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 Speedy close, fixed, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hopeless incomplete template. Should be moved back to the workspace of the author to be finished without disrupting the encyclopedia. The Banner _talk 22:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. You can finish the template yourself by incorporating the information from [1]. This is the incoming House of Representatives which will be sworn in in January 2, 2013 (in 2 weeks). If there's something that you consider incomplete please point out exactly what and remove that portion or complete it yourself. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to be rude, but did you read the list of members? The Banner _talk 22:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This problem can be fixed through editing. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I also believe that there isn't a problem big enougth that can not be fixed by the creator. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It probably shouldn't be deleted, but it definitely shouldn't be linked from the article space in its current state. Mackensen (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented out the two transclusions. Mackensen (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • 'Request speedy close as keep Unfinished template is finally finished, a month after launch. The Banner _talk 20:15, 17 December 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ODM-List-Country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm concerned that this template looks very similar to some of Wikipedia's cleanup templates. I think its content could be better conveyed using ((dynamic list)) or similar, as appropriate, along with a well-written lead section. As it stands, I find that the template makes articles look untrustworthy and unprofessional. Noiratsi (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have adapted it and I added a ((Inc-up)) element to the pages . The initiator of the template Mimich (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - looks fine now IMHO. --Nouniquenames 22:55, 22 December 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 merge, redundant to ((Infobox song|Type=Promotional single)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox promotional single (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox song (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox promotional single with Template:Infobox song.
The template offers nothing new that Template:Infobox song or Template:Infobox single do, just a different color, that frankly does not help to understand the articles better. No documentation page, very few transclutions after 15 days of creation. Deletion is also an option. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge with Template:Infobox single; The template was created mainly because Infobox single is edit-locked, and so too is the color scheme of the infobox. Promotional singles are, hence the name, a type of single release, and shouldn't be under the song template with that template's colour scheme. It should be treated more like a single, in which is the case in the music industry. A placer like Template:Infobox song/color should be created for Infobox single, but unfortunately, the template is edit-locked, so the template was created instead.
  Also, this template specifies the option to describe what type of promotional single it is, and to be fair, having promotional singles the same color scheme as normal songs "frankly does not help to understand the articles better." How is one, who skims Wikipedia pages like anybody else, supposed to know whether the song had a major release as a promotional or not? RazorEye 07:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If the template is protected, you could use ((edit protected)) instead. We don't need a template with the same information but a different color. Also, if a song was released as promo single, it still being a song in most jurisdictions, unlike the single release, for example Superstar (Madonna song), which was release only in Brazil, or This Is It (Michael Jackson song), whose sales were not available. The new color is useless to announce what the text already do "Promotional single". Being bold and create new templates, or even worst, revert my edits with no reason just because you create it is not helpful. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and take discussion to Template talk:Infobox song or Template talk:Infobox single to modify existing templates which can serve this purpose. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The reason we fully-protect certain high-profile templates is not because we wish to encourage people to fork them at will. Any enhancements wished for should be requested on the parent template's talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with ((Infobox song)). The existing song infobox template allows us to note promotional singles by using the Type field to input "Promotional single" (pipe-linked to Promotional recording). In fact this has been done for many promotional songs such as "Sing Like Me". I wasn't even aware that ((Infobox promotional single)) existed. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:46, 25 December 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 userfy until the labels can be fixed. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Europe Labelled Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Based on a deleted image making it unusable. There may be a suitable replacement image. Note that it is only used on two article pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I've replaced the deleted image with a suitable replacement. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the new image. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the map is now incorrect, with all the labels in the wrong place. Frietjes (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've undeleted the original .png image (it was deleted under F8 because there was a comparable .svg image on Commons, but .png and .svg aren't the same, so it never qualified), and I put it into the template, but it's actually marginally more accurate and graphically much-more-than-marginally better with the SVG. All we need to do is to move the labels; this isn't a problem requiring deletion. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • then move to your userspace until you fix the labels? Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:40, 16 December 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 move to Portal:Eurovision/Map until the labels can be fixed. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eurovision Labelled Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and based on a deleted image. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I've replaced the deleted image with a suitable replacement. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the new image. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, check the map, all of the labels are off. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've undeleted the original .png image (it was deleted under F8 because there was a comparable .svg image on Commons, but .png and .svg aren't the same, so it never qualified), and I put it into the template, but it's actually marginally more accurate and graphically much-more-than-marginally better with the SVG. All we need to do is to move the labels; this isn't a problem requiring deletion. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • then move to your userspace until you fix the labels? Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:40, 16 December 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pp-pc1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'd like a wider discussion of whether this tag serves a useful purpose. It seems to me that it's redundant with the MediaWiki interface and, as such, merely serves to clutter the screen and pollute the edit log. If there is something that the MediaWiki interface is not providing in this respect, we're better off improving it there or in a user script/gadget. See also this WP:AN thread. Bovlb (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link to point to archived thread. Bovlb (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also worth including in this nomination (if ok procedurally) would be Category:Wikipedia Pending Changes Protected Pages (Level 1) which is added by the template, and is only duplicating (with less information) Special:StablePages. I would say delete both. Legoktm (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant with interface, adds no value. NE Ent 20:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Creator's Comment I made this template to keep the protection icons consistent in tagging protected page and the fact that I haven't been seeing what others are apparently seeing. I have no issues if the community does want this deleted or not. If not, I'll keep tagging and if they do, so be it. You may also then want to delete Template:Pp-pc2. I haven't been following the discussion after I announced the templates because I forgot about that thread. I agree though that the padlocks should come from the interface and not through excessive edits but the padlocks are extremely useful for me to quickly identify how the pages are protected.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 20:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would argue that the template does in fact add some value. If readers are used to seeing padlocks on protected pages throughout Wikipedia, then this does serve to maintain consistency. Furthermore it also shows at a glance to readers that there is some form of protection on the article (the stable pages indicator just shows that it is a stable revision they are viewing, not that a form of protection (albeit a less stringent one) is in effect which can alert a reader to the potential of issues within the article. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, however its important to remember PC isnt just another form of protection, it's fundamentally different. If a lock is in the corner, it means the article is "locked" as in, its closed to editing. PC just means someone needs to approve it, which is different than being "locked". Legoktm (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. A green padlock means you can't move it. Everyone can still edit it though.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 16:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, so let me generalize my statement then. A lock indicates that you are prevented from taking whatever action it refers to. Legoktm (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • PC1 and PC2 prevents you from making your edits visible immediately and requires a reviewer to make them visible. Just like the green lock prevents you from moving it and requires an admin to do so. ;P—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 20:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Legoktm does have a good point, however I still believe that this template has use, in the same vein that a Featured Article star or a ((cleanup)) box does. A FA star or cleanup box serve to denote that their is either something particularly good (in the case of a FA) or a concern (in the case of a request for cleanup) about an article. I believe that this template serves a similar function by informing users considerably more so than the drop down does. By taking the shape of an already known icon style (the protection lockboxes) and by providing a link to the section of the protection policy relavant to Pending Changes Protection this template enables more transparency to all. As compared to the dropdown which only states that the user is viewing an accepted revision and doesn't necessary make it clear that the article is under a form of protection (as lockboxes do in the rest of the encyclopedia) rather than permanent state of editing (as is used on de with flagged revs). Maintaining clarity and consistency is one of the best things we can do to help reduce reader and new user confusion on Wikipedia, and I feel that this template enables us to do that by maintaining consistency throughout how we tag all forms of protection. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mifter makes an excellent point. There are also users, such as myself who don't see it the interface box, for some reason. When I look to see if a page is protected, I glance in the top right corner of the page and its safe to say, a lot of readers do too.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 14:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're not seeing a standard message (and other users aren't either!), the solution is to report a bug, not create a template workaround. Legoktm (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I made this template, I wasn't even aware of that box's existence. I had a look at it logged into my bot account and quite frankly, I think its useless. An editor won't see that it's PC protected by looking at a box with an arrow pointing down. A padlock does convey more information. Especially if you click on it, it redirects you to the page explaining what it is and why it's applied.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 16:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. dewp has nearly the same looking "downwards arrow" (is it different across skins?) and they have no problems with it. We should be modifying the interface messages if they aren't sufficient, rather than trying to replace them in hackish ways. Legoktm (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thats the German Wikipedia. Every Wikipedia runs differently from each other. It uses a German community from mostly Germany so they probably have different ideas of yes and no. We technically don't need a lock for any protection and it should be all displayed though the interface.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 20:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Given the gadget/userscript argument, it might be helpful if keep !voters addressed the question of whether such templates are primarily useful to experienced editors, or to new/anon users. Bovlb (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under CSD G4 per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 27#Template:Pp-pending. If someone wants these to exist, the correct venue to plead that case is deletion review. jcgoble3 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now tagged both templates for speedy deletion. The tag for the level 1 template is on the talk page since I can't edit the template itself. jcgoble3 (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that was necessarily the best choice. Given that there are editors above who want to retain these templates, and per WP:CCC, it makes sense to simply continue this TfD rather than G4 them. Legoktm (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point I think it may be better to invoke WP:BURO (which itself is a corollary of WP:IAR) and keep the discussion here rather than dragging everything over to WP:DR as discussion is already established and ongoing. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Deletion review is not the correct venue as that took place 2 years ago. That discussion is stale and a new one should be started. The CSD tagging was inappropriate as it first was not an "identical copy" of material previously deleted and second off this discussion has already started with users wishing to keep this template.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 04:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In my view, the default PC user interface (the box saying "Accepted (latest)" or similar), while indicating to experienced users that the page has PC applied, is meaningless to new users, since neither the box not the dropdown panel make any mention of protection/pending changes, etc. So I think a tag such as this one is needed to give an indication However, that leaves two questions:
  1. I don't think a padlock should be used to represent pending changes, which does not "lock" the page. Especially not a silver padlock; it is too similar to the semi-protection padlock.
  2. Should the "tag" be implemented differently? I would prefer it if the dropdown panel on the built-in PC user interface actually explained itself properly, rather than offering only a cryptic summary of the given page's PC status. If this was done, ((pp-pc1)) would need to be deleted.
• I hope that is useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The problem from the deleted template that was created in 2010 was that it was a big template, similar to ((cleanup)), and many people complained about it becuase it "defaced" featured articles, like Tourette syndrome (discussion), which led a discussion here and later to the TFD. If you log out, you won't see the "Accepted (latest)", because that's only for reviewers. IPs and non-confirmed accounts can see the image of a magnifying glass and two paper sheets inside a box along with an arrow, this can be easily ignored. When they click the edit button the message "Note: Edits to this page are subject to review (help). (show details)" appears, but considering that multiple editors ignore all the messages we have when they click the edit button, the most frequent of them is ((BLP)), they won't read this. If the problem is the image of a padlock, because the page is not locked per se, replace it. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the little locks are fine. Gigs (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Mifter. --Webclient101^talk 04:22, 20 December 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.