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) 23:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Saudi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not in use in any articles, redundant to Template:Infobox settlement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2012 (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) 23:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syriac infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned - different infobox in use at Syriac people. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. e^xtra999 (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2012 (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) 23:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Swedish Parish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one use on the talk page of a redirected article; redundant to Template:Infobox settlement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2012 (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 no consensus to delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anatolian themata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-purpose template (grouping the themes of Anatolia for the History of Anatolia article) that is better covered by the more generic ((Byzantine themes in De Thematibus)), which has an "Asian" section either way Constantine ✍ 15:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Naturally as the creator, I disagree. They are not the same - my template covers the themata that existed at that time and matches the map. Themata evolved over time and many rmperors tinkered with them, my template allows that evolution as it applies to Anatolia or if you like Asia Minor to be added. Just because at the moment it appears on only one page to the best of my knowledge, does not make it single purpose it could be used on a variety of of pages. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well, first of all, the map is wrong, as Optimatoi and Boukellarion did not exist in 650, and we are not sure about Thrakesion either (check the relevant articles). Second, the template can of course be adapted, but IMO it would be redundant as ((Byzantine themes in De Thematibus)) includes both the original themes and the later split-offs/additions. There were no new themes established after ca. 940 (the date of De Thematibus) in Anatolia proper (i.e. west of the Taurus-Antitaurus mountains) either way. Only in the Komnenian era did a couple of new provinces appear, but this couls again be easily covered in a more comprehensive navbox about the themes. I don't see a reason for the proliferation of region-specific templates ("themes in Greece/Bulgaria/Balkans/Italy") when a single comprehensive navbox suffices. Constantine ✍ 07:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some more general observations, see discussion on April 19 under Late Anatolian Provinces. That actually is one of several maps showing a similar structure. Thanks again. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Currently, the template has no transclusions. It doesn't look like it's supposed to be substituted, so why should we keep a template we're not using? --NYKevin @720, i.e. 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Constantine Plakidas removed them, I was going to use it on several pages --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now and continue discussion elsewhere. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2012 (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) 04:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1999 Westmeath Under 21 Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Do we really need a navbox for an under 21 side? Jenks24 (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, too many red links. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2012 (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 Keep. Snow closure. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of ((copyvio)) and ((cv-unsure)). Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? All three look different to me. But if you are correct, surely it would be best to redirect to one of those two templates? Jenks24 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They all have different uses. This one is for manual placement where someone notices a blatant copy/paste situation, and not all copyvios are such situations. This template sees heavy use and is full-protected due to that. Seems like an obvious keep. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:18, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)
• Strong keep an essential template for general use. I have used this on 100s of new and old articles, indicating they must have further checking that I am unable to perform at the moment. It indicates an unknown degree of dependence, (I use it for probable as well as blatant) and I usually apply it based on internal evidence or an experience-based hunch from having seen tens of thousands of new articles, Many of those I mark prove to be partially or wholly copyvio, some fixable, others not. Eliminating general problem templates makes it harder to indicate problems. for someone extensively checking many articles, I want to use my experience where it is most needed and helpful--if I had to limit it to where I could say something more specific, I could check many fewer articles. Much copyvio checking is fairly routine, once someone has raised the suspicion. Experience helps greatly in detecting the suspicious, and newcomers to NPP do not have it as much as the few experienced people who review these articles. Much better that they be marked even this superficially than not marked at all. The more experienced people here DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why cannot the templates I mentioned be used instead? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per the answers below I use "copypaste" for minor (ie limited content) that needs cleanup, but doesnot really warrant the hammer that is "copvio". An example is Losh, Wilson and Bell - suing copyvio on this 80% good article that has issues with uneccessary quotations from sources would be counterproductive, and overkill.Oranjblud (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per WP:SNOW. Debresser (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - ((copypaste)) indicates that there may be text copied from another source but that the article may be salvageable (does not qualify for WP:G12) and it does not indicate that there is or is not a copyright violation (even free copied text can be problematic on WP). There are also some cases where my page patrol instincts tell me that the text is copied but I can't find a source. I can tell other editors that this is case with the copypaste template and they may find the source. ((copyvio)) indicates that there a portion of the text is a copyright violation. I think that template should be used sparingly and probably only when the user who added the copyrighted texts plans to grant permission to WP to use the text. ((cv-unsure)) is like ((copyvio)) but specifically for talk pages. I don't particularly see the use but it's not the template that was nominated. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I agree there is a lot of overlap between the templates and when different ones should be used is unclear. However I don't think bringing a single template here is the way to deal with it. What I think is needed is a rethink of all copyvio / copypaste / close paraphrase type templates and I think this needs to be done considering all templates together not one in isolation. Unfortunately we don't have enough editors working with copyvio at the moment to even keep up with current taggings so proposals may be a way off yet, but until such a discussion takes place I think this needs to be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only count three for general use - one for "possibles" (cv-unsure), one for "nuke from space/total rewrite" (copvio), and one for "minor isses" (copypaste). The instructions need to be better. It's not obvious which one to pickfrom Category:Copyright maintenance templates. Keep as per my comment above.Oranjblud (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the nuke from space option is really ((db-copyvio)), ((subst:copyvio)) is (supposed to be) used when there's a chance of the content being salvageable or donated. The other option you missed is ((Close paraphrasing)) which is for its own brand of fuzzy situations. ... Maybe I should draft up a chart of the different situations and which tag is most appropriate (and for good measure go into reposts, mirrors, duplicated articles, etc.). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As OlYeller21 pointed out, while this is often used in copyright situations it is also for cases where language may be copied directly from PD or otherwise usable sources but needs to be revised for one reason or another. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought of using it for that, but it makes sense, and I'll start doing it. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, oftentimes there are better cleanup templates if you can find the right one (when there's unambiguously no copyright issues), but this version of Losh, Wilson and Bell that Oranjblud tagged is a good example of overquoted PD text, and while ((over-quotation)) might have been appropriate, I'd probably have tagged it as a copypaste too. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2012 (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) 23:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a biased search on one certain news site. The results obtained from this are included in a search performed with the unbiased ((find sources)), which gives you a complete list of news sources for this information. Also, sets a bad precedent, should we now include specific news search engines for America Today, Japan today and Toho Today? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Template for Russia Today. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with OP. I don't like the idea of users promoting their favorite news organizations at the top of talk pages. There's no reason to promote one news source when other templates such as the one above already exist which provide many news sources in their results.AerobicFox (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I made the template and agree with it's deletion. It should be substituted into the discussion area of the few articles concerned, in the few cases where it is so useful. If you'd like to leave it a few days I'd like to do so, I can cut'n'paste, if I can't get it done by then, just delete it. Penyulap ☏ 05:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it should not be substituted, either it should not be there, or it should be a ((find sources)) - there is no reason to promote one news service specifically, whether it is in main space or in talkspace, that is a form of promotion per WP:SPAM. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with that. Do you think that if I collected a lot of trends pages in the future, it would be worthwhile ? It is spam if it's one, it's search if it's ((find sources)), do you think it's worth investigating some ((Check trending news lists)) sort of thing, where the human-tagged articles from many news services are brought together, there is a significant difference between the automated search engine and the tagged lists, but if there was a broad enough, detailed enough list I wonder if it would have merit. Penyulap ☏ 14:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G11 . 70.49.124.147 (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I made the template comment. I just opened up a lot of the talkpages figuring to simply delete the template, but then I thought twice as it has the RFC over the top, and so I thought possibly it's not polite to interrupt that, even though I wish to remove the template entirely (not subst). Is there any objection to my removing all traces of it's use ? Penyulap ☏ 13:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Serves no purpose other than to promote and generate search traffic for a single website. violates WP:SPAM, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV --Hu12 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Author has requested deletion, I don't see any potential for significant objection, and it's not in heavy use. Penyulap's intentions were commendable but he sees now why it wasn't a good idea. Just close this and delete it. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:50, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Question, I wish to clean up instances of this template, is it fully manual, or is there already a bot for this purpose ? Penyulap ☏ 12:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure. I feel like there must be several general cleanup bots that do that, but I wouldn't worry about it. People tend to remove deleted templates since they're pretty visible, and there aren't that many uses of this one anyway. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:32, 19 Apr 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per above. e^xtra999 (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Template code and docs have been changed I've mopped up all of the pages where the template had been used. It still exists in a few archives though, but I think I killed it in all of the appropriate places. I adjusted the documentation and template to re-purpose it when there is time. I have 'backed up' the code to my userpage so that the assistance I had with coding is not lost either. I expect it'll take a while to find the trending news pages, although, come to think of it, that can't exactly be a difficult task. But deleting is still a good idea, rather than having it sit there for a few months or so, or however long, or short, it is. Penyulap ☏ 05:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't help that it is still a search template for only one site, making it borderline advertising. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Repeat my request to delete but this time I mean it, as mentioned above I have the code, and it's clearly causing confusion as is. Penyulap ☏ 20:25, 23 April 2012 (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.