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 discussion was Deleted (after subst) Skier Dude (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lancaster Barnstormers roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template would only be used on one article. The information is already present in said article (Lancaster Barnstormers) and would continue to be there. This creates an unnecessary extra step and makes duplicated information for no apparent reason. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: per the fact that these are on the pages of every single basketball team.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Am I missing something. I see this page linked in only the Lancaster Barnstormers. Has this been substituted on other pages? By the way, this is a Baseball roster... How come it could be on basketball team pages? I am a bit lost... VasuVR (talk, contribs) 15:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally said basketball there, sorry about the confusion....--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete. The info may be appropriate, but tables that only have a single use do not need to exist as templates. The table can simply be in the article. --RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it appears it has already been substituted. Plastikspork (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2009 (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 discussion was redirect to Template:History of Manchuria. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

POV fork of Template:History of Manchuria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (which reached the content that it has now due to a long deliberative process). This POV fork was then copied by Altaicmania (talk · contribs) over to Template:History of Manchuria (since reverted). The problem with this POV fork is not only that it breaks consensus, but that it deliberately ignores the complex ethnic origins of various ethnic groups that had, for one point or another during history, lived/occupied Manchuria, in favor of an emphasis to the alleged ancient Korean origins in Manchuria. Userfy, but if user does not accept userfication (based on user's edit history, I don't believe that he/she would — see also the history of Template:Manchurian History (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which this user also created in the same manner), delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ((History of Manchuria)) - a reasonable alternate name for that template. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect is a good suggestion from 76.66.192.35. The names are reasonable substitutes, and the POV issues should be resolved on one template, not via forking. We don't need to encourage continuation of the fork by userfying it. --RL0919 (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2009 (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 discussion was mark as historic for now. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This old meta-template has been deprecated since June 2006, and the only remaining transclusions are one in an archive and two on user test pages. RL0919 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark as historical This template was part of the ((qif)) group of templates. It appears to have been updated during the switch to parser functions. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark as historical per tothwolf. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask what the practical difference would be between "deprecated" (which this template already is) and "marked as historical"? I understand what "mark as historical" means for something like an essay or wikiproject, but for a template it strikes me as a distinction without a difference. --RL0919 (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alot of these templates are used on Mediawiki.org's default help pages, which reference Wikipedia's templates, for some weird reason, (or did, last time I checked) 76.66.192.35 (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have an example? "What links here" doesn't work across wikis, and as far as I know "Search" doesn't work for non-visible code strings. --RL0919 (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2009 (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 discussion was moved and tagged as Historical. JPG-GR (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an unusual case. This template has been deprecated since January 2007 and has zero transclusions. However, hundreds of users have links to the page, essentially using it as if it were WP:UTM (which is what replaced it) rather than a template. The best solution might be to redirect it to WP:UTM, but cross-namespace redirects are unusual so I wanted to bring it here for discussion as to whether it should be redirected or deleted. RL0919 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wikipedia:TestTemplates, redirect, and mark as historical. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand this recommendation. Moving normally creates a redirect, so moving it to the WP namespace doesn't seem any better than simply redirecting it to the existing page at WP:UTM. If we move it without leaving the redirect, then we break all the existing links, which seems no better than deleting it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I wasn't clear. Move Template:TestTemplates to Wikipedia:TestTemplates and mark Wikipedia:TestTemplates as historical. Place a redirect for Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (WP:UTM) at Template:TestTemplates. Cross namespace redirects are done quite often actually, its redirects from article space to user space that generally should be avoided. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, now I understand. I'm not sure that there is any particular reason to keep a "historical" version (outside of the usual revision history). If there is a redirect to WP:UTM, and the page history for the template is intact, then anyone who wants to see what the old template looks like can do so. --RL0919 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Move/Keep - Don't delete the content, but instead keep and tag as historical. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 13:58, 18 December 2009 (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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unnecessary attribution? (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template previously deleted under T2 as a blatant misrepresentation of policy, per this rationale from previous TFD discussion: "ASF does not mandate attribution when no serious dispute exists, but that does not mean that it discourages attribution in such cases. That Napoleon Bonaparte died in 1821 is a fact, not an opinion, but that fact had damn well better be attributed to a reliable source." However, the creator of this template howled so hard about the earlier deletion that I've restored this unused template, and am now nominating this as something that should probably be speedy-deleted, but I won't have another moment of peace if it stays speedied. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree that "ASF does not mandate attribution when no serious dispute exists" does not imply that attribution when no dispute exists is against the policy. "Does not mandate" does not imply "is against policy". It just means that it isn't required for facts. stmrlbs|talk 17:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Unnecessary attribution is a violation of WP:ASF policy when no serious dispute exists among reliable sources. I could not find another inline tag specifically for an objective fact that is not a serious dispute. WP:ASF does not require in-text attribution for information where there is no serious dispute. Requiring in-text attribution for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on in-text attribution for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion". This would mean, in the end, that all material in Wikipedia would require in-text attribution, even if only one Wikipedia editor insisted on it, which is not the intent of WP:ASF or of WP:CONSENSUS. There is a discussion underway on the talk page to help reach a consensus. When an editor has a concern with in-text attribution this tag is useful. QuackGuru (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus if the group agrees that the sky is green, I don't have to verify that with reliable sources? That goes directly against WP:V, and indicates that the speedy deletion of this template was correct. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In-text attribution is about WP:ASF policy, WP:ASF policy does not go against WP:V. In-Text attribution such as this edit was a violation of ASF when no serious dispute exists. A tag would of been useful for the in-text attribution. The editor eventualy removed the in-text attribution because it was a violation of ASF. From time to time there are editors who disagree with what a researcher says from a highly reliable source or does not understand ASF policy but wants to include in-text attribution in violation of ASF. This tag will help direct editors to ASF policy for those specific content disputes. QuackGuru (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have informed SchuminWeb that in my opinion SchuminWeb misrepresented my comment. I believe the tag was never a candidate for speedy. I believe the admin blindly deleted the template. I like to see if the closing admin will listen to the voice of reason or this will be another crowd rule. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons already articulated in the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_10#Template:Unnecessary_attribution?. (Since that nomination would still be open if not for the now-contested speedy deletion, the closing admin for this discussion should take all the comments there into account.) To summarize what I said there: Attribution is more often missing rather than oversupplied, and the odd case of over-attribution can be easily corrected. Tags like this should be used when an editor needs to flag a problem for later correction, but unnecessary attribution is not a situation that should ever require such tagging. The one case of its use shows this, as the tag was replaced by a correction of the issue within a matter of minutes, by the same editor who applied the tag. --RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to your standard we should delete all inline tags like this because we should fix it, don't tag it. Some editors are not interested in removing the in-text attribution. Some editors prefer attribution when it isn't required for facts and claim attribution is not discouraged under ASF policy. The intent of ASF policy is if there is a serious dispute then attribution is likely required. When there is not a serious dispute among reliable sources then attribution is not required. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the previous discussion I gave a specific example of an appropriate inline tag, and why it was appropriate, so clearly my "standard" does not require the deletion of all such templates. I do object to ones that encourage tagging of issues that can be resolved almost as quickly as the tag could be applied. And the reason "Some editors ... claim attribution is not discouraged under ASF policy" is because that policy actually encourages attribution. Note that WP:ASF is a section of WP:NPOV. It discourages biased attribution, such as making a widely held belief appear to be the position of one person, not attribution in general. --RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The example you gave was for a citation needed not for a NPOV dispute which is a totally different sitatuation. I object to editors who will revert my edit when I remove unnecessary attribution. ASF specifically explains we assert facts when no serious dispute exists. ASF discourages attribution when no serious dispute exists. This tag will encourage editors who don't have a grasp for ASF to comply with policy. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason as before. QuackGuru, as several editors have informed you, your intepretation of WP:ASF is incorrect. While it is true that "WP:ASF does not require in-text attribution for information where there is no serious dispute", it also does not prohibit or discourage in-text attribution in such cases. "Not required" does not equal "not allowed". –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not required in-text attribution is what this template represents and ASF policy does not encourage attribution when no serious dispute exists. This template can be used to bring up the specific ASF policy for editors to discuss ASF. If you or any other editor does not like this template they can come up with a different wording for the template or the real reason editors want to delete the template is because they just don't want a template for ASF policy because editors don't really care for the policy. QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ASF does not mandate attribution when no serious dispute exists, but it is incorrect to assert that it does not encourage attribution. All it says on this matter is that we should (1) assert facts, but not opinions; and (2) "ensure that the attribution [when it is necessary] adequately reflects the relative levels of support" for competing views. The rest is left to editorial discretion and to consensus achieved through talk page discussion. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to ASF: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible. The part about "No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible" does not encourage attribution when no serious dispute exists. QuackGuru (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assertion and attribution are two different things, but not opposites of one another. You seem to read "assert" as "assert without attribution", which is an inference at best. Also, the fact that the first application of this tag was to a statement related to a modern political dispute, not to some bit of ancient knowledge like "there is a planet called Mars", suggests that this tag could easily be abused to promote POV, not counter it. --RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bingo! stmrlbs|talk 00:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • On Wikipedia we assert facts according to Wikipedia's definition of fact which means attribution is not required. The reason you want to delete this tag is because although you agree with me you think this tag can be misused. That is not a valid reason to delete a useful tag. This tag points to ASF which makes it clear the purpose of this tag. I understand most editors here are against ASF because they prefer editorial discretion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is your prerogative to continue to believe that you are correct, but please address the arguments of editors—preferably without repeating the same text ad nauseam and quoting portions of ASF that no one disputes—and refrain from unsubstantiated speculations about the extent to which they oppose or care about the policy. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It would help if you could respond directly to my reply to you. The parts such as "Assert facts, including facts about opinions" and "No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible" is not editorial discretion. I quote ASF policy which substantiates the usefulness of this inline tag. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I did not respond directly to your comment because you did not say anything that you had not already said several times before (as a matter of fact, you only quoted portions of ASF which you have already quoted multiple times). Yes, ASF dictates when explicit attribution is necessary and also when it may not be necessary (e.g., obvious cases such as "Mars is a planet"). However, policies express general principles and necessarily leave much to editorial discretion. By the way, "editorial discretion" is not the same as "ignoring all rules", as you suggested in your reply to RL0919. Editorial discretion involves allowing editors to apply general principles expressed in various policies and guidelines to particular situations based on the specific circumstances of the situation.
                  Even if we put aside for the moment the issue of which interpretation of ASF is correct, I am inclined to agree with RL0919 that this tag is not useful. A tag is useful when it highlights a problem that will require some time, effort, or thought to fix, so a problem that can be fixed by rewording a single sentence does not fall merit a tag. Removing "unnecessary attribution" is not something that requires tagging... instead of making an edit to add the tag, an editor could just as easily remove the unnecessary attribution. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The problem is not always easily fixed. Sometimes discussions can go on for weeks. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy. For the sake of argument if I am actually correct[1][2][3] there are reasons this tag will be useful because there are content disputes that take a lot of effort to remove the attribution or explain to other editors it is not the intention of ASF to have detailed attribution when there is no dispute among researchers. According to ASF there is a difference between a fact that can be asserted versus an opinion that may require attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a tag is not going to fix a content dispute - it will not help you delevop consensus. DigitalC (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2009 (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 discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:I-66 aux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another Interstate template that should be deleted for including only one article. ---Dough4872 03:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per rationale at Template:I-83 aux. --LJ (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the condition that the navboxes are replaced with the appropriate links (such as a link to I-266 on I-66 and a link to I-66 on I-266) necessary for navigation. – TMF 16:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you make sure the link was absent before making this statement? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the link was just added today, yes. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Odd. Ignoring the box, I count two links in the previous version. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there's only one (unbuilt, at that!) auxiliary route. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough links for a useful navigation box. --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2009 (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 discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

100% red links. The only few pages created for this template and linked from this template have been deleted. The links were for the heading, years 1959, 1974, 1986 and 1992 (if you would like to track the AFDs). VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No articles to navigate, so a navbox isn't needed, and based on the previous AFDs it seems unlikely that any substantial number of these articles will be created and kept in the near future. --RL0919 (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2009 (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 discussion was  Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 20#Template:Greater Fresno. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greater Fresno (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. The counties/cities/towns/subregions it lists all use either Template:Fresno County, California or Template:Madera County, California instead. The main article it links to, Metropolitan Fresno, is in the process of being reworked into Fresno-Madera, CA CSA. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:50, 13 December 2009 (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.