative works to fit in that category (wich they don't). We would have to invert a whole new licence type to allow this use as far as I can tell.

    Also note at the end of the quote from the FAQ it says "Put one or more of these buttons on your website to help us spread the word about Firefox." (emphasis mine), it does not say "use any Mozilla logo you like", and only Image:Firefox logo 305x150.png seems to actualy be one of those buttons. --Sherool 17:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom dr.alf 12:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hoax

Delete. I'm nominating this template for the same reason why I support the deletion of {{DisputeCheck}} and {{Cleanup-nonsense}}. Massive warning templates disparage entire articles' quality in the eyes of readers, and therefore should be confined to situations in which concrete allegations of major editorial problems exist. If someone suspects that an article is a hoax (and isn't certain of this), the appropriate course of action is to research the subject further and/or consult others (such as major contributors to related articles). When in doubt, it's important to assume good faith. There's absolutely no need to compromise the appearance of a potentially legitimate article by advertising a mere hunch. —Lifeisunfair 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It should only be used where there is real suspicion, after some research, that the article is likely to be a hoax not in case of mere hunches. When the editor feels the need of advice in specialist areas, for example. Dlyons493 Talk 22:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, when someone suspects that an article is a hoax, it certainly is appropriate to seek the advice of those who are more knowledgeable in the area. In no way, however, does this require the user to add a proclamation of his/her suspicion to the article (which might be legitimate). —Lifeisunfair 22:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dlyons. ~~ N (t/c) 23:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with {{twoversions}} and {{cleanup-nonsense}}, the community at large cannot be trusted to use these templates sensibly. If you think something is a hoax, the correct course of action is to look further into it, and tag it with {{delete}} or to AfD it, or to raise it on the talk page for the article. Chris <talk back 23:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The origin of this template was a discussion at WP:CSD if hoax vandalism ought to be speedy deleted. A concern was that just tagging it as {{delete}} would not give the article sufficient exposure to eyeballs. As far as responsible use goes, I see no rampant misuse of the {{delete}} template. Pilatus 10:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Under current policy, alleged hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates on that basis. And even if this were to change (which would be ill-advised, in my opinion), the {{hoax}} template encourages readers to place a scarlet "H" on articles that are merely "suspected" to be hoaxes. (Hurl accusations now, ask questions later.) —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Hoaxes are speediable under G1 if the article give insufficient context for turning it into a valid article. Johntex\<talk 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I explicitly stated that "alleged hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates on that basis" (new emphasis). Hoaxes are subject to G1, but this has nothing to do with the fact that they're hoaxes. —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Recent examples show that once spotted, the legitimacy of an article is quickly established either way. Pilatus 13:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • How is it beneficial to display a disparaging notice in the meantime? —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ordinary vandalism (including adding nonsense) is reverted on sight and doesn't stay visible for too long. Hoax entries on entirely fictional people on the other hand must go through the AfD process to be removed and take a week or so to go away. A notice that the hoax has been discovered in addition to the AfD notice (which will be slapped on once the hoax is confirmed) will hopefully discourage the vandal. Pilatus 14:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. Until sufficient evidence exists to reasonably establish a high level of probability that the article is a hoax (thereby warranting an AfD listing), it's inappropriate to place a deprecatory label on the (potentially legitimate) page. Even a non-definitive declaration is injurious to an article's reputation — and more importantly, that of its contributor. In the case of a false alarm, this is likely to be a new, inexperienced member of our community (who might be offended/discouraged by the false vandalism accusation to the extent that he/she decides to cease all participation). "Assuming good faith" doesn't mean "assuming that a borderline suspicious article is a hoax until proven otherwise."
2. When there is sufficient evidence to warrant an AfD listing, it remains inappropriate to tag an article with a supplementary template (in addition to {{afd}}). This unfairly conveys an out-of-context, one-sided, POV-based assessment of the content. The correct procedure is to simply insert the {{afd}} tag (and nothing more). This promulgates the fact that the article has been nominated for deletion (itself an unfortunate but unavoidable circumstance for valid articles), and directs readers to the AfD discussion (where all pertinent viewpoints and specific evidence may be addressed). —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoaxes are alluded to in that paragraph, but not in a context that would render them eligible for speedy deletion. An unambiguously nonsensical joke ("Lushy McDrinksalot traveled to Earth from the planet Foamymug in his magical, hops-powered rocket ship to become the first openly drunk President of the United States . . .") fits the speedy deletion criteria, but a plausible hoax (meaning one that might be taken seriously by a rational adult) is explicitly excluded from speedy deletion: "This does not include . . . hoaxes . . ." Of course, this is irrelevant to the matter at hand; even if "likely hoax" were added as a new CSD, your template would be inappropriate. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • G1 contains the page's one and only instance of the word "hoax." Thus far, every attempt to expand the speedy deletion criteria to include hoaxes has failed. If the current proposal or any future proposal succeeds, your template still will be inappropriate (IMHO). —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • G1 has a definition of "patent nonsense", which excludes hoax and continues that "pure vandalism" fits into category G3. Speedy deleting obvious pranks is practiced. Pilatus 01:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your description does not correspond to the template's actual wording (which clearly encourages application to a "suspected" hoax that has not yet been "confirmed to be a hoax" or "nominated[d] for deletion," and that might be "confirmed true"). If you were to reword the template for use in the manner that you describe above (confining its application to a situation in which the user is confident in his/her assertion that an article is a hoax), it would become nothing more than an inappropriate companion to {{afd}} that shouts "HOAX! HOAX!" at readers who haven't had the opportunity to read such a claim in the context of the AfD discussion (which might contain weak evidence of wrongdoing and/or valid a defense of the article's legitimacy). —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If can come up with better phrasing for the intended use, please do so. Pilatus 13:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't believe that this template has a valid application; any rewording would merely shift it from one inappropriate purpose to another. —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just now, on New Page Patrol, I came across two hoax articles that the hoax template was intended for. Barry Cahill committed a "triple murder" when he killed the "Larkson Family"; Google throws up no hits for this. Dr. Julian Godfray won the 1972 Booker Prize with for his novel "The Sun Disk Pharaoh". Neither author nor title are listed in the catalogue of the British Library. I didn't check if a building is named after him at King's College School, Wimbledon; probably it isn't and the school may not exist. The 1972 Booker Prize was awarded to John Berger. Does that really need to hang around for a week on AfD? Pilatus 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a hypothetical example, suppose that an individual by the name of "Larry Cahill" murdered a family by the name of "Clarkson." What initially appears to be a clear-cut hoax could turn out to be nothing more than a couple of honest factual errors. (The level of notability would be a separate issue.) This is the sort of realization that sometimes occurs at AfD, and that's why we bother to conduct the discussions.
Again, this is irrelevant to the matter at hand; even if "likely hoax" were added as a new CSD, your template would be inappropriate. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is always the risk that speedy-deleting hoax vandalism might kill a legit article, that is precisely why it's preferable to have some people look over it before the hoax is deleted. Hence the template.
It always is a good idea to seek community feedback before deleting an article because it's believed to be a hoax, irrespective of how that deletion occurs. But once again, why is it necessary to solicit such advice via a deprecatory template? —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already have such a template; it's called {{not verified}}. —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(hits himself) sorry - missed that, thanks --Doc (?) 02:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we are 51-90% sure something is a hoax, we do the unsuspecting reader a disservice if they are not warned of this possibility while we continue our fact-checking. Johntex\<talk 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are 51-90% sure something is a hoax, then it gets AfD'd, with the statement that it might be a hoax there, and a great big sodoff link at the top saying the article might be deleted. Is that somehow not enough for the discerning reader to think twice about the article's content? Chris <talk back 19:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much of this discussion is the wrong way round. It isn't a question of whether we are 50-90% sure it is a hoax. We only include verifiable info. If there is 1% possibility of hoax, we try to verify the article. If we can't verify it - we delete it, period. {{not verified}} or {{afd}} are all we really require. --Doc (?) 10:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that this conflicts with what Chris wrote above. We seek to verify everything (and remove the content that cannot be verified), but we shouldn't allege that an article is a "hoax" unless we're fairly certain of this. There's a big difference between "I can't confirm that this article is true" (which could simply mean that the article is in need of cleanup) and "I believe that this article is false." In fact, {{hoax}} goes a step further by specifying an accusation of vandalism. (Not all inaccurate articles are hoaxes. Some are written in good faith by people who mistakenly believe the information to be accurate.) —Lifeisunfair 14:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that there is a difference between inaccuracy and hoax is exactly why there should be two templates. If the "can't confirm the article is ture" then we use {{not verified}}, if we actually "believe the article is false" then we use {{hoax}}. Johntex\<talk 18:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • We already have the {{disputed}} tag for assertions that an article is false. It conveys the necessary message without taking anyone's side or lodging accusations of bad faith. (As I said, it's easy to mistake a good faith error for a deliberate hoax.) —Lifeisunfair 03:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An AFD notice is insufficient, as most articles nominated are truthful, and the nomination is usually unrelated to truth. The five days the hoax gets on wikipedia (and much longer on mirrors), is part of what helps the spread of these hoaxes (there can also be a circular effect, where others pick it from us, and we pick it back from them when it's recreated). Sure, this tag could be misused, but somebody who does that, could just as easily edit the article to say something isn't real. Spreading a lie, even for five days, is simply wrong. --rob 15:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. We already have {{not verified}}, which warns readers that an article might not be factual, and does so in NPOV fashion (without hurling accusations of bad faith). This certainly can be used in conjunction with {{afd}}.
2. {{Hoax}} is explicitly indicated for application not strictly to articles that are strongly believed to be hoaxes, but to articles that are merely "suspected" to be hoaxes, including ones that have not been listed at AfD, and are merely being investigated. Again, {{not verified}} covers such a situation well (without assuming bad faith). —Lifeisunfair 15:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm quite open to improved wording of the template (that can be discussed on the talk page). The "unverified" tag isn't good enough, because there are countless articles where verification is needed, but the information is likely true, or there's simply an honest mistake. A massive proportion of Wikipedia articles are like this. Hoaxes are maliscious attempts to deceive people. As an example, in a recent hoax, somebody pretended to be a famous music producer, working with a big-name rapper. They were using Wikipedia to promote what might have an illegal reproduction of the artists music (I'm not sure of the exact agenda). Tagging that as "unverified" puts it in league with many other music bios, that have all sorts of unsourced sales figures. There is a huge difference between Wikipedia making an honest mistake of information (which is sadly common) and helping a hoaxer intentionally deceive people. --rob 16:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The template in question is called {{not verified}} — not {{unverified}}, which redirects to {{no source}}. (The latter is an image tag, so I assume that you simply mistyped the name.)
No one is arguing that a deliberate hoax is the same thing as an honest mistake. The point is that it isn't always possible to differentiate between the two, so we should err on the side of caution. (It's better to tag a hoax as "not verified" — a true statement — than to risk tagging a good faith submission as "a hoax.") The purpose of such templates is not to punish contributors (including malicious ones); it's to warn readers that the article's information might not be accurate. From a reader's perspective, it makes no difference whether the inaccuracy is intentional or inadvertent (both of which justify removal, via either deletion or replacement). Unlike the {{not verified}} template, the {{hoax}} template is inherently non-NPOV. —Lifeisunfair 17:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was working from (faulty) memory, and I mistyped the template name (oops). I appreciate you have the best of intentions, but think you're trying to be to nice here. Take vandalism, we warn people nicely at first, but repeated vandalism, can escalate into a block within the first day, not five days. Also, think of all the times people say "vandalism" or "rvv" in edit summaries. I fully agree caution must be used before calling something a hoax, just as we shouldn't label users vandals, in cases where they screwed-up. Also, when you say from a reader's perspective there's little difference between inaccuracy or intentional error; that's wrong. Readers can forgive honest mistakes, but may not, and should not forgive maliscious errors. Template:Not verified is used in hundreds of articles, and its high use, means it has little impact. Template:Hoax would be used in only a few at any given time. Also, we already have rules in place to prevent overuse. WP:NPA and WP:AGF seem to prohibit baseless allegations of a hoax. I've seen you give great arguements for *rare* use of this tag, but I can't understand why you oppose any use. --rob 17:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"I appreciate you have the best of intentions, but think you're trying to be to nice here."
I'm not trying to be nice to vandals; I'm trying not to asperse legitimate articles and their contributors.
"Also, when you say from a reader's perspective there's little difference between inaccuracy or intentional error; that's wrong. Readers can forgive honest mistakes, but may not, and should not forgive maliscious errors."
The average Wikipedia reader neither knows nor cares about the specific identity of an article's author; he she uses the site strictly for informative/educational purposes. Obviously, those of us who participate in Wikipedia's creation and maintenance should treat a vandal much differently than we treat someone who committed an honest mistake. There's no need, however, to advertise this fact within the articles.
"I've seen you give great arguements for *rare* use of this tag, but I can't understand why you oppose any use."
In my assessment, the template is inherently non-NPOV and potentially harmful (even if used with extreme caution). —Lifeisunfair 19:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Not verified is in no way a suitable substitute for Template:Hoax. The language on the not-verified template is far too mild for cases where we are pretty sure (but not yet sure enough to delete) than an article is a hoax. The not-verified template should be used for routine cases where there is some doubt about the facts, but not enough to say that the article is probably a hoax. Johntex\<talk 17:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Template:Not verified is in no way a suitable substitute for Template:Hoax."
Template:Hoax is in no way a suitable substitute for NPOV and the assumption of good faith.
"The language on the not-verified template is far too mild for cases where we are pretty sure (but not yet sure enough to delete) than an article is a hoax. The not-verified template should be used for routine cases where there is some doubt about the facts, but not enough to say that the article is probably a hoax."
I understand the theoretical benefit of drawing such a distinction, but I don't believe that it's possible to do so reliably. (I've seen cases in which articles that appeared to be clear-cut hoaxes turned out to be legitimate.) To paraphrase an old legal principle, it's better to give ten vandals the benefit of the doubt than to unfairly accuse one innocent party of vandalism. —Lifeisunfair 19:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should publish 10 wanton lies, so that we can publish one poorly written truth. In fact, the 10 lies mean nobody will beleive us when we write the truth. Wikipedia has already gotten substantial bad press for much of the bogus info we publish. We generally defend ourselves, on the grounds that we quickly fix our errors. For some weird reason, we keep on letting articles that are 100% maliscious lies, sit for five days. Now, my first choice is a quicker delete, but if we must keep the lies, lets give an honest warning. --rob 10:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't believe that placing two enormous banners at the top of a page — one indicating that the article's veracity has not been verified, and the other indicating that the article is being considered for deletion — serves as an honest warning to our readers? It also is necessary to throw in a one-sided, non-NPOV opinion?
As the newbies are scared away by false accusations of vandalism, the legitimate : malicious content ratio will only shift for the worse. Of course, you've indicated above that you aren't interested in preserving "poorly written truth[s]." If someone isn't a master author from day one, let's brand him/her a vandal along with the liars and other worthless contributors. We mustn't bother with this assumption of good faith nonsense. Right?
To be clear, the above is not an actual allegation of such a viewpoint on your part; it's my description of an unfortunate side effect that I believe is being overlooked by some. —Lifeisunfair 11:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to protect the reputation of the accused, than please support speedy deletes of confirmed hoaxes. We can improve the process, to ensure such deletes are verified by a second opinion (e.g. other admin). We can also require a message on the author's talk page, giving them a chance to explain themselves (and a message on the deleted articles talk page). But, you continue to understimate the serious lasting harm to readers, and Wikipedia's reputation, by these hoaxes. To me, this is like a store selling a product that it knows is probably inherently defective to the customer. Ideally, they wouldn't sell it, but if they do sell it, they ought to share their knowledge of the problem. --rob 12:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attempting to downplay the harm of fraudulent articles. I simply believe that this template is likely to cause more damage than it prevents, and therefore is not a viable solution to the problem. I would support a much shorter AfD discussion period for deletions purely on the basis of wholesale unverifiability (2 days, perhaps?), but not a speedy deletion criterion. A second (or even third) opinion is insufficient, because there's no reason to assume that a small group of random admins is qualified to assess the veracity of a seemingly plausible (but unverifiable) claim. It isn't unheard-of for one person (out of everyone participating in an AfD discussion) to rescue an article from deletion by uncovering an elusive piece of evidence that establishes its legitimacy. It certainly helps to have the contributor take part in the debate, but suspicious articles often are authored by users who don't regularly visit Wikipedia and/or haven't registered accounts. —Lifeisunfair 13:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that this template categorizes articles in Category:Suspected hoaxes. —Lifeisunfair 21:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be more specific. I felt like seeing what the issue was on this after having used it once on an article that will most likely be deleted soon. I figure under the concerns of POV, general reputation, etc., lies a distinction to be made between amongst different types of hoaxes:
  1. Silly user-created hoaxes - {{nonsense}}
  2. Elaborate user-created hoaxes - {{afd}}
  3. Notable verified real-world hoaxes - Keep and Category:Hoaxes
  4. Real-world memes stated as truth despite documented evidence of hoaxness - Assume good faith and re-write according to consensus.
  5. Real-world memes researched by both sides with no consensus, yet too notable to delete - Edit Wars? Conclude that {{not verified}} is inappropriate as the matter's truth is believed unverifiable? Wait for the truth to become known (Snickers bar, anyone)? Delete for unverifiability and/or the crystal ball clause? Leave a bunch of red links pointing to it? Or conclude that the notability of a possible hoax might justifies the article's existance?

I guess go ahead and delete this, then figure out our actual goals regarding hoaxes and start from scratch. Ok, I've probably exceeded my alotted bandwidth. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect → {{cleanup-verify}}. Otherwise; I made some remarks about the presentation of the template at Template talk:hoax; in any case, there should not be a big yellow box with a red stop sign saying "This article is a hoax"; it is more appropriate to say we dispute the factual accuracy. --Mysidia (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hoaxes need a warning template for the duration of their tenure on AFD. — Phil Welch 21:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a good template use to assert a probable hoax which you hope to clear up without a debate on AfD. I used it the other day for Skeet McNullivich and two other hoaxes, and informed the author that I believed the articles to be joke articles. Had he responded by expanding and providing references, or told me that he intended to do so,I could have removed the templates. Had he owned up, I could have speedied them. So that's two possible ways of clearing things up without adding to the load on AfD. As it happened, in this case the author didn't respond and so I've taken the case forward to AfD. At the time I was editing using an alternative username, User:Tasty monster. --Tony Sidawayt 07:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the benefit of avoiding an AfD debate, but I don't understand how the {{hoax}} tag played an active role in this process. Couldn't you simply have contacted the author, irrespective of any template's presence? (Of course, I would advocate the use of {{disputed}} in these instances, but that's beside the point.) —Lifeisunfair 12:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAOL

This template was created to highlight articles that have a featured-article equivalent in an other language wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages). But I think that it should be replaced by Template:FA link, a smaller template that puts a small star in the interlanguage box (see Boeing 747). check also here the same proposal that I've made but didn't get any responses. CG 18:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The "Featured Article" interwiki star only works with the Monobook skin. --Carnildo 00:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Template:FA link (currently a redirect to Template:Link FA) only notes for the benefit of readers that an article is featured in another language. Template:FAOL has a somewhat different meaning. It notes for the benefit of contributors that a featured article in another language is a likely source of additional information (which definitely isn't true for all featured articles in other languages). It also places the article in a category under Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages. --Hoziron 03:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. {{FAOL}} and its companion {{FAOLdone}} are complementary to {{link FA}}: they perform different tasks in different contexts. —Phil | Talk 11:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wait. Which is it? Is the purpose of Template:FAOL (1) to accomodate people who don't use the Monobook skin, or is it (2) to note articles which aren't just featured articles on other languages, but also happen to have valuable information that could assist the English article if it were utilized, or is it (3) to put the articles into the category of featured articles in various languages? The motivation here seems fairly confused. What if a featured article on a foreign-language Wikipedia doesn't have any information that we haven't yet utilized for our English Wikipedia article, but we do want to make it clear to non-monobookers that the article is a featured one, or we do want to put it in that category? What then? Or what if an article isn't featured on a foreign language Wiki, but does have lots of information on that Wiki that we would find highly valuable to use if it was translated and properly formatted? Why include the additional "featured article" requirement, if the chief point of Template:FAOL is to note foreign-language articles we can use to improve the English Wikipedia, rather than a template just to point out when there's a featured article in another language, a task already well-handled by Template:FA link for anyone who uses monobook. And wouldn't it make sense to have template:FA link also put articles into categories, so we wouldn't have to use two redundant templates for every featured article in every foreign language? This whole idea seems like an inefficient doubling of the steps required to note that a certain article is a featured one in a foreign language, one that could only lead to inconsistencies and unnecessary work. Never do with two templates what you could do with one. -Silence 12:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, thank you for your comment. I'll try to answer your questions. The Template:FAOL was created as the template of the Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages page, which aims to provide good sources for translators, but also to make some kind of statistics to see the kind of articles that are being improved in other languages (for example the Hebrew Wikipedia emphasis on Israeli-related articles, while the French one has a big number of good philosophy and linguistics articles). And yes, you're right, a lot of these FA in other languages are doesn't contain valuable information (that's why you would find 7 templates in Talk:World War II), and it has been deleted from a number of talk pages because of it uselessness. That's there's should be a discussion to make a consensus about the use of these two templates. CG 16:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though after that discussion takes place, it might be time to re-nominate this thing for deletion. This nomination is premature, but not necessarily a bad idea eventually, if we can come up with a better system (or at least a better name, though probably we'll keep this one even if we change its content) for this project, most ideally one that does both everything the Interwiki links do and everything the FAOL templates do, but at the very least a more consistent and less intrusive method for the Talk page templates, since, unlike many other Talk page templates, these are almost always of less than critical importance; the vast majority of editors on any page will find them useless, due to not speaking those other languages. I also still don't understand why a non-featured article on another language that has a lot of information we could use wouldn't have this template used on our wiki for such a page. The "featured article" requirement for something like this seems completely arbitrary, silly, and counter-productive, if its intent is to improve our articles, not just provide a repository for ones on other languages—as the InterWiki links do, though the fact that they don't categorize the featured articles for easy browsing is significant—of course, one could always go through the categories for such things on the foreign-language wikis, if one has even that much skill for navigating the pages.... -Silence 22:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is needed for users relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia's arcane nomenclature and semiotics to transfer contents from featured homologues to those that need improvement. Saravask 01:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though its flawed beyond reason, this needs consensus in other locales before deletion. If you doubt that's its useless, see Talk:World War II where about 7 featured articles are linked. Of course, none is as thorough or as well written as the one in English (the Arabic one is laughably short), and many are translations of the English, but of course, that's not important. However, that's not really a reason to delete it. I think there need to be guidelines to its use, however.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same is true to a lesser degree for Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien. God, these things sure are excessively space-consuming. Can't we at least turn it into a Babel-style template, where it only states the information about the WikiProject and all once, and then just lists all the featured articles within a single template? That would also make it a lot easier to include every foreign language featured article for a page, thus making it a vastly more effective alternative to the Interwiki links, which are currently a thousand times less obtrusive and space-consuming. -Silence 22:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 1000edits

Oh for heaven's sake. This panders to the worst kind of editcountitis. --Tony Sidaway<<Talk</ 18:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest argument I've heard all week. There's a thousand worlds of difference between what Wikipedia allows on articles, templates, categories, etc. and what it allows on User and Talk pages. Where to draw the line is what's being discussed in these VfDs, but the suggestion for joke templates like these has been to move them to Userspace, not to ban them from user pages altogether! For example, if the above template was moved to User:Silence/1000, anyone could type {{user:silence/1000}} to produce the exact same effect as something on the Template space does. Or they could simply copy-paste the raw code onto their page, as I do with my own joke Babel entries. If such measures were impossible, arguments for deleting templates that are purely bad jokes and other not-yet-deleted nonsense would be tremendously ineffective. -Silence 02:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tonofedits

Same as Template:User 1000edits. Rubbish. --Tony Sidaway<<Talk</ 18:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - what next? an edit count league-table (oh, forgot we already have one) --Doc (?) 18:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC) OK, keep understood as a post-modern ironic parody of editcountis. (but, yes, it is a bad joke)Doc (?) 19:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairusein2

Delete. Because media should only be used as fair use where they are essential to the article, images that are fair use in two or more articles are few and far between. For the few that are, use two instances of {{Non-free fair use in}} instead of creating a whole bunch of new templates. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I can easily imagine dual fair use being common for pictures showing an actor in a particular production, and this template can also handle the rarer cases of 3 or more articles. Caerwine 01:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Images can be fairuse in many articles. For example, a fairuse image of Pope John Paul II would be fairuse in the article about him, in an article on major figures of the 20th century, in an article on key figures in the collapse of communism, in an article on leaders who were the victims of assassination attempts, etc. A fairuse image of a pope wearing a triple tiara could be fair use for an article on that pope (especially if there were no images of anyone wearing that particular tiara), in an article on papal tiaras, in an articles on crowns, in an article on goldsmiths, etc. The most recent image added in of the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall at the White House is fairuse for articles on both, and would be suitable for articles on diplomatic visits, on controversial visitors to the White House, on the first official visit abroad by Camilla, etc. In each case it would be fair use. It makes sense to reuse images where they have a unique value to each article rather than having to trace a different image of Charles and Camilla at the White House for separate articles on Charles, on Camilla and on their first foreign visit together. It would also be legally problematical. If you already have an photograph of the topic you need a photograph, you can hardly call getting a second fairuse as it would be pointless duplication. I really don't think Wikipedia actually knows the law on fairuse. Having 50 fairuse images used twice makes more sense legally that 100 used once photographs where 50 are a needless duplication that both doubles the chances of legal problem and are unnecessary since we already have an alternative image on file. FearÉIREANN(caint) 02:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone thinks an image is fair use in two articles, they should stick two {{Non-free fair use in}} templates on it. --Carnildo 05:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having two parameters isn't much of a problem to me. Wcquidditch | Talk 13:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what is the problem with using one Fairusein template per use? It's clear, it's simple, what's the problem? JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with Carnildo. Wikiacc (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Jtdirl and User:Caerwine. and where is the policy that says that a fair use image must be "essential to the article"? It is surely not derived from copyright law, which does not mention the degree of need the user has for the fair-use content in any way. DES <(talk)</ 04:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its much harder if you way want to add or remove a fair use to have to edit the template, change its number etc. Diffs also much cleaner if there is a fairuse template for each. Justinc 16:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Jtdirl. --Locke Cole 02:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Jtdirl.--Jiang 04:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see what it hurts. Derex [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 01:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairusein3

Delete per reason at Template:Fairusein2 listing above. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairusein4

Delete per reason at Template:Fairusein2 listing above. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairusein5

Delete, this is way over the top. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: bacteria-stub

Delete: This template had been accidentally modified unpurposely by the creator using 'edit this page' option after clicked the link in Category:Bacteria-stub. However, the creator decided to cancel it as the creator had found the relevant information that was going to be added in other section of Wikipedia. Therefore, it is not used in any article, and their category is empty.

  • Thank you for your response. I admit I accidentally messed up a bit.

I will really appreciate if anyone have any solution for this. Thank you.Amalthea cute

Template:Cc-by-sa-any

Delete: Very confusing tag, as while it clearly and understandably can handle commercial use under a Cc-by-sa 1.0, it uses both the "commercial" (regular) and non-commercial 2.0 licenses! That makes as much sense as GFDL and "by-permission, Wikipedia only" dual-licensed, for example. It doesn't even suggest anything about choosing just one, which could save this template and help weed out the speedy-able I3s. If kept, -- and I strongly emphasize if here -- possible rename to {{Cc-by-sa-both}} to remove the non-commercial bit, and most definitely should be clarified so it can actually be understood. Wcquidditch | Talk 16:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should note that this template was created after the declaration by Jimbo of ending all usage of non-commercial images -- not that this means anything within this very confusing template without clarification. Wcquidditch | Talk 16:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be polite to talk to the users who have uploaded images under this template before deleting it. --Henrygb 00:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It might be mandatory to delete images with this license before deleting the template, which implies notification and a waiting period to allow relicensing by uploaders. (SEWilco 18:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete or rename, too confusing. JYolkowski // talk 00:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This actually makes sense - if someone wants to reuse an image in a project under a noncommercial license, they can't use a by-sa image, but they can use a by-sa-nc one. Dual licensing keeps these images free, by allowing them to be used even by people who don't want to open their content up to commercial use without permission. Night Gyr 02:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rework. Since I created the original version of this template, I should probably explain its purpose. But before I do that, if there is confusion, it should clearly be explained, like many of the other multi-licensing notices. The fact is that it MUST be multi-licensed and someone has to choose only one. This is the only possibility, since the licenses are incompatible with each other. Only the copyright holder can multi-license. In any case, I don't agree at all that the license is "non-free" for the purpose of Wikipedia. It is well within the rights of the copyright holder to license it however he sees fit. As long as the work is available under a free compatible license, it will ALWAYS be available under that license, and thus is perfectly compatible with Wikipedia (and its derivatives) forever. This is not disputable. Now some copyright holders would like their images to be used in documents that are restricted to non-commerical usage. They couldn't do that if it was only the Wikipedia compatible "free" license. It really doesn't affect Wikipedia itself, just the copyright holder's wishes. — Ram-Man <(comment) (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template does not appear to have been reworked, so the comment above is somewhat of an empty promise. However, it has been replaced by the stop-hand image+Jimbo warning, and we have other templates like that. Additioanlly, at least one of the 'comments' sounds like a keep. -Splashtalk 19:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SocEur

Delete: On Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags, someone noted that this template's use as a "free use" template was wrong, that usage of images from http://www.soccer-europe.com required "written perimission from the webmaster." Therefore, this is a misleading template. Wcquidditch | Talk 15:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might also be a good idea to ask the webmaster what permission he could give Wikipedia to use those images, to determine if post-May 19 images with this template are to be speedied as I3s. Wcquidditch | Talk 15:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked for, and received written permission from the webmaster (post-May 19; I didn't know at the time why "by permission" on its own was bad). I asked him to double-check every use of an image (at first), and every change to the category and the template back when I made them, and he said it was fine (including the copyright tag). I also asked him to update the website, because it was causing a little confusion (User:Quadell nominated an image for deletion as a copyvio), but he just said to forward any queries on to him (I guess, since you're planning to email him, I don't need to tell you to go do so :-)). Perhaps he doesn't want to bung a laxer licence up on his website for fear of encouraging people to take images, but doesn't mind them doing that from Wikipedia; perhaps he doesn't know that people can take images from Wikipedia. Either way, it's something you'll have to resolve with him. (Thanks for the warning, by the way). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I might not get involved with that, although yes, clarification may be needed somewhere. As it currently stands, some images may be incorrectly called a copyvio, which isn't really what we are trying to do. Wcquidditch | Talk 12:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate doesn't sound very much like a consensus to delete, eve though there are no outright keeps. So I'll leave it alone. -Splashtalk 19:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Slashdotted

Note that this template has been moved to {{high-traffic}} and generalized accordingly. —Lifeisunfair 12:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-encyclopedic. Reads like an ad for Slashdot, which is a fine site, but which has no place in Wikipedia. Yath 00:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unencyclopedic, current for at most 24 hours, and significently overstates the impact of Slashdot links and Slashdot in general, especially when used in relation to links that are just in commets. If it isn't deleted, it needs to be firmly established that this sort of template only belongs on talk pages, and should only be used for links that are on Slashdot's main page, while they are on its main page; there is some basis for putting such things on talk, but none whatsoever for putting them on articles. --Aquillion 00:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand the idea behind this, but it seems unnecessary; a recently Slashdotted article is a likely vandalism target, but so are countless other high profile pages. (And of course, any page can be vandalized, with the less visited articles being the most likely to retain malicious edits for extended periods of time.) If an article has been featured on Slashdot, it most likely is on enough watchlists that any vandalism will be reverted within minutes. I seriously doubt that many people regularly check this template's associated category for new entries, so it really doesn't serve much of a purpose beyond advertising Slashdot (not that they need the plug). —Lifeisunfair 00:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't logically follow that because something was linked from Slashdot that it will have a lot of people watching it. Most Wikipedia links I've seen in Slashdot posts were just links for extra information on the subject matter and the Wikipedia article itself wasn't actually being featured. Actually, forget that, I've never actually seen a Wikipedia article featured on Slashdot, it's always been as a "see also" type link added that people could click for more information on a subject they may not be knowledgeable about. Nathan J. Yoder 18:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can see the reason for this, but it's just an ad for slashdot; perhaps someone could remove the "slashdot" and just replace /. with "A high traffic site"--Rdoger6424 01:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The massive trolling that follows slashdot must be pointed out.
  • Delete or Generalize and move to talk page. No reason that we can't flag slashdot vandalisim the same way we flag regular vandalisim. --Quasipalm 01:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there is a decision to delete, please consider creating a similar but neutral template as per Rdoger6424. The warning has helped me spot vandalism in the past (though after that I was wary of pages linked to from /. without needing a reminder). I think the notion that this works as an ad for Slashdot is fairly ridiculous, though. Maybe MediaWiki should offer some way that pages with unusual activity automatically get flagged - this could also work well for current events. --01:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or generalize, this template is basically used to spot vandalism as it occurs. I have no objection to something along the lines of "This page was noted recently in _____ and as a result, can be filled with vandalism" or something better-sounding. Titoxd<(?!?) 02:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or generalize. It's useful info for people who keep track of the page, but keep it on talk pages in the future. -- SCZenz 02:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this template is incredibly helpful when a site is listed on Slashdot, and it's true, once linked there's invariably vandals lurking on tagged articles. -Locke Cole 02:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How does this template's presence assist in countering the vandalism? —Lifeisunfair 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It adds them to Category:Linked from Slashdot. If you check that every so often it might provide a good way to note articles likely to be vandalized. FWIW I'd also be for generalizing the template. -Locke Cole 03:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vandals can check categories too. If this template is generalized, won't the associated category serve as a one-stop list of the most visible targets? —Lifeisunfair 03:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you give the average vandal a bit too much credit, assuming they'd know their way around the wiki so well. Besides, the most visible targets are also going to be the best-policed. ～J.K. 03:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"I think you give the average vandal a bit too much credit, assuming they'd know their way around the wiki so well."
It isn't the average vandal that I'm worried about. Some of the more sophisticated vandals target high-use templates (thereby defacing hundreds of articles simultaneously) or run bots that vandalize dozens of pages in the minute or two before they're blocked. It's safe to say that such vandals "know their way around the wiki" well enough to consult a category.
"Besides, the most visible targets are also going to be the best-policed."
Yes, I noted that fact in the comments accompanying my vote. But these targets are highly visible and carefully watched without such a template. I don't understand how it's supposed to help matters. —Lifeisunfair 03:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of our goals is to welcome new editors, and we don't accomplish this by declaring that we suspect them of vandalism because they arrived at Wikipedia via a particular website. Encouraging users to examine the revision history is more than sufficient. —Lifeisunfair 14:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Academies

Rename: The template itself is a borderline example of a navigation template in my opinion, but I brought it since it deals with only Swedish Royal Academies and not Academies in general, therefore it should be renamed so that it's name reflects that. Caerwine 02:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Northern Ireland infobox

Subst and delete: Single-use template, used only in Northern Ireland. Should be substd in and deleted. --Carnildo 21:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PUI and Template:PUIdisputed

Delete or redirect: These templates are used to link the image with unknown ({{PUI}}) or disputed ({{PUIdisputed}}) copyright status or source information to WP:PUI; but these templates confuse editors and readers, as WP:PUI says this template should stay at least for 30 days before image deletion. But criteria for speedy deletion (official guideline) clearly state that no noticed unfree (or possible unfree) should stay for more than 7 days.

Also, templates {{No source}} and {{No license}}, supported by official guideline, could be used for the same purpose. Monkbel 18:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (no vote) {{Nonfreedelete}} is also a PUI template, but does not have anything to do with the other templates' violation of CSD I4. I'll let others have their say before I decide, however. Wcquidditch | Talk 23:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the other templates each have their own purpose, and the dating issue can be resolved without removing a widely-used template without a clear substitute. Night Gyr 00:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless changes in policy are made. These are for Potentially unfree images and not redundant with existing procedures (especially {{PUIdisputed}}). JYolkowski // talk 00:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nosource and nolicense are for entirely different purposes. For example... say you come across a picture you think to be a photograph taken from a catalog. But the source link to the image is valid, and its got a license of PD, it has a source (so nosource doesnt apply) ... it has a license (so nolicense doesnt apply) but its clearly improperly labeled. You cant mark it as copyvio because your unsure if it is legally used or not. THIS is where PUI/PUIdisputed come in. Hope this makes it more clear to you/other voters  ALKIVAR™ 07:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because an article or image or whatever is deletable via CSD doesn't mean that it must be immediately. (For example, we've got a whole lot of pages consisting only of the template {{wi}} or {{deletedpage}}.) The longer PUI process allows us more time to verify images that we think would be useful. —Cryptic (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CSD I4 is for undoubtedly unfree images, I believe -- images that simply need to go. As JYolkowski said, the P is for potentially -- we don't know if it those images are free or not, so a longer wait period than the I4's 7 days is needed (for PUI, 30 days). Once you think about how CSD I4 and PUI are distinct, there is the possibility of this nomination being a violation of WP:POINT. <Also, could someone combine the two headers? This is clearly a two-template nomination, but it appears to have been handled a bit incorrectly. Wcquidditch | Talk 01:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per JYolkowski and User:Alkivar. DES <(talk)</ 04:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. --bainer (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it makes sense, but the PUI process should be streamlined (the phases and caption editing is time-consuming) and the guidelines should explain proper use of {{nosource}} and {{nolicense}}. Things are very confusing as they are right now. It discrourages those who would like to help out but don't want to spend a lot of time moving things around or figuring out what the policy is. Foofy 18:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is a helpful template erasing it does not make sense Yuckfoo 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Needed and used. If there is a policy conflict then fix the policy; TfD is for templates and not policy. (SEWilco 03:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Antivirals

This massive template is simply a group of other smaller templates. It is far too large, and it would be much more useful to simply display the small templates in each article. - SimonP 17:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

)Keep in some form. The information is useful though unattractively presented. The utility of showing antiretrovirals together with antiherpesvirus agents is questionable though. I suggest showing antivirals for related virii, and links to main articles for other antiviral families. Ben@liddicott.com 09:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm the one who made it, and I reckon delete. The subtemplates are independent and those can be affixed to the relevant pages in place of the large, overview one. ben
  • Those who want this kept and flattened should now go and flatten it as they promised they would. If they don't, it can come back for deletion-per-not-done-as-promised-last-time. -Splashtalk 19:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: NIPMs

Subst and delete: Single-use template, used only in Northern Ireland. In general, single-use templates are bad, as they make editing the article more difficult, and make fixing vandalism harder as well. Should be substed into that article and deleted. --Carnildo 23:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per Jtdirl. --bainer (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jtdirl appears to be going about this the wrong way. The idea is to create templates for articles, not articles in which to use templates. I think it's just that they don't understand what templates are actually for, and how they are supposed to be used. Chris <talk back 19:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be so ridiculous. A series of articles are being created off Wiki (rather than put the first few paragraphs on with a to be continued tag). Images and templates were created for these articles, as the templates can't be designed off Wikipedia. That is why the templates on WP preceded the appearance of the articles on WP. As each article is put on Wikipedia the templates prepared for usage are being installed. To suggest that articles are being created for templates is pure illinformed rubbish. User talk:Jtdirl 21:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what I said, and you know it. I might suggest that creating the pages off-wiki is inherently antiwiki. More importantly, is there a good reason why you need this skyscraper, instead of the more usual succession boxes? Chris talk back 16:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is exactly what you said. If Wikipedia was no so godawful slow sometimes stuff could easily be done here. But I have lost far too many articles through it going slow and then crashing. As to the last point — most succession boxes are exceptionally ugly. This can also be used across a range of articles where single succession boxes wouldn't be useful and can link to information at the point where the information is in the text. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 04:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that's the case, please identify the exact text where I said that you are creating articles purely on which to use templates, or retract your statement before I raise an RfC regarding your disruptive behaviour on TfD. (Trying very hard to WP:AGF here, but it's looking like it's just not there) Chris talk back 09:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox scotlandkingstyles

Delete: Not necessary when we have {{Infobox UKkingstyles}}. Articles that need one for England and one for Scotland can just use that template twice. If not deleted, this should be changed to match up with the UK template style (or vice versa). violet/riga (t) 18:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's separate from {{Infobox UKkingstyles}}, because the crowns are different (actually, now its got a picture of a Scottish palace, but should have a crown, if a free license image can be obtained.) --JW1805 20:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That whole "series" of templates should probably be made into one generic infobox template ({{Royalty styles}} maybe). All the information that can be different must be turned into parameters naturaly (images, colors etc), and the existing templaes would have to be kept and changed into "meta" templates that call the generic one with some parameters pre-filled in order not to break all the articles using it (either that or slowly replace them all manualy with the generic style and then delete these ones when they are no longer used. It would at least ensure a consistent look, but might be more work than it's worth... --Sherool 02:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per JW1805.--Mais oui! 06:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some monarchies have different needs. A set was created utilising different images; almost all either coats of arms or (if possible) crowns. A crown was originally used in this template but was removed by a user over a legal issue. I am trying to get a free licence image or crowncopyright image of the Scottish crown, both of which are legally usable in templates. In the meantime the Hollyroodhouse Palace, the royal palace in Edinburgh is in. Re the design, all were designed to be the same visually. In fixing a code issue, a user changed the looks of some of them. I'll get him to fix this one and return it to the general template. A single template is too complicated. Some templates need more info that others (eg, some popes need death styles like Blessed or Saint, some monarchs have multiple styles, etc) and keeping a co-ordinated image for all Scottish monarchs, British monarchs, French monarchs, etc would be more difficult if each image had to be manually added into one generic template. So separate templates have their own built-in image that appears automatically when the individual template is used. It also means that if a legal issue arises with one image, it can be changed in one move, rather than doing a trawl of tens of articles to find the individual articles that use that image. It makes it more difficult for someone to vandalise the image, because they can only do that by vandaling the master copy of that template and that would show up immediately on the watch list of those who do the styles work. In contrast people are less likely to spot an individual bit of vandalism in an individual image in one template in one of thousands of royal articles. 04:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It looks much better now, but it still doesn't clearly show that it's for Scotland - not everyone will recognise the images, especially since they are so small. violet/riga (t) 19:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Astrotrain 16:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLSteams

Delete - This template duplicates Template:Major League Soccer but doesn't have as many useful links. --D Monack 06:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:LPMCOTW/current

Delete: obsolete. [5] [6] -- Zondor 08:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC) At the time it did not appear to be used. Yes, there are lots of other ones like this. Wikipedia:Community Portal currently uses the one in question. {{LPMCOTW}} is currently hardcoded. Lets move Wikipedia:LPMCOTW/current to {{LPMCOTW/current}} and have both {{LPMCOTW}} and Wikipedia:Community Portal use it. It should be a simple operation. All others should be done in the similar fashion. All templates should belong in the template namespace. -- Zondor 03:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mariah Carey2

Massive template — redundant with the links on the infoboxes for each album and single, which indicate the albums before and after. A separate "list of singles" article could be created to make these chronological, but the massive template does not need to appear on every single. Phil Sandifer 20:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox President

I'm proposing these office-specific templates (which include Template:Infobox Senator, as another example) be deleted or taken out of use since they inherently place bias towards one political office, and duplicate content already presented in succession boxes (successor, predecessor). I offer an alternative, in a template I created Template:Infobox Politician (see a live example here) which provides a broader presentation of the careers of politicians without giving particular bias towards one office, and does not limit the scope of a political career to a Presidency, Vice Presidency, Senator, et cetera (William Howard Taft, for example, served as both Chief Justice of the United States and President of the United States; which one takes precedence?). --tomf688{talk} 02:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

  • Delete. I like the idea a lot. Anonymous Wikipedia user.
  • Delete as per nominator. *drew 11:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps re-name Infobox Head of Government so that it can include Prime Ministers. I have no problem showing a bias toward this particular office--obviously it takes precedence over any other, as in the example of Taft. I also like having predecessor and successor at top of pages. Perhaps add to the box an "Other offices" section. Marskell 11:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point about Taft, though, is that he served in the highest position in the Executive branch, and the highest position in the Judicial branch in the United States, meaning that neither can really take precedence. Also, giving one office precedence is not offering a neutral point of view. --tomf688{talk} 12:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But remember Undue Weight. Holding the Chief Justice role (as important as it is) equal to the Presidency absolutely inflates the former. I see holding the head of government or state above other offices (with the possible exception of certain religious offices) as a no-brainer. Marskell 12:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which of both is the highest position: President of the French Republic or Prime Minister of France??, Jacques Chirac has been both. Even more difficult: Simeon II of Bulgaria has been Tsar of Bulgaria and Prime Minister of Bulgaria. Donar Reiskoffer 14:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • D'uh! That's a no brainer. A head of state is the highest constitutional office in existence. Prime Minister comes next. So being king of course trumps being prime minister. Being president of the government is inferior to president of the state. It is elementary political science, practically a page 1, paragraph 1 bit of information. Really!!! User talk:Jtdirl 21:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Taft." "Undue Weight." *snicker* [[User:24.17.30.163|24.17.30.163] 20:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Would this also hold for the German President and Prime minister (Kansler). I think Helmut Kohl, Gerard Schöder or Angela Merkel have more inlfuence on Geman politics than Herzog, Rau or Köhler.
        • Same in Germany. Power isn't the decider. Constitutional status is. A head of state is top of the list always, literally head of the state. Next comes head of government. One is the constitutionally authorised representative of the state as an entity, one is the authorised representative and head of the governmental system, which is a subset of the state. It is the standard rule in every constitutional system. It is a pyramid: head of state, representative of the head of state (governor-general) in a state if there is one, then head of government, then members of the government. It is one of the easiest questions in political science. User talk:Jtdirl 06:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To address some of this. 1) President of France would take priority over PM of France. 2) Royalty has (or should have where absent) it's own boxes. 3) Note I suggested Head of Government rather than Head of State, so that in the case of symbolic figures like the GG they wouldn't get lumped in. Marskell 09:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with the new version, which is fan-tastic, by the way. android79 16:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but a close one. I think some offices have to be regarded as inherently more important than others, but Tom made a good template --Nlu 19:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with the new infobox created by Tomf688. Hall Monitor 19:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I certainly hope you have fun replace the infobox on all of [[9]] articles. Yeah, I'd go get some coffee, if I were you. :P--Kross | Talk 19:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, good points made by all. --Golbez 19:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but Kross makes a good point nick 21:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep far more information than alternatives. Far too widely used for holders of all sorts of offices worldwide in articles all over Wikipedia. Proposing deletion of widely used informative templates is too silly for words. User talk:Jtdirl 21:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Excellent idea to replace it with generic politician template. Good initiative. <nowiki></nowiki>&mdash;[[User:Thames|thames]] 22:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per thames. Rd232 talk 22:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The American Presidency is an office that is studied as an institution; it is more prominent that any other office in the United States, and as prominent as any in the world. I think that a special box for the Presidents of the United States should be retained so that information about each president that is unique to the office (i.e. Vice President(s)) can be quickly found. Tonywiki 00:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per tonywiki and the information in the box is quick and informative. i hate going down to look get the info. KEEP KEEP KEEPKiwidude 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you even look at the replacement offered? Little information is lost, but the new infobox takes away the bias towards one office. --tomf688{talk} 02:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see how the current version presents a bias towards one office? please explain. It memerely states cold hard facts, no opinions or prefrences. furthermore, you're alternative lacks information that is needed, just as ohnoAP says and

kiwidude.Newyorktimescrossword 06:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Newyorktimescrossword, the box shows a SPECIFIC office rather than the other offices. say a senator also was governor, the current box doesn't show that. Having said that, I disagree with the nominator's reasoning. A politician's article represents the current status of that person, Senator, Governor, President, whatever. When he or she leaves office, then we may consider instituting your substition. Right now, it is key to have the current facts of that person; that is what matters. KEEP THIS BOX. Kiwidude 06:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is a global project. Let's keep these templates global. Velvetsmog 01:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons I've already stated.--Kross | Talk 01:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by all means!!! Quoth Kiwidude, "the information in the box is quick and informative. i hate going down to look get the info. KEEP KEEP KEEP" My AP homework would take ages if not for those boxes. OhNoAP 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC) User's first edit. Titoxd(?!?) 02:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't quite understand; ages? You would just have to scroll to the bottom of an article to find the information removed from the proposed replacement infobox. Also, one could argue that the new infobox actually offers more information, as it shows an entire career versus just one office. --tomf688{talk} 02:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nowhere does this even say "President". Nothing is limiting it to use only or presidents, much less American presidents. If you really want to do something, rename it. And I just can't support your new box that doesn't even have the dates of office. --WestonWyse 03:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful template. An infobox listing all the offices a person ever held would be very large for a lot of people. --JW1805 04:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 'kiwidude' the informatin presented in the box is rather informative and helpful. each fact and figure in it is pertinent to his or her career. the proposed info box is too "slim" and leaves out, in my opinion, crucial information.-->Newyorktimescrossword 06:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 'kiwidude'. Useful template.Hektor 12:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I find it useful and quick. If anything, it should be extended to other offices as well.
  • Delete and replace with general "Politicians" template.
  • Strong keep: A BIAS BETWEEN POLITICAL OFFICES? Dude, when you're the POTUS, you are king of the fucking world. No other political title in the U.S. even compares in notability. Presidents are way more notable than Senators, Chief Justices, or anything else. This is ridiculous. 24.98.146.239 16:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not all coutries have presidentes, it's much better to have a generic Politican template, othervise it cane give the impression that countries without presidents have no head of the state. Like for example here in sweden we have our king, There is a template Template:Infobox King, but it assumes the king is dead..., and we can also have a queen any time, perhaps a template Template:Infobox Head of State? --AzaToth talk 16:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep There's no reason we can't incorporate the new design, but any bias that this current template reflects is justified. I would defy you to name one president who has, before or after his presidency, held a more notable post. --BDD 18:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per tonywikiGator (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the nominator, however I don't think that a replacement is necessary. Birthdate, place of birth, political party and important offices the person has hold should all be mentioned in the beginning of the text anyway, so that would also be duplicated information. /Slarre 22:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the previous debate on deleting the biography template, which has nothing more than place and time of birth and death, I doubt this suggestion (however reasonable) will fly. --Golbez 22:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't believe bias towards one political office is a problem. As established with order of precedence, some political offices are inherently MORE PROMINENT than other offices. In addition, the general politician does not cover sufficient details such as predecessor/successor/spouse/term dates (as pointed out by Marskell). Furthermore, it is likely that presidents have served many other offices prior to the post of president. Listing all posts will likely clutered up the info box. --Hurricane111 22:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the point is to have no posts at all in the infobox; that's what the text and footer boxes are for. Or do we not expect people visiting this encyclopedia to be able to read? --Golbez 22:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe it should be kept, but it edited to suit the scenario and office of the holder. There is no reason why a quick reference such as this should be deleted, and there is no justification for doing so. Second, I don't think it is biased and it conforms to the NPOV policies that are existent. I too think this is ridiculous. Эрон Кинней 22:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep talk wrote: The inherently place bias towards one political officeSay what? I am always against deleting information. Your template gives the user LESS information.
  • Keep The info box contains useful information as it is currently should not delete. BCV 02:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The discussion seems to have moved to a new section, check under November 16. KEEP THIS BOX! Kiwidude 00:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, use the generic infobox; if the generic infobox needs additional fields, add them. Titoxd(?!?) 02:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Templates are not my forte, but I agree with Tomf688 and I like his proposed replacement as more versatile for individuals who wore more than one political hat, which includes virtually all US Presidents. Vaoverland 04:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. How is information lost with the replacement template? Go to a variety of pages, John Kerry, George Bush, Winston Churchill, Jimmy Carter, etc, and you'll see succession infoboxes in all of them. In fact, if I knew I was looking for successor/predecessor information, the bottom of the page would be the first place I would look at. Titoxd(?!?) 06:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. People, nearly 250 articles use this infobox and the U.S. only has 43 Presidents. Who else is using it? I've already pointed out (several times) that articles about non-American Presidents use it, including Prime Ministers and Presidents from other countries! Explain how this is bias?--Kross | Talk 06:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because on a pedia where people bicker ad nauseam over whether an article should be at gasoline or petrol, you know someone's going to get irritated that the infobox for his PM is named President. Not only that, but can we discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the box rather than getting into a fight about bias, which is the lesser (but of course louder) concern? --Golbez 07:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>(?!?) 02:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I really don't understand the argument. Presidencies are an extremely important thing, and need their own infobox. And I believe that in the cases where a President was also something else and they have an infobox, then the president infobox should be used firstly, and perhaps a footer should be added temporarily listing the other major things they did. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it should be renamed to something less specific (political leader?), the proposed replacement is lacking userful fields. The Preceded by and Succeeded by fields are particularly useful for navigating the different people who have held a specific office. --Kralizec! 17:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Those infoboxes actually help the reader to understand in a few simple paragraphs how much power did that person (President, Minister or Senator) exercised, also it organize the article in a much more friendly way. By this, for the sake of Wiki, we should not erase it. Maybe create a Standar one instead of having different types? Messhermit 19:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he does have a valid point and a better alternative. So I say delete and go for the alternative --Oblivious 01:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wait until the politician infobox makes the others obsolete, then propose this one for deletion. This was not a sensible move. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A better idea would probably be to just add an "other offices" field in the current template. BrotherGeorge 05:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad suggestion.
  • Keep. There is no need to mix politics with Wikipedia style. The box is useful despite the contents of the article.--Tito4000 18:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete new template is vast improvementMONGO 19:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete kudos to Tomf688 for creating the new template. Any concerns with respect to Tomf688's template having less info available, it could very easily be modified to include more information. - Jord 20:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Old template did offer bias towards one office over another. For example how can you say one branch of governments leading office is better then another? And if the politician being placed into the template has been a leader of more then one branch, or just in more then one branch.
  • Keep For aforementioned reasons. Rtcpenguin
  • Strong Keep. At best, the template needs renamed if you're concerned about bias. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above- David Björklund (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On raw numbers, this is a no consensus whichever way I count editors (but something like 27d-22k, discounting all redlinked, unsigned and anons). The discussion, what little there actually is, is also in disagreement. A cleaner nomination process after updating/orphaning would probably have been a better route. -Splashtalk 03:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2LCdisambig

Abstain: GraemeMcRae had reworded the template and started to remove it from Wikipedia entries with the comment that "The consensus is that it does not help our readers to have a separate category and different text for 2-letter combinations." He does not explain where or how this consensus was developed. I would just like to do this properly, with a TfD consensus. DLJessup (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do you say it is not in conflict with the MoS? The MoS lists exactly three templates from which to pick. This isn't one of them. If you want to argue that the MoS should be changed, that's a fair argument, but I think it's clear that as the MoS stands today, this is indeed in conflict with it. --RoySmith 13:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Delete

Let's make people give a reason when they nominate an article for speedy deletion, no? Duplicates Template:Db. — Phil Welch 21:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I invite all oppose voters, if they are admins, to clear out Category:Candidates for speedy deletion sometime. — Phil Welch 22:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Senator

I think the argument below lost focus with the President infobox, so I'm giving the Senator infobox it's own TFD, since this is probably the one that bothers me the most. Basically, the position isn't really at a level which warrants placing it above all else. There have been many people who have been governors and senators, and some states have both governor infoboxes and senator infoboxes, so which takes precedence? I again suggest the generic politician infobox replace these, and, since the primary concern for the previous argument seemed to be the fact that the President is at such a high position, I don't see that this TFD would cause the same problems. --tomf688{talk} 19:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - pretty much agree. All politicians are the same - having one standardised format would simplify things greatly. Deano 23:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-i completely disagree with the nominator and his reasoning. I refer you to my previous arguments. KEEP THIS BOX!!! The articles about politicians refer to the CURRENT status, when he or she leaves office, then we should conisder a different box. Kiwidude 00:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So former presidents and senators which have these infoboxes are not current? What about former senators and governors? The conflict still exists, whether they are current or not. --tomf688{talk} 03:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current as in their present, right here, right now, job/position. I don't think you can be a senator AND a governor at the SAME time. Once that person is OUT of office, i.e. a private citizen, change the info box to your proposed. I'm for that but not your complete disregard of the current one. The current infobox should be tailored for the person's CURRENT political post. add your new one once they become a private citizen again. That's a better solution than what you propose.Kiwidude 07:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reason to have a special box for senators, it's better to have a more generic box for politicans. A senator is just a specialized form of politicans, better then to have a comment "Is/Was a United States Senator". --AzaToth talk 06:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, use the generic infobox; if the generic infobox needs additional fields, add them. Titoxd(?!?) 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, both on the merits of the argument, and in light of the disgusting sockpuppetry seen below. --Golbez 02:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current infobox provides quick and readily accessible information that the proposed one lacks. I don't see why this is such a huge debate. there is NO PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT ONE!68.122.96.60 03:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No information is being added or removed, only repositioned. The only information removed from the infobox is the predecessor and successor to the senate position, which is available using the succession boxes at the bottom of the senator's page. --tomf688{talk} 03:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • well obviously if that information isn't there, it's lost (the infobox doesn't contain it!) a person should not have to scroll all the way down to find out that information. Once that person has left office, then we may use your proposed box, but the predecssor and successor belong where it is.Kiwidude 06:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The successor and predecessor are absolutely relevant to who the person is. It shows who he or she had to defeat or replace to get where he or she is now. What is so confusing? Kiwidude 07:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMHO a pointless proposal that suggests replacing a working useful, being used, template with one with less information. That makes no sense and just undermines the credibility of this whole page when instead of fixing things and improving things good templates are needlessly targeted. Re the above, it is required information. If it isn't in a template then it should be in it. Actually thousands of pages use predecessor and successor in templates. Many argue that the lower box is no longer relevant and should be phased out. It is no wonder so many people question the usefulness of this page in its current form. Frankly these sounds like more deletionitis gone mad. User talk:Jtdirl 06:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was raised three times that I have seen in the last year, with users suggesting that they were created at a time when we did not have templates all over. The information can and should be contained in those templates, not duplicated in often inferior looking dated succession boxes that lack the communicative ability of a larger template. Re assume good faith, that presumes good faith exists. In many users it does. I'm not convinced in the case of some of the most extreme deletionists who spend their time proposing pointless deletions on spurious grounds. User talk:Jtdirl 07:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your lack of good faith is wearing on me. Please calm down and read WP:AGF. --Golbez 07:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly the use of this page as a vehicle to delete perfectly good templates, the wrecking of good articles by having large lines across them informing readers who come on them that perfectly good templates that end up surviving anyway have to go through pointless votes here, and the amount of time wasted voting on deleting fixable templates is wearing on a lot of people. Maybe this page should be put up for deletion itself and a proper professional process of dealing with templates should be created itself. This page is increasingly seen as an embarrassment on Wikipedia, in which policy is made up as it goes along, then quoted back as if infallible. WP needs a professionally organised system of template maintenence, not a slash and burn form of dumping and destroying, often without fixing pages when perfectly good templates have been needlessly dumped. User talk:Jtdirl 07:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why this issue is so darn confusing for you people. The information in the current infobox is informative and offers quick information at a glance. Everything is in ONE place rather than scattered throughout the page. Cross apply my previous arguments from below and they will STILL TRUMP YOURS! Kiwidude 07:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtgirl: Unless every infobox has a successor/predecessor for every major office a politician has held, they will not replace succession boxes. As for this TFD deleting "perfectly good templates", it's not; it's deleting flawed templates and offering better choices, I.E. the replacement template I've linked above.
@Kiwidude: I'm having a hard time believing that you have actually examined what these changes will entail. You keep insisting that there will be no more infoboxes in these articles, which is just not true. --tomf688{talk} 21:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's helpful and I can see absolutely no reason to delete it. The box serves a necessary function and is active in many articles. Soltak | Talk 14:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only after all instances of Template:Infobox Senator have been replaced. One point regarding above comments: if the Senator infobox is supposed to be only for sitting senators, and the objection to its deletion is that predecessor and successor information is available only via the succession box at the bottom of the page, then the logic fails because sitting Senators don't have successors, unless you want to count the brief two months during which they are lame ducks. I would, however, recommend adding a Religion argument to the Politician infobox in the spirit of "never lose data," and because, sad as it is considering the alleged "freedom of religion" in the U.S., this is important in American politics. At any rate, code reuse is A Good Thing™, and having one template that is able to serve the function of many specialized ones is an excellent example of such (see the replacement of multiple citation templates with Template:Book reference and Template:Web reference below). Suggestion: nominator should move User:Tomf688/politician_infobox to Template:Infobox politician (note standardized naming) and start getting it used before nominating the templates it is to replace—seeing it in active operation may change people's minds, and this vote is almost certain to result in no consensus at best this time around. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 00:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot to mention it in my TFD... it already has its own template at Template:Infobox Politician. --tomf688{talk} 00:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Sina 21:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See my comments on the proposal to delete the President infobox. Can't you just wait until your infobox overtakes the others in popularity? If and when that happens, is the time to consider deleting the others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find the box to be useful and informative. Why replace it with one with less information? Methelfilms 10:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Strong Keep'" The box makes all senatorial articles look vastly more professional and useful for the average reader. People need to be informed about their representatives and this helps bridge certain info gaps.
  • Keep No serious reason to delete Revas 21:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep zellin t / c 03:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same as Tony S. Let's slow down. Tom Haws 03:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep No serious reason to delete tylerc 21:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main reason to be shot of this is that it focuses too much on the politician's current office, where we have perfectly good succession boxes for that. {{Infobox Politician}} allows career summary reference, e.g. a table on Ron Davies would mention that he currently doesn't hold office, but was previously lead candidate for party leadership, a Secretary of State, a Cabinet MP, and previously a local councillor. You can't do that in role-specific templates. Chris talk back 02:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All politicians should have the same template including U.S. Presidents, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, and Governors. If Governors and Representatives do not have templates, one should be given to them. Presidents presently do not have Date of Death and Place of Death in the template. Name, Picture, Political Party, Term of Office, Preceded By, Succeeded By, Date of Birth, Place of Birth, Date of Death (If Applicable), Place of Death (If Applicable), and Spouse should be listed for all politicians. November 20, 2005 at 6:38pm Eastern Time.
  • Keep Izehar 00:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete it, even after reading above posts. It gives useful, standard information about a very finite group of individuals. At a glance someone can know a great deal of relevant information such as whether they are the junior or senior senator from their state. Perhaps sample people who refer to the political pages frequently and see what they think; I think they would favor keeping it as it is.


Template:Arrested Development

Used only on three articles, all of which I have tagged for merge into Characters from Arrested Development. See also CFD for the related category. sjorford mmmmm 11:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: USCongDistState

Delete: This is a big template with a lot of red links, perhaps the whole categor should be removed or merged --AzaToth talk 01:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: User ch

Delete template and accompanying category Rewrite: Duplicate of {{User zh}}, except non-standard (uses english abbreviation of Chinese, "ch" rather than Chinese, and standard WP abbreviation, "zh"). The category should go too, as a duplicate of Category:User zh. I originally had added the cat to WP:CfD, and due to the template have added it here. Blackcap (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main2

Delete: {{Main}} can handle now what Main2 can. --AzaToth talk 19:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, under no scenario is there a valid reason to delete this template. It's widely used, so if AzaToth's version of {{main}} is adopted, {{main2}} should simply be redirected to it (just as I redirected {{main3}} and {{main4}} to {{main2}}). Are there any objections to delisting this template (at least until the {{main}} situation is sorted out)? —Lifeisunfair 21:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was reverted because the addition of the "noinclude" command broke the template. Weve been through it before (see the {main} talk page). As of right now, a lot more discussion is needed, and {main2} template should not be deleted. --Stbalbach 15:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. The <noinclude> section did not break the template; as you're now aware, the bug in question has been fixed.
2. Having cited no other reasoning, I don't understand why SoM (and you, prior to learning that the bug had been fixed) didn't simply remove the <noinclude> section (which is nothing more than a supplementary message), instead of reverting AzaToth's primary changes.
3. It should be noted that while not affecting the outward display, substituting the new version of {{main}} (or {{main2}}, for that matter) does have an undesirable effect on the article's code (because all of the inapplicable parameters are duplicated). But again, this template "should NOT be subst'd."
4. Assuming that the new version of {{main}} is kept, {{main2}} should simply become a redirect. It absolutely should not be deleted, because it's likely to be used by numerous users (who are unaware that it has been superseded). —Lifeisunfair 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this rule was only created in November sometime (this month). Was there discussion about it? Do you think someone should clean up the problems the rule created before implimenting the new {main}? Ive moved this discussion to the {main} talk page. Also please dont forget to vote to keep {main2} so it doesnt get deleted. --Stbalbach 23:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you mean the notation within the template substitution guideline, which was added on November 7th. The discussion is archived here. To what problems are you referring? —Lifeisunfair 00:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unverifiedimage

This used to put a nice red warning in the caption of, obviously enough, an image with unverified source. I really don't think putting such in captions in articles is at all a good idea. We put AfD tags on articles because they are likely to be deleted, and we put TfD tags on templates to draw attention to the debate, and they make things look ugly too. But putting a red message in the caption of good articles is too far; we needn't do our laundry that publicly, especially when there isn't any real debate over deleting unsourced images. Some message on the talk page would be better. I've taken the unusual step of blanking this temporarily since it is disturbingly widely used (I put the TfD notice on the talk page). -Splashtalk 23:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I believe it's a "formal" step in the WP:PUI process (not "no source" speedying) to use the template (wich explains the wide use). Few people seem to notice image deletion debates before the image is gone (at wich point the yelling starts), so some kind of marking might be in order... Not saying this is nessesarily the way to do it though, and PUI is ripe for reform anyway due to the large overlap with CSD. --Sherool (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless a better way to notify users can be found. Few users have images in watch lists, and don't see that there is a dispute unless it shows up in the image caption. The PUI process has been cleaned up a little, such a notice should also show up on images tagged with no source or license. It would also be better if the notice could show up in captions without having to edit the articles manually. --Foofy 22:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Not_deleted/November_2005&oldid=1142126531"