< June 4	June 6 >

June 5

Template:ROC2

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template is superfluous, as there is already Template:ROC. No reason to have a second one, other than for certain users' political POV. — John Smith's 23:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--Jerry 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No need for a second templete. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Folic Acid 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Vic₂₂₆^說 06:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though I agree with the content ("Republic of China"), I don't think there should be two templates. For the purpose of TFD, I vote for delete. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has no need for this template.--James, La gloria è a dio 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe, and this is my own opinion, that consensus has been reach as so far everyone that has responded has voiced that this template be deleted. This template was also created by a distruptive and extremist user who has been costantly banned for vandalism, edit-warring, and sockpuppetry (I think that's a word). Anyways I call that this template (ROC2) be deleted ASAP. We do not need some thing that tries to push an extremist POV. Thank you. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 12:51, 8 June 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.

Template:Dated dfu

The result of the debate was No consensus (defaults as keep). The template (as it exists now) seems to fit image deletion policy, and the objectionable admin-removal-only instruction creep is gone. The question then seems to be whether it is the most appropriate tag to use. There are other options for editors to use in cases where there is no fair use rationale, but consensus does not seem to exist regarding which, or how many, image deletion tags should exist. IronGargoyle 12:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! How much more misleading can a template get? This templates prime function appeared/s to be to act as a sort of image prod, just with the "only administrators may remove" bureaucratic felgercarb... oh, but it also states that after seven days: the image may be deleted as it's remained in place for seven days! Nonsensical, tell me 'bout it!

An example usage: This template is being utilised by robots to tag images with no fair use rationales, even those uploaded prior to May 4, 2006... even if this template was compliant, it would still be redundant to ((No rationale)).

Bureaucracy and incorrectness: Seemingly only administrators are fit to review imagery and decide if they're fair use or not... basically this templates prime purpose appears to be a one-man judgement panel. We already have a process that can process images in a much more consensual way: WP:IFD.

Redundant to: WP:IFD and WP:CSD

Consensual?: Not at all, there's apparently been 0% discussion to implement such a silly process.

(I foresee a "speedy closure", so to set things straight: any speedy closer should read the criteria for speedy keep.) Matthew 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This would be essentially image PROD. Considering that such a proposal for templates was recently rejected, that must have discussion before implementation. -Amarkov moo! 00:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above and no consensus for such an automated image removal tag Bleh999 02:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its basically the same as ((non-free use disputed)) & ((No rationale)) it serves a way to maintain, and organize the image backlog (those 2 templates are not dated). it serves as a speedy template, just like several other templates and contains the 7 day waiting period for images uploaded prior to may 4, 2006. this is just a method of attempting to bypass a process that some users dis-agree with in regard to WP:NONFREE enforcement. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ((non-free use disputed)) isn't dated, but if you subst ((nrd)), that will give you an appropriately dated and categorized ((no rationale)). Further, ((no rationale)) is specifically for: "media [...] uploaded after 4 May 2006,"; why would one template be applicable for images before 2006-05-04 and one not be? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it actually is a criterion for speedy deletion that a fair-use image lacks a rationale for at least seven days. This template isn't anything new and it's not any attempt to circumvent or create policy, it's just working with existing policy. (Though, using ((subst:nrd)) actually will place the image into a dated category now, but this one works just as well.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does one template delete with no rationale images after 4 May 2006 and this one makes no distinction? Bleh999 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably that was newer guidelines came into force (it's difficult to back date a policy, especially if the outcome is deletion,as the original uploader may no longer be an active wikipedian). -- Ratarsed 11:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I6 isn't a catch all deletion clause, the template states nothing of rationales.. there are numerous reasons why "This image's fair-use status is disputed" that wouldn't be compliant with I6, this is basically an attempt to create a catch-all image deletion template. Matthew 07:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this template is very new. It was created on 22 May 2007. It's the concept that it tries to enforce that is not new. --GentlemanGhost 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, duplicates functionality already present in nrd. --Powerlord 07:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I further conjecture that this template may have been created to bypass policy (by avoiding the edit protection on No rationale), which is called from nrd (AKA No rationale dated). WP:CSD says that nrd is the correct template to use to tag media missing a fair use rationale, and as such, that template is protected. --Powerlord 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the problem isn't with the template, it's with BetacommandBot using this template instead of the correct one, ((nrd)). -- Powerlord 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- actually I was using ((nrd)) (48 hour deletion) and the other ((non-free use disputed)) which is for images uploaded prior May 4, 2006 and has a 7 day deletion time. But the issue is that the ((nrd)) clearly states not to use it for images prior to May 4, 2006, instead use ((non-free use disputed)) that template doesnt use dating, and the bot was creating a large backlog that wasnt dated so an admin created that dated template for use instead of ((non-free use disputed)). Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not the same as nrd, I think the time limit should go up, but its useful, and needed if we are ever to fix the rationale problem. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates spirit of Wikipedia and U.S. copyright fair use doctrine. --Nricardo 10:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Functionality better covered by ((nrd))/((No rationale)). The template also appears to be being abused; Of all the examples I've seen this applied to, they have all been company logos that have been uploaded prior to the date requiring a rationale for the sole purpose of identifying the company on the article page about said company, which is well within fair use. -- Ratarsed 11:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Throw it into a blackhole as per Powerlord. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 11:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for images that technically have what resembles a rationale, but one that is obviously invalid in some way. ShadowHalo 12:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ((Non-free use disputed))... Matthew 12:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is being deprecated in favor of this tag. —Angr 14:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - …by Eskog, the creator of this tag. --GentlemanGhost 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you believe that other tag should exist, I don't comprehend why you feel this one should be deleted. The problem with that tag is that since it didn't sort into dated categories, disputes would sit untouched for (in the worst cases) up to 11 months. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above.--James, La gloria è a dio 14:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful for all sorts of purposes, and IFD is overwhelmed with obvious cases. A "PROD for non-free images" is thus a very good idea indeed. And it's not a speedy-deletion template: images with it aren't deleted for seven days, while at IFD it's only five. —Angr 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should propose a prod for images then? Though making a template doesn't create policy or guidelines. Matthew 14:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an awfully legalistic opinion. If lack of fair use rationale is a reason for speedy deletion, then a dating syste, is appropriate. None of the text is misleading, and I put to you that your deletion rationale is inaccurate. 81.104.175.145 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. --Durin 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the image may not be deleted after 7 days, we shouldn't put this template on the image in the first place... which is just a waste of time.--minghong 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the template is not misleading, it is merely a dated version of ((Non-free use disputed)) and makes it easier for administrators to find images that have been disputed for a long period time and then review. --Iamunknown 19:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem, not really related to this template in particular, is that it is now in widespread use where ((nrd)) / ((No rationale)) should have been used. --Powerlord 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you don't like the process, take issue with the process, not the template used to carry it out. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs to be more specific. I get tired of getting these "anonymous" notices that I haven't supplied enough information. If they need more information, why don't the propser go in and state what is needed. It doesn't seem to matter, I wasn't given 7 days to respond, I managed to get something on it anyway, and without warning, the image was deleted anyway. I'm ignoring any more notices. An administrator is free to delete the images. I don't care anymore. This kind of garbage is why I quit Wikipedia some time ago. I'm thinking about it again.Squad51 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't happy to comply with our policies and processes, there are around a billion other sites on the Web for you to visit. 81.104.175.145 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to work with this, I just think there's a better way to handle this. You don't need to be rude about it; being rude is why I quit the first time, and why I'm think about it again. I've found some of those other "billion" websites where some people have left Wikipedia for just the reason. To me, this seems on a par with arresting someone for breaking the law, then refusing to tell them what law they broke. Squad51 02:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before the bot was tagging, very few people were given notice about their images not passing WP:NFCC. We're not perfect here on Wikipedia, but if you were confused by the message.. then ask for some help. There's so many ways to get help or to find out things here. Not to mention, you're supposed to be aware of these things before you upload. If you are uploading without reading the rules then you only have yourself to blame for not knowing what's going on. If you want to leave Wikipedia over this, then don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. If you want to get over the WikiDrama and get back to editing one of the best websites on the internet, stop your bitching and learn from your mistakes. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - proposer's rationale is somewhere between "flawed" and "patently inaccurate". On "bureaucracy and incorrectness", nowhere does it say that only administrators are fit to judge. It says that "subject to administrator review, [the image] may be deleted", which is perfectly accurate. Only administrators are able to delete, and one would hope they check the bowl before they flush. On supposed "redundancy", you could say that PROD is redundant to the intersection of AfD and CSD. If anything, PROD exists for cases of "I think this should be speedied but doesn't strictly fit the criteria" and "I think this should be deleted, and don't expect much dissent". I remember the time when a hundred articles a day would turn up on AfD, most of which were clear-cut deletions, and around half being unanimous or near-unanimous. A key point here is that a valid fair use rationale is required by policy, the lack of one is a criterion for speedy deletion (I6). Finally, your statement of "Consensual?" absolutely reeks of the foul stench of "process before product". The encyclopaedia comes first, no exceptions. 81.104.175.145 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users may not vote on articles or templates for discussion Bleh999 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. XfD is not a vote. 2. Says who? 81.104.175.145 21:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice going anon. :) Xe is right, Bleh999, anons can indeed comment on xfd discussions. --Iamunknown 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ^demon. Will ^(talk) 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore all images that were deleted using this misleading template. When the template was first applied to many images it said only an administrator was allowed to remove the template after reviewing fair use. Then the template was changed to say that whoever fixes the problem should remove the template. This left a whole lot of images where the problem was fixed but the template wasn't removed, and administrators deleted the images based on the template still being there, without looking to see whether the problem was fixed. DHowell 05:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear your entire argument is based on the notion that all of our administrators are utter idiots with no intelligence of their own. 81.104.175.145 08:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL and policy. People are just mad that images are being tagged and deleted. -- Ned Scott 08:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should propose policy changes to make this template compliant -- before declaring there's not a snowballs chance this will be deleted, after all: it isn't a vote, right? There are many reasons an image may be disputed -- many do not comply with the CSD. Matthew 08:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please stop whining. Your proposed solution appears to be in search of a problem, and hasn't found one yet. 81.104.175.145 08:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did, months ago. The result was a change to I7: "Media that fail any part of the non-free content criteria and were uploaded after 13 July 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader." But hey, better luck next time. -- Ned Scott 08:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "This image's fair-use status is disputed" (from the template), then read my comment: "There are many reasons an image may be disputed -- many do not comply with the CSD", a catch-all template for image deletions isn't CSD compliant. Matthew 21:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The tag is being added to images with no rationale whatsoever, let alone source or copyright information. All of those are covered under I7. If the images had a rationale, even a stupid one, the bot would not have tagged the image. Even if you deleted the template, the message could be placed in the bot itself, and would still be 100% valid, and in line with speedy deletion. The only way it doesn't follow policy is that it's giving more than 48 hours to uploaders to fix the problem. You don't seem to understand that I7 alone is a catch-all-deletion for any media failing any part of WP:NFCC. -- Ned Scott 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ned, what you seemingly don't understand is that (and wait for it): the template makes 0 mention of being NFCC/rationale specific, rather "This image's fair-use status is disputed" -- an image could be disputed outside the NFCC/rationale. Matthew 22:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Except that the next line explains what is missing: "If you can address this concern by adding an appropriate fair-use rationale". Matthew, stop acting like a dumbass and wasting our time. -- Ned Scott 06:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No it doesn't really say after that "or in some other way", 'course not. Matthew 09:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, now you're just being stupid. You're suggesting nothing short of the possibility of being "a little bit pregnant". If a FUR is provided, it is either valid or it isn't. If it isn't, it's a valid I7. If there is no FUR at all, it's a valid I6. End of story. 81.104.175.145 00:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - Although I agree that the time limit to give a rationale should go up. Jezebel Parks 21:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ^demon. Riana ⁂ 07:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically an image prod. -N 07:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not an image prod at all. Prod is "I want this deleted because <reason>", which is discretionary. This is "Image doesn't meet WP:NFCC", which is mandatory. 81.104.175.145 00:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or something we already have way too many image deletion templates, for example ((nrd)) and ((frn)), plus a template to request a fair use review, another to completely contest and then still others. We don't need any more. Addhoc 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not clear to me how to tag all these images claiming fair use, without rationale, or with a rationale for use and one page, but then the image shows up on four others. See all the concert photos on Led Zeppelin. I'm a fan, and they look great, but these are not free images and no rationale is provided for their use. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uris 16:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it does not meet our criteria for fair use then this tag is needed. ^(H) 16:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As noted by its creator, ESkog (talk · contribs), this template and its companion ((dfu)) were created as an attempt "to rollout [a] dated version of ((Non-free use disputed))". [1] However, the new template differs from ((Non-free use disputed)) and some people object to this. As noted by ESkog, the new template is based on ((prod)). [2] Like a prod, the instructions for ((dfu)) seem to indicate that the image may simply be deleted outright if no fair use rationale is provided within seven days. In contrast, the instructions for ((Non-free use disputed)) tell the reviewing admin to tag the image with ((db-badfairuse)) as the next step. While this would not forestall deletion for very much longer, it is a difference of procedure. --GentlemanGhost 19:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see this as a change in the situation really; admins don't typically use the speedy deletion tags since we can just delete the image. If you disagree, you're welcome to fix the template and open up some discussion there. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That could very well be true - admins may in fact not use the speedy delete tags and proceed straight to deletion. I just pointed it out because it is the only difference in procedure as far as I can tell. It took me a while to figure out that the images (if left as is) will end up in the same deletion queue no matter which template is used. So, in practice, it sounds like there isn't much difference between the two. My point in adding a comment was to try to unemotionally explain what differences there are between the two. Too often within this debate, people are ascribing motivations to people they disagree with, which is hardly good faith. I've tried to use your edit summaries to indicate the thinking behind the template's creation. Obviously, you can do that better than me, so I have misstated anything, please correct me. In actuality, I don't disagree with you. I didn't "vote" because I thought it would defeat the purpose of adding neutral commentary. I'm perfectly fine with this template - I think it fills a need. Looking at my other comments, I can see why it might seem like I am against it, but that's actually not the case. --GentlemanGhost 00:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Well this is quite ridiculous. Don't agree with how fair use enforcement is being done? Oh, just nominate one of the templates for deletion! And hilarity doth ensue. This is the kind of issue you need real discussion over, not just a potshot at one of the templates. --Cyde Weys 23:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since this template is supposed to be used via subst, deleting it will have no effect on existing instances of it. --Powerlord 04:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or something We have too many templates with different usages and naming and restrictions and other bullshit that I cannot even fucking keep track of them. There are something like three different tags that all say 'This image doesn't have a source, add one!' Adding a new one that serves basically the same purpose as others does not help. ((No rationale)) doesn't have dated categories? Why not just make ((No rationale)) dated? Or Template:No Rational dated? We should be a concerted effort to deal with the problem cases and get rid of this quagmire of different ways we have to speedy delete non-free images depending on the phase of the moon when the image was uploaded or if the image description page lacks Foo. This template does not seem to be helping. Kotepho 00:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a No rationale dated template, it's just named ((nrd)) instead of No rationale dated. --Powerlord 04:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that fails the date of uploaded after 4 May 2006, issue. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The 4 May 2006 cutoff is set by policy, in particular WP:CSD I6, which also incidently tells you exactly what templates to use if the date is after 4 May 2006. ((subst:nrd)) simply calls the dated version of ((subst:No rationale)) using the current date. --Powerlord 05:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator). As noted above by several, this exists to replace ((Non-free use disputed)) to allow administrators to properly review these images. While many images have been tagged with this for "no fair-use rationale" (a use which was previously used on the other template), there are also taggings which call into question the claims of fair use on other grounds. Administrators should not be simply deleting these images - just as they shouldn't be deleting speedy delete pages without review - but should be reviewing the claim of fair use. It may need some modification and tweaking, but this is a useful template. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I guess this discussion is heading towards "no consensus=keep", in which case after this is closed, could you redirect the replaced template? Thanks, Addhoc 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. In-universe templates

The result of the debate was merge per ChoChopk. This discussions is now closed, but there will be a slight delay in processing of the templates. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Template:ME-in-universe was an anomaly, but apparently it wasn't. We don't need all of these variations of Template:In-universe. --Farix (Talk) 17:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It makes sense to vary the message depending on the genre. --El on ka 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful for wikiproject-specific cleanup. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Night Gyr. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 22:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no such thing as in-universe. Matthew 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is. Where did you get that idea? -Amarkov moo! 01:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Matthew, why are you voting when you don't even understand what you're voting about? Doczilla 07:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. I don't see anything specifically helpful in specifying which "in-universe" an article about a fictional topic is about. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) merge and parameterize, or b) create a meta template for the 4 The 4 templates in question put the transcluding articles in

Category:Video game articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction
Category:Television articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction
Category:Comics articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction
Category:Anime and manga articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction

And the numbers of transcluding articles are: Animanga: 43, Comics: 40 TV: 28, VG: 135. It seems that there is a need for these templates. And unlike Middle Earth, these genres are not overspecialized. That being said, the 4 templates do look similar. Therefore I vote for consolidation. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template:ME-in-universe is another TFD a few entries below. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in-universe is even noted on a guideline like this. Lord Sesshomaru
Delete; not too useful. If you wish to know more on the subject, research it. There are more resources than *gasp* Wikipedia. Pineconn 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You realize this are cleanup templates, not meant to encourage this type of article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ChoChoPK, why use many if one will suffice? To all the "keep"-ers, is there any legitimate reason to oppose such a merger? If necessary, this new template could sort pages into WikiProject-specific categories so cleanup sorting should not be a concern. Axem Titanium 03:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I hate having to dig through anime, TV, comics, movies, manga, books, etc. to find a video game article to fix up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidate as per ChoChoPK (球球PK). It just makes sense to use one template with parameters. If the in-universe template ever changes in any way then you'd only have to change one, not several. --Squilibob 08:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--DrBat 22:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidate add a custom option for ((in-universe)) to do what was already being done. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidate, separate templates are unnecessary, but differentiation is needed. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) ^{(drop me a line)} 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Consolidate per Chochopk / Ned Scott ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I am open to reason. To my mind, the most important function of ((comics-in-universe)) is populating the category Category:Comics articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. This category is useful to facilitate cleanup done by WikiProject Comics. If there's a way to integrate that functionality into the main ((in-universe)), then I think we can get rid of the comics-specific one. --GentlemanGhost 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. GentlemanGhost 22:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We already have a general tag, we don't need special ones that merely say "Television", "character", "comic", etc. That's just unecessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see the point if it also allowed for a second category option. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidate I think they all need to be merged but an option needs to be provided for what type of media or maybe even the series Katori22 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Merging them all eliminates that "option". Doczilla 07:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate and I offer myself to create all this parser functions (manga=yes comics=yes, etc)--Andersmusician $ 03:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidate - Sounds like a great idea to me.--AgentCDE / Talk / 07:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Deletion/consolidation arguments are weak (e.g., "Sounds like a great idea to me."? Really?). The distinction is incredibly useful for editorial cleanup purposes. Not everyone is interested in editing every article that's in-universe, but will take an interest in certain kinds of articles. If you're only into manga, you want to clean up manga articles, and so on. It's useful to have a by-type template with a handy "What links here" list. Doczilla 07:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No distinction will be lost. Read my original vote. The merged template will have a parameter to switch the category, and perhaps icon. The wording and structured will be, however, centralized. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct us to an example of a template that has worked that way so we can see how that is supposed to work. Doczilla 18:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an example on the top of my head. But I can make one if you really want. When finished, you would use

((some template|type=vg))

for video game. And

((some template|type=tv))

for TV. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly. All infoboxes have similar options/parameters. However, I can see the keep argument from a cleanup point of view as Doczilla said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katori22 (talk • contribs).
- Well, the added switch can add the article to a category based on the parameter, so it would still have the same function that Doc is talking about. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidate. It's useful for cleanup to categorize by medium, but not particularly helpful to differentiate to the template reader. So I would suggest making the category switchable. I believe it would be more helpful to make the template's text be freely replaceable than force it to a collection of presets though, since that way you could put in other text like "this section" or "the rest of the article" for when the page only has too much in-universe in part of it (the second one is especialy useful since on long pages it lets you work incrementally and flag where you are up to). --tjstrf talk 08:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can see the argument for consolidation, but that can lead to excessive bureaucracy and make editing templates harder when different wikiprojects may want to design individual templates for individual uses. Also, a consolidated template will be used in more articles, and so may end up protected, which could again slow things down. Also, the debates that took place on separate talk pages will now be gathered together on one talk pages discussing what in effect are many different templates. I understand how parameters work (though I don't understand the coding), but I'm not sure quite sure how the other aspects of this will work in practice. Also, take a look at Category:WikiProject Middle-earth templates. I populated this category in an effort to keep track of the various templates in use, and meant to sort them further into 'content' templates, 'tidying up' templates, 'admin' templates, and so forth. As someone who finds using templates difficult enough, I much prefer to copy an existing template and tweak it, rather than try and work out how the coding works for parameters. For a more complex example, have a look at ((ME-ref)). See also ((ME-date)), ((ME-lang)), ((Tolkienchar)) ((Tolkien-sectstub)) and ((Tolkien-stub)). That latter one, at least, has its category integrated into Category:Stub categories. I'm not sure how close this debate is to closing, but I am contacting the designer/maintainer of several of these templates to get his input, so could the close wait a few days? Carcharoth 09:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment - by the logic of consolidation, would consolidation of all the separate stub templates into one switchable template ever be considered? If not, where is the line drawn? Carcharoth 09:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fact, I would argue that stub templates should be turned into parameterized meta template (at least behind the scene). I wrote my argument at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Promote the use of multilevel templates. I'm sorry to be direct, but copying-and-pasting code is not the best practice.... --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I agree, but would you agree that parameterized templates are more off-putting for people to edit (easier to break for example) than non-parameterized templates? If the templates were laid out clearly, making it easy to find and edit the text, as opposed to being obscured by all the logic and IF functions, then I could support consolidation. Have a look at the source code for ((WPBiography)). Now consider a fairly experienced editor with little experience of template coding trying to make head or tail of that. I tried once, and failed. I wouldn't like to see over-consolidation end up with lots of monster templates like that. Carcharoth 10:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - note that I have asked for the close to be delayed for a few days for more input (please see my main comment above). Hope this is OK. Carcharoth 09:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, rather embarassingly, I see that this debate is not about ME templates at all, though they are mentioned. If TfD decide to keep the ME ones, but consolidate the others, maybe the issue of whether to consolidate the ME ones can be revisited at a later date? Carcharoth 10:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ask yourself - Why do we not have just one 'stub' template with parameters for all the different topics of stubs? That is an exact parallel to the argument being made here. Unfortunately, not everyone knows how to set up or modify a conditional template to show different text and put pages into different categories based on the parameter(s) passed. It is alot easier to copy a simple template with no conditionals and change the text and category link. We could merge these templates, but then when the next group comes along and wants to set up a category for their topic... chances are they are going to set up a new single use template. Further, the more topics you add the more convoluted and resource intensive a single template will get. These 'one shot' templates are exactly what the template system was originally created for. This is how they are supposed to be used. Making them all one template adds greater complexity with no significant benefit. Standardized infoboxes for related topics have benefits... they provide a consistent format to the output and are easier to maintain than disparate variations. For simple text notices like these the output format isn't particularly important (they are intended to be removed) and 'maintenance' is all but non-existent... you write it, you use it, and there is seldom anything which needs changing. --CBD 11:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ask yourself, why do we have ((zh icon)), ((es icon)), and ((pt icon)) all calling ((languageicon)) behind the scene? Would you say that copying and pasting <span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-weight: bold; color:#555; position: relative;"> is easier? If done correctly, meta template actually reduces clutter, like the example I just gave. Furthermore, if I want to add another language icon, ((languageicon)) doesn't need to be changed at all.

The same applies to these 4 templates. When I say consolidate, it doesn't mean these 4 templates will be physically deleted. There will be a meta template behind the scene. That's my option b since the beginning. This again reduce clutter. Do you want to see "<div class="plainlinks messagebox cleanup metadata">This article or section on a..." in 4 different places or one? What if somebody wants to change the style or the wording in the future, which is actually applicable to all 4? What if copying-and-pasting is done to 100 templates? Not so easy on updating anymore, eh?

Another real example is ((Numismaticnotice)) and ((Electron)). These project banners used to take a "class" parameter, where the values can be FA, G, A, B, start, or stub. This code has been copied and pasted. And then somebody decided to add more classes like template, category, dab, etc. Then the logic has to be re-copied-and-pasted.

It looks like this TFD is going to be keep or consolidate. In fact, for the purpose of TFD (to delete or not), these two outcomes are not too different. I consider "keep" as "keep as is", and "consolidate" as "keep, then rewrite". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wouldn't normally use the term 'consolidating' to describe 'keeping all the current templates and adding one more', but it is a viable approach... which as you note has nothing to do with whether the templates are deleted or not. 'Linking' the templates by having them all run through one 'top level' formatting template is fine. Essentially, Template:Comics-in-universe would be rewritten to contain just something like: ((Generic-in-universe|comics|Comics articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction)). The 'Generic-in-universe' template would then have all the formatting to produce the banner and boilerplate text and plug in 'comics' in the text describing the type of article and 'Comics articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction' as the category to link the page to. People would continue using ((Comics-in-universe)) in the articles and get exactly the same results as before. New templates would be created by setting up 'Template:DoctorWho-in-universe' with the code ((Generic-in-universe|Doctor Who|Doctor Who articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction)), et cetera. It can be done. I don't know that it really needs to be, as I don't think it is all that critical that all 'in universe' templates be formatted exactly the same way. --CBD 10:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - forgot to give my opinion after my comment, and was also waiting for a definitive argument in favour of keeping. Which has been provided. See CBD's comment above. With the caveat that the categories used by each templates should be placed in the general category, to enable those browsing the wider category looking for stuff to fix to be made aware that the specialised categories also exist. ie. categorise the categories, but don't consolidate the templates (it is off-putting to those who don't understand advanced template coding). Carcharoth 11:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But "real beginners" don't add the stub templates much anyway. They usually write the stub articles, which are then given the stub template by a more experienced user. Not that I'm generalizing--I'm pretty new myself--just, er, commenting :) But yeah, I think this subject needs more debate. I've seen some good arguments and I also think we should extend the time. Katori22 17:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some people seem to wonder why we would consolidate the template, instead of just having more than one. The big reason is it makes maintenance easier for the templates. Lets say something happens, and we change our policy or just move it to another page, and we update these templates, but a few get forgotten. Consolidation means you only have to update the text of one copy, and then everyone's version of that template is up to date. At least that's why I think it would be a good idea. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I don't know much about templates, but I thought they were pretty much like that anyway? Katori22 05:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because right now they are independent templates. If you want to update the text of in-universe you would have to update each one manually, as things currently are. Thanks to the magic of ParserFunctions we can make one template act like several, and the over-lap text will always be in sync. -- Ned Scott 18:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those of you who want to keep the categorization, why not alter the talkpage WikiProject templates to include them? I believe a couple of wikiprojects already does this and I've been working on something similar with Template:WikiProject Anime and manga as part of a general overhaul of the template. With that option, there is no need to have all of these variations of these variations of the cleanup templates for different WikiProjects. --Farix (Talk) 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That actually sounds more complicated than it needs to be. An editor would add a clean-up tag, then flip around to the talk page and alter a seemingly unrelated banner to add it to a cat. -- Ned Scott 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't speak for the other projects but ((comicsproj)) already has this functionality. Using the parameter "fiction=yes" adds the article to Category:Comics articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. Using ((comics-in-universe)) is just a different way of doing the same thing. --GentlemanGhost 23:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not really, as in-universe isn't just about fact and fiction distinction. Regardless, it still seems silly to me to use two templates, one for visual tagging, then a different one on the talk page for categorizing the first one. -- Ned Scott 00:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Point taken. However, the name of the category was presumably based on (and it is a subset of) Category:Articles_that_need_to_differentiate_between_fact_and_fiction, which is utilized by ((in-universe)). As for the templates themselves, the project banner and the in-universe template work independently of each other; both can add to the category. If the parameter is set in the banner and the page is tagged with ((comics-in-universe)), the article and its talk page will end up in the category. As a rule, I avoid doing this. The creator of the comics-specific in-universe may not have been aware of that aspect of the project banner. --GentlemanGhost 05:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or consolidate. One-size-fits-all generic templates can look silly and unprofessional on a specialised page. Having a different form for each specialty reduces ambiguity as well. Bellito, master of all things Mac-related 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The arguments for deletion seem to be weak. -凶 22:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or consolidate. I would have done the parameterization myself if the template wasn't locked.
- I also like the meta-template idea. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just saw the television one for the first time tonight, and these all seem like useful cleanup tags and corresponding categories. -- Satori Son 06:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Consolidate. The note itself is useful, having separate templates for needless specificity is not. "this page describes a work of fiction in primarily in-universe style" gets the point across every bit as well, at 1/4 the clutter. ShaleZero 07:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Merge/Consolidate There are simply too many of variations that are all redundant. These could simply be consolidated into one template that notes that a work of fiction (movies, books, games and so on are all recognized as fiction) is being described in an overly in-universe manner.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep- assuming unless all these can be lumped together like ((in-universe|video games)), all serve a useful purpose, especially for categorization. David Fuchs 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The in-universe tag is silly as it is, having a ton of copies of it for each individual subject is equally silly. Scumbag 20:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only way you could've gotten closer to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is if you actually said "I don't like it". There needs to be a basis for the argument, not just "[it's] silly". --Teggles 04:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PromPeruImages

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was deleted as being permission for Wikipedia only on commons (commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PromPerú) and so all of these are replacable non-free images. Delete them all. Kotepho 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the image should be gone soon, as I tagged them with ((db-noncom)) (they were uploaded after the cut-off date). That said, most of the images were definitely replaceable, and if that is but a sample of the images from the website, then I say delete this template. --Iamunknown 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed two of them to ((PD-art)) since they are pictures of a decorated wall. -N 01:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, I disagree, but whether or not they are covered under Bridgeman is debatable, and so a speedy delete is inappropriate (good catch). --Iamunknown 02:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non free license. -N 01:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at es:Wikipedia:Autorización para insertar material de PROMPERU con Copyright ... my Spanish is not up to par, but it appears to give authorization to reproduce material as long as the source is mentioned. It does not, however, authorize reproduction, commercial reuse, derivative works, etc. Hmm... --Iamunknown 22:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost, but not quite... the associated template [3] is marked historical and the talk page says the license cannot be used because it is Wikipedia-only. -N 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete peruvians special images shouldn't have their own license-tempalte--Andersmusician $ 03:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid deletion reason. If images are available under a special license, assuming it's free enough, a special template for that license is appropriate. -N 16:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, but these are replaeceable fair use, aren't they? --Andersmusician $ 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misunderstood you. -N 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD voting templates

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#Template:Support and Template:Object and Template:Oppose, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/November 2005#Template:Vote and all derivatives, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007 May 3#Voting templates yet again, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 4#Template:!comment. —Cryptic 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the AfD voting templates again, in disguise (look at the backlinks). These templates are a bad idea because they promote a voting-style mentality. However, it isn't as clear-cut as that, as they are used on the Manual of Style as well to add visual impact to a checklist. So subst non-voting-related uses and delete (in other cases where similar icons are used on project pages, they're either written out by hand or part of a bot-readable template like ((RFPP)) or ((ACC))). --ais523 16:36, 5 June 2007 (U T C)

Delete all I took the bold step of merging these TfDs into one nomination so that it would be less confusing. --Farix (Talk) 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Twas meant to be one nom, but I didn't realise that tfd-inline had two parameters. --ais523 16:50, 5 June 2007 (U T C)
Comment There were templates ((good)) and ((bad)) deleted at TfD previously, but they had different content and were designed for a different purpose, so the previous TfD is not relevant. --ais523 17:06, 5 June 2007 (U T C)
Keep As creator of two of them, you forgot to add noinclude tags on to the templates, this means the deletion tag transcluded onto hundreds of pages. The Sunshine Man 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What reason you do you think they should be kept other then WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ICREATEDIT? --Farix (Talk) 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They make it easier at first glance to see what people think, by the way WP:ICREATEDIT never existed. The Sunshine Man 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: No point to these, an induces unnecessary load to boot. --Durin 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone introduced the tick and the cross to the start of correct and incorrect examples in the Manual of Style. People seem to like them. Does this mean that we'll lose them? Tony 02:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me and their use in the MoS (and perhaps other help pages) was my only intent. Due to the file names I thought they were (intended to be) used in voting, too. I did not know that icons in votes are deprecated. The speedy deletion was precipitate in my opinion. Christoph Päper 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trainweb

The result of the debate was deletion, after retagging. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images of this site are either under these terms or CC-sampling+. Neither of these constitute an acceptable free license for Wikipedia. CC-sampling+ allows you to "Re-creativity" a work (sample, mashup, etc) a work and only copy in a non-"Re-creavitity" manner for non-commercial purposes. The other license limits the reproduction to websites or print media (a Wikipedia CD would not seem to be included) and does not explicitly allow for derivative works or commercial use (both of which are required for this to considered a free license for Wikipedia). Since all of these are non-free and all of them are replacable as far as I can tell this template serves no purpose and should be deleted along with any of the images using it. Kotepho 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kotepho. This is not a legitimate license. Any works from this site would have to qualify under fair use. --Durin 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notification left on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Slambo (Speak) 13:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: I've taken a quick review of many images that currently use this tag. While many of them are replaceable, there are some that depict railroad operations that are not reproducible and therefore not easily replaceable (i.e. Image:UP City of Las Vegas 1957.jpg and Image:PicGN1324c.jpg). At TWP, we are working to update all of the images currently marked with fair use tags, and those with this tag are currently under discussion at the project talk page. Slambo (Speak) 18:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I agree that this is non-free and would prefer it be deleted. I do also, however, support the Trains WikiProject's effort to identify irreplaceable images tagged with this tag and retag them with a non-free image copyright tag, fair use rationale and source. Other images with this template should afterwards be deleted (via the appropriate venue). --Iamunknown 19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now until Train project finishes retagging irreplaceable images. Keep this TfD as well until project finishes retagging images. User:Pedant 05:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as invalid image tag, but not before all occurrences are accounted for. 81.104.175.145 13:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AMA

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is a part of a now inactive project. All the links contained within have been redirected. — Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Iamunknown 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The writing was on the wall even when I was still active there. I never thought it'd actually shut down though. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark Historical at one point this project didn't suck. Helping others resolve issues without escalation still doesn't suck. User:Pedant 05:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons non-commercial licenses

The result of the debate was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has shown no support for non-commercial material on the site since May 2005. See also this related CFD. --Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 13:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, GFDL or CC-SA content cannot be reused in a CC-NC-SA licensed project. This multi-license makes such usage possible. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as the GFDL is among the acceptable licenses, it's acceptable for Wikipedia. This simply means that the user doesn't want their work distributed under the more lax conditions of CC licensing in commercial works, but allows commercial use only if the stricter attribution requirements of the GFDL are followed. Krimpet (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep, I would prefer no one multi-license their contributions under a non-commercial license, but inasmuch as multi-licensing is acceptable it is acceptable. --Iamunknown 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the editors to an article with this on their user pages don't need to be contacted by NC projects for reuse. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-06t20:13z
Keep CC licenses are incompatible with GFDL, a valid multi-license is acceptable as long as at least one of them is free. -N 16:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth maintenance templates

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost exact duplicates of Template:Fact and Template:In-universe. Wikiprojects don't need to have their own set of maintenance templates. --Farix (Talk) 12:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People who are familiar with the series can much more easily deal with sourcing and style issues than someone who knows nothing about the topic. Thus, a category to allow people to find such articles is good, and a template for it is perfectly okay. -Amarkov moo! 00:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the on going creation and TFD of specialized template shows one thing: there is a need of better ways to identify articles by a certain criteria. The primary reason for Template:ME-fact is to form an intersection of Category:All articles with unsourced statements and the Middle Earth articles. We have CatScan. But it can't do set intersection of union. We need a better tool. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these templates for the reasons Amarkov stated, at least until we have a way to do category intersections in software (which is quite needed, by the way.) — The Storm Surfer 00:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amarkov and The Storm Surfer. Very, very useful for me and others, I'm sure.Why can't fields of interest (because that's what Wikiprojects represent) have their own maintenance templates? It doesn't fall under any of the reasons for deletion here:

The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic)
The template is redundant to another better-designed template; - serves special purpose
The template is not used (note that this cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks, it may be used with "subst:");
The template isn't a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) (editors must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement)

It's not template clutter. Is there a specific WP:Policy for these? Uthanc 03:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful templates that help organise wikiproject improvement of the encyclopedia. Carcharoth 17:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems Tolkiens realm varies from many derivated works, so this would be helpful for readers --Andersmusician $ 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are tags are to alert editors. Though they are visible to readers as well, they are not really designed to help the readers. Cleaning up the articles and removing the tags would be more helpful to the readers. Carcharoth 10:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Asian television channels

The result of the debate was keep. IronGargoyle 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic).
Original author went through WP:CSD (here) but due to an objection it was restored by closing admin. It is a collection of TV channels of various different languages from the Indian sub-continent and therefore fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and possible WP:NOT#INFO → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there's precedence like ((American broadcast television)) and ((French television stations)). I believe the concept of it qualifies for a nav box. However, I see no reason to lump India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh together. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree that a template per language would be useful as a nav box. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 20:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It should be split into separate templates and could be better organized, but it is useful. --musicpvm 05:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 11:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aliens

The result of the debate was speedy delete, complete nonsense. Kusma (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful, unencylopedic nonsense being spammed onto several articles. Riana ⁂ 09:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYC bus

The result of the debate was delete all. IronGargoyle 19:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first template is being used for constructing lists of bus connections in New York City Subway station articles. The lists include major streets the buses run on and the origination/destination neighborhoods. This was before bus route links were redirected to lists of bus routes or articles (e.g. Q44 (New York City bus), M14 (New York City bus)) which show essentially the same information. When the template is used, articles like Main Street-Flushing (IRT Flushing Line) dedicate too much space to the bus information when the focus is supposed to be to the station. Thus this template should be deleted. The rest are all implementations of the above. Tinlinkin 04:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep temporarily. Shouldn't all uses of these templates first be replaced? Template:NYC bus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seems to have a decent amount of use, and if the template were deleted today, those pages would "break." I would fix those pages first, then propose deletion. Marc Shepherd 12:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was substituting the template last night, but I was too sleepy to continue. I've finished the subsitutions now (except for the templates that implement ((NYC bus))). Tinlinkin 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Already have a template that has the same content as these templates have. We are not in need of all of these.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose deletion? Your comment seems to say these templates should be deleted. Tinlinkin 15:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think he means oppose the keeping of this article. カラム 06:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see anything wrong with including as much information as possible about the station, particularly the bus line data. The bus templates saved entering a lot of information when buses were incorporated into articles, and are quite invaluable across New York City Transit related articles. Further, I don't think it's appropriate to go through and substitute the templates before the article is deleted. alphachimp 17:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, the elaborate bus line data (destinations and routes) is most relevant for bus lines, and only tangential (almost irrelevant) for an article about a subway station. See Talk:Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer (New York City Subway)#Bus connections when I first noticed that the big list of bus connections took up more space than the prose before it (this version). To me, the bus info creeps up against WP:NOT a travel guide; imagine if the templates were applied to Port Authority Bus Terminal. Tinlinkin 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping the same exhaustive data duplicated in many places will lead to maintenance problem. What if a bus route changes? Then all stations that connects to that bus routes needs to be updated. What about using templates to keep the date in one place? Then you need one template per bus route.

In addition, I'd like to invite everyone to generalize and think like an engineer: If you have an object of type 1 (e.g. subway station), which is related to several objects of type 2 (e.g. bus routes), which then in turn has a few attributes (e.g. terminal destinations), does it make sense on Wikipedia to lists all the attributes of objects of type 2 under the articles of objects of type 1? IMHO, no. It would be like an airport article listing all airlines that is hosts, plus all the destinations of each of the airlines. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYSubway1

The result of the debate was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are navboxes that list all the stations of a New York City Subway line (service). From previous and current WP:NYCPT discussions (1, 2, 3), it has been determined that the navboxes are not useful due to their size (in appearance and byte size), and next/previous station links are sufficient for navigating between stations. For example. with Times Square, nine navboxes would be need and these navboxes plus the existing templates on the page may bump up against template limits. Tinlinkin 04:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't review all the information, but given the nominator's concerns about readability, and the fact that everything is categorized, I think we can manage without the templates. Placeholder account 04:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marc Shepherd 12:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The templates won't be of much help, and will just clutter up article space, especially in large station complexes. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 01:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this is the consensus of the project and the templates are not used. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MJCdetroit 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tempfull

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates were used to help construct the tables used in Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Lines. All table syntax is now inline and the templates are unused. Tinlinkin 03:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tf3 Tf3 looks like a helper template that is project specific. Tempfull could be an extension of ((tl)), which may be used in other projects. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ME-canonstart and Template:ME-canonend

The result of the debate was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary templates used by a half dozen articles that declares something to be canon in the J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth series. Long and short of it is that these are disclaimer templates and should be deleted per Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. --Farix (Talk) 00:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've attached Template:Mecanon as well for the same reasons. --Farix (Talk) 12:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These aren't really disclaimer templates, but there's still no point in marking canon material like this. -Amarkov moo! 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These templates are left over from the old [Middle-earth canon] article that has since been revised and are no longer relevant to article content or to canon.Tttom1 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Farix stated, we don't use disclaimer templates. If sourceable, something's status as canon or non-canon can be noted in the prose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can't have a disclaimer tag for each specific thing. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they stop people that have only read more common books from 'correcting' articles which include material they are not familiar with. Thu 07:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Ttom says, they're now obsolete; the Middle-earth canon article at present doesn't define what stuff is or is not canon or "correct" anymore (can't - that would currently be original research). But as Thu says, they're intended to prevent unhelpful edits and revert wars based on contradictions within Tolkien's published stuff. For example:
- In The Silmarillion the king Gil-galad is the son of one Fingon but in other versions, is the son of one Orodreth instead (this was explained as an editor's mistake).
- In The Lord of the Rings, Hobbits believe they're a separate race from Men but elsewhere Tolkien says they were a variety or a separate branch of Men.
- We have two different graphic trees of the Elven clan hierarchy: based on The Silmarillion; based on later stuff.
Plus, the "primacy" of some sources over others are disputed. So this is a important issue (for some) and it needs to be addressed in some way, and preferably without resorting to . (Most of the stuff I linked to address this issue adequately IMO.) Uthanc 13:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contradictions should be dealt with by explaining them in the article. Not by putting a template about what may or may not be canon. --Farix (Talk) 13:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. These templates promoted an undesirable mindset of trying to 'decide' what is canon, when the correct approach is to document in the article (using the right sources) why one thing is considered canon by some and is not by others. Carcharoth 16:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't even say what fan's consider to be cannon. Just describe the contradictions and let the reader decide which is cannon. --Farix (Talk) 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unwieldy and not useful. Artificially segregates content into sections within an article, when each case should be described individually. Carcharoth 16:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]