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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Obsoleteinfo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

User probably overlooked ((Out of date)). Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 23:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly what I did! --( fi ) 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Out of date)). --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace, delete - it was created fairly recently and is used on only one article, so there's no substantial advantage to redirecting. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:44, 8 September 2008 (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. delldot ∇. 17:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-ecc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer in use. Longstanding REDIR that has been replaced in all articles as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Templates#Templates no longer in use. Bazj (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Consensus has been reached to delete. Replacement template has proved more useful. This has served its use and is no longer necessary. Thanks! Gnowor (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete...Delete!....DELETE I SAY - This template was "replaced" so long ago, that I was infuriated to find it still in such high use a while back. Thank God (yes, a pun) that the conversion to "s-rel" is complete. Once more delete, I say, and make if snappy!
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 22:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I appear to have been tricked into rendering this template unused, without realising its fate was deletion. Now that I have come this far, the only sensible recourse would be to bury the evidence. So delete as an unused, deprecated template that's use was not going to waiver without intervention. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 14:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with the deletion of this template, which is in line with the strategy of slowly removing the clutter of unused templates. A simpler system is a better system. Waltham, The Duke of 00:20, 13 September 2008 (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. delldot ∇. 04:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GMA Network Media Franchised Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates about related TV programs such as TV programs aired at the same time, same genre, same format, same TV season, but this? Um, no. –Howard the Duck 16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This template only brags the franchised programs acquired by GMA Network. It is neither encyclopedic nor referential in nature. Starczamora (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2008 (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. There are lots of templates like this. The idea is to not take up as much space. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St. Louis Rams seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The information on this template is already found on ((St. Louis Rams)). I suggest this templated deleted and merged with the other template.--Pinkkeith (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:C.S. Senator box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used, replaced by standard templates as per WP:SBS/T. Bazj (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator & sole editor has been blocked indefinitely. Can't solicit his input. Bazj (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this template claimed to present the Senator's "alongside" colleagues, but didn't. The replacement templates do. Bazj (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unnecessary branch template of the slowly-growing-defunct "U.S. Senator" templates. This needs to be removed.
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardric47 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2008 (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 speedy deleted under G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Generic rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-free rationales are supposed to be specific to each use. This template has lots of text but doesn't say anything useful. While it's not transcluded anywhere, it may exist on pages by substitution. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - not designed to be transcluded, extensively used, sometimes a useful start to writing a more detailed rationale. PhilKnight (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A generic rationale is patently invalid, and this template's content and substitution lend it to egregious misuse to provide any and all copyrighted "one of those rationale thingies". — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I first thought this was only used as a building block for deriving other, more specific rationales from it. But the documentation implies one could use it directly on an image page and get a valid rationale. That is ludicrous, and will only encourage more damage through meaningless boilerplate text. What makes it worse is that it's subst'ed and thus we lose the chance of keeping track how it's (ab-)used. We must educate uploaders that writing rationales has far less to do with getting certain formalities right and using the right templates and ticking off this or that formal point. Writing a rationale, a real rationale, is about content. It is at the same time much simpler and much more demanding. Let them just tell us, in very simple words:
  1. What do you want this particular image for in this particular article? (Say what exactly this image shows; if it's used to illustrate some point say exactly what that point is.)
  2. Why do you need an image and can't just describe the topic with plain text?
  3. Why do you need this particular image and couldn't use a free one?
  4. In what way is our use of the image different from what its owner would use it for, and not in competition with that?

  Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I use the template for situations where a more specific template doesn't exist. Obviously, I could just create more specific templates, and given the consensus here, I guess that's probably the best approach. Incidentally, I'm unconvinced this template has caused any problems. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2008 (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 no consensus to delete. It looks like it's agreed that some problems could be fixable by editing the template, and that there may be some valid uses although it's doubtful how common they'd be. It also looks like there may be problems with use of FU emulator images, but that's a slightly different issue from the existence of the template itself. Tough one--low turnout prevents me from coming to a definite delete decision. delldot ∇. 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Emulator fur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-free use rationales are supposed to be specific to each use. This template is just dropped on emulator screenshots. Additionally, it makes presumptions about the source that are unlikely to be accurate. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for reasons analogous to those of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21#Template:Logo fur and just about every other boilerplate FUR template. How is ((emulator fur)) any less specific than, say, ((logo fur))? Or do ((logo fur)) and friends deserve to be renominated for deletion? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to nominate all forty of them at once. The logo one actually applies to the majority of images on which it is used, which puts it in the minority. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then that means the template or its uses need to be improved, not deleted. Would you please show examples of image description pages that use this template correctly and incorrectly so that I can better understand what you find unspecific about this template? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The scope of this particular template is so limited that I don't really know whethere there's much of a need for it. If it were well written and used responsibly, and the set of situations to which it applies is reasonably uniform, it might be okay. But the boilerplate default text it shows is harmful and needs to be changed. If you upload something, you can't claim the source is "presumably" this or that. I mean, come on, you are uploading, you must know where you got it. And the "purpose" is a desaster. "to illustrate that the emulator is capable of emulating this game" never, ever, makes for a valid rationale. Because to substantiate that fact, you don't need an image, you need a sourced statement in text and that's it. We don't use non-free images as evidence for (possibly OR) statements of fact. That statement spells the death sentence for every image page it stands on, marking it for deletion under NFCC#1, replaceability with text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope is screenshots of video games that run in emulators, images that might be used in articles about any classic video game system. The "presumably" is analogous to "The logo may be obtained from (({Article))}" from ((logo fur)), and I just improved it in the template. As for the purpose of use, would the following be more accurate for the majority of images on which ((emulator fur)) is used? "To illustrate the appearance of this game under emulation in the context of critical commentary on the game or emulator." --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better yet, I just went and made a Use argument analogous to that of ((logo fur)) for what I'd guess are the four most common use of emulator-sourced screenshots of video games: article about the game, article about the character, article about the console, and article about the emulator. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not convinced at all by a rationale that focusses on images being used "in order to assure readers that they have reached the right article". That's a very cheap rationale. It may work in some cases for images of characters (from games or movies or whatever), because people may in fact remember a face much more easily than they remember a name. It may possibly work for some logos, in cases where an entity is very much publicly present through it and the logo is more memorable than the name of the company. In all other cases, things are identified by their name, and the reader only needs to look at the title of an article to know if they've reached the right article. Specifically about the emulators, let me (as a game illiterate) get this straight: your articles are about programs that run on modern computers and make games playable that were originally written for older, obsolete systems, right? Your images show that old game. I assume the whole point of having the emulator is that the game looks exactly like it did in its original environment. In that case, what crucial information does the image convey? What does it tell us about the emulator? In most cases, I assume we already have articles about the original game, and they have screenshot images too, looking more or less the same? Sorry, but I'm afraid then every such image fails NFCC3 (minimality) and 8 (significant contribution). No matter how you tweak the template, it just won't work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So Use=Character is OK, and you disagree with my wording of the Purpose that Use=Game and Use=Emulator emit. But the presentation of your disagreement with two different Uses as one paragraph makes it necessary for me to break up my replies below in order to reply to each point. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use=Game[edit]

"In all other cases, things are identified by their name, and the reader only needs to look at the title of an article to know if they've reached the right article."

I disagree. There exist video games that share a title. The game BreakThru on the NES is completely different from the game BreakThru on the Game Boy, even though BreakThru on the Game Boy is nearly identical to BreakThru on the Super NES. What would you consider to be an appropriate wording of Purpose for, say, the screenshot in the infobox in the article about a game? Or should infoboxes use box art exclusively, falling back to no image at all if the game was never sold in a box? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in that particular case, where there's a disambiguation issue between several similarly-named games, using the image for pure identification might be appropriate. "Used for visual identification of this game, to distinguish it from other identically named games on different platforms". But why not then just state this reason individually, naming the actual cases involved? Is this case so frequent you need a template for it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Puzzle Bobble with Bust a Groove; both were called "Bust-A-Move" in at least one region. But I agree, the case of disambiguation isn't frequent thanks to higher visibility of gaming trademarks. Still, the more general case of a game's infobox is so frequent that it needs a template. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use=Emulator[edit]

"I assume the whole point of having the emulator is that the game looks exactly like it did in its original environment. In that case, what crucial information does the image convey? What does it tell us about the emulator?"

If I understand your comment correctly, you want screenshots removed entirely from all articles about console emulators, correct? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid yes, unless you tell me something substantially new about what the images do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I've cross-posted this discussion to Talk:MAME so that we can get a wider audience for this TFD. Maintainers of the emulator articles might have a better idea of what would go into a valid rationale than I. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been removing screenshots from some articles to see if somebody reverts them with a Purpose in the edit summary. I've been taking my time so that I can illustrate a point without disrupting Wikipedia. I intentionally skipped over two screenshots that showed emulator UI, which gave me another idea for something that could fit into this canned purpose. One removal (from Nestopia) got reverted, so consider this discussion cross-posted to Talk:Nestopia too. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 11:56, 10 September 2008 (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. delldot ∇. 15:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Frequent flyer programs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This list is very incomplete, but the truth is that since the majority of airlines have frequent flyer programs, this list might as well be a list of airlines. Most of the links redirect to the parent airline; AAdvantage, Asia Miles, SkyMiles, Mileage Plus. Other major programs not in the template would be the same way (WorldPerks to Northwest Airlines), OnePass to Continental Airlines, Dividend Miles to US Airways). The remaining programs are notable of separate articles insofar as they are either combined frequent flyer programs for multiple airlines (EuroBonus, Miles & More), or have evolved to being much broader customer loyalty programs (such as Aeroplan and Air Miles). It's not worth it to have a template just for special case programs, and even if it were, it shouldn't just be called "frequent flyer programs". -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 02:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created List of frequent flyer programs, and if nothing else, looking at that list (which is woefully incomplete) should demonstrate that any such comprehensive template would be far too large for transclusion. At the same time, I don't think it doesn't make sense to create numerous templates and a category (see Category:Airlines by country templates). I still maintain that this template should be deleted. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 07:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made some small changes to the main article frequent flyer program, but there's a LOT of work to be done. So much of the information lacks references. So far all I've done is some minor typo fixes and formatting. The article really needs an overhaul. I'm going to ask for some assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 07:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of frequent flyer programs now has close to 100 entries, and it's still far from complete. I think it's pretty clear that a template for frequent flyer programs would be unusable. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 19:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral/Comment: Hmm. That all makes sense, but I have to ask myself, "but does this navbox actually aid in navigation". At first I'm not sure, so I fall back on my default pair of magical glasses for cases like this. Through these glasses I see Wikipedia as something I can use to write my 7th grade essay, which happens to be about [insert topic here] (FF programs in this case), which is due next Tuesday. I'm a digital kid, and don't really know how to use a library very well; Google and Wikipedia are it for me. I ask mom and she tells me she's in some FF program. I find it here. Then I'm stuck. "Now what?" Holy crap! There's box at the bottom of the page that links to every FF program there is (or not in this case, but enough to be helpful to me). And yes it turns out most of them are just links to airlines, but they do a) mention and even go into some details about those airlines' programs, and b) provide links to the companies' web sites where I can find more info, and pretty soon I have enough material for an A+ paper on the topic. Delete this template and I don't have that. Then again maybe this template's deficiencies are too severe. Not casting a !vote either way, really, just saying: pick someone else's eyes to look through from time to time, and hidden encyclopedic value may appear. It may turn out to be minimal value, undermined by a shoddy tool, or it may be a diamond in the rough. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While schools should still seek to teach children how to do real research, starting in elementary school, your example still has some merit, but a Google search for "frequent flyer programs" still turns up the main article (Frequent flyer programs) first. Now looking at that article, I think I'm going to seek to improve it, and also create "List of frequent flyer programs". I feel those two actions would serve Wikipedia much better than this template ever could. To improve this template would require a ton of links that were redirects, and it would also need to include information regarding the major airline alliances. Let me make those improvements. I just don't see this template as useful; were it complete, it would be too large to be useful. I think smaller, more focused templates are the way to go; see Template:Airline alliances and the templates for the various alliances (Template:Oneworld, Template:SkyTeam, Template:Star Alliance). -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 03:55, 5 September 2008 (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. Pagrashtak 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gunpowder plotters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used to substitute an image map for what looks like an ordinary image, thus bypassing the accustomed link to the image description page. I believe this is a violation of the image use policy, which relies on the image description page for copyright information (even for a public domain image like this one). I'm aware that there are similar templates used for maps, but I think this situation is quite different and deserves a full debate. Chick Bowen 02:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Link has been placed into image map; thanks to Victuallers. I have no serious remaining concerns. Chick Bowen 02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep - I have added a message to all the articles that reminds those who cannot find the image button. Chick Bowen is not the first to not find the button so I can see why he might have felt that there was no easy route to the copyright message - so this is a good addition. I had a similar issue with one on Mount Everest (and other key mountains in the himalayas). I initially came across this technique where it is used on The Eye as a featured picture and as a technique for non-map on number of GAs and feature articles. A debate will be good although why we have to have a deletion request is odd. Is there not a better place to have this debate? Can I point out that removing the template will not achieve anything. The imagemaps will remain they don't need a template. Is this thought through? Victuallers (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate is intended to be on the image map--I'm holding it at TfD because it has to be held somewhere, but I expect that a consensus for deletion would also apply to the map itself. You are certainly right, though, that there's nothing all that unique about this particular image map, and that a larger debate needs to be held. I would still like this debate to proceed, however, and consider the merits of this template, because it is rather further from the original concept of a map than the others. Chick Bowen 16:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised. Have you looked at the definition of image map on Wikipedia? I hadn't... I was genuinely surprised to find an example of another of "my" imagemaps used as the definition of what one is. The word map in image map is not about geography ... it has a meaning in mathematics. Maybe we should hold the debate at image map's talk page? Victuallers (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Image maps. I'd be pleased if you'd weigh in, and I'll link to it from a few relevant places, including the Village Post; if you could as well that would be great. I really don't have a clear sense of the general consensus about this, and I think it would be useful to have one. Chick Bowen 00:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The image itself is useful, though I can't quite see why it is classed as a template, nor can I find a link to the original image, where I was hoping to see if the description also needed correcting (it is an engraving not a "sketch"). But it should survive in some form. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Confused a bit Johnbod. If you press the image button at the bottom right hand corner of the image then it says "National Gallery" and this link takes you directly to where it was loaded from. Victuallers (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never thought those did anything. I don't know if that is the source, nor does it say it is - I added that NPG link myself today, after finding the image link on the talk page here. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2008 (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. Off to the holding cell. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simpsonsportalepisode date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsolete template - Portal:The Simpsons now includes "Selected content" sections permanently, not for a selected period of time - and they rotate randomly through. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be deleted if obsolete and is "no longer wanted". --Candlewicke (Talk) 01:35, 5 September 2008 (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.