< December 1	December 3 >

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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. The nomination has it on this one. We shouldn;t link to the FG wiki because it is in violation of the external link policy. From WP:EL: Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. ... 13.Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

I do not find that the Family Guy Wiki satisfies these criteria and therefore the linking should not be allowed. The nominator is correct that some links to this website could be appropriate, but a blanket linking is not reasonable. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reason for a template of this sort to exist. That is to say, it is not "encyclopedic" and does not serve to support a neutral point of view. While I can concede that there exist templates for IMDB et alia, the family guy on wikia is not IMBD. In the (unlikely) event that there are one or two cases where it appropiate per the external links policy to point to this website, it can be done manually. Barring that, this template lends the appearance of imprimatur.
CygnetSaIad 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--Hardcore Hak 12:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Hardcore Hak[reply]
  • Just a reminder, this is not a vote. You should give a reason. Good reading for editors new to this process: How to discuss an AfD, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I made this template based on ((Memoryalpha)), which links a comparatively more authoritative Star Trek wiki. Links to Family Guy Wiki are added to most Family Guy-related article pages as a kind of escape valve for non-encyclopedic material; however, I don't think it has been very effective in that purpose. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- very useful template, no need to get rid of it. Jonesy702 18:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so you know, WP:USEFUL is famously not a reason to keep something in Xfd debates, at least not by itself. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Family Guy Wiki is an open content project just like Wikipedia, written by many editors who write for Wikipedia. The link is useful for proving cross-wiki information. Qst 21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a very weak reason even for linking to the Family Guy Wiki and bears almost no relationship to the question at hand regarding the template that makes it easy to link. - CygnetSaIad 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is used in all the episode articles, or at least is going to very soon. Removing this template would give us a lot of work to do. Every good stuff needs a Wiki where it fits, that template is leading people there. The site might be crappy, (No, I'm not saying that it is, or accusing ANYONE of saying that) but if you can help it, it will become more useful. Now look, I'm only posting my opinions, if you wanna argue with me, don't. Because this is everything I have to say. Have a nice day. TheBlazikenMaster 18:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attackpg-warn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Attackpg-warn-n (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated by Template:uw-defamatory1 per WP:UW. Suggest delete and redirect to new template. — Papa November 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not sure about this one. Template:db-attack prompts you to notify new users with template:attack, so I don't think there's a true uw equivalent. However, we certainly don't need so many templates to accomplish the same thing. Delete and redirect to template:attack seems the way to go.--Kubigula (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox sídlo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No longer used for Czech settlement articles (sídlo = settlement in Czech). Unused and superceeded by ((Infobox Settlement)) and ((Geobox)). — mikeshk 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Darwinek 22:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused and obsolete. Other similar templates have already been deleted. Tankred 01:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. It seems like we have a ((Infobox Settlement))-related TfD every couple days. JPG-GR 06:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated & superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[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 section.

The result of the debate was The result was keep (leaning to WP:SNOW). SkierRMH (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason that the lead should be expanded is not a reason to have a huge tag on the article. A good lead is important, but not THAT important. A message on the talk page would be better. — Garion96 (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, but I see it both ways. I recently reorganized the article on Dow Chemical Company to lengthen the intro, but this usually is not a big problem. It tends to get addressed on higher-level processes such as peer review, but I don't think we need to "warn" readers and editors about it. Sometimes a one-sentence intro is long enough. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Obviously, a one-sentence intro is too short (God knows how many one-sentence intros I've seen), but in some cases, a one-paragraph intro may be too short too. Sometimes I'm not certain if an intro is long enough, so ((tooshort)) can be a useful tool for letting users know if the intro is indeed too short. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I think it is an important template. Check Bacon's rebellion. It guides armature editors know what they can do to help.-- Penubag  20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked it. I see an ok article having an enormous tag at the top only because the intro is too short. Seems overkill. Garion96 (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then maybe you're right, but I suggest you propose a substitute template that is less noticeable. Who knows? maybe your creation will be used ;)-- Penubag  01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, "tags are ugly" is a lame argument at the best of times. Cleanup templates should be comprehensive, because people are more likely to read a template than to go through the whole MoS looking for things to improve. Chris Cunningham 18:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I've used this template on a number of articles and their lead sections were expanded quickly. "A message on the talk page" doesn't seem to work that well, sadly. --BorgQueen 19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ja, gets the job done and informs the user, in an unobtrusive fashion, that something needs to be done about it. Scarian^Talk 20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[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 section.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash - tk 17:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pointless template - it is nothing but a pretty picture and some verbiage suggesting that related topics/categories happen to exist somewhere; does nothing for the reader, since it makes nothing available. — — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as useless template -- truly does nothing for the reader. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Template serves no navigational purpose. JPG-GR 18:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Useless. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 21:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless since another template "at the bottom of the article" has all necessary links. Zouavman Le Zouave 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. digfarenough (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nice attempt, but didn't go anywhere. SkierRMH (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Icestorm815 07:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Shinobu (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[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 section.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Template:USCUpstateBasketballCoach. -Splash - tk 17:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is a duplicate of Template:USCUpstateBasketballCoach. Fbdave 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Template:USCUpstateBasketballCoach per nom. JPG-GR 01:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. As above. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[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 section.

The result of the debate was KEEP. As correctly identified in the debate, the point of dual licensing is that the person who wishes to re-use the work can choose either/any of the licences on offer. As long as the GFDL is among them, Wikipedia's needs are satisfied. -Splash - tk 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MultiLicenceWithCC-ByNCSA-IntEng (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

By-nc-sa is incomatible with wikipedia licensing.. The Evil Spartan 00:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Creative Commons noncommercial license versions are incompatible with the license of Wikipedia. However, this is explicitly a multiple license notice that grants permission for use under the GFDL as well, so the license as a whole is compatible with Wikipedia's license. Personally, I don't believe we should be promoting noncommercial licenses, which is why this is only a weak keep. On the other hand, I also believe that we shouldn't ever prevent contributors from advertising additional licensing terms (so long as the GFDL is acknowledged) for the simple reason that we may well get contributions that would not otherwise be made available to us. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Gavia. The licensing makes little sense, but I don't think that alone is a reason to prevent people from using it. Circeus 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - with all due respect, guys, the two licenses are clearly incompatible. GFDL says that things must be licensed for commercial distribution. Your points seem to be saying, "we will accept false licenses in order to get people to edit more". If they want to do GFDL, they should do GFDL. The Evil Spartan 06:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, the combination of the two licenses as stated in the template does allow for commercial distribution (by way of the GFDL). Admittedly, the license statement could probably be clearer. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template does not state that at all. Even if this were true, then the NC part would be completely irrelevant, and it would be considerably more accurate to use ((MultiLicenceWithCC-BySA-IntEng)) The Evil Spartan 07:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In reply to The Evil Spartan, and also to explain the keep opinion: Multilicensing allows someone to use either of two licenses. So for the work to be used commercially, the GFDL part of the license must be used, which requires several conditions (including things like transparent copy provision and including a copy of the license, which can be a dealbreaker for companies); noncommercial use is also allowed to use the CC-nc-by-sa license, which is simpler and more lightweight. Multilicensing GFDL with CC-by-sa is different, because it would allow commercial use under CC-by-sa as well as under GFDL. So the licensing says, effectively, "If you want to use this work commercially, you must comply with the terms of the GFDL; if you want to use this work noncommercially, you have the choice of complying with the terms of the GFDL or the terms of CC-nc-by-sa", and this compound license allows commercial use, so it's OK. And as for the keep/delete/do we really want people to use this point; the images are correctly licensed (GFDL multilicensed with anything leads to a valid multilicense for Wikipedia, as the GFDL half can always be the one used; I can imagine a work that was multilicensed between GFDL and "specific company can do anything they like but nobody else can" on Wikipedia, for instance, and there probably are some, although the license to the company probably wouldn't be shown on the image description page), and deleting this tag would leave the images with no valid tag to explain the license. --ais523 10:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - when you submit content to Wikipedia, you agree to license it under the GFDL, however you do not in any way sign over the copyright. The contributions are still yours, and you can relicense them as often as you want under whichever terms you want. So, keep, because it has been nominated under an assumption that is incorrect. Shinobu (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[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.