Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:22, 20 September 2005 edit213.157.237.18 (talk) →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:00, 20 September 2005 edit undoIceKarma (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators6,299 editsm →September 20: votes on Template:Reuters and Template:Fairuse-ESA Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:
	====]====		====]====
	Blanked by creator, and subsequently edited to point to ]. Also an orphan now that unverified images are CSDs. '''Delete'''. ] // ] 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)		Blanked by creator, and subsequently edited to point to ]. Also an orphan now that unverified images are CSDs. '''Delete'''. ] // ] 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

			* '''Delete''' as per nom. ]] 19:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

	====]====		====]====
Line 19:		Line 21:
	Despite its name, it didn't say anything about fair use at all (until I added the bit at the end about how the image may or may not be usable in Misplaced Pages); rather, it appears to be a noncommercial-use-only tag, which is depreciated. Since there's only one use, let's '''delete''' it before it gets used any more. ] // ] 01:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)		Despite its name, it didn't say anything about fair use at all (until I added the bit at the end about how the image may or may not be usable in Misplaced Pages); rather, it appears to be a noncommercial-use-only tag, which is depreciated. Since there's only one use, let's '''delete''' it before it gets used any more. ] // ] 01:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

			* '''Delete''' as per nom. ]] 19:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


	===September 19===		===September 19===

Revision as of 19:00, 20 September 2005

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

Template:Sfd-current

Adding a listing

Please put new listings under today's date (December 26) at the top of the section.
When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages.

September 20

Template:Reuters

Blanked by creator, and subsequently edited to point to Template:Unverified. Also an orphan now that unverified images are CSDs. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. IceKarma ॐ 19:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Very misleading; Associated Press photos are probably not good fair use candidates because we could be construed as competing with them. Not used too much either. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Fairuse-ESA

Despite its name, it didn't say anything about fair use at all (until I added the bit at the end about how the image may or may not be usable in Misplaced Pages); rather, it appears to be a noncommercial-use-only tag, which is depreciated. Since there's only one use, let's delete it before it gets used any more. JYolkowski // talk 01:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. IceKarma ॐ 19:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

September 19

Template:Fair dealing

Doesn't mention anything about U.S. copyright laws, so it's not a valid image copyright tag. Furthermore, fair dealing in Canada only applies to research, private study, criticism, review, and news reporting and various noncommercial purposes, and it doesn't look like most of the images so tagged would apply. It might potentially be useful as an additive tag, but since it's not used that widely, contains a redlinked category and isn't documented anywhere I would say delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sesamestreetscreencapture

Delete: Overly precise, contains a badly-named and redlinked category, poor wording compared to Template:Tv-screenshot, just used in seven places before I changed them all to {{tv-screenshot}}. JYolkowski // talk 21:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Template: Simon_Clarke_Tube_Map

Delete: Now orphaned template was exclusively used for the now deleted and replaced Image:London underground zone 1 small.png. The template now serves no purpose. I suggest deleting talk page as well. —Gabbe 19:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

September 18

Template: Editwar

Delete: Redundant with Template: Disputed. The way it approaches the issue makes the tagged page look more like a web forum than an encyclopedia. -- Norvy (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

And a red divbox doesn't help much at all. Delete. Titoxd 19:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Useful for marking contentious pages and just for kicks. Ryan Norton 20:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As Norvy notes, it is redundant with other disclaimers, such as Template:POV and Template:Accuracy. Unlike these warnings, it provides no useful or relevant information to the average reader. While J. Hypothetical Reader should be warned if an article is biased or inaccurate, I do not think it is necessary to inform him of the existence of an edit war if that edit war has not affected the article's accuracy or neutrality. (I would say "confine to talk pages", but there'd be no point to that either: we already have Template:Controversial.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 21:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 21:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons cited above. Scary and unhelpful. And the image covers the start of the text unless the page is very wide indeed. DES 22:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant, uninformative, and possibly inflammatory depending on how it's applied. -Sean Curtin 22:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redundant, polarising, and shouldn't be on an article page in the first place. If there's a content dispute, take it to the Talk page, and if it degenerates into an edit war, go ask an admin for help instead of slapping a template on it (in other words, resolve the war instead of declaring it). --IByte 22:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Template: Cities in Sweden

Reportedly, this template is not useful. It's just a rather uninteresting list of Swedish cities, which might as well be replaced by a link to cities in Sweden and a listing of the relevant cities there. There's also the problem that stad and "city" are not equivalent terms, which is bound to confuse non-Swedes. Fred-Chess 05:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_State

Delete: I made this template (along with Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_Fed), but I've since created a new (and hopefully better) template, Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt. --Markles 01:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_Fed

Delete: I made this template (along with Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_State), but I've since created a new (and hopefully better) template, Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt. --Markles 01:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

September 17

Template:JapanCopyright

Similar to Template:Philippines-fairuse (recently deleted), this image copyright tag states that the image is copyrighted in Japan and elsewhere, and that its use qualifies as fair use in both Japan and the United States. However, since Misplaced Pages's servers are in the United States and not Japan, we're concerned about whether something is fair use in the United States and not Japan. Furthermore, Japanese copyright law doesn't have "fair use" provisions. It does have a number of exceptions, but those are so different from United States fair use law that it's hard to imagine that something could be "fair use" in both countries and still be usable on Misplaced Pages. So, this template is redundant with Template:Fairuse. It's also only used on two images. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 15:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Freenet

Unused, nonsensical. Alas, I couldn't find a CSD case to fit it. —Cryptic (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete linkspam. Titoxd 19:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Not nonsense or spam - it's used for links into Freenet (which runs as a proxy on localhost:8888). But as it's been decided not to have Freenet links, delete. ~~ N (t/c) 22:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

September 16

Template:WashDCInfoBox

Currently orphaned, redundant to all of the other city infobox templates, but looks like it was already "subst"ed onto Washington, D.C.. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:FR-location

Context should be provided as prose within an article's lead section, not as a generic template tacked onto the top. Worse, in several articles on my watchlist, prose leads have been replaced by this. I'm afraid to look at the other articles where it now appears. —Cryptic (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe should people agree on each others. Look here:

This article is about Faerûn, a fictional continent, the primary setting of Forgotten Realms

As for the “worse, prose leads have been replaced”, you may be interested into this, too:

Removed redundant header

I'm a bit fed up with all of these. Lot of critics, few additions. As we say in computing: “Where is your patch?” Reply to David Latapie 13:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

- I prefer the template. I prefered the original bolded statement, but there does not seem to be support for that. Because someone went through and awkwardly rewrote lead paragraphs, I tried a relatively generic statement on top: "X" is a "(city, village, castle, region, character, etc.)" in the Forgotten Realms setting of Dungeons & Dragons. When the new italicized template is added (and I'm not saying the phrasology can't use some work) I went back and removed the header that I added to the articles that I had written. My main reference was a number of Harry Potter articles that systematically state the fictional setting and type in a seperate sentence before the Content box. That is my preference. I wouldn't mind seeing the reference to Toril go, and add a reference to D&D in the opening sentence. --RYard 16:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said on Baldur's Gate discussion page, I'm OK for the Toril reference too, and everyone seems to agree on that. To change the content of the template is very easy: just go to the templates's page and change the text.

On the other hand, I consider that repetitive information should be templated, this is smaller, more elegant (yes, this is subjective) and, most importantly, add consistency to articles. The reason why they are scarcely used seems, IMHO, to be that people don't know how to create template — actually, it is "disarmingly" simple, I think that is the main reason. Templating is for power users, and power users - myself included - are not accustomed to such a trivial way to do it. Reply to David Latapie 16:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As I have mentioned elsewhere, standard Misplaced Pages practice, and in my opinion the best method, is to clearly note a topic's fictional nature within the prose of the introduction. - SimonP 16:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- But as we discussed, it's not standard practice. Compare, say, Luke Skywalker to Han Solo, Spinner's End with Hogsmeade, Ered Lithui with Mordor. Granted, there's no template, but there's no standard either. Still, I don't believe there is a great need for a template, just consistency. --RYard 19:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we should be enforcing editorial content with templates; they're more brittle, harder to change, and can "flatten" the editorial feel of the article. Consistency is good, but there are always exceptions. The solution is aggressive editing, not templating. Therefore, my opinion is to delete. Nandesuka 15:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

pardon me, but for me, aggressive editing is like polling in computing, a quick-and-dirty (and no so quick in the long run, especially with more than 140 articles) solution. Reply to David Latapie

Delete. This information should be at the beginning of the article, and not in italics. -- Reinyday, 20:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Cryptic and SimonP. The most commonly used form is to indicate the fictional context of a fictional place, character, or event in the prose of the lead paragraph. The exact format and wording of this varies. Some articvels may not follow this form, but that is not a good reason for encouraging others not to do so. see WP:FICT for more details. 205.210.232.62 20:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- The above comment was mine, it seems I was loggged out without realizing it. DES 22:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and reverse the many, many removals of clear, standardized information in the introductions of the articles. Quite apart from anything else, this template looks very ugly. I tried very hard to standardize these FR introductions as much as possible when creating them (see the gods articles), and so don't see any practical need to make them "neater". -Erolos 23:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The good thing about a template is that it is very easy to change it <wikipedia>If you don't like it, edit it.</wikipedia>. At least, it has the merit to exists.213.157.237.18

Delete. Articles about fictional subjects should make their fictional context clear as is appropriate to that particular topic, and the context shouldn't need to be bolded or italicized. Does Sherlock Holmes open with a boldfaced statement reminding the reader that he's not a real person? -Sean Curtin 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've seen too much {{context}} flags. I stopped counting and I can assure you it is very frustrating to see people just context-ing all your work. Really. That's why I created the template, because of all these context-ing. Now, if people could stop context-ing, I would be very happy (and could focus on the much more useful FR's template infobox.213.157.237.18

September 15

Template:Copyvio1

Delete: I don't see the point in this, this template and it's partner {{Copyvio2}} perform the exact same job as {{Copyvio}} does without the hassle of using two seperate templates to get the job done. These templates are also not mentioned anywhere in the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. If you vote for this please also vote for Copivio2 below since deleting just one of them makes no sense. --Sherool 16:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. These look like a relic of something and the more usual boilerplate does the job fine. Why have 3 templates doing the job when you could do it with one? -Splash 23:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete As previously mentioned, Copyvio performs the same function as Copyvio1 and Copyvio2 combined - LiniShu 01:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
These were used before it was possible to pass parameters to templates - they are now therefore obsolete. Delete. sjorford #£@%&$?! 14:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I for one have never bothered to learn the new system and still use the old one. Since the results are the same I see no reason to force users to change. - SimonP 16:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- (You could also say that since the results are the same I see no reason to have two different templates... sjorford #£@%&$?! 16:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC))
  - As I mentioned there is a very good reason, that I have not bothered to learn the new method. There are at least a hundred maintenance templates that I use regularly. These templates are constantly in flux. Each probably changes only once every three or four months, but this amounts to an average of one template to relearn each and every day. I personally can't be bothered to do this, so when it makes no difference I simply continue to use the older method. - SimonP 17:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    - "Not being bothered" is not a very good reason at all. Having two templates that do the same thing, and that therefore may get out of sync, for no other reason than somebody stubbornly refuses to learn a very simple syntax change, is also a not very good thing. It ain't complicated, Simon, just bother', please. sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, agree with SimonP. No reason why obsolescence should spur deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Obsolescence is a perfectly good reason to delete. This is because the name copyvio2 was needed by another template, but couldn't be had because the one below was in the way, and almost unused. It was desirable for that reason to remove it, and so copyvio1 would be broken without it. I wonder: you must see some benefit to the Wiki in retain obsoleted templates that are in the way of new templates. What benefit is that? -Splash 18:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  - If it was obsoleted in the sense that it was not in use, that would be one thing; this is "obsoleted" only in the sense that there is an alternative that many (though apparently not all) people prefer. This template is useful and constructive to the purpose of building an encyclopedia and in current use by editors at this moment; wanting to use the name for something else (and why this other template requires that name certainly hasn't been made clear here) is simply not a sufficient reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    - It is obsoleted in the sense that there are about 900 pages using {{copyvio}}, and about 30 using {{copyvio1}} and {{copyvio2}}. It is therefore clear that the vast majority of editors have managed to use the new template, and I would suggest that most of those that haven't simply haven't noticed it exists. It is harmful to have two different templates to do exactly the same thing, as the wording will not automatically be synchronised between the two, and if the process on WP:CP changes, then the older templates, which are not referenced anywhere in the instructions, will likely be missed. I really feel like I'm labouring a point here, but I can't for the life of me understand why anybody is so attached to this template. What is it, an urge to rebel or something? (this is a sort of joke, I think) sjorford #£@%&$?! 22:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Misplaced Pages is inconsistent. I dislike the urge to regiment being displayed here; the wiki method is to keep both in use until consensus manifests itself by disuse of one set or the other. Septentrionalis 03:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- I really don't know what this means. sjorford #£@%&$?! 22:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- In my experience the "wiki method" is to merge (and redirect) or delete duplicates pretty much on sight, and in this case there is nothing to merge, and redirecting won't work. Keeping all three only result in more work as we have to maintain three seperate templates for a job you only need one for. What is so hard about learning to type {{copyvio|url=}} instead of {{copyvio1}}{{copyvio2}}? --Sherool 22:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Copyvio2

Delete: Same as Copyvio1 above. If you vote for this please also vote for Copyvio1 abowe since deleting just one of them makes no sense. --Sherool 16:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. These look like a relic of something and the more usual boilerplate does the job fine. Why have 3 templates doing the job when you could do it with one? -Splash 23:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Same as Copyvio1 above - LiniShu 01:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I for one have never bothered to learn the new system, and still use the old one. Since the results are the same I see no reason to force users to change. - SimonP 16:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Obsolescence not in itself a reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as above. (I am puzzled why those arguing for deletion on the grounds of efficiency did not make this a single nomination; but it's too late to merge them now.) Septentrionalis 03:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:vfdclosed

Never used by anyone but me, made obsolete by the AFD reform. - Sikon 15:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment I am also wondering if anybody uses {{oldvfd}}? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't seen it used recently, but it is still widely linked to in talk: pages, which would take an awful lot of subst:ing. Not impossible though. -Splash 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- The only time I used {{oldvfd}} was when I closed subpages of VfD that hadn't been renamed as AfD subpages. But since that isn't the case anymore, I think it should be safe to redirect it to {{oldafd}}. Titoxd 19:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure if you're talking about redirecting {{vfdclosed}} or {{oldvfd}}, but if you mean the latter, please don't. The vast majority of pages at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/whatever have not been moved to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/whatever, so the links wouldn't work anymore. —Cryptic (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Seconded. {{oldvfd}} and {{oldvfdfull}} must keep pointing to the old Votes for deletion subpages, unless someone goes and subst: both in all places they are used.
subst: and delete, since the nominator doesn't want it anymore. Be sure not to just delete it, or the pages it appears on will suddenly no longer have their vfd/afd link. -Splash 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Substed. - Sikon 01:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:This article is about

Wrong way to do disambigs. Presents redundant information on the article. ed g2s • talk 14:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. ed g2s • talk 14:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment This is for disambig headers, where the phrasing is often useful as an immediate warning that the reader may want the dab page. Compare, but please do not change, the first line of Pine Barrens (New Jersey). Septentrionalis 03:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Yello

Delete: Created as a test template by an anon IP and contains no useful content. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedied by me. --nixie 06:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:SouthAfricaImages

Delete: Is not even used in the South Africa article, and if you look at that article, the images are in a completely different order. Unnecessary template. --Hottentot

Holding cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

(none at this time)

To convert to category

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories get put here until the conversion is completed.

Template: VA_Highways. To be listified and categorified, then orphaned and deleted. Discussion. -Splash 02:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

Template:DecencyWikiProject: I found this not deleted in the August 2005 Deleted Log and found on the template's talk page that it had been accidentally deleted and subsequently restored. I'm putting this here so that the template won't be forgotten. Courtland 01:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's protected against recreation which is probably why it appeared undeleted. -Splash 02:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  - see TFD-talk page for some comments on this — Courtland 02:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
{{Block}} entry moved to Log/Deleted/August 2005 despite a couple of keep comments as the consensus appears to be for deletion; ~~appears on user talk pages~~, which is the target article-space for the template, User:Ceyockey
- Am going to leave this one as it currently appears to be linked to an Arbitration case. -Splash 02:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  - see TFD-talk page for some comments on this — Courtland 02:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)