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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. There appears to be a fundamental disagreement over whether we should provide "canned" summaries in the first place, with participants leaning towards improving the boilerplate text and altering the behaviour of some of the template's parameters as a compromise solution. For a list of all images where this template has been substituted, see [1]. Alakzi (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Non-free use rationale video game screenshot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As with the recent television screenshot template (which is now in the process of being deleted) and others of a similar ilk, this template should be deleted because it is a template rationale for a class of non-free media for which "canned" rationales are not appropriate. Unlike, say, non-free album covers on album articles or non-free logos on pages about corporations, there is no presumption in favour of non-free screenshots on video game pages. On the other hand, I'd say that there was a presumption in favour of non-free cover images. If a screenshot is justified (which is by no means a given!) it will require a specific, tailored rationale- what does this image add to that article. Template:Non-free use rationale should be sufficient for this; I cannot see that the nominated template serves any positive purpose. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't Template:Non-free use rationale software screenshot be bundled with this nomination too, based on your rationale? – czar 23:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. I'm not really familiar with what is standard on software articles, but it certainly seems to be typical to include a screenshot in infoboxes. I suspect there is a separate discussion to be had about when/if that template is appropriate to whether this one is. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This template is not about generating "canned" rationales. It was designed to make it easier to perform rationale tagging on large numbers of images that are being used for a common purpose. There was a big push a number of years ago to justify the use of every video game image that was used in an article, and a number of us found it tedious to have to type exactly the same thing over and over again (eg. "to identify (game name) in its article" or "to show an example of this game's graphics"). It seemed unreasonable to force editors to type those phrases every time, especially when most tried to take shortcuts and ended up creating incomplete or inadequate rationales. I suspect that if you delete this template, someone in the future is going to just create another one to perform the same task. (Or, they will just copy/paste rationale templates from existing images and likely forget to change something, such that the new rationale doesn't actually apply to the image in question.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, comment: Many game articles use screenshots of their title screens (especially arcade games that don't have separate cover art), so I don't agree with Josh's argument that screenshots have no presumption of validity in most articles. Further, many game articles that meet our standards for Good or Featured status invariably have at least one screenshot showing in-game graphics, and articles on game consoles and hardware often also feature screenshots to show examples of their capabilities or most notable titles. Generally speaking, I believe the question of whether a particular screenshot is valid for a particular use is separate from how the non-free use rationale for that image is created. And when you've eliminated most of the screenshots that aren't providing value, the ones you're usually left with are all used for the same relatively small set of purposes in their respective articles - hence why I created this template to begin with. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keifer, you opened your comment by saying that this is not about canned rationales, and then went on to describe how great this template is for producing canned rationales. What you are saying would be fine if we took it for granted that video game articles can and should contain screenshots pretty much by default (as we currently take it that video game articles can and should contain cover art pretty much by default) but that is not the case (your slightly unusual example about title screens possibly being an exception to that). You also seem to be unclear on what the purpose of a rationale is. You give some examples of when video game screenshots are useful additions to articles, and say that they will often be useful additions. No one is disputing that. But if and when they are valid, we use rationales to explain that. A bunch of generic buzzwords might look nice, but they don't actually do a good job of explaining. Is the image there to display how good the game's graphics were? How bad the game's graphics were? The complicated interface? The colourful art style? The monochromatic art style? A typical example of the genre? A typical example of the game's output? This template can't pinpoint that, and that's exactly what we need from a rationale. For example, this rationale might tell us that the image is there "To identify and illustrate the game or program in its own article or a closely related article" or "To show an example of software within a series", but these do nothing to explain why, how or if the image meets NFCC#8. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess we disagree on the definition of "canned" rationale. As I mentioned, at the time we found ourselves saying exactly the same things in virtually every screenshot. Screenshots were usually included in articles for one of about five main purposes, with few exceptions. At the time, more general statements of purpose like "to identify the subject of the article" were broadly considered acceptable by the VG Project. I can certainly understand if that's changed more recently - if so, and a template that makes this process less tedious is no longer acceptable, then so be it. I just don't agree with your reasoning - I believe you're still going to find the majority of editors who fill out NFCC are going to end up in the same situation as before, so if the NFCC rules are stricter now, they'll require stricter policing either way. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Discussion: Lemme address the most common uses of VG screenshots more specifically:
  1. Title screens used in the Infobox: Same purpose as video game covers. We prefer cover art when available, but in some cases, that's not available and a title screen is the next best thing. This is typical of articles on arcade games and some computer software. In some isolated cases, the title screen is more notable than the cover art - those are handled on a case-by-case basis. In all cases, though, using a screenshot in this area meets NFCC-8 by giving a visual reference to the article's title and subject. A typical rationale would be "to identify (name) in its article", and the template covers this case.
  2. Typical gameplay: Shows an example of the game in action, to supplement prose in the Gameplay section of the article. For example, a screenshot from Sonic the Hedgehog would likely show a blue hedgehog in mid-jump next to some rings, with part of the environment visible, one or two enemies nearby, and the score, time and life counters displayed. A typical rationale would be "to show an example of gameplay." The template covers this case.
  3. Typical graphics: In articles on hardware, screenshots (like the one I just described for Sonic) are often used to show an example of the graphics on that console, and/or to show the console's most notable games in action. (Sonic is a great example for the Sega Genesis, and Super Mario World serves the same purpose for the SNES.) Rationale is usually "to show an example of graphics on (hardware)", covered by the template.
  4. Typical of genre: In articles on video game genres (eg. shooters or platformers), screenshots are usually used to show an example of a game in the genre - again, particularly notable examples are usually used. (Super Mario World would make a good example for the platforming genre, for example.) Rationale is usually "to show an example of typical gameplay in this genre" or "to show a notable game in this genre", both of which are covered by the template.
  5. Entry in series: Again, an example of a game within its own series is a common accepted use for a screenshot. Any one of the Sonic games would be a good example for the article on the Sonic series. A typical rationale would then be "to show an example within this series." The template covers that.
  6. Other uses: There are some cases in which the use of a screenshot doesn't fall into any of these categories - it serves a much more specific purpose. The two examples that come immediately to mind are a screenshot of the ghost-flickering in the Atari 2600 version of Pac-Man, and the kill screen in the arcade version of Pac-Man. In both cases, the behavior being described is itself notable enough that a screenshot demonstrating the case is warranted. The rationale for such a use would be specialized and not covered by this template, and I would openly discourage the template's use in generating a rationale for it - the template wasn't designed to cover every case. (I've also told editors in the past that they can always go back and edit the resulting rationale template to tweak wording or add details as necessary.)
• I see your point in how the rationales given may be a little too generic (phrases like "game or program", for example). We can definitely tweak that a bit, though if it required too many more parameters to make rationales specific enough, the usefulness of the template would be severely diminished and we may as well just do each template manually, as you suggested. So I would want to know if the problem is with the descriptions being too generic and just needing some tweaking, or if it's more fundamentally that the use of a template helper is a bad practice in general. If the consensus is that we really don't want editors using "helper templates", then I'll agree to deleting this template. I just want to be clear on that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but needs improvement I will disagree with "there is no presumption in favour of non-free screenshots on video game pages" - unlike television, the bulk which involves live actors in readily-envisioned situations, nearly every video game has allowance of one screenshot to demonstrate, at minimum gameplay, but also can include elements like art style, UI/HUD, etc. And gameplay in nearly every notable (read: has been reviewed by a reliable source) game discusses the gameplay so that bare minimum is met. That said, specifically looking at the "purpose" keyword, this simplifies the need for uploaders/reusers for using NFCC far too much. The major issue with canned rationals like this is that they take out the need for the uploader to think about NFCC#8, and it gives the impression that any number of screenshots can be used as long as this is added. If the purpose field was one that had no pre-defined fields, or , to my first point, that presumed that the use was basically to illustrate the nature of the game's gameplay alongside sourced discussion of gameplay (in more detail), but which could be overridden with more specific or different uses, that would be more acceptable. The other aspects that the rationale template does, to help populate the game title, developer/publisher, etc. are all good things to be more accurate about that takes a bit more work for the standard rationale approach. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: I'm not saying I agree (or disagree), but do you perhaps want to make those improvements? My fear is that if it gets kept, no one will ever get around to making those improvements. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There should probably be some engagement with the VG project to help flesh out a better "default" rationale, but I would say that if this ends up kept, I would try to make it a priority to fix up the rationale aspect ASAP (and figure out how to grandfather existing images). --MASEM (t) 16:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not at all opposed to making improvements to this template. I'd be happy to help out when I have time. It's worth noting that, used as intended, this template is subst'd into the main template, so there is no real way to tell which images were rationalized using this template (that I'm aware of). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found the substituted templates by googling for a string of text from one of the stock rationale fields. But as posted on the template's talk, I'm not seeing a compelling reason to substitute, especially considering circumstances such as this discussion – czar 18:56, 21 August 2015 (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).

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 as author-requested [2]. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-ics4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Copyright is confusing, especially for new users and users used to sites like Facebook, Tumblr, and Imgur where images are routinely uploaded without any sort of copyright or source information. Users should get the series of warnings before a block. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete every mistake which I have made, for I really should have been reflecting a consensus. I am sorry for my error. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This does not comport with WP:BLOCK policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:06, 21 August 2015 (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; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-speedy4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Removing speedy deletion notices, while disruptive, is a common mistake made by new editors and shouldn't be subject to a final warning. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree when it comes to new users, but what about for seasoned users or those who have been blocked for other things before and are now unblocked doing the same things? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This does not comport with WP:BLOCK policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 21 August 2015 (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; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-npov4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have a hard time believing that a single incident of violating WP:NPOV is serious enough to warrant a final warning. Users should either get the series of warnings or get something like ((uw-vandalism4im)) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree when it comes to new users, but again what about for seasoned users or those who have been blocked for other things before and are now unblocked doing the same things? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This does not comport with WP:BLOCK policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 21 August 2015 (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; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-nor4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have a hard time believing that a single incident of violating WP:OR is serious enough enough to warrant a final warning. Users should either get the series of warnings or get something like ((uw-vandalism4im)) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree when it comes to new users, but again what about for seasoned users or those who have been blocked for other things before and are now unblocked doing the same things? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This does not comport with WP:BLOCK policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 21 August 2015 (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; deleted as G7 by Jenks24 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-plotsum3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template misrepresents WP:SPOILER. Saying that we shouldn't add excessive details to plot summaries because "Wikipedia does not spoil every moment of stories by substituting originals" is plain false. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I must have misinterpreted the policy's warning. Other than that, just, remove them all. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2015 (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; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-attempt4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate as an only warning, since users would likely have no idea what the context is unless they already got a ((uw-attempt2)). It seems like this would be covered by ((uw-vandalism4im)) anyway. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This does not comport with WP:BLOCK policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 21 August 2015 (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; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-unsourced4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think this is terribly useful, as addition of unsourced content by itself is unlikely to be severe enough for an only warning (and if it is, it will likely fall under something like ((Uw-vandalism4im)) or ((Uw-biog4im)). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless somebody, such as Electricburst1996 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, what if the user had been issued a Lv. 4 warning, was dormant for a while, and then resumed adding unsourced content? Otherwise, Delete. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 16:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Then it would't be an only warning, it would be a final warning, or you could leave a non-template message. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 04:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not comport with WP:BLOCK policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:19, 21 August 2015 (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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Well, if this violates MOS:HIDDEN, so do the navboxes, so that's a non-starter. Are infobox track listings a navigational aid, or are they content? JG66 has correctly observed that in past nominations, the track listings were found to be redundant to song navboxes, which isn't the case here. I suggest holding an RfC to decide what's to be done about these track listings once and for all. Alakzi (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dark Horse tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per precedent set by numerous such templates which are considered redundant, for eg: here. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent, and MOS:HIDDEN violation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand – why would this template be considered redundant? Each of the album's tracks are the subject of an article, so that makes it useful surely. JG66 (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep a precedent in the past is not an sich applicable here warpozio (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IndianBio, SMcCandlish, Frietjes: I get the impression that the issue of album-track templates being considered redundant has snowballed on a case-by-case basis (even if each case may contain a number of examples, admittedly), but has anyone raised it as a general point at project talk pages such as Music and Albums? In this instance, WP:Beatles might also be interested, because we have similar templates for all of the Beatles' albums, and for many of those by the former members (Dark Horse being just one example).

In the link supplied above, to a March 2013 discussion, someone advocates deletion of 18 templates saying: "these are redundant because each artist already has their own songs template." Well, I can't see that that's the case for all the artists in that discussion, actually … It's certainly not the case that there's a Beatles songs template, as we have for Rihanna and Britney Spears, two of the artists cited as precedents in 2013. Nor is there one for, say, Bob Dylan – another artist whose has many album-tracks templates, which appear in the infobox for the relevant song articles. So, from the pretty narrow sphere of music articles I work on, I see these album-tracks templates as popular, and necessary. But my point is, rather than picking off each example one by one, the subject should be discussed generally. Has/did anyone put the word out to Albums or Music in the past? It's a new one on me. I'm happy to go with whichever way it falls, but as explained, I want to ensure that as many editors as possible have been consulted on this. JG66 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, the main argument behind deleting the first artist's album-track templates (so far as I can see) was: "The templates are completely redundant to the better-designed Template:Rihanna songs which conveniently serves as the main form of nagivation for readers … there is no logic in having these templates so long as the former is in existence because it has the same info." Okay in the case of Rihanna, but not so with George Harrison, John Lennon, the Beatles, Bob Dylan and perhaps many others (and also, as mentioned, not necessarily either for all the artists relevant to the March 2013 discussion linked above).

I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, will probably do the same at WP Bob Dylan. Again, has this issue ever been brought up in a wider forum such as Music and Albums? From a quick skim through those project talk histories for Feb–March 2013, I can't see anything relevant. It doesn't seem as if even WP Rihanna were invited to contribute, nor WP Britney. JG66 (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't need to "fight out" basic style and presentation matters on a wikiproject-by-wikiproject basis. We have general policies and guidelines for a reason, and WP:CONLEVEL policy makes it very clear that wikiprojects do not get to make up their own rules in defiance of site-wide ones. WP does not auto-hide basic article content from readers (MOS:DONTHIDE), because it defeats the encyclopedic purpose, and introduces serious accessibility and usability problems. WP does not squirrel away basic article content into one- or few-use templates (WP:TMPG), because it serves no practical purpose and just makes it harder for new editors (actually, all editors) to participate. Album tracklists and the like being collapsed in articles, or stuffed into templates, can and should be uncollapsed and/or subst'd on sight by other editors, and the music wikiproject people need to read and abide by the same guidelines as the rest of the encyclopedia's editors. If they think they have a case for making some categorical exception, they can make that case as the guidelines' talk pages, like the rest of the encyclopedia's editors.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're a barrel of laughs, aren't you? I wasn't saying anything about issues such as this being made on a project-by-project basis – and certainly not "fighting" it out (that's revealing). My point is that the decision to begin deleting these templates seems to have been made locally, regarding one specific artist's album-track templates (Rihanna's); that the rationale was based on there being a "better-designed" songs template containing "the same info" (nothing to do with the policies you mention); and that no one bothered to get word out to as many editors working on song and album articles as possible. If other issues are relevant (CONLEVEL, DONTHIDE), then fine, but all editors supporting that proposal to delete the Rihanna temps were citing redundancy as a reason, because of her songs template. So now, 2+ years later, these templates are still being picked off piecemeal, rather than anyone looking to sort it out across the board, at Albums. That's why I've been talking about contacting particular wikiprojects – if the track templates have got to go, then they've all got to go, instead of having these silly little skirmishes. I guess some people prefer policing to communicating. JG66 (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete ((Barquote)). ((Barquote)) is a style variant of ((Quote)) with no additional functionality. There is some support here for merging the alternate style into ((Quote)) as an option, but TfD is not the right venue for building consensus on the styling of blockquotes, which should be handled as a MOS issue. While that sounds a bit bureaucratic, the balance of arguments here favors the conclusion that widely used templates should not be hosts to low-usage variant styles in the absence of consensus for that style. Based on Frietjes' observations, and the Village Pump thread linked by SMcCandlish, it appears that a subsequent discussion on style and formatting improvements to ((Quote)) may be needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Barquote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Quote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Barquote with Template:Quote.
Fork for variant style. If it is consensus that the new style should be adopted, it should be applied in our global CSS; or at least available as a switch in the more common template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure it this is the right place to discuss. I see the quote template displaying "‹See Tfm›" out of the blue. This should only affect Barquote? As that template is proposed to be merged in (and appearance of it will change/be same as for quote I guess?), while no changes will be noticed/intended(?) for quote? This was an interesting trivia for me, but I actually didn't know about barquote, and likely, never needed to know.. comp.arch (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Barquote)) is a template is it not? This is Templates for discussion. The change could potentially affect all instances of ((Quote)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't mean that barquote should be discussed, I'm sure there's a need (and I'm not against merging). I however see no need to discuss quote (that will work the same as always, right?), thus do need to(?) to affect displaying of all the pages where it is used. Just merge quickly then.. I meant that the technical issue of NOT displaying might not be wanted here. comp.arch (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily; see my recent reply to your other comment, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ((Barquote)) (only one page uses this template) into ((Quote)) or replace it entirely, and remove the TfM notice from ((Quote)). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 11:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Barquote should be removed, it serves no purpose except for its different (ugly, in my opinion) style. If there is consensus for a new style, it should be set in global CSS, not fought out page-by-page using direct formatting. And please remove the stupid See Tfm link from Quote because it's a very common template and the link now disfigures a lot of pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.82 (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the IP on the removal of see tfm link from quote. I was just shocked when it showed up on a page I maintain and I had no idea what it was. I use it often, in FAs. I don't want the reader distracted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into ((quote)). It's an interesting and attractive style, and making it available as a styling option for ((quote)) would be an ideal thing to do with it. How can we do this in an extensible way? Perhaps a "style=barquote" parameter that could then be used for other options? I like the idea that the use of the ((quote)) template would be semantic, with the presentational style of the quote factored out into its own parameter. This would also allow the style change to be migrated to site CSS without changing the template's interface to the user. -- The Anome (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Anome, if I understand correctly, the purpose of merge is tat the behaviour would be exactly the same – that would be the immediate action. Then it seems you want to oppose.. What you propose could be added later as a parameter, but then you're back to square one and might as well continue to use barquote? If in the vast majority of cases you want the quote-style used/conformed, merging would to that, and you would still keep the "history" (know where barquote was used as pages (in edit mode) would stay the same). Then you could selectively go back. comp.arch (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so. There are three ways to merge: To apply the new style to ((Quote)) to replace the current style; to apply it as an option that an be turned on; or to apply it by default, with an option to turn it off. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm proposing the second: that the "barquote" behavior be made an option that can be turned on, but that the normal default ((quote)) semantics should not change in any way. -- The Anome (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no consensus for random, additional styles being used in articles for block quotations. That's an MoS matter, not a TfD matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete ((Barquote)). We have no need to "merge" every random style idea someone has. Left and right indentation of block quotation is standard practice in text media. Vertical grey bars aren't standard in anything, it's just a "look, I know some CSS" experiment. If there were to be some site-wide change in block quotation style, that's something that would be determined at WT:MOS or WP:VPPRO, and implemented at Mediawiki:Common.css. The last thing we need is a core template of this sort doing random stylistic things that people are applying inconsistently from article to article, even all over the place on the same page (we already have one problem of this sort that needs to be dealt with, affecting hundreds of pages, despite MOS and the template's own documentation saying not to use it for block quotations). WP is not your blog, nor a Web design sandboxing site. PS: See also WP:TMPG: "Templates that ... substantially duplicate or hardcode the same functionality of established templates may fit the criteria for speedy deletion"; this template duplicates the block quotation functionality of ((Quote)) and then hardcodes a specific style for it (a style there is no consensus for).

  PS: It is actually fairly common for the font size of block quotations to be slightly smaller, and we could do the same to make them more clearly visible as block quotations, but that's a matter for one of the aforementioned forums to come to consensus about the principal motivation behind block quotation weirdness like what this template does is simply to make them look "more different" from the surrounding text. They're certainly not applying any kind of [external] standard, they're just different for difference's sake.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Expanded 22:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC);  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ((Barquote)) per SMcCandlish. The look of block quotes shouldn't be altered on a per-article basis. Alakzi (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• merge, and use it to fix the excess style statements in Female genital mutilation, Brown Dog affair, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Hulda Stumpf, Germaine Greer, Lemmons, Val Plumwood, Christian Science, Colin McGinn, Vivienne Haigh-Wood Eliot, Carnism, Lizzy Lind af Hageby, Cancer Ward, Wilhelm Reich, Ceratonia siliqua, Night (book), Rudolf Vrba, Jack Sarfatti, In Our Time (short story collection), Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol, Rhythm 0, ... Sure, I can see a case for having all articles use the same style, and hence make this template less flexible. however, this apparently means that editors will resort to using excessive markup in the articles to impose a particular preferred style. I would rather see a common pattern templated, rather than copy-and-pasted. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that becomes (or has already become) a problem then we update MoS to say not to do that, and revert it where its been done. Simple solution that does not require "merging" of no new functionality, only weird style, into a stable template that produces the consistent output we want. If people want to change that output, they can make a case to do so, at WT:MOS, Template talk:Quote, or WP:VPPRO.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good luck with that. We can't even get some people to use ((Infobox person)) for - you know - persons, because the title background isn't grey. Alakzi (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long as we don't merge random style notions into this template, it should be a straightforward matter to track down and examine uses of either <blockquote style="...">...</blockquote> or ((quote|style=...)) to see if they're doing "hey, this is my blog and I'm gonna make it look WILD!" stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SMcC. -sche (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah ha! Here's where this came from: It's fans of some plug-in called "WikiWand" doing some sandboxing.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pretty much as per SMC. Visual appeal is not written into the policy or guidelines of Wikipedia, and with good reason; we're an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. The function of the universally identical formatting of a block quote trumps the "but it looks good" argument. This comment is without prejudice against a wider discussion on what the block quote should look like. If editors wish to use another style for block quotes, that's fine, but whatever we settle on needs to be used across the entire site. ~ Rob^Talk 02:41, 13 September 2015 (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).

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. Both a a snow deletion and a G7 deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-virusblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a newly created block template for "illegally promoting spam links to computer viruses". This sort of disruption is so exceedingly rare and specialized that it doesn't warrant its own custom template, and listing this custom template along with the commonly used ones only creates clutter. Our existing ((uw-vblock)) template is already perfectly appropriate for this sort of vandalism. Psychonaut (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've been an administrator since 2007, and I can't remember ever blocking someone for this reason. It's definitely not common enough that it needs its own template. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed. Delete. -- The Anome (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is just cluttering up the project. I am sorry. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2015 (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; deleted as G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-virus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't believe this user warning template is useful. Apart from some significant issues with the wording (which conflates viruses in particular with malware in general, and which unduly focuses on legal issues specific to the US), I don't believe it's helpful to merely warn people actively attempting to disable or hijack the computers of readers and editors. This is the sort of behaviour where the perpetrators need to be indefinitely blocked immediately to prevent imminent harm to others. In those exceedingly rare cases where the behaviour was mischaracterized or unintentional, the issue can be sorted out after the block is in place. Psychonaut (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I do not know of what I was thinking, and, in this case, I agree with you. I should have been thinking about the fact that everyone knows better than to do that, so delete it. I am thinking about doing a block version of it. Is that okay? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted, since Gamingforfun, the only significant creator, asked for deletion here. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2015 (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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:DJ JY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The subject of this template was deemed non-notable per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ JY (Artist), and I deleted the article. As such, there is no need for this template. I have also nominated Draft:DJ JY (Artist) for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:DJ JY (Artist) for the same reason. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Isn't this a speedy candidate, since the article to which it pertains was deleted at AfD?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:08, 21 August 2015 (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).

The result of the discussion was relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 14#Template:Ankit Fadia. Alakzi (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ankit Fadia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Why you think the template should be deleted. it only has two links 203.109.161.2 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This one is problematic in that it is not completely clear if the IP user or someone else nominated this template. A quick read of the Ankit Fadia article suggests that the subject meets WP:notability requirements, although I did not dig into the sources to confirm they were appropriate sources. The fact that most of the author's works do not (yet) have their own articles is not surprising given the fact that the article is about an author who is from a country where English, while spoken by many, is not the primary language. I think having just two links in the template might be preferable to having a template full of red links. I would be interested in hearing from those who worked on this author's page, especially the template creator, what their intent is regarding articles about the author's other works.Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, per my comment. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that not clear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NENAN it has only 3 links, per other navbox deletions at TfD, that's rather low. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2015 (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).