< April 20	April 22 >

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

The result of the debate was Keep ~ AGK 23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Deprecated fair use tag, not being used on any images for a long time. cohesion 22:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Is there any other way someone might find a directory of screenshot templates easily? I'm leaning towards keep, only because it makes finding the other templates rather simple, and any inappropriate transclusions can be easily replaced. Gracenotes^T § 01:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Even though it's deprecated, if someone includes it by accident (which they could easily do if they're writing the markup by hand, rather than using the menu) it contains a handy list to determine what template should be used in its place. Crotalus 16:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 'Weak Keep potentially handy, but is it needed? Jmlk17 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keep plausible search term, and there are 50+ links to it. –Pomte 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Seems likely to be accidentally used or searched for. It's easy enough to replace it with the proper tag. --- RockMFR 13:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep; I've used it in previews to see what the actual choices are, since I can never remember whether they're internally capitalized or hyphenated or what (i.e., is it ((Film-screenshot)), ((Film screenshot)), ((FilmScreenshot)), ((Filmscreenshot)), etc., or is it maybe "movie" instead of "film"?). Putting ((screenshot)) first and then hitting preview gives the answer, and then I can fix it before hitting save. 07:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly keep Per above. It's useful for newbies. Alex Spade 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - per reasons stated above. ~I'm anonymous

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep ~ AGK 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• Delete - This is probably one of the least-useful category maintenance templates (if not one of the least-useful Wikipedia maintenance templates) in existence. Almost all categories need to be populated (except the categories that are so large that people are asking for them to be diffused into subcategories). As far as I can tell, this does not prompt anyone to take any action regarding the maintenance of categories that contain this template. It just detracts from the information in the category. Hence, I suggest deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 19:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Just because it's used infrequently, doesn't mean we should get rid of it. I've found it useful and appropriate in the past, and have indeed used it on a temporary basis to get help populate new categories. --Elonka 19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Elonka -- Ratarsed 20:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - This page can and is often used with new categories to help populize them. I find it very useful. --MrStalker 22:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong keep - very useful and frequently used (by me, at least). Extremely appropriate when a category is incorrectly marked as a stub (which happens far more often than it should). No less useful than ((expansion)). Grutness...wha? 00:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong keep - I'll have to agree with Grutness on this. I also put it to use whenever needed for it to be spread and it gets attention from other Wikipedians, further notifying others that the category needs expansion. 66.229.120.240 06:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Keep COULD be useful, but is it? Jmlk17 06:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep I found it usefull when I first started using Wikipedia and I found the cat Category:Black and white films with this tag on it. Yes, I agree all categories need populating, but some are in obvious states of neglect. Lugnuts 09:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep It's very useful Menasim( discuss ) 14:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Elonka and Lugnuts. ShadowHalo 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, some categories need to be populated more than others. Punkmorten 08:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep useful highlight of where extra work is needed, particularly on new categories. And who's to say that it doesn't have an effect? Bencherlite 00:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep it had my attention the first time I've seen it. I noticed it was useful in the sense that the category needed population. ~I'm anonymous
• Keep, obviously. --Wassermann 10:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - This template is good for categories which users seem not to be aware of - the users who keep track of the appropriate category can help populate them. Od Mishehu 08:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - Interesting and funny, it seems that no one after Dr. Submillimeter, who put up the template for deletion, is in favour of having it deleted. It must be that useful :) ~I'm anonymous

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. >Radiant< 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

There is no source for the claim that these images are free. The included link bring syou to a page which says that the images are protected by copyright and may not be copied. The template was previously discussed here. I suggest delete — Lokal_Profil 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The relevant page in English is at http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2000 which indicates the photos may be used "freely used during the period of office". It makes no mention of derivative works, commercial reuse which and limits the time that the license applies. I think that this is clearly a non-free press license and should be deleted. --Iamunknown 01:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Might be worth pointing out that no images actually use this license att this time. /Lokal_Profil 10:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - not an acceptable license per Iamunknown above, plus not being in use is reason enough to delete it. Gavia immer (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete not in use; not going to be used. Lokal's point is the decider. Jmlk17 06:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Lokal is correct, it seems: these are not public domain. Herostratus 19:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Lokal is spot-on with his assessment of the template. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Republic of China (Taiwan) topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See discussion below of "Country navigation templates" for why all navigation templates should be deleted. — Ideogram 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per TfD below. David Kernow (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template can't even be collapsed. --Ideogram 18:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, but now it can, my friend! Gracenotes^T § 01:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think broad national/cultural navboxes work better as vertical ones to the side, although they aren't favourable in many other cases. And it looks like you defaulted to collapsed just to make a POINT :o –Pomte 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, she initially defaulted to shown. I requested it default to collapsed. The point (and the page you cite is irrelevant here) is that it needs to take up as little space as possible for the readers that aren't interested in it, which is most of them. --Ideogram 02:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh. I fear that I must get a "this user is male" userbox :) Pomte: There are a bunch of articles in the format "of Taiwan" that should be included in one template—where else but in such a navigational box? I took "inspiration" from ((New York City)). Finally, I am not partial to either collapsing or not collapsing. And now I have WP:POINT disease! Tag, you're it. Gracenotes^T § 03:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideogram: This is a pure guessing game, but I can't agree that most readers are not interested in seeing the navbox. And even if they aren't, the template in its current form is barely taking any space in the least obstructive area of the article. If it stays collapsed, that actually hinders navigation because you'd need 2 clicks to get to a related article, which is as much as navigating by a category. The reason the default autocollapse works is because it only collapses if there are several other templates on the same page, so a substantial amount of vertical space gets reduced.

(outdent) I'm clearly not going to convince you by arguing. However, you really need to think about whether one extra click, for people that are interested, is more important than the extra space it takes up for all people, interested or not. --Ideogram 09:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gracenotes, an androgynous name: Templates like ((History of Switzerland)) look and function great when thin, but lose that charm when torn and stretched horizontally. This isn't exactly the case with ((Republic of China (Taiwan) topics)) because there are enough articles in each section, but intuitively it feels more like 4 separate series squeezed into 1. But I do not contest this current format to take the effort. –Pomte 08:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong KeepIdeogram has questionable motive. He has been on a crusade to delete this template for no apparent reason.--Certified.Gangsta 03:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SNOWBALL close since despite the initial "delete"s from a few editors, there is no chance in hell that this TfD could ever come to a delete. Lexicon (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bulk nomination of all country navigation templates on People's Republic of China. Feel free to add any other country navigation templates to this list, I hate them all.

Navigation templates are stupid. We are not building an index, we are building an encyclopedia. I don't know why people think having a box that people can click on without reading the article is useful. If you want that, why even have an article?

There is nothing wrong with a paragraph like:

The People's Republic of China is a Communist country in East Asia. It is a member of the United Nations Security Council, the World Trade Organization, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The official language is Mandarin, which is a Sino-Tibetan language.

That contains all the same information in less space and it's readable.

It is completely ridiculous to throw a navigation template on the article for every group it is in. People's Republic of China has nine of them. We have to take a stand now and kill them all or they will drown us. --Ideogram 04:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete It had 12 of them yesterday, but they were also deleted. These are superfluous to categories that the articles are already in. SchmuckyTheCat 04:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per what I said on my nom from a couple weeks ago. If the countries listed are related, then there will already be links in the article. If not, why is a template needed? Quite simply, it isn't. Picaroon 05:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Absolutely no need for the template, per as Picaroon mentions. Jmlk17 07:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just to say I don't think navigational templates' primary purpose is to provide information but rather an alternative way (to e.g. categories or lists, or reading prose) to reach information. I might prefer method X to method Y of doing so, but I don't think that's an argument to delete method Y. Instead, I'd say each method needs to be relatively discreet; and in this case, so long as multiple templates appearing at the ends of articles are or can be collapsed, I'd say that requirement is fulfilled. I agree that too many templates at the ends of articles is undesirable, but what constitutes "too many" is another debate. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, navigational templates are completely useless. There is nothing they do that isn't done better by links in the text. --Ideogram 10:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I realize our opinions are not the same; I was just registering a different point of view. For the sake of consistency, I've ((tfd))'d as many of the other templates of the types listed above as I've been able to find readily, e.g. other "Countries of [continent/region]", "X-speaking nations", etc. Regards, David (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar templates[edit]

• Very Strong Keep I don't even see the need for this argument in the first place. We already have mechanisms for hiding the templates by default, minimizing them unless the reader wants to see how the subject of the article is related to other articles (without having to resort to using the categories unless necessary). Without country navigation templates, I bet that half the user audience would have any idea about how that country is related to other countries (by locale, by organization membership, by cultural ties, etc.).

Furthermore, if you want to take down the country templates, then please take down the country subdivision templates and the county/city subdivision templates as well. They fall within the exact same scape as the country navigation templates as well, and take up oh-so-much space, don't they?

Links in the text simply aren't enough. In fact, I'm frickin' tired of seeing a great deal of these bland stub articles that are giving off the impression of being completely useless without some greater contextual summary at the bottom (or side) of just how much of a role that the article's subject plays in another article.

Navigation templates do just that. They tie articles together (more specifically, and visually, than categories or mere "links in the text"), and it would do a great - terrible, even - disservice to the article if they were simply taken from under them (pun not intended).

And BTW, this isn't 2005. Mere text links and categories no longer make for a good WP article. --Toussaint 17:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Keep all per Toussaint. Useful for cross referencing, which is what an encyclopedia should do, and also they are placed at the bottom of the articles (and in some cases they are automatically hidden) so I don't see what all the fuss is about. Also newcomers to the encyclopdia may not know about the categories; templates are much more simpler to navigate. - Nick C 17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Basically seconding Toussaint and David Kernow. When Ideogram says "No, navigational templates are completely useless. There is nothing they do that isn't done better by links in the text", my response is you can't know that. Different users have different ways of responding to different kinds of data presentation. The templates afford (in the interface design sense) an additional route into the data, and as pointed out at a fairly low cost. Herostratus 17:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep per Toussaint. I find these navigational templates very useful, especially if a category on the subject doesn't exist.. —dima/talk/ 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Very Strong Keep I don't even know where to start as this must be one of the most baseless deletion nominations to date. I'm seconding Toussaint and these navigation templates are there for "navigation"! --Effer^AKS 17:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Protected Areas of Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Many Red Links. Needs to be deleted or seriously edited to get rid of the Wildlife Management Areas section. — Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 02:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete at least until someone can get committed enough to create enough pages and edit enough to remove the deadlinks. Jmlk17 10:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• A more complete template is ((Protected Areas of West Virginia)), showing it can be done. But I'm not sure we should encourage an article on every one of these locations, especially while there are no general articles on State parks in Maryland, etc. In the meantime, I've removed the two sections with all red links. –Pomte 02:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Relatively Strong Keep - Give editors more time to work with the information; this has come up recently with the college basketball coaches templates, which WikiProject College Basketball is working on. If there's a WikiProject Maryland, bring the links to their attention and see what they can put together. At least stay the decision for 6 months and see what is added to flesh out the template by then. matt91486 05:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. It is highly likely that all the state parks (many of the red links) will have articles and this may actually speed up the process. This seems like a useful navigational tool. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:SCH FFX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:SCU FFX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:SC FFX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:SCA FFX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Image fair use tag, there are 4 total. They have been replaced on the images they were used on with the rationale in text and ((game-screenshot)). We don't need a template for every possible source. - cohesion 00:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - on the basis they aren't being used and this is non-contentious. Wouldn't object to someone creating a 'standard' fair use rationale for several images that would be easier to update. Addhoc 21:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete don't serve any purpose; they aren't being used at all. No need to keep. Jmlk17 06:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, fair use templates exist to justify fair use exemptions and nothing else. They are not (usually) for identifying sources and they certainly aren't for categorizing by subject matter. --Cyde Weys 17:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete These tags complicate surplusly the diversity of FU-license tags. Alex Spade 06:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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