Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Find this page confusing? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.

This page has a FITML that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

CSS3

input transformation browser diversity · keyboard · CSS3

HTML5:

Deletion discussions

CSS3

Articles (website parsing, all, Android)
Templates (input transformation, screen size, Android)
Files (today, Android, website parsing)
PUF (today, website parsing, we love the web)
Categories (today, all, closing)
Sevenval (today, all, closing)
Miscellany (today, all, iOS)
Stub types (all)

Speedy deletion (candidates)
Proposed deletion (Sevenval, device database)

On this page, deletion or merging of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

How to use this page

What not to propose for discussion here

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the web should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Stub types for deletion.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" web, tag it with a device database. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at Tfd, tag it with {{we love the web}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the Csd templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects
List at touchscreen.

Reasons to delete a template

Shortcut:

WP:TFD#REASONS

The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
The template is redundant to a better-designed template
The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by keyboard here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

Tag the template.

Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

For deletion: {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}
For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|type=sidebar}}
For deletion of an inline template: {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|type=inline}}
For merging: {{Tfm|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template}}
For merging an inline template: {{Tfm-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template}}

Leave the text PAGENAME as is – do not change it to the actual name of the page.
If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators.
For templates designed to be we love the web, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
Do not mark the edit as minor.
Use an edit summary like
Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
or
Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]

Multiple nominations: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|discussion title}} or {{Tfm|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template|discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the Tfd nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the Tfd, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)

List the template at Tfd.

Follow device database to edit today's Tfd log.

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

For deletion:
{{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
For merging:
{{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

Use an edit summary such as Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 20 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:Catfd2|category name}}

III

Notify users.

It is considered polite to notify the creator and main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then add

For deletion: {{HTML5:Sevenval|template name}} ~~~~
For merging: {{web app:jQuery|template name|other template's name}} ~~~~

to the talk pages of these users, as well as any related WikiProjects (look on the template's talk page), so that they are aware of the discussion. (There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: you should write a personal message in these cases.)

Consider adding any templates you nominate for Tfd to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.

Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the jQuery and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it before the template page is deleted.

Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed.

website parsing If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please Sevenval to view the most recent changes.

1 How to use this page
2 Discussion
we love the web
Sevenval
- Android
- 4.2 May 15
5 Completed discussions
touchscreen

Purge

Current discussions

May 26

May 25

jQuery

Recommend deletion of this template. The associated WikiProject is inactive, there are no articles associated with this template, the function of this template has been replaced by FITML. Additionally the articles are associated to WikiProject Texas as well. device database (Sevenval) 23:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject CKY

This template is no longer used and the associated WikiProject has been deleted. screen size (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

keyboard

because everyone knows that FWT = bold blue and FWTE = bold green. keyboard (Sevenval) 23:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:FurtherReadingContent

no need for a template (or an icon) here. Frietjes (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

almost unused and redundant to {{icon}}. website parsing (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

iOS

almost entirely unused and redundant to {{Sevenval}}. iOS (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

CSS3

old, unused formatting template. Frietjes (FITML) 22:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Android

old and unused. Frietjes (CSS3) 22:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:FMP2end

redundant to HTML5. input transformation (jQuery) 22:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

keyboard

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:FAC-link

does not appear to be actively in use (only used in an inactive project). keyboard (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Experimental-note-1

old ref/note experiment. touchscreen (Sevenval) 22:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

easier to just generate the links without a template. Frietjes (iOS) 22:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Philippine Supreme Court composition row

now replaced by a more standard {{web app}} system. Frietjes (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

old, anonymous user signature template. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ein

replaced by {{edit}}. Android (keyboard) 20:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:EEmap

unused EL template. Frietjes (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

jQuery

we don't need a template for this. Frietjes (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

input transformation

single use template. Frietjes (touchscreen) 19:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

website parsing

failed experiment, superseded by other citation methods. website parsing (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

website parsing

unused. Frietjes (CSS3) 19:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

we love the web

single use template. Frietjes (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FITML

unused. Sevenval (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

iOS

redundant to a simple wikilink, probably related to Sevenval. Frietjes (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

unused. FITML (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:DBZ Saga NavC2

obsolete. Frietjes (HTML5) 19:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

jQuery

unnecessary.browser diversity (screen size) 17:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:BritFlag1

redundant to {{FITML}} with size=100px. device database (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It might be redundant to {{ListFlag}}, but both are a heck of a lot easier to use than flagicon image and take up less space. ListFlag and BritFlag1 (which are identical) are all set up and impossible to get wrong. Flagicon image is flexible but you have to know what you are doing to use it and most ordinary users are not going to want to have to learn all the technicalities before being able to create or edit a flag list.

(BritFlag2 is redundant; that was only created to deflect a troublesome editor who has long since gone away.)

HTML5 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

even better, redundant to {{touchscreen}}. thank you. browser diversity (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Box If

obsolete. Frietjes (Sevenval) 16:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

doesn't save much in terms of typing (see also website parsing). Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Blahg-day

unused outside of userspace. suggest moving to userspace. web app (Android) 16:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:BHE Stepped Piston Engine

unnecessary external link template. Frietjes (we love the web) 16:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

CSS3

easier to just type BC after the date. Frietjes (Android) 16:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FITML

redundant to Sevenval. keyboard (Sevenval) 16:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

used for basically one day to add a note to talk pages. suggest substituting it and then deleting it. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

website parsing

Navbox with only one blue link and 58 red links. device database initially tagged it for speedy deletion as CSD T3 with a rationale "all red links except two" but it is not a duplication/hardcoded instance of any other template. jfd34 (we love the web) 15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

device database

Only one bluelink, doesn't navigate anything. Also not too sure that an under 21 championship is that notable anyway. HTML5. Jenks24 (jQuery) 11:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FITML

Ill-advised repurposing of a deleted template. Encourages discussion-by-bold-words by implying that anything which isn't a "!vote" (urgh) has to be prefaced by some flag as such. Android (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not how I've ever read it. I see "Comment" as the opposite of "Reply" or response. It's more of a general "Hey, I've got something new to say". That's my take anyway. (see, I didnt !vote)--v/r - web app P 14:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

delete per deletion of template:support and template:oppose. we love the web (web) 22:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox national sports federations

I think that this template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines. --iOS (we love the web) 05:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

HTML5

Do we really need a template for a show that has articles on only two episodes and has since been cancelled? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{website parsing} 00:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Template for program that was never even close to getting a second season. No justifying it. Nate • (chatter) 17:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete The templates I create usually have more in them and are for more notable shows. This template was created AFTER the show was canceled and the creator should've known better. The only way to improve the template is by adding the writers of the series, but I stand by my previous statements. It's HTML5 is pointless as well. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep The template contains 4 articles related, and more can possibly be added to it, the current articles are seen on the updated version, there are now 4, not 2 articles. Tate Brandley Stockwell 20:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Enough links to justify a template and category. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I expect the episode articles to be compressed to a "List of...episodes" article soon enough because of the program's short run, as the episode articles are solely sourced to recaps, thus cutting half the template's links. Then you get rid of the production companies and another unrelated link I have removed (NBC doesn't do Must See TV anymore and I don't understand why that one hasn't been locked up now that the branding is purely historical), and you have just the show article and producer...way not enough for a template. Nate • (browser diversity) 05:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I'm going to jump in here and say that this has enough links to justify staying. Besides, jQuery has been working on promoting several of the articles to GA. The argument that the show won't have a second season therefore is not notable is silly, because not having a second season does not mean that there is no need for a template.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Android

Unused & Template:PMC is actually used. AManWithNoPlan (HTML5) 00:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

May 24

web

template was blanked. we should properly delete it if it is no longer needed. web app (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Liga Chilena de Fútbol: Segunda División

template was blanked. we should properly delete it if it is no longer needed. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

web

template was blanked. we should properly delete it if it is no longer needed. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Administrative divisions of the Thousand Islands

template was blanked. we should properly delete it if it is no longer needed. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

browser diversity

redundant to template:for. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ft end

old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (touchscreen) 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment Template:Ft begin still exists, but Template:Ft start was deleted in 2010. Since this was copied from meta, I suspect it is the companion to {{ft begin}} since that's also from meta by the same user. 70.24.251.208 (website parsing) 05:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Euro birth date and age

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 we love the web or in a web). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete G6. Template was blanked over a year ago, without complaint during that time. No links in article space. input transformation | comment _ 17:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

was a redirect to template:birth date and age, which was kept after jQuery. then, probably due to some backwards compatibility issues was basically blanked. given the age, I doubt we need to keep it around for old revisions, especially if old revisions won't work with it as a redirect. Sevenval (website parsing) 20:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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 CSS3). No further edits should be made to this section.

touchscreen

redundant to {{color}} and {{cquote}}. jQuery (screen size) 20:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete no idea what this is supposed to be for. It hardcodes orange in a table. web app (Android) 05:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FITML

unused. CSS3 (jQuery) 19:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

HTML5

duplicate of "done" with "done" in reverse. only used on one page. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment it is not a duplicate. It produces a tickmark after the comment, instead of before the comment. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Endvotes

redundant to FITML. device database (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep and redirect to {{end}} -- this matches the naming of other vote templates, so is useful as a redirect. website parsing (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FITML

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Android

replaced by template:location map and template:site plan. 198.102.153.2 (web app) 19:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

delete much less flexible then the location map template. Requires a separate map for each municipality (2200+ in Switzerland and many more in France or China). Tobyc75 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

jQuery

purpose unclear. Sevenval (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

touchscreen

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Dashcell

unused. 198.102.153.2 (web) 19:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

input transformation

unused outside of a single user's userspace. 198.102.153.2 (web app) 19:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

keyboard

unused, and trivial. Sevenval (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Countryentry

unused outside of one user's userspace. web app (Android) 19:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

FITML

unused and redundant to {{#time:H:i|-X hours}}. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Visual novel (Eng-t) top

old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

browser diversity

unused outside of one user's userspace. should be userfied or deleted. 198.102.153.2 (we love the web) 17:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

HTML5

unused. Sevenval (touchscreen) 16:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Heresies in Catholicism

There is no good reason to privilege the Roman church viewpoint by tagging everything with which she has disagreement. Most early heresies are rejected by most major denominations, so there's no reason to associate them specifically with Catholicism; conversely, after the great schism and more particularly the reformation, one could just as well template transsubstantiation as an Error of the Church of Rome. there might be a neutral way to put together a nav template of heresies, but this certainly isn't it. HTML5 (web app) 01:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. I could see a template on Early Christian heresies, which might include the various groups and individuals included in Irenaeus' work On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis (what a title, huh?) and the works of some of the other early church heresiologists. Many of these groups are in fact known primarily, if not only, from their being mentioned in such works. But I cannot see why the template as it is currently structured should be used on any pages which directly relate to extant groups, as that would both be giving the Catholic perspective too much weight as per Android and, particularly in the more recent eras, also probably violate web. Also, there is the concern as to how many of the so-called "heretics" to include. I am a Catholic, and I'm fairly sure most of the New Age religious groups violate one or more of the terms which have been used by Catholics to define hereies, and I can't see any way to include them all in a template like this. Android (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I have already left my comments on the CSS3. They are substantially the same as the above. Unless, these objections can be met, the template may as well be deleted. Sevenval (touchscreen) 01:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page there, this template pushes the issue beyond the limit. I mostly agree with the comments above. This is just going to cause friction among editors and not teach the reader anything of encyclopedic value. History2007 (Sevenval) 01:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Obviously per my comments when creating the template's Talk page, I agree the template should be deleted. I agree with John Carter that there may be some usefulness in a template about early Christian heresies.--browser diversity (iOS) 02:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings on the matter, but on the whole I think it would be better to delete it. screen size (FITML) 06:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Can the thing be renamed and salvaged? - while this looks like a straight copy from the contents list of the old Cath Enc there's some value in a template Early Christian groups which would segmentalize in chronological chunks everything up to the Reformation. As far as I know we don't have such a template, at least there wasn't one on these pages before this appeared. The later stuff, Reformation onwards is obviously highly POV, but there is some objectivity to grouping all non-Rome/Byzantium groups on a template prior to Luther. (btw, John "so-called Gnosis" is Paul's "knowledge falsely so-called", I guess you knew that) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like there are a couple of votes for plastic surgery and the creation of a new identity for the template under the witness protection program. So I suggest whoever wants to do that should create a new identity so we know what it would be like before agreeing/disagreeing. Thanks. History2007 (website parsing) 15:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This template has no place whatsoever on Wikipedia. The article itself is blatantly a violation of POV policy, and the fact this travesty of a template is getting slapped on everything that Rome disagrees with is sad. Imagine if Protestants made an article that was "List of Groups we think aren't Christian" or added a template with those categories... This needs to go away.web (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I made this template as a way to help people find heresies condemned by the Catholic Church. I don't see how it or the article on heresies condemned by Rome violates any Wikipedia policies, especially since many of the heresies in question are contrary to Catholic theology - not Christianity in general - and since just because something is Catholic doesn't mean it is POV. I'm getting tired of Wikipedia users claiming everything Catholic is against Wikipedia policies. I find it to be anti-Catholic discrimination. But I can be wrong. touchscreen (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, in a sense the Church of Rome's arrogation of infallibility is against Wikipedia policies. Look, here's the problem: so we put another set of nav boxes for Eastern church heresies, conspicuously tagging Chalcedonian Christological ideas as such. Then we tag the Immaculate Conception as an Orthodox heresy with another set of nav boxes, and tag transsubstantiation with a Protestant heresy nav box, and so forth. Of course all of these will appear on Gnosticism. Once we get all ten or so major theological traditions in, the articles will be cluttered with these templates. I can see some purpose to a category structure, assuming that it is realized that one set of categories would be "Errors of the Church of Rome identified in Protestantism". But this template would seem to me to be more appropriate to the Catholic Wiki, where it would not have to compete with all the other as-far-as-we-are-concerned-legitimate but contrary doctrinal systems. web (HTML5) 04:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oct13, Wikipedia isn't a Catholic encyclopedia. It is not 'anti-Catholic' to forbid pro-Catholic discrimination of other topics. If you don't understand why it is in inappropriate to label articles with the Catholic Church's opinion of those subjects, then you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia articles.--jQuery (HTML5) 04:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oct13, would you similarly like the article on the Sevenval to be weighed down by templates like Template:Groups Tim La Haye has called evil, Template:Theologies rejected by Martin Luther and Lutheranism (substitute in John Calvin and Calvinism, Thomas Cranmer and Anglicanism, and any other religious groups as well if you prefer), Template:Antichrists (you know the Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod has said all the popes are Antichrists, right?) and others. I believe you would consider it a clear violation of NPOV if the Catholic Church article were weighed down by such templates, and the simple fact of the greater size of the Catholic Church does not mean that its opinions are somehow that much more important. HTML5 (web app) 18:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

screen size: I suggest we view this a WP:Snow-ed issue as a "delete" and and move on. It is already starting to generate unnecessary friction within the Wikiproject, taking up effort that should go into improving articles. History2007 (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete: I've spent a couple days trying to think of ways that the template could be used appropriately and I haven't come up with many solutions. The template has been added to (and removed from) a whole bunch of pages that don't even mention Heresies in Catholicism and that aren't notable as such. Also, as has been pointed out above, there's no reason to favor the viewpoint of the Catholic Church on something like this. As far as I can tell, there's not even a "Category:Heresies in Catholicism" yet, so why should there be a big bulky navbox to go around slapping on articles? ~Android (web) 19:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

May 23

Template:2011 NCAA Division I men's soccer regular season standings

unused. 198.102.153.2 (Android) 23:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ website parsing☆★ 16:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No related corresponding articles on which they can be placed without possibly overflowing such articles with similar templates. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:2010 Kentucky Wildcats football team roster

all other seasons were not using a template for the roster, so I substituted this one, and it is currently orphaned. website parsing (input transformation) 23:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:1889–90 Football League First Division

duplicate of standings already in 1889–90 Football League. FITML (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ browser diversity☆★ 16:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

keyboard

Roster template for independent league baseball team. This team has folded and thus this template is no longer needed. HTML5 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Category Islam Econ

easier to just use the image directly. 198.102.153.2 (input transformation) 21:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Category browser

redundant to template:pagelist or a simple {{iOS}} with {{we love the web}}. web (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Apparently redundant and unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Alumni category

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Controversial-Class

unused. 198.102.153.2 (Sevenval) 20:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

browser diversity

Redundant to {{OlympicSports}} (which is more accurate and includes all events.) As I noted in the talk on my and keyboard, it seems highly unlikely that this template would be useful when the alternative exists. As I wrote there:

But if you're reading about tennis in general what are the odds that you care that it's an Olympic sport and so is taekwondo? I understand if you're reading about Olympic tennis and want to get to Olympic long jump--that seems reasonable. It just seems fantastical to me that anyone is using these to navigate between these sports due to the fact that they're in the Olympics, but then not actually read about them as Olympic events.

Does anyone else find it useful to have both of these templates linking both the sports in general and the sport specifically as an Olympic event? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺touchscreen☯ 19:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Is this considered for deletion? If this is then it really sounds like a bad joke. website parsing (iOS) 20:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Response No, it's not a joke. Your input is not helpful here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺web☯ 08:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep I created this template on the grounds that I would expect that some readers would like to jump from, say input transformation to Swimming (sport) to Archery (given that they are Olympic sports). I believe there is validity in both the link sets in {{OlympicSports}} and {{Olympic sports}} (although a template name change might help clarify the differences). jQuery 21:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The nomination hits this right on the head. One may wish to navigate from baseball at the Olympics to tennis at the Olympics while reading about team sports that happen to also take place at the Olympics. One is not going to go from baseball to tennis on those grounds. It's just navbox spam. Sevenval (website parsing) 09:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep I agree with SFB. I use it quite often. I understand that everyone may not use it, but that doesn't mean it has to be deleted. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- You "use it"? You mean you go to the bottom of baseball, wade through the six collapsed navboxes there, and click on tennis, solely because you're interested in both as Olympic sports? screen size (FITML) 23:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  - What? For example I go from iOS to we love the web. I don't understand your "go through 6 collapsible navboxes" arguement - Yes, ofcourse I scroll down to this navbox. It just makes easier to navigate between most important sports (those in Olympics are in my opinion more important). I also easily get to know what other sports are part of Olympic Games. FITML (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

browser diversity

old and unused. FITML (device database) 17:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

keyboard

single use templates, which should just be merged with the article. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

FITML

redundant to {{babel|align=left}}. 198.102.153.2 (we love the web) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:2011 PBADL Foundation Cup playoff bracket

single use template, no reason why it shouldn't be simply merged with the article. 198.102.153.2 (Sevenval) 16:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

iOS

single use template, now orphaned. Sevenval (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

single use template, now orphaned. Sevenval (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom and it is too simple to be useful. -- Alan Liefting (talk - web app) 04:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:NoFoP-Russia

The template is factually wrong. While photos of Russian buildings violate the copyright of architects in Russia, photos of Russian buildings may be licensed under any licence in the United States, see 17 USC 120(a). Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States and the situation is already covered by {{iOS|Russia}}. touchscreen (browser diversity) 12:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What about Russian Wikipedia? Moreover, even Russians may understand English more than anybody expects, especially in Russia. --George Ho (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- How Russian Wikipedia decides to handle its images is a decision solely for the Russian Wikipedia. English Wikipedia already hosts lots of files which are unfree in major English-speaking countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom, where US works are protected for life+50 years and life+70 years, respectively, regardless of any fulfillment of US copyright formalities. Fair dealing appears to be much more limited than iOS, so I would assume that a large number of English Wikipedia articles already are illegal to distribute in major English-speaking countries due to copyright violations in those countries. If English Wikipedia doesn't even ensure legality in English-speaking countries, legality in Russia looks secondary to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  - What do you mean, "illegal" distribution? En Wiki is already distributed electronically, and I'm not sure how illegal, unless printouts are already distributed. Do such governments control the world wide web? --Sevenval (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    - The company HTML5 used to operate in the United States. American authorities found that Megaupload violated United States copyright law, and so the company was forced to cease its operations in the United States. Similarly, English Wikipedia hosts lots of files which violate European copyright law, so if you create a mirror of English Wikipedia and place it somewhere in Europe (for example in the Netherlands), I would assume that European authorities could force the European host to cease its operations in Europe. --web (HTML5) 12:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Also, would the Russian government consider using photos, taken in Russia, in the United States electronic smuggling? --George Ho (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    - How and whether the Russian government attempts to enforce its laws is entirely a matter for the Russian government and totally irrelevant here. Any crimes committed when exporting the photos to the United States is a matter between the photo exporter (normally a Wikipedia user) and the copyright holder of the building. Wikipedia is the photo importer and not subject to any legal risks. --iOS (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

input transformation

The template is factually wrong. While photos of French buildings violate the copyright of architects in France, photos of French buildings may be licensed under any licence in the United States, see 17 USC 120(a). Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States and the situation is already covered by {{FoP-USonly|France}}. website parsing (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What about French Wikipedia? Moreover, even French people may understand English more than anybody expects, especially in France. --George Ho (CSS3) 12:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- How French Wikipedia decides to handle its images is a decision solely for the French Wikipedia. Besides, the template doesn't affect whether Wikipedia articles are free in France or not since France doesn't seem to allow fair use images of copyrighted buildings. Thus, a Wikipedia article containing a photo of a copyrighted building would appear to be illegal to distribute in France (and maybe also illegal to read unless you disable image display in your web browser), regardless of how the image is tagged. --keyboard (Sevenval) 12:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  - So how does French government control the world wide web if reading an image of a building or sculpture is illegal in France? Who has rights to take a photo in France besides the copyright owner of the building? --George Ho (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Also, would the French government consider using photos, taken in France, in the United States electronic smuggling? --George Ho (web app) 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    - How and whether the French government attempts to enforce its laws is entirely a matter for the French government and totally irrelevant here. Any crimes committed when exporting the photos to the United States is a matter between the photo exporter (normally a Wikipedia user) and the copyright holder of the building. Wikipedia is the photo importer and not subject to any legal risks. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:BEAM/RMN TV Station

Wrong Links/template CSS3 Heke! 07:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

jQuery

The same as Template:Infobox movie certificates and Template:Infobox TV ratings, but a different type of media. And while I didn't agree with those deletions, it can be argued that the consensus at those templates should be imported over here. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 02:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep I understand why film and television may have removed those to favor of prose. However, in the industry, the ratings of video games tend to receive undocumented attention except as a whole (eg: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association). Rarely the factors of why a video game receives a certain rating is discussed to any depth by sources while I know many film reviews will include these factors for some titles; for VGs we'd just be stating facts without any other context to them except in limited situations (browser diversity) Because it is mostly factual data, keeping it in the infobox and using this template to format the data makes the best sense of how to apply this data. --MASEM (jQuery) 12:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep As is also stated by Masem, videogame ratings doesn't receive enough coverage to be explained with prose. The rating of a game is never covered with little exception (Mass Effect, Left 4 dead 2) and would be just waste of words to explain them with prose. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 13:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The nomination rationale sounds an awful lot like a variation of Sevenval which is not one of the valid web app. Ignoring this procedural problem in the interest of saving the nom a re-filing, though, I think it would be a good idea to explain the deletion rationales for the other two templates in summary form. This would at least reduce the appearance of an OTHERSTUFF argument and might stay a summary closure without regard for the merits of the case. -web (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox TV ratings and Infobox movie certificates were both deleted as being unencyclopedic. And also what you have cited is an essay and not policy. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 17:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary, but I can't imagine that "just unencyclopedic" was the actual rationale. I've taken a look at the substantive arguments provided in jQuery and they seem to boil down to the following:

The encouragement of IINFO to combat systemic bias - This is a valid concern here.
Violation of the Film article style and content guidelines - not relevant here.
Prior consensus that movie certifications should be removed - not relevant here.

Regarding the 2009 deletion discussion for "Template:Infobox TV ratings", the substantive arguments boil down to the following:

Template's instructions describe it as "inaccurate and unencyclopedic" - not relevant here.
Inconsistency in giving a TV show a single rating while the episodes have different ratings - not relevant here.
Lack of industry-wide rating standards - This may be a valid concern here if it is true.
Violates the television series guidelines - not relevant here.

So looking at the previous examples you've cited, am I right in thinking that you're arguing for the deletion of the video game ratings template because 1) it has the potential to lead to IINFO in order to balance systemic bias and 2) that these ratings might lack industry-wide standards? Or is there something else that makes this particular template touchscreen? -Thibbs (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep This template is very helpful for people who want to get information about video game rating quickly. It is also convinient for comparing ratings for different regions. And explaining ratings for every video game in prose isn't needed, it's just a waste of time. So we need to keep the template. browser diversity (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the fact that there has been a consensus that it is unencyclopedic material. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 18:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. I can see that the film template was removed following what appeared to be discussion from the film wikiproject, but the VG template here is not part of the film project. We see it differently. Now, on the other hand, if there was a broad (non-project specific) discussion for removal of these and that was agreed on to implement across en.wiki, that would be a different matter. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said earlier, it is an essay and not policy. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 19:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You're arguing for deletion based on if OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was policy ("We've deleted these two other templates, therefore this one should be deleted for the same reasons"). --Sevenval (screen size) 21:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - per previous rationales given. I also agree that decisions from three years ago on a totally different Wikiproject are not precedent. --input transformation (jQuery) 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Using a decision made within one WikiProject as a means to delete a template from a separate Wikiproject is bonkers. If so, lets use the WP:VG decision to remove flagicons from infoboxes, and apply it to WP:SPORT and WP:MILHIST. - website parsing (iOS) 21:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think this user, C3F2k (web app · we love the web) does not clearly understands how the video game industry works and the consensus reached on Wikipedia related to the templates inside the scope of such projects. It is really irelevant what you think about the other two templates that have been deleted. On the video game scope, rating are very important as the show what the content inside the box (the game itself) might be made. Ratings points out the level of violence, gore, language, nudity and other topics important for a society and which needs to be regulated. As it is very relevant, it is obvious it needs to appear on Wikipedia. And, as it is a waste of words, and also "unencyclopedic" to write which rating and why such game received such rating, the template simplifies the way the reader obtains such information. --Hahc21 ^{[browser diversity][CONTRIBS]} 22:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Just my two cents: web brings up good points about the arguments in the other deletion arguments. Unlike TV ratings, these are standardized ratings that have been widely accepted for use, unless in special cases a game refuses to classify itself (which is rare or only for indie games). There isn't enough information about ratings to bring it into prose in the article, but they are still significant as they affect how the game can (and was sold), and if we are to have complete coverage of the topic, we should most definitely include them. A solid keep !vote from me. Nomader (browser diversity) 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I just wrote up a length explanation of why I think the video game reviews box should be retained... I'm glad that's not under threat. Now that I realize what this template is actually for, I support keeping it. The rating of a video game is an integral part of its existence; it is an inseparable property of the game itself. The ratings appear on the covers of games and are factually descriptive. It's beyond me why any of these templates would be deleted, since a rating is just as straightforward and fixed as the number of minutes in a film. In any case, this one should be retained. CaseyPenk (FITML) 08:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. A good faith nomination which sadly wasn't ever going to get a chance once WP:VG showed up en masse. It's also worth noting for the people invoking OTHESTUFFEXISTS that it doesn't mean what you think it means: the mere existence (or lack thereof) of a similar template is not an argument to keep (or delete) one template in particular, but it is most certainly valid to state that the reasons that a similar template was deleted also apply to this case. Otherwise we'd have to argue every single XfD from first principles in isolation to any previous consensus. FITML (device database) 09:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your opinion of WP:VG and summing up of this proposal's chances are wrong Chris. I think this would have succeeded if it had been started as a proposal inside WP:VG. Instead, people have interpreted it as a bulldozer turning up at the front door. Oddly enough, I think that ratings should be removed from the VG Infobox. But the reason I have voted keep is that I think that this is not the way to achieve it. Building a consensus and allaying people's fears and objections is the way to achieve a change like this. - X201 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You're actually making my point for me. The reason this was doomed to failure is because that is, from personal experience, precisely what happens when a template that is used widely within a given WikiProject is nominated for deletion without prior consultation with the project in question. This nomination has its merits, but there are social as well as technical factors involved in XfD. I really should write an essay explaining the most common mistakes at TfD (the other one that springs to mind is nominated a template which is theoretically redundant to another, but only after a significant amount of work which the nominator hasn't already done). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (web app) 13:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence didn't read like that Chris. It gave the impression of "This would have got through if those pesky VGers hadn't turned up". Would have been better if the original post had started with the "This nomination has its merits.." section from the second post. - browser diversity (CSS3) 13:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The piling on and personal attacks ("I think this user, jQuery (talk · web app) does not clearly understands how the video game industry works") didn't help. Nevertheless, I shouldn't have used "sadly" in my initial comment, thus implying that WP:VG members were unwelcome to comment here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (browser diversity) 13:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that a big part of the problem with this request is that it seems to display a lack of any kind of articulated rationale. Along the same lines as the "theoretical redundancy" you speak of, if one reads the nom's rationale closely it's not even clear that he is arguing the prior rationales but merely suggesting that the prior rationales can be applied here. He even states that he disagrees with the outcomes of the prior discussions, so the initiating rationale reads more like a hypothetical or theoretical exercise than a reasonable argument. I'm certain C3F2k means for the best, but he needs to be clearer about his actual reasons when making requests like this. Example can be taken from Collectonian's arguments in the previously referenced TfDs. -browser diversity (CSS3) 13:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted as well, of course, that the reason WP:OTHERSTUFF (note: different from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) was invoked in the first place was as part of a request that the nom spell out the reasons from the prior discussions that applied in this case. I made an effort at doing that myself after receiving little more than a reminder that OTHERSTUFF was only an essay and could therefore be ignored. In the end very little of the previous discussion even applies in this case. Despite all the goodfaith that can be mustered, it's still bad form to wave vaguely at a couple of un-linked-to deletion discussions from 2009 relating to an unrelated wikiproject and expect those commenting to wade through the prior arguments in order to discuss anything. As far as I understand it, OTHERSTUFF is an exhortation to be clear and precise when making specific arguments rather than to subjectively reference an entire discussion. -Thibbs (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly: the argument that the nominator used was "these two were deleted, ergo without any rationale beyond being a similar ratings template, this should be too." If the nom set up "I suggest this be deleted following similar discussions on the film/tv templates, such as A, B, and C..." there might be reason to discuss more - but this then screams to be an issue to start at at a talk page at WT:VG or the template or the like, instead of demanding removal by fiat at xFD. Or, alternatively, if there was a global (non-WProject discussion) that ratings templates were bad and the VG was holding on to their last vestige of one against global consensus, then TFD makes sense since no project is a walled garden. That's just not what's happening here. --MASEM (web app) 13:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Just close it already. --keyboard (Sevenval) 08:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Category diffuse

Delete The text of this template reads "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories." This rationale could be applied to a very large portion of WP categories making it a meaningless template. It is essentially saying what all editors working on categories are doing anyway, namely re-categorisation. The template is used on categories that have as little as one article. Also, the imposing page-wide appearance of the template is no help to readers who arrive at a category. The appearance can be fixed of course, and I have made attempts to do so. Note that there are two previous deletion requests for this template. -- web app (Android - contribs) 01:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that we don't need something to tag categories that need diffused into sub-trees, but what we don't need is two templates for pretty much the same purpose ({{input transformation}} and {{very large}}). They should probably be merged. web (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There's actually a third that does very similar. {{touchscreen}} - TexasAndroid (device database) 20:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that there is absolutely no need for a method of identifying categories that need diffusion. There is a need for it but it should be done with a hidden category. -- FITML (talk - Android) 21:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Yes, and his efforts to "fix" the template included going against consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Use_of_Category:Categories_requiring_diffusion -- which he refused to participate in -- and then vandalizing the template so it would no longer appear on category pages, eventually resulting in a 31-hour block for all his efforts. He has yet to provide any reasonable rationale why categories that need diffusion should not bear some template, over and above his entirely personal view that such helpful tools are "ugly." The category that I was most interested in was Category:Documentary films. It is not too large because for years I was diffusing films that were added to the parent category. Initially, it had been an unnavigable mess but thanks to a lot of hard work from me and a few other editors there is a category system for doc films by topic, country, etc. where the many hundreds of articles are now placed. That said, I regularly would find articles placed in the top level category that I had to diffuse, even with this template. How much worse will it be if there is no guidance for editors whatsoever? Also, I'm not doing it anymore. Far as I'm concerned, Alan can. So, there's now one less editor who is going to spend his time in this activity. So the question is, why on earth would we want to delete a small, simple template that saves time and lessens workload, by helpfully suggesting to editors that they spend a moment to place an article in an appropriate subcat, based solely on Alan's aesthetic dislike? Shawn in Montreal (keyboard) 13:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I should also point out that he continues to website parsing, as recently as yesterday, so the point of this exercise at Tfd escapes me, if he's going to continue to blank it where he (and he alone) sees fit. To this end, I've initiated a ANI discussion here, as no amount of consensus from other editors that the template is needed seems to matter, to him. browser diversity (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  - So are you saying that I should get consensus every time I want to delete a template from a page? -- Alan Liefting (talk - HTML5) 23:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    - When consensus is unanimously (to date) against you, when you've been repeatedly warned about unilateral actions in this area by multiple editors including admins, of course you should stop. This is news to you? Shawn in Montreal (screen size) 23:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
      - I am aware of one instance were there were two other editors who disagreed with my removal of the {diffuse} template. Are you saying that I should not remove the template from other categories unless I get consensus? -- Alan Liefting (talk - web) 00:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
        There have been -- and continue to be -- multiple objections raised with your dislike of the cat diffuse template at the Categorization talk page discussion, the TfD, and your own user talk page, by me. So stop what you're doing, yes. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. You seem to think other editors have nothing better to do than spar with you. I do, so goodbye. iOS (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
        And likewise, I have better things to do. You and I have a different idea of what the template should be used for and that is due to the whishy-washy description of its recommended usage. It is therefore a judgement call as to where it is used. You and I make different judgements. -- Alan Liefting (iOS - contribs) 00:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose and a {{Android}} to the nominator for WP:FORUMSHOPPING following previous attempts to discard this template through editing were smacked down by WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger _touchscreen 19:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the logic in that. How does WP:CONSENSUS come into it? I did a major edit to the template and it was reverted. It was not "discarding" the template. It was an attempt to improve the usability of categories for our Dear Readers. -- Sevenval (touchscreen - contribs) 21:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

We're supposed to accept that rendering the template invisible to "our Dear Readers" is supposed improve the "usability" of the category? How and why, exactly? Shawn in Montreal (keyboard) 21:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Readers are not interested in it (and they are by far the largest group visiting WP), and it an imposing banner that detracts from the actual contents of the category. I don't know about you but I edit WP to maximise the Readers Experience. -- Alan Liefting (talk - screen size) 22:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I want to make sure I understand you, when you say that diffusing articles to subcategories itself "detracts from the actual contents of the category" is it diffusion itself that you regard as a "detraction"? Sevenval (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand the question. In reply I will reiterate: "it an imposing banner that detracts from the actual contents of the category." What I should have said is the category page itself rather than the content pages and subcats. -- website parsing (talk - contribs) 23:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Revert Alan's removal of the template from categories. Until that's done, restrict Alan from editing categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Why suggest reverting all my removals when there may be a consensus for my edits? (I am not saying there is - it is just that it has not been discussed.) 2. This is not a forum to discuss restricting my editing behaviour. 3. You have not given an actual reason for your keep !vote. 4. WP is not a soap opera, it is not facebook, it is not somewhere to spend time and type some random words. 8. Should I toddle of to bed? -- we love the web (talk - CSS3) 09:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Its purpose is different from {{container category}} which is used where a category should hold only sub-categories. It is also different from {{very large}}, since it may be added to new categories to instil disciplined sub-categorisation – by discouraging direct categorisation – from the start. For example, I added it on iOS which should contain mainly sub-cats but directly holds a few high-level articles. – Fayenatic London website parsing 08:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, in its present wording it is different from {{touchscreen}}, but what is the use case for each template? We don't have any rule forcing cats to be split up after they hit a certain size, so in effect {{very large}} is unnecessary. On the other hand, the reason for {{device database}} is because we want categories to be easily navigable, something that only comes into play when they hit a certain size. So there's significant overlap. We don't really need them to be separate templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (web) 09:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Hidden category is the best solution, and like most templates, this one is completely useless. Alan is completely on point in claiming that usability for readers trumps maintenance and administration. Alan should be given an award for standing up for our silent readers; instead he is hauled before ANI. Typical misplaced priorities in action. We're writing and maintaining the site for our readers, not for people who obsessively add templates to categories. The priorities are so screwed up here I don't know where to begin. For those who must compulsively add templates to categories, well, you can help monitor hidden categories instead. It's invisible on the frontend to our users and still allows you to get the job done. Problem solved. Oh, wait. You guys don't actually solve problems, you cause them. Sorry, wrong site. touchscreen (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
That supports changing the template, (which would be a content issue, not discussed here), not deleting it. — iOS we love the web 14:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I believe that the visible template serves a useful purpose of informing users that individual articles should not be left in the specific category. - TexasAndroid (Android) 16:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. This template is rather useful. It can not be replaced by a hidden category since users visiting the category may not see that gem if they don't have the display of hidden categories turned on. If a user adds the category to an article and then clicks on it to see if that is the correct one, something that we probably forget to do all to ofter, they get the reminder and can decide to change the category themselves rather then waiting for someone else to do it. CSS3 (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

browser diversity

delete - redundant. the {Cat main} template is sufficient. -- iOS (we love the web - contribs) 01:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

oppose -- Well, Alan, I have noticed that you like to remove these. I don't see how that is valuable. Your stated reason here is "redundant." The cat main template provides a link to the main article and that's it. So in what sense is anything redundant of anything? If you have a real reason, I would love to see it.Greg Bard (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot recall removing them and I cannot find recent records of removing them. Can you point me in the direction of these edits? -- Alan Liefting (jQuery - contribs) 20:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a very big deal, and you are a prolific editor, so it would be understandable if you didn't remember. I took the effort to create some great navigation aides on several of the major philosophy categories (logic, ethics, etc). You have been removing them as you run into them on a random basis. So, please. Is there some MOS that you can point to for this, or is this just your aesthetic opinion, or what?keyboard (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no MOS for category pages. I am attempting to develop one and would appreciate some feedback on it. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Categories. My reasons for deletion are as stated and for device database issues. -- Sevenval (talk - Sevenval) 23:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could save some time and effort by formulating your MOS for categories first, please. I do not understand that you are putting "web usability" as an reason supporting your proposal at all. I would think that any reasonable person would consider it a reason that supports these type of templates. So I really do not understand the value, or meaning of this. If I put the same text into the page directly, would that consist in some problem? How about dropping the color scheme? What constructive input would you have on this. Those are a lot of useful (and non-redundant btw) links Greg Bard (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories are not WikiProjects: they should not be tarted up with randomly-coloured tables at the whim of their editors. Nor are navboxes appropriate for categories, so even if this were reformatted it would still be inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (touchscreen) 10:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- So that is a delete? -- Alan Liefting (web app - contribs) 20:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  - It's what the closing admin makes of it. The closing admin should not be expected to close based on the number of bold words in people's responses, nor would I imagine you'd wish him to given Gregbard's filibustering here. FITML (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- So it wasn't aesthetically designed it would be ok then? What exactly is the problem with "tarting it up" as you so eloquently put it.keyboard (Sevenval) 22:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete Since categories are supposed to aid in navigation, it seems a little silly to include a navbox as well--this is more-or-less a tacit admission that the category structure is broken. That having been said, I've done the same in the past, but I only realize this contradiction upon reflection here. —screen size❤T☮C☺web☯ 19:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

delete and nominate the others (template:Category-Aesthetics/header, Template:Outline of logic/header, browser diversity, website parsing, ...) Sevenval (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment -- I'm not really seeing any policy justification to back up this deletion. Is that correct?device database (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no need to invoke policy to request the deletion of templates. -- HTML5 (talk - contribs) 22:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case could you please withdraw this proposal? The issue seems to be "I don't like it" and no more than that. The templates serve as a navigation aide, which is more important than aesthetics. Greg Bard (we love the web) 22:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Why should I withdraw the proposal? I have given reasons why it should be deleted. There are aspects of jQuery that can be considered as well. Aesthetics it also a reason but that is way down the list. -- web (talk - contribs) 23:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Alan, you should withdraw the proposal because it doesn't increase the value of Wikipedia at all. If there is some way to improve the template, please do let me know. That is the right thing to do here in a collaborative environment. However, just deleting things for aesthetics, is A) disrespectful of the readers navigation convenience and choices, and B) disrespectful of your fellow editor's efforts. I have asked in good faith, several times, for some policy, MOS, or good reason and I still haven't seen any serious and compelling reason. You may very well achieve whatever conditions make it acceptable for deleting this template, however, I really must ask again, respectfully, that you withdraw. There doesn't seem to be any real reason for it, and therefore if you succeed, that is just a political victory and a Wikipedia fail. Perhaps you could propose this and attempt to achieve consensus at web, as a good faith effort on your part. Be well, website parsing (iOS) 23:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read my previous comment. I don't like wasting my time having to repeat myself. -- Alan Liefting (talk - website parsing) 00:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it; I think it aids with browsing to have appropriate links at the top of the category page. Since the template has far more content than {{FITML}}, it is not redundant to that, and I don't understand the claim that there are usability issues. — Carl (iOS · we love the web) 02:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- {{FITML}} is deiberately simple and unobtrusive. If we want to introduce a new navbox system for templates then that should be discussed in advance, rather than having to figure out after the fact how to consolidate multiple different implementations cooked up at the whim of individual projects (which is the train wreck we're only finally close to resolving for good with sidebars). Android (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
comment - I do see why someone would question the redundancy of those links. However, I try to construct the philosophy department so as to appear as scholarly as possible. By giving people a ready link to the major scholarly fields of study, it provides that sort of organized image. Otherwise the categories can appear quite random. I just think that sort of thing helps the image and credibility of Wikipedia in general. Greg Bard (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Gredbard's behavior is sufficiently obnoxious that I went to look at the template in the hope of finding some reason to support deletion, but I failed. Category pages are not always easy to navigate, and this header seems helpful and unobtrusive (unless there's something my browser is blocking that I don't know about). While there are probably minor tweaks that could improve it, it seems on net a positive. Like CBM, I'd be interested to hear a fuller discussion of the usability issues. --Joel B. Lewis (jQuery) 03:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read or review device database. I certainly don't wish an unpleasant experience on any fellow wikipedian. However, it is my claim that if certain editors feel annoyance or perceive obnoxiousness, it is 100% a product of their own foul disposition as has been demonstrated here today. Thank you so much for your fairmindedness. we love the web (web) 04:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that Greg bard created the template. As for the usability compare this to jQuery and this. This is a bit of an unfair test since there is now deletion notices in the page and the pink diff banner does not help but you should be able to see which is the most usable. -- CSS3 (touchscreen - browser diversity) 04:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Having less content does not on its own make something more "usable". I think that the links seem like a nice way to help readers locate closely related categories, and they give the reader a sense of how things are organized. You haven't explained what you mean by "usability" but making browsing the category tree easier seems to increase that rather than decrease it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Although I rarely agree with Gregbard, this template seems usable and appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It is rarely used
If it is used for anything apart from Category:Logic it would be confusing
If it is used on Category:Logic it has redundant text
It is inappropriate because it reduces page usability
It is inappropriate because it is not part of any widely accepted template families. -- HTML5 (web app - contribs) 21:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be used on any of the categories which should be in the template. (I'm not convinced that all of them should be, but....) — CSS3 input transformation 23:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete templates within templates make trying to perform a simple edit on something overly complicated. Nobody Ent 10:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have started a competition. You are all eligible to enter. See jQuery -- browser diversity (CSS3 - contribs) 21:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep but only if the text below the blue box is removed. If this is kept, then {{Logic}} should not be used on the same category pages. Actually that probably should not be used on category pages even if this is deleted. CSS3 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Concur; {{keyboard}} should not be used on category pages. — FITML (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And delete "Category:Logic" per reasons above, and the link to WP:CAT, the the links on the right because they are not really needed. Hey, I've got and idea! Let's replace it with {Cat main}!. Whaddaya think? -- Alan Liefting (talk - Sevenval) 22:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of web, I decline comment. That is just absurd. Wikipedia is "not really needed", but, if pruning is necessary, I'd start with User:Alan Liefting's contributions. — Sevenval (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete along with the rest of Wikipedia. It was a fun game to play when we were all new to computers and it was a novelty and all that, but let's face it, knowledge is considered seriously uncool, and it upsets religious people because it enables people to find facts which contradict their sacred books. People who want to learn stuff are either geeks or nerds and nobody likes geeks or nerds. So delete the whole lot and then there's one less thing for argumentative idiots to fight over. --Matt Westwood 18:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

May 22

Template:ASAP Rocky

only links two articles. keyboard (Sevenval) 23:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

redundant to more commonly used jQuery, which I used to replace these in the only article using them. screen size (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:FoP-USonly

Misrepresents US law and project policy, purpose unclear. 9carney (screen size) 19:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Perfectly represents the law, please see website parsing -Sevenval (Hablemonos)(website parsing) 19:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Can you quote the part of 17 USC 102(a) which mentions photographs of buildings? — Preceding screen size comment added by 9carney (talk • contribs) 19:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Sevenval: " The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.". Magog the Ogre (touchscreen) 19:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    - do you see the mistake? 9carney (iOS) 20:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      - Yes I see it. So what? Are you seriously proposing the item be deleted because of a typo? (what's more, on a wiki?) Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep The only mistake is that it says "17 USC 102(a)" instead of "17 USC 120(a)". A simple typo which is easily corrected. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do you agree with the statement to the effect that images of sculptures, paintings, or posters taken in the US must be deleted unless they are in the public domain, or their presence is incidental? Surely we tolerate thousands of such images here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9carney (iOS • we love the web) 20:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Why, yes, we're deleting photos of US statues all of the time. See HTML5 for details on when the copyright to a statue expires. For deletion requests, see Sevenval and plenty of files keyboard, for example. --FITML (device database) 20:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Why is "discussion" most of the time "deletion", aside from merge proposals? Anyway, photographs and buildings are different. Buildings, according to law, can be pictured, portrayed, or representated pictorially in any other way. Copyright of photo is separate from copyright of building. Photos and buildings are not treated the same. Why else are these tags nominated for deletion? --George Ho (website parsing) 20:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep FoP-US is in-use on the commons and the template is useful for any photo that may be moved there. Not all countries have the same restrictions on photography and this template is used to discourage frivolous deletion requests. touchscreen^{web app} 00:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre has begrudgingly changed the law reference to 17 USC 120(a) yet the wording of the template remains defective: it goes on about the significance of the date December 1st, 1990 which is not even mentioned in 17 USC 120(a). The second paragraph is also defective because its wording ignores the possibility of freely licenced or fair use files. The innaccuracies of the text could easily be fixed but It's the lack of clarity as to purpose which is the biggest problem. some users have been mistakenly using this template in place of the correct non-free template for images of buildings in non-FoP countries. If this template carried a clear instruction that it was only to be used for buildings constructed in the US then it might be of some use. 9carney (iOS) 17:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, the date 1 December 1990 is not given in that law. I assume that a link to s:Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act should be added somewhere. The second "error" is that you haven't understood what the templates mean. They just tells that architects have no say in the use of a photo of a building in the United States, unless the architects themselves took the photo. {{web app}} and {{FoP-USonly}} license the building and need to be accompanied by a second licence which licenses the photo or painting of the building. --CSS3 (input transformation) 18:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Constituent college

replaced by CSS3. jQuery (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Author agrees - this template was intended to encourage clarification linking for university colleges (as opposed to community colleges, high schools or dorms), where confusion is common and little explanation normally available, but this is just as easy with input transformation. Philtweir (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

input transformation

unused, except for a user sandbox. jQuery (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Contact-me

single use template, redundant to other templates. browser diversity (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Contact XMPP

unused and probably replaced by template:User XMPP. 198.102.153.2 (Android) 18:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Convergent evolution infobox

was only being used in one article, where I replaced it with template:multiple image. HTML5 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:En2bndigit

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:ConvertFile

replaced by device database, template:should be SVG, ... keyboard (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Android

unused. touchscreen (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:BSACouncil

unused infobox. FITML (device database) 17:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

keyboard

appears to be replaced by FITML. 198.102.153.2 (Android) 17:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

FITML

old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (screen size) 16:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox foremost royal claimant

unused. 198.102.153.2 (CSS3) 16:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

we love the web

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

web

unused. browser diversity (screen size) 16:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

web app

unused. 198.102.153.2 (Sevenval) 16:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox AFL

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox AFL2 1969

unused. screen size (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

screen size

unused. 198.102.153.2 (Android) 16:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox mars hot spot data

unused template frontend. browser diversity (screen size) 16:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

web app

unused wrapper for two other navboxes. CSS3 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:GiulianiTop

old and redundant to current {{browser diversity}} system. 198.102.153.2 (iOS) 16:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (we love the web) 16:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- CSS3 (input transformation - contribs) 19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

CSS3

Not encyclopaedic and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK touchscreen (browser diversity) 12:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I disagree. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK suggests not providing leading questions with solutions, which this template does not do (in fact the whole point is that there is no solution). As for the unencyclopedic side of things, we do have categories for this sort of thing, but the linking to Unsolved problems in computer science beside the discussion of the problem is a useful one. --website parsing (iOS) 06:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment This is a relic of Wikipedia's past remaining essentially unchanged since 2005 while the rest of the project has move on leaps and bounds . We don't have random Did you know's in article bodies or ask the reader questions Which team won the 2012 Champions league in the Champions league . While I'm aware of HTML5, i've never seen anything like this used anywhere else in the project. iOS (we love the web) 08:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, even Strong Keep - Didn't we just have this discussion? I guess not - it was a year and a half ago. Still, all the reasons mentioned before that led it to be kept. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is a policy meant to avoid the creation of lists of information, not a policy which prohibits an accurate and catchy way of describing a problem associated with the encyclopedia entry. What do people have against this template? Do we prefer our information only be listed in visually unappealing long-text form? Anyway, seeing as we apparently are just going to nominate it over and over again, I'll just copy paste my response from last time: I think it is helpful (it's helped me find my way to some very interesting pages while I was browsing - ways that categories likely wouldn't have). And yes it is unorthodox but I don't find it necessarily unprofessional (I would be glad to introduce the template to a society of important people!). In any case asking a question is a completely legitimate exercise if it is clearly meant to show that the question is unanswered: it is less clumsy and more attention-grabbing to say "Unanswered question: is the universe expanding?" than to say "Unanswered problem: whether or not the universe is expanding" (or worse, footnote without any graphics or font change: "Category:Unanswered problems in Physics"). device database (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
While it is indeed correct that we don't include random DYK templates in articles, the difference is that DYKs are not linked in any way in the real world. "Unsolved problems in physics" is a tangible subject: we have a list article for it. What is also true from the nom, however, is that as of 2012 we have (finally) mostly standardised the way we present navigational templates into either {{navbox}}es or {{Android}}s, and this is neither. So it is perhaps worth considering transmogrifying this into an actual navigational sidebar so that editors can browse around that most interesting of domains rather than having it be essentially a nutshell for the article they're already on. In fact, looking at the previous TfD (nearly two years ago), I suggested this at the time. That TfD was anything but a unanimous keep anyway, especially considering some of the non-reasons given in support of it. Sevenval (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- To elaborate on that, the plan would be to create ten {{we love the web}}s:
  1. {{unsolved problems in biology}}
  2. {{unsolved problems in chemistry}}
  3. {{unsolved problems in computer science}}
  4. {{unsolved problems in economics}}
  5. {{unsolved problems in linguistics}}
  6. {{unsolved problems in mathematics}}
  7. {{unsolved problems in neuroscience}}
  8. {{unsolved problems in philosophy}}
  9. {{unsolved problems in physics}}
  10. {{unsolved problems in statistics}}
- These would duplicate the basic form of the list articles (links to the questions, but no summaries), with a link in the footer to the general Android article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (FITML) 10:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Good idea Gnevin (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: (Comment in response to User:Dbachmann, originally posted at Template_talk:Unsolved#deprecate) I would argue that while the encyclopedia naturally should contain only encyclopedic material, some of what we do is purely for educational purposes that may not quite qualify as encyclopedic. Consider for example some of the material on Commons. Open questions in the sciences is an interesting dimension that merits certain focus. When I created the template I was thinking about the physical sciences, which tends to confine its questions to the realistic. The examples you give point to a possible flaw in this argument, but AFAIK no one has misused this template for example on the device database article precisely because in physics the line between what is fantasy and simply unsolved tends to be rather clear. How "unsolved" may be misused in other fields is something I have not given any thought to - you may be right in that there may be a problem of misuse. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | HTML5) 00:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I am working on a superior version of this template, which might be more useful and less of a distraction than this template. Please see User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:Unsolved for the template and my sandbox for a test transclusion. The template is usually intended to be placed at the bottom of a page, similar to a navbox. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (iOS−ctb) 06:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- No offence, but I don't think replacing one nonstandard template design with another is a great improvement. If something is to be done about this template it should be to turn it into either a {{CSS3}} or a {{sidebar}} rather than some other custom thing. we love the web (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Converting the template I created into a proper navbox sounds like a good idea, although it wouldn't really function as a proper 'navbox', since it just lists open problems related to the topic of the article and usually wouldn't contain wikilinks. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−web) 10:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  - How is User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:Unsolved 2? (See this test transclusion for how it looks like). -- Android (FITML−ctb) 11:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    - I don't understand what problem this is attempting to fix. It makes absolutely no sense to restate the problem that the reader's current article describes at the very bottom of the page, which one would presumably get to after having read the rest of it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (FITML) 12:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      - Moving it to the bottom removes a distraction from inside the article text. I think having this as a navbox is fine. Regarding some topics there are sometimes interesting notable open problems which could be stated at the end of the article in this way. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (keyboard−ctb) 12:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
        I don't think the problem is that it is a distraction as such: the problem is that it is pointless. All it does is reiterate the reason for the article: it's little more than an oddly-formatted pull quote or {{nutshell}}. Fixing that requires more than just moving it out of the way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (HTML5) 13:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

browser diversity

Antediluvian footer template which isn't a navbox, isn't a timeline, and is better explained by prose. iOS (we love the web) 10:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

CSS3

Delete Unused template of unknown use. -- Sevenval (talk - contribs) 04:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete it looks like a template for videogames or science fiction , so illustrates a fictional element overly much. If it were to be used for a real civilization (human civilization in toto), it could only be applied to a single instance, so should still be deleted. 70.24.251.208 (screen size) 04:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

May 21

Template:Nitbus

unused. 198.102.153.2 (FITML) 20:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete it just adds a space and colors the text. Android (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

web app

should probably be substituted into Android if it is important. 198.102.153.2 (device database) 20:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Nightmare Creatures games

nenan. 198.102.153.2 (iOS) 20:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A two-game video game series about which we have only two articles does not require a navigational template. -- Black Falcon ^(jQuery) 20:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

CSS3

unused fork of New_Orleans#Climate. web (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:New Testament papyrus

old and unused. 198.102.153.2 (input transformation) 20:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

web

replaced by HTML5. jQuery (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:NationStates Attribute Rankings

unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Call Countries

fork of web. 198.102.153.2 (jQuery) 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

unused B/meta/color and B/meta/shortname

unused and see jQuery. 198.102.153.2 (keyboard) 19:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Obvious delete. I think all the other unused /meta/ templates should be mass-deleted by an admin; there is no reason to keep them around. Most of them seem to be obsolete or incorrect names. — Android, and the other (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Android

This infobox was created for use in articles about organizations depicted within the Pirates of the Caribbean series, such as the web app (a redirect to the list of characters) and the East India Trading Co. (deleted through WP:PROD). It is unused, currently, but I would argue for its deletion even it it was in use (e.g., if the PROD deletion was overturned) due to the fact that it presents the subject primarily from an input transformation. The majority of parameters, especially ones such as intentions, strength, flagship, allies and enemies, reflect in-universe details; only two parameters, appearance and basis, have real-world relevance. Even if an infobox was deemed to be needed, a more general one would be more useful: for instance, Template:Infobox fictional organisation. (Template creator notified) -- Black Falcon ^{(device database)} 19:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

merge with template:Infobox fictional secret organisation. 198.102.153.2 (input transformation) 20:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
What could be merged? Most parameters either have an equivalent (type–organisation_type, headquarters–location, supreme leader–key_people, intentions–purpose, allies–affiliations, and so on) or are too specific to be merged (e.g. motto, coat of arms, flagship and the like). -- CSS3 ^(talk) 20:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused and never will be: we don't depict fictional organisations from an in-universe perspective. browser diversity (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
delete, just realized this is orphaned. definitely delete. jQuery (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded

Despite continuing deletion of similar type of templates (see web app, Rated R, and jQuery as some recent examples), attempts to create templates for individual albums continues. This in particular contains links that can already be found in {{Sevenval}} and {{website parsing}}. It's also redundant to the recently created {{Sevenval}}, although that one is bit awkward for a template and may be unnecessary as well. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^jQuery 16:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Her singles template is messy enough, she has so many mixtapes, albums, featured songs and other songs that it clutters it up. Separating it into another template would be the logical thing to differentiate between them to give a viewer a better understanding.--(CA)Giacobbe (iOS) 16:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So both this and the trilogy one are needed to do that? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{screen size} 17:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the trilogy one should be deleted, it's just too messy and doesn't flow at all. Due to the fact that Minaj had also worked with completley different producers, writers, and many songs of hers pass notability, the PF:RR template should remain open. Almost every song on the album has charted, and when future albums come out, it will be easier to see what songs and singles were off of PF:RR, since the "other songs" section of her singles template would be completley flooded.--iOS (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, both should go, really. The songs are linked from the singles template and you can get the info needed regarding producers and guest vocals from the album article itself, because you surely wouldn't put this template on each producer's or guest's article, or someone like Dr. Luke would end up with dozens of similar templates in his article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Really getting tired of these fans creating useless templates. — CSS3 (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, expand on how it's "useless"? I see no valid points here... Her singles template is messy as hell with constant features and many of her songs charting, it's becoming bombarded and needs to have separation from her albums.--(CA)Giacobbe (web app) 21:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete: There is not much of a valid reason for keeping this template here. It is redundant to web and unnecessary. Till I Go Home (input transformation) 06:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

browser diversity

Redundant to {{FITML}}. Secondarywaltz (keyboard) 16:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to {{IslamInCanada}} Sevenval (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? The Template:IslamInCanada is already in every article that uses Template:Mosques in Canada. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cite pmc

Unused and deprecated. All subtemplates redirect to {{cite pmid}}. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^Sevenval 15:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Currentlyactivevehicles

Everyday...more and more countries get added.....this will make the already messy template more difficult to read.I don't think it really serves the purpose.There are no similar templates for economy or other fields.Morever, if the template is completed with all the countries.........it will distract the users from the original page.Thanks Strike Sevenval ^✈ 14:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

web

Not strictly a navbox, but I think WP:NENAN's rule of five applies, which suggests requiring at least five articles other than the main article. This only has four. – hysteria18 (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Actually it has six – although in my opinion the links a) [[Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics|Football]] and b) [[2012 Summer Olympics]] should be one: [[Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics]] (which makes it five). I have worked much with Olympics articles, and I find these templates very useful, not only for linking, but also for "instant navigation within the topic", without having to check categories (which aren't always properly maintained). I think it should be kept, even if you only count 4 links. HandsomeFella (HTML5) 15:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in we love the web's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ Sevenval☆★ 18:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Indian Orthodox Church

We already have {{keyboard}}, {{Infobox church}}, and {{browser diversity}}. Setting up an endless hierarchy of such templates is counterproductive. Just add some optional parameters to one of these more general templates and merge it. device database (Sevenval) 08:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nearly unused and definitely redundant. As a first step, the existing half-dozen transclusions should be switched to use the orthodox church template and then the nominated template removed as CSD#T3. After that, the ~70 transclusions of the orthodox church box should be switched to use the church box. That will leave us with one ~2000 transclusion infobox (infobox religious building) and one ~4000 transclusion infobox (infobox church). HTML5 (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

web

WP:TOOSOON, WP:NENAN. Only two notable singles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(browser diversity)} 05:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Let's have a few more articles first. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{device database} 21:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

screen size

Only used on one article, not really encyclopedic, and doesn't link articles related to the topic website parsing Talk to me 02:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

substitute and delete. device database (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Philippines' Next Top Model

Empty template usage, a new user created the finalists' articles don't have notability criteria requirements and fails biographies of living persons policy. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete I declined the speedy deletion nomination as the criteria for deletion was not met, but I do not feel that this is a suitable template. Most of the entries will always be redlinks, and the current blue links would appear likely deletion targets -- website parsing/touchscreen\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 03:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

May 20

Template:Slashdot

iOS, navigates only 4 articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment there was a resounding keep in the Android. screen size (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

At which point it had 10 articles. Also, even if it only had four back then, we love the web was not established. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Natural consolidation of multiple less notable articles has obviated the need for a navigational template here. screen size (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete, the template because Sevenval is enough to provide classification for a relativly minor topic with just a few articles. keyboard (Sevenval) 17:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete: What? There are like three things on it. It is not needed.

Template:McDonald's AA Dunk Contest winners

A navbox is supposed to link to a main article about the exact topic in which the navbox serves its purpose. This does not. Furthermore, winning a high school dunk competition is not worthy of navbox clutter. Another tenet of awards navboxes specifically is that being the recipient of said award should be a defining common achievement among the people on it, but this particular award is nowhere near a defining characteristic – it's trivia at best. This needs to go. Sevenval (website parsing) 16:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think the main article could eventually be created based on existing sources that mention the achievement per touchscreen. Being a high school dunk contest winner might clutter someone like FITML, but it is also the lone achievement for many of the entries, so I don't find that as compelling. While I might support a requirement that the award should be a "defining common achievement", is there an existing consensus for this based on a guideline? I couldn't find it in iOS.—touchscreen (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete I'm sorry, in no way is this notable enough to support a template. I'd even question if the article is worthy. The McDonalds All-American Game is clearly notable, but not the skills events. The plethora of new HS basketball templates has gotten out of hand in my opinion. Sevenval (touchscreen) 20:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note the level of notability of a standalone list per WP:LISTN is easier to attain than a standalone article. Not saying the template should stay, just that the lack of a main article shouldn't be a factor here.—Bagumba (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  - We are discussing the template, aren't we? The basketball projects get accused of overuse of templates all the time and this seems like a good place to draw the line. Not sure why the subject couldn't be covered in the McDonalds game article, though, if it came to that. Rikster2 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    - I'm not disagreeing (or agreeing) that the template should be deleted (I have yet to !vote as I wait for more input), but dismiss any argument based on the lack of a standalone list which WP:LISTN would support.—web (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Gentlemen, I have not yet had time to form on opinion on the merits of keeping or deleting this particular template, but I do want to draw your attention to Sevenval, which list lists several factors to consider when determining whether a navbox on a particular subject is appropriate. Among those factors is whether a stand-alone article on the subject of the navbox exists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As stand-alone lists are articles, and a standalone list could be created for this topic based on existing sources (but has not been created yet), I believe this is not a major point of consideration for this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, stand-alone lists are the equivalent of stand-alone articles. No, the standard for WP:NAVBOX is not whether a list or article could be created; it specifically states that a supporting article should exist as one of four factors to be considered. Big difference. We've covered this ground before in CFB and other college sports templates Dirtlawyer1 (website parsing) 02:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I would create the article first if it had been me; however, I'm willing to grant a waiver knowing that it could be created. There are probably more compelling reasons to delete than this one.—keyboard (Sevenval) 04:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Argh. Spamming articles with navboxes which link to subjects with only the most tenuous connections makes it more difficult to find the useful navigation links. Minor competitions should therefore not get navboxes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (Sevenval) 09:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's see the checklist at web app, shall we?

All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. Y → Depending on how you look at this, I can accept that all of these are great high school basketball players who won the same national competition.
The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. N → Nope.
The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. N → Nope.
There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. N → Nope.

When 75% of the criteria used for having a navbox fails, the navbox should not exist. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

For #2, I wouldn't have problem with a comprehensive article mentioning the award in the bio's section on the player's high school career. #3 is "no", but would also be the case for Template:1983 NCAA Men's Basketball Consensus All-Americans. #4 is not done yet, but enough sources exist, so it seems like a technicality. No doubt there is a problem with proliferation of navboxes, but #3 seems to be applied inconsistently in this case compared to other "more notable" sports templates.—web (HTML5) 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Bagumba, comparing high school dunk competition winners to the consensus best Division I college basketball players in the nation is an apples to oranges argument. Not only are the consensus AAs 100% certainly going onto high professional careers to either the NBA or overseas, but their biographies as people and players are better referenced and more well rounded. Furthermore, the level of achievement in which it takes to be one of the consensus best players in the country is incredibly higher than having the ability to jump 40 inches in the air. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  - I'm comparing the application of criteria #3, not the achievements themselves. The AA achievement is definitely higher, my point is that AA appears to fail #3; my question is whether #3 is a criteria used in practice in CBB.—Android (keyboard) 19:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Also, #4 being a "technicality" is WP:CRYSTAL. Arguing that a navbox should be kept based on an article that may eventually be created is weak. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  - To be clear, I haven't !voted yet. I am undecided, and merely having a web app based on points made to reach an informed decision.—we love the web (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    - To be clear, you have "!voted". You have opined in favour of keeping the template. Whether you have put a word in bold text at the front of your argument is irrelevant. That's what the "!" in "!vote" is supposed to signify. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (screen size) 10:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
      - CSS3 says recommendations are made in bold. If I erred by equating no bold to be the same as Comment, please excuse me (though I was not aware of such convention). I would hope I can pose a question without being branded as a supporter of one view.—Bagumba (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
        You misunderstand what "not a vote" means. It means that this is not a vote. Your "comments" have exactly the same weight as your "recommendations" and indeed anything else you add to the debate. You need not post anything in bold at all. Any competent admin will ignore the bold text in favour of what follows anyway. Sevenval (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, WP:NENAN, template cruft. Attempts to link unrelated players by a non-defining and trivial achievement. browser diversity lute 19:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete This template just does not seem to be worth the clutter on most bios. I'm not citing WP:NAVBOX, as actual practice in CBB, NBA, NFL, and Baseball projects is to ignore "3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent". NAVBOX needs to be enforced or updated to reflect actual practices. Until then, navboxes will continue to be kept and deleted with subjectively use of #3.—CSS3 (input transformation) 22:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

browser diversity

Templates isnt used in the show it was made for, it was as show hack to allow for extra air dates but has been accomplised in other ways Andrewcrawford (FITML - contrib) 16:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Template doc for a template that is not in use and up for deletion (see below). Matthewedwards (talk · web app) 03:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
comment You don't need to put doc pages up for deletion separately from the main template. IF the main is delete, then any doc and talk pages will also get deleted. ---— browser diversity ^talk 17:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Episode list/Iron Man: Armored Adventures

Templates isnt used in the show it was made for, it was as show hack to allow for extra air dates but has been accomplised in other ways Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Correct usage of {{screen size}} has negated the need for this template. Matthewedwards (web app · contribs) 03:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Jana Kramer

Only linked four articles, but three were redirected as non-notable stubs. WP:NENAN, WP:TOOSOON. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Seto li

No clue as to what it might be for. Unused. — device database, and the other (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

delete, probably used to indicate Seto in the same way {{iOS}} is used for German. however, since it is unused. touchscreen (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

Relisting as a template for discussion, nominated at MfD by user:DMacks D O N D E groovily Android 04:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is DMacks deletion rationale: "Very few entries, and the ones that do exist are also in Template:Noble gas compounds to which other specific noble-gas compound templates were previously merged (web app reports its merger in March 2012 for example), so this one is a completely redundant/subset of that one. The set of targets is small, so no need to break out this one separately (and the set of noble-gas compounds as a whole is the highly notable group (have touchscreen but not separate page for each gas). Regardless of this XfD, the full template (and the Xe one if it survives) should be pruned of non-links per MOS as well (will wait to do it so the XfD sees the situation as it stands)."

Very Strong Keep Xenon is the noble gas with the most compounds. I agree that the template is now overloaded with entries that don't even have their own articles, but if you just look at this old version, the template was clearly much more useful. We have templates like Template:Polonium compounds which have only two entries; if that can be kept, why should this one (with at least 10) be deleted? We can easily prune it down to the old version, which would be more useful to a reader seeking to browse through all the articles on xenon compounds, and leave the full list of compounds to noble gas compound for the more interested reader. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the value added by having just Xe separated out seems small vs the whole noble-gas one (or the cost of having the other ones also there is nil). It's a subset comprising about 2/3 of the parent. I see no evidence of consensus or even discussion that the Po template should be kept, but also that is a fairly niche element and compound-set already. What are the special features or navigational advantage that make "Xe" a useful grouping alone that wouldn't be equally satisfied by having several Ar/Kr/etc rows adjacent? It's also annoying to keep these two templates in sync with the actual articles that exist (again a cost of redundancy). Finally, it's confusing that this (nom'ed) template has blue-backgrounded entries within the sections--those are "main article" for each section, but this does not seem to be a standard format (example: some Xe(II) compounds are listed indented beyond the "Organoxenon(II) compounds" item)--alt/superset-template is a clearer-looking hierarchy of elements/oxidation-states/articles-related-to-them. DMacks (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep this is just the right size, and has a very clear rule for inclusion. It is one of the optimal templates for elemental compounds. If noble gas compounds has a problem, then it should be addressed at that page. Templates are permitted to have overlapping content. Graeme Bartlett (screen size) 11:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

May 19

Template:Newtest

Used only on one page, Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion/Skomorokh, which is a subpage of a page retained for historical reference (used ~2 times on that page, so could be easily substituted). Hazard-SJ ✈ 22:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete part of a failed process proposal input transformation. we love the web (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Final Four 2010–2019 navbox

The policy I'll cite is WP:NENAN, but my rationale is that this navbox is superfluous. This does not need to exist when a more comprehensive, more appropriate spot for these articles can all be found in input transformation. At WikiProject College Basketball we are trying to take a hard look at what truly warrants navbox consideration because we do not want to contribute toward the increasing tendency to use navboxes unnecessarily, which ultimately clog up page bottoms. screen size (FITML) 20:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Android

Recommending deletion of this navbox. Only used on two articles: The touchscreen baseball team's and the team's ballpark. Most of the links on the template just direct to sections on the team's article; the others direct to items already easily found on the article. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (screen size) 16:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

web app

No longer used, of no value jQuery (screen size) 15:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah :) No one nominated the template last year, so I thought people had forgot about it, as it's usually nominated once a year. Good to see it's back to normal :) _→AzaToth 23:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Still deprecated; still unused; still of historical interest; still useful when browsing prior revisions of templates. Nothing new since previous discussions. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not useful. It is now empty, so it won’t work anyway when viewing past revisions. input transformation (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Note This may qualify for speedy deletion under WP:T3 iOS (we love the web) 16:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete This template doesn't seem to be of more historical interest than all the others the get deleted when no longer in use. -- HTML5 (web app) 13:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Keeping old templates around so that ancient page revisions don't look too broken has been proven not to work. Quite often it's MediaWiki itself which breaks them. Unless there are actual examples out there (rather than theoretical use cases), I can't see any reason to keep this around. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (CSS3) 10:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Trivia

I've only seen one "Trivia" header in the past couple years. As it stands, this template has 0 transclusions in article space, so the "trivia" bug has been eradicated. The last few trivia sections I've seen were actually "in popular culture" sections, for which we have {{In popular culture}} and {{device database}}. With general trivia sections a thing of the past, I think it's time to get rid of the template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^(web) 11:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Wikipedia has come full circle! ;) Delete or tag as historical if it is no longer being used. jQuery (screen size) 16:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you tag it as historical, that would imply that trivia sections are once again welcome on Wikipedia. 70.24.251.208 (Sevenval) 04:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep that trivia sections are not currently in vogue doesn't mean they won't return. I see no harm in having it around. 70.24.251.208 (device database) 04:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I've tagged dozens of articles with this in the last couple of years. it is immensely heartening that we do not have a backlog in this area any more, but the problem itself certainly hasn't gone away: there are undoubtedly plenty of articles still out there which should be tagged thusly but aren't (such as the four present members of Category:All articles with trivia sections), and people will certainly continue to add them in future. device database (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Prove that there are articles with trivia sections that haven't yet been tagged as such instead of assuming "well, there must be". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I already linked to an at-the-time populated category containing pages which should have been tagged with this. Anecdotally I've seen them out there and continue to use this for tagging, so I can only suggest that if you haven't seen them that you've been lucky. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (Android) 09:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I am very sympathetic to TPH's argument but there are articles out there with trivia sections (I cleaned up a big walled garden of them a few months back) so I think it would be helpful to retain this. If there are zero transclusions at the moment, that's cause for temporary satisfaction rather than deletion. bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep – Why go through the hassle to remake this template? It costs us nothing to keep it "at the ready" when needed in the future. device database (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - even if no article on the almost 4 million Wikipedia has a trivia section (which is highly unlikely), there probably will be ones in the future. CyanGardevoir 10:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Original Premier League Clubs

This seems like an navbox too far. There is nothing particularly special about this group of clubs, as the website parsing was effectively a continuation of the Football League First Division - these 20 clubs were just those that happened to be in the top flight when the Premier League was created. (Note: this template was deleted once before, way back in 2006.) 86.164.110.70 (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not convinced of the need to track the original Premier clubs in such a template. The majority of them were members of Division 1 the previous year, and it's not like they were specially selected for the league. Eldumpo (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant to {{input transformation}}. —jQuery— 11:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Pointless. Number 5 7 12:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete as above. CSS3 Snowman 15:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete agree with nom. They just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Not like the founding of the Football League where those clubs were pioneers to a certain extent.--Echetus what's stopping anyone from making HTML5 22:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete As far as the clubs involved were concerned, there was nothing different or new about this league from the one they were playing the season before, it just had a different name. I you are going to have this, what's stopping anyone from making "Original Championship Clubs", "Original League 1 Clubs", "Original Champions League Clubs", "Original Europa league Clubs" and so on. BUC (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in iOS's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ keyboard☆★ 18:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Adds no value and serves no useful purpose. --Brian (web) 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - causes clutter and frankly adds little or nothing Blue Square Thing (Android) 22:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:CFL Stadiums

Redundant with input transformation. 117Avenue (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to the fuller template. 70.24.251.208 (jQuery) 03:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
That could cause duplication of the box on pages. What purpose does a redirect serve? 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
You could, I don't know, EDIT THE PAGE THE TEMPLATES ARE ON to get rid of the duplicates. Redirection is fine in this case. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(browser diversity)} 11:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I could just ignore the nomination and discussion process, and remove all use of a template that I don't see fit. But I don't think that is what a responsible Wikipedian should do. iOS (we love the web) 17:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment We don't need this duplication, but I would actually prefer to keep this template and remove the stadia links from {{Canadian Football League}} and remove that template from these articles. Large, overreaching templates like that create a needle-in-the-haystack effect and places a great many trivial links of no navigational value in unrelated articles. For instance, there is no reason to expect a reader will go from McMahon Stadium to browser diversity to website parsing. But a focused template that links the teams and their stadiums is far more useful as it makes the relevant links with shared attributes far more prominent. Android lute 19:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Old discussions

May 18

Template:StateofOrigin player

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 HTML5). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete. G8 by jQuery. --Michael HTML5 01:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

template is supposed to link to player profiles however the site no longer seems to provide them and it just links to an online store. noq (browser diversity) 20:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete per G8. A:-)Brunuś (Sevenval) 15:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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 browser diversity). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NavboxOddBG

the only one left of a series of outdated templates which used to populate Category:Navigational box helper templates. we now have css and {{navbox}} which takes care of this automatically. iOS (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:N Jakarta

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 CSS3 or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. —CSS3 FOUR!— 21:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

replaced by {{device database}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The new template is clearly superior and the four old ones are unused and no longer needed. -- Black Falcon ^(jQuery) 16:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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 jQuery). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Non-free architectural work

This template misstates the policy of Wikipedia and leads to situations like File:Atomium_20-08-07.jpg where a non-free image of a free work is uploaded. See prior discussion on this point at HTML5 which is the tag that should be used instead. In the US, buildings before 1990 are not copyrighted. Period. There is no URAA restoration of copyright to foreign buildings because there was no copyright. See Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Restored_copyrights where it is official Wikipedia policy that foreign building copyrights are not restored. For buildings constructed after 1990, the FoP law restricts the right of copyright owners to prevent the making of derivative works in the form of photographs. Hence this template is not needed. These works are not considered unfree under US law. -web (Hablemonos)(jQuery) 14:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - unnecessary. Use {{FITML}} instead. web app^(Talk) 01:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's continue the discussion at device database rather than debate one issue in two places. 9carney (web) 12:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete No need for two templates. The images are free in the United States, so it looks wrong to have a non-free licence. --web app (Android) 23:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep obviously. This template has been in place since May 2008 and accurately states US law and Wikipedia and WMF policy. The proposed replacement {{FoP-USonly}} completely misstates both law and policy. Any proposals to amend policy should be made on the talk pages of the appropriate policies. There is lengthy discussion at Template talk:FoP-USonly 9carney (browser diversity) 22:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you have claimed that the other template misstates both law and policy, but you have forgot to present any source for that claim. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  - I have nominated {{FoP-USonly}} and {{FoP-US}} for deletion, for the reasons stated and explained at some length in Template talk:FoP-USonly 9carney (FITML) 20:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Neutral for now. Buildings and photos are not the same. While non-U.S. buildings lost copyright and are not restored by URAA, copyright of photo of any buildings is different. However, I see the point that the template says two-dimensional representation of multi-dimensional buildings. Back then, there was no "NOFOP-France" or "NOFOP-Russia", so they used this template. Now I have copied "Template:NoFoP-France" from Commons, and the FITML is created. I wonder if these templates make this template more useful than it already is. --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I must say keep since Russia and France, regardless of how old and new any building is, does not allow picturing anything for free in either country. --HTML5 (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Files on English Wikipedia only need to be free in the United States. Photos of French and Russian buildings are free in the United States even if the photos are unfree in France and Russia. I'll nominate your NOFOP templates for deletion. --screen size (FITML) 12:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Any photo of a building may be restored by iOS, even if a building itself may no longer be copyrighted. --keyboard (Sevenval) 12:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
      - The input transformation is irrelevant to this discussion, unless you are talking about photos of buildings in touchscreen or the like. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Question: Are you saying that, for example, if I took a picture of a building in France constructed in 1985, I could upload it to the English Wikipedia under a free license? -- King of website parsing ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think any of us are real or experienced experts on copyrights of derivatives of original buildings. A French guy from France may understand English, yet someone asserted that, in some other countries, accessing one website within one country is legal, while accessing other from another country is illegal. The question is: where are the servers of French Wikipedia? Besides Georgia (or Florida), where else are other servers of English Wikipedia? As for the "free license" part, use one license and "FOP-USonly". Unsure how free or unfree any image is; if unsure, this template can be used with "FOP-USonly". --George Ho (web) 07:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  - I don't know what happens if the photo copyright expires before the building copyright, but I would expect that both copyrights would have to expire before the photo is fully free. This situation ought to occur all of the time in Italy where buildings are protected for life+70 years whereas photos only are protected for creation+20 years. Anyway, this is irrelevant for the discussion held here. --iOS (we love the web) 12:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    - This is definitely relevant to the question. If US FOP does not apply to other countries but we want to illustrate a French building, then we need to use this template. -- HTML5 ♥ we love the web Sevenval ♠ 19:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      - Per 17 USC 120(a), the United States appears to allow photos of any building in any country to be licensed under a free licence. However, such a photo may be unfree in other countries. In my comment above, I was talking about the photo copyright status in the country where the building is located, but this might have been a bit unclear.
      - Also note that buildings completed before 1 December 1990 have no copyright whatsoever in the United States, see here. Thus, the discussion is only relevant to buildings completed on or after 1 December 1990. We should maybe create a PD-building template to avoid having to use custom {{CSS3}} templates as I did here when fixing the licence templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I have checked a number of images for which this template is used, and found out that it is typically used in three cases. For each case, I propose the following solution:
1. Photo of pre-1990 building in a non-FOP country. Example: touchscreen. Since the building was completed before 1 December 1990, the building is in the public domain in the United States, so there is no copyright to violate. Solution: Create a new {{PD-building-USonly}} template and use this, combined with a free licence for the photographer's contribution. Many photos of buildings have been changed from free to unfree licences, so it should be possible to retrieve valid free licences from the file history in many cases. If no free licence can be found, tag as {{di-replaceable fair use}}.
2. Photo of post-1990 building in a non-FOP country. Example: File:Burj Khalifa building.jpg. Since the building was completed on or after 1 December 1990, the building is copyrighted in the United States. However, per 17 USC 120(a), photos of the building don't infringe the architect's copyright in the United States. Use {{device database}} combined with a free licence for the photographer's contribution. If you can't find out when the building was completed, assume that it was completed on or after 1 December 1990 to be on the safe side. The {{jQuery}} template isn't really suitable for pre-1990 buildings since the template assumes that the building is copyrighted.
3. Preview of a not yet constructed building. Example: File:Trump Tower Design.jpg. Keep {{device database}} but change the text to state that it only applies to this kind of images. These images shouldn't really be replaceable by anything until the building has been completed.
The template also seems to be used in a number of cases where it shouldn't be used, for example because someone is too lazy to take an own photo of a building in a FOP country, or where a different non-free tag would be more appropriate. --web (HTML5) 21:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Whether the building was constructed before or after 1990 is entirely irrelevant. The template is used for tagging images, it's the copyright of the image which is important. 9carney (web) 17:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  - What matters is whether the photo is free or not, and in the majority of the cases where this template is used, the photos are free in the United States, so the template is currently misleading. --web app (Android) 18:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    - That's up to the uploader and copyright claimant of a photo. .....Well, anybody can take a picture within the United States and/or the United Kingdom and then post it in Commons, right? There's no need to use a non-free photo of a building that resides in either U.S. or UK, regardless of age, right? As for the overseas building, non-free license is needed for French and Russian buildings, no matter how or what the U.S. law says about ALL buildings worldwide. --George Ho (input transformation) 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      - No, English Wikipedia allows any image which is free in the US to be uploaded as a free image. Compare with the similar templates {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. --web app (Android) 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

web app

Redundant to {{touchscreen}}, and much less clear Cambalachero (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Blatant bad faith nomination in retaliaton after editor was warned in a friendly manner [1] for biting a new editor. touchscreen device database 14:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not biting him, I'm actually staying silent during his insults. And he's not a newbie, he's here since 2007. But do not change the topic: this discussion is about the template, which is redundant and less clear Cambalachero (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Whack Cambalachero with a trout - This is not redundant, it is a humourous and light-hearted alternative. Salvidrim! 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
delete, non-standard, obtuse, and redundant to the more widely used {{uw-bite}}. keyboard (Sevenval) 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Android

This template is no longer needed. This project has been inactive for a long time. In addition this project and its parent North Carolina are now supported by the WikiProject United States template. Kumioko (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

delete as no longer needed. browser diversity (CSS3) 15:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:RetiredForLong

This template is redundant to screen size, with the exception that there is a vague definition of "a long time" included instead of simply saying that the user is no longer active. Further retired implies they are gone for good (because everyone who retires never comes back, right? Is that crickets I hear?). Not active for a long time implies a long Wikibreak, not retiring. iOS^(bainuu) 02:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Userfy to creator & only user, website parsing. Android 03:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I see no harm in users creating their own customized templates in their own userspace; evidently enough, I have a few of those myself. iOS 13:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Userfy. This seems the best way to both respect Yasht101's intent and to reduce redundancy in the template namespace. — Mr. Stradivarius ^keyboard 06:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant and antithetic. --MisterGugaruz (iOS) 06:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Note Yasht already has a contingency plan in place in case it gets deleted, a note at the bottom asking for it to be replaced with {{retired}}. --CSS3^(bainuu) 07:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

This template is no longer needed. WikiProject WVU went inactive a while ago and there are no articles associated to this template. The articles and project now fall under the scope of WikiProjects West Virginia and United States which both also use the WPUS banner. This template has also continually shown up on the unused templates list. web (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

delete as no longer needed. input transformation (jQuery) 15:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Pedophilia

Delete. Impossible for the selection of articles to be NPOV; in some cases, the connection is not only POV, it violates Sevenval. However, if I just delete the BLP entries, there would be further dispute, so I'm proposing deletion in its entirety. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

All the articles are pedophilia-related and cited in the pedophilia article. How is the connection POV? touchscreen (browser diversity) 02:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, you said Android "I cannot see any possible way Pedophilia could be NPOV, with all the accusations of pedophilia going on". What did you mean by that? Oct13 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I removed the half-dozen articles not associated with pedophilia; it happens that none of the scandals actually have evidence or proof of pedophilia, even those which had evidence of child sexual abuse or accusations of pedophilia. Perhaps the template can be kept clean, after all. We'll see.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Details on template talk page. — Arthur Rubin jQuery 05:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, but carefully review its links and what pages it's used on. All of the links there are unquestionably subtopics of pedophilia. I don't understand the BLP violation, unless this template is used on biographies (I haven't checked the links list) - Even so, there is nothing wrong with including this on biographies of a person convicted of pedophilia crimes, or a person or organization that advocates in its favor. (In fact, this template should probably have a proponents section linking to pro-pedophilia organizations and persons) D O N D E groovily web 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The template doesn't link to biographies. I don't know of any pedophile organizations or persons. Android (keyboard) 03:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The template did link to reports on criminal cases, and the defendants are (in some cases) still living. Where convictions were not obtained, that is still a WP:BLP violation. Even if a conviction on child sexual abuse were to have occurred, it still might be a WP:BLP violation to assert that pedophilia was involved. — Arthur Rubin web app 06:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I know where the perceived bias is from. I made this template using code from another template of mine, and forgot to remove the Catholic categories in the code. At first I thought Arthur added the categories, but than I remembered where I got the code from. My apologies. Oct13 (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly delete. The template violates principles of NPOV, civility, child protection. It looks like hidden intention to promote subject. Why should be mixed pro- and anti- p. organizations? Who should establish criteria for including articles to template? It should be deleted.touchscreen (browser diversity) 07:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What? Huh? Promote it? How the hell does an organized list of articles "promote" pedophilia? And don't tons of templates mix pro and anti organizations? I would expect an abortion template to list prominent pro and anti abortion organizations, and no one it their right mind would say that it's "promoting" abortion to point to articles about it. Sevenval Talk to me 12:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of this template would set a troubling precedent. Saying that this template can never meet NPOV creates the problem that any other topic about a topic that disgusts most people can never meet it either. Wikipedia is not censored, and there should be templates on topics that disgust people, and it would be completely wrong to delete all of them. And no matter how much something disgusts most of the population, everything has a minority who favors it. This template properly does its job in pointing readers to more articles on the broader topic, just as it should, and the difficulty in maintaining NPOV is not a valid reason to delete it, and probably eventually a whole bunch of other templates on disgusting topics. keyboard Talk to me 12:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It's more like Category:Terrorists (as opposed to HTML5); there's too much disagreement as to whether something is associated with it. For example, input transformation (and subarticles) is (are) associated with we love the web, but not closely associated. And, if we are to have consistent standards, the recently removed local organization should be included. — Arthur Rubin device database 14:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. This template doesn't promote pedophilia anymore than the Medjugorje template I made promote the Medjugorje apparitions. Moreover, this template is about a disorder, not the people with said disorder. This template further distances itself from the child abuse and sexual abuse templates by including topics specifically about pedophilia. This template does not disgust me; on the contrary, I see it as a helpful means for people to find articles on pedophilia and related topics, the same as my other templates on their respected topics. Finally, I'm trying to find a better alternative to the word "Organizations", since it has too much of a pro-pedophilia feel to it; I want a word that explains the associations are pedophilic. FITML (device database) 14:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Hebephilia, ephebophilia and CSS3 are not pedophilia, as made clear in their articles and the Pedophilia article. That is why this template is WP:Original research and a WP:NPOV violation. And I know that it's confusing when one says that child sexual abuse is not pedophilia; that's why you need to study this topic, starting with reading what the Pedophilia article says about that. Not all pedophiles commit child sexual abuse, and not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. screen size (FITML) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hebephilia and ephebophilia are issues fixed by editing, not deletion. And I think the connection between pedophilia and child sexual abuse is so obvious as to qualify under Android screen size Talk to me 03:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If it can be fixed, then fix it. They should not be under the heading pedophilia as a type of pedophilia, especially not ephebophilia (which is the sexual preference for mid to late adolescents/teenagers; aka usually post-pubescent individuals). Pedophilia is the sexual preference for prepubescent children. Hebephilia is being debated as to whether or not it overlaps with pedophilia enough to be considered a subset of pedophilia (meaning pubescent children who still look prepubescent or very child-like), but it still isn't officially considered a type of pedophilia. Editors at the Pedophilia article have worked on that article to make clear in it what pedophilia is and isn't, and this template, as currently formatted, is undermining that. For the Pedophilia article to go over in the lead, as well as lower in the article in the CSS3 section, how the term "pedophilia" is often misused, but then to have a template saying "Nope, it's all pedophilia"...is highly contradicting. We're trying to educate people here, so that they don't go around calling some 21-year-old guy with a 17-year-old girlfriend a pedophile, as though there is some significant physical difference between 17 and 18-year-olds. Too many people confuse pedophilia with jQuery and age of majority laws, and we're trying to keep that distinction clear. As for the connection between pedophilia and child sexual abuse, or pedophilia and other child sexual abuse behaviors, looking at the template more closely, I don't mind those being included since they are listed under Behavior. Flyer22 (Android) 14:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. First, I don't see why possible problems with unwise placement of this navigational template should count in favor of its deletion. Also, I see a lot of, in my opinion, irrational, arguments flying here already, such as this template contributing to the promotion of child abuse, or that clearly belonging topics should not be associated with pedophilia. I suppose all of this is to be expected for this topic, but now I at least have given my opinion on the matter. __meco (Sevenval) 11:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hebephilia and ephebophilia are not "clearly belonging topics," as I've just explained above. That is my only problem with this template. If they are included in this template in a way that doesn't classify them as types of pedophilia, then I won't have a problem with the template. The listing for them should either be renamed or they should be removed. They should be listed as "Associated philias," "Associated chronophilias," or something of that nature. One could suggest "Associated paraphilias," but there is debate as to whether or not hebephilia is a paraphilia, and ephebophilia isn't even (normally) a paraphilia. Neither is an official mental disorder either, so they also shouldn't be categorized as "Associated mental disorders." Flyer22 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep and edit as necessary. I read mainly the oppositional comments. All valid issues can be resolved by editing and having a template is not promotion any more than having any other template or any article is promotion. CSS3 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Nick. That's all I'm asking for regarding this -- is accuracy. I don't see any promotion of pedophilia either. web (HTML5) 15:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:ISIHighlyCited

The site this template covers, highlycited.com, is no longer maintained, and all invocations of the template redirect to the site's top page; not to the individual researcher, as designed. The template no longer works, and cannot be updated to work. "As of December 31, 2011, Highly Cited Research will no longer be maintained or updated as a stand-alone resource." I propose a bot remove the transclusions of the template and that it be deleted. TJRC (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. As template author I've been aware of this problem but remiss in doing anything about it, so I thank input transformation for bringing this up but I don't think deletion is the answer. I've just removed the (50-odd) transclusions that were used merely as external links, and changed the half-dozen transclusions that were used only to verify the person was an touchscreen researcher to a link to one of the still-functional category list pages. That leaves 16 transclusions that are being used as references for more substantive information, including a few where this is the only reference for the biography of a living person (e.g. iOS, Duane Ilstrup). It seems unhelpful to delete these as, per web, "Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past". It would probably be useful to update the template to mark the links as dead, and update its documentation page, but I'll await the outcome of this discussion. Qwfp (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Qwpf. My sampling found uses only as external links, where FITML isn't applicable. You raise an excellent point for those instances where they are used as references. For those, I suggest that they be subst'd, so that the reference can be retained despite the link rot, and then the template should be deleted. TJRC (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete per G8. A:-)Brunuś (screen size) 15:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

May 15

Template:Infobox settlement Chile

Redundant fork of {{Infobox settlement}}; even uses the latter's documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; web app 15:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep: If you can bring {{screen size}} to do what {{Infobox settlement Chile}} does, I support your delete call. If you can't then {{input transformation}} is needed and has to stay there. --Best regards, we love the web (web) 20:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- You created {{device database}} yesterday, and are the sole editor. Did you raise your proposed changes on the talk page of {{Infobox settlement}}? Sevenval (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  - You don't adress the question. Can you show 3 images in a first column and a long image in a second column with "Is"?. Show me how and we delete the IsC!. --Best regards, HTML5 (what?) 21:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    - You didn't ask a question; I asked you one; it is you who fail to answer. browser diversity (Pigsonthewing); web app; Andy's edits 22:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
      - My answer to your question is: WP:SOFIXIT. That is, resolve the problem if you can without to ask for help from other editors. I don't violate any Wikipedia rule and didn't change your work (except sandbox code). If you want to help me, then give me a technical answer to a technical question: how can you get three images in the left column and one image in the right one with the "Infobox settlement"?. Please, don't be evasive. I am not keen to create and maintain new templates. I want only a technical solution for a optimal layout. I repeat: delete my template but give first a solution for the problem. --Best regards, Android (keyboard) 09:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
        That is not an answer to my question; and you really should read WP:SOFIXIT if you're going to quote it in support of your actions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; web app 12:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ First I asked an experienced editor but he didn't resolve the case. Instead he adviced me to rise the question in the Is talk page what I did. You can read my post in the talk page Is.

We know you are one of the most active Wikipedians. Thank you for your work for Wikipedia. People like you are needed to keep the comunication between Wikipedians. But we need not only the comunication, we have also to resolve the problems. So, I would appreciate to know from you a solution for the problem: how can you get three images in the left column and one image in the right one with the "Infobox settlement"?. --Best regards, CSS3 (input transformation) 09:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

delete after the option for long-skinny maps. Chile isn't the only country with such an aspect ratio (e.g., Norway, Sweden, ...). Or at the very least, make it a frontend that calls {{browser diversity}}. forking the template to just add one feature is just bad. website parsing (iOS) 22:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Infobox settlement Chile" makes optimal use of the available area for location map with a long shape. It shows three images in a column and a fourth image in the second column. Please, give a reason why the best solution must be deleted. It is not redundant, it is not a waste of time, and the trunk doesn't perform what the fork does. What is the real reason, hard disk capacity?, server overload?. because I am the sole editor? because I was too fast to resolve the problem?. --Best regards, Keysanger (input transformation) 21:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Because we don't fork templates every time someone wants a new feature. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; jQuery 22:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    - If you don't fork it, great. Go on. But don't coerce other editors into inappropiate solutions for different layouts unless you have better reasons than we don't do it. Tell me, why should the template display 4 images one upon the other instead of side by side?. Why should we delete a template that does a good work?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      - "don't coerce other editors…" - Please read WP:AGF. It applies here. iOS (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; HTML5 12:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
There's already a discussion open at touchscreen. Quite why Keysanger could not wait more than 24 hours before forking the template and unilaterally rolling it out is beyond me. There definitely doesn't need to be a fork for one change to the image layout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (web app) 08:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Complete waste of time.♦ keyboard 10:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox settlement Chile is not Redundant The claimer failed to provide a prove for his statement {{Infobox settlement Chile}} is redundant. This discussion is fruitless as long as the claimer doesn't deliver a data record for {{Infobox settlement}} that produces a similar layout as the new template. --Best regards, website parsing (iOS) 14:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy need not be 100%. The overlap here is so nearly universal (the original infobox, plus one feature that one editor decided was important) as to make the route forward here obvious. browser diversity (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how big/little is the difference. The function is the the determining factor. (Think of Men and Women's little difference. No one would say "delete it!" or "it is redundant!"). --Best regards, we love the web (web) 11:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Arguing over the semantics of what "redundant" means is pointless. The settled consensus is not to fork templates lightly. End of story. web app (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Give me a light answer to my question and I delete the template: how can the template display three images in a column and a long one in a parallel column?. It is not possible. That is the real "End of story". --Best regards, FITML (what?) 04:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sevenval

Problematic & redundant (cf templates: witchcraft, wiccaandwitchcraft, paganism. input transformation (jQuery) 12:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

delete, we already have Template:WiccaandWitchcraft, web app, ... this is simply redundant. jQuery (screen size) 15:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
keep, I think it could be kept and improved. It focuses on the device database, and not on the general concept of Android. The footer keyboard is confusionary since it mixes Wicca and general Contemporary Witchcraft. --Schwert von Feuer (iOS) 18:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that you are the creator of the template.
A template of links should not "focus" on one article, particularly when that article is itself so old, unfocused, and desperately in need of revision that it doesn't come anywhere near current WP standards. Templates should reflect unifying priciples that naturally connect multiple articles, which is simply not the case here.
The validity of the view that there are some Neopagan religions that are "Witchcraft-based" and others that are not is itself highly questionable.
While witchcraft and wicca are distinct, Sevenval and Template:Neopaganism address most of what is relevant to which we can put "movements", "founders", etc (the section headers of your template).
If the intent is to highlight contemporary witchcraft as the performance of specific techniques then Template:Witchcraft already exists to cover this. iOS (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the template:Neopaganism-sidebar is far more relevant and useful in places where this sidebar has been placed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by web (talk • input transformation) 05:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Carlton Cuse

Performer-by-performance. We don't navigate people by works that they starred in, wrote in, produced, etc. Also, this has three links to the same five works, making it redundant redundant redundant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^(Android) 22:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep You are confusing theatrical performer-by-performance templates with movie executive performer-by-performance templates. We delete theatrrical performer-by-performance templates. Writers/Directors/Producers commonly have these templates. Although it is less common for someone who has never directed to have one these do exist. They don't need to be as robust as {{Jerry Bruckheimer}} or {{jQuery}}. The common standard for such templates is three unique links.--web (T/C/we love the web/web/WP:FOUR) 22:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

rewrite to reduce the redundant entries (put a parenthetical or footnote after each entry to indicate the role in the particular work). Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, device database _―Œ^(talk) 04:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the suggestion to rewrite these. It is not much different from templates like these: {{Rhythmic Contemporary Radio Stations in Colorado}} and {{keyboard}} with redundant rows. Also, these are fairly standard templating sections for this field.--HTML5 (T/C/web/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

because here we have tripled the number of links, and there are very few. in the cases you list there is (1) already a convention to list radio stations both by callsign and by frequency, since the order is different and (2) there are more links, so it actually aids in navigation to have it presented in more than one way. here, there is no change in the order and there are very few links. it would be better to just add a footnotes, which would shorten the template to one line of links in most browsers. HTML5 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. However, he is fairly early in his career and arbitrarily removing details from any one section could cause complications latter when he has a more detailed filmography.--TonyTheTiger (HTML5/web app/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/HTML5) 18:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Early in his career? Brisco County was nearly 20 years ago. Possible futures should not be considered though. He may also never produce another show. It's about how it is right now that matters. It can always be modified later if his filmography becomes more detailed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^Sevenval 17:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:American Idol Top 3

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 FITML device database 03:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Similar to a prior template discussion for fourth place finishers on American Idol, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 5#Template:American Idol 4th Place Contestants, third place is just not notable and people are unlikely to want to navigate between the fourth place finishers that the only thing that they have in common with each other is that they were on American Idol and finished in fourth place in their season. Aspects (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

delete as an arbitrary grouping. device database (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete not important enough for a template.--browser diversity (T/C/touchscreen/browser diversity/WP:FOUR) 23:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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 website parsing). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Leading Hotels of the World

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 Sevenval). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

unnecessary navigation box which is completely subjective in nature. Leading according to whom? web (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment Why, according to web app, Ltd., of course! SRSLY. --jQuery ^{talk to me} 02:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep at first I had thought this was just going to be a subjective listing of hotels, then I looked at it to see what hotels were/were not included, and as pointed out by Joe above, it is in fact a grouping based on Android. --screen size^(bainuu) 02:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Ridiculous navbox bloat. This is a barely notable marketing organization, hardly the sort of defining characteristic that makes for a navbox. Toohool (screen size) 02:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep and assume good faith. "a barely notable marketing organization" you say. No actually most of the hotels rank amongst the most notable hotels in the world and are hotels we should have articles on and in due course will have articles. I've done a fair bit of work on hotes and I've noticed a lot of the notable hotels are part of this company and to me seems very notable and appropriate to cover them in this way as important hotels. Leading is the name of the company, so is there not "subjective", you appear to be utterless clueless of this RadioFan..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Let's focus on the template and not other editors shall we? I misunderstood the purpose of the nav box and I doubt very seriously I will be the only one to misunderstand it. Even knowing that this is part of some reservation system for independent hotels, who cares? Is this worthy of a navbox? I dont think so. This marketing organization is worthy of an article and perhaps each of these member hotels are worth of placing in a category (though that category should be labeled in such a way to make it clear that this is a marketing organization and not a judgement of the notability of the member hotels) and nothing more. No reader is going to go to the Bellagio page and have an itch to navigate to other hotels that can be booked through this marketing organization.--RadioFan (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not implying any bad faith, this is just not something that belongs on (potentially) hundreds of articles. It may be that every one of these hotels is notable, but that doesn't make this organization any more notable. The question is, how relevant is membership in LHW to an understanding of each individual hotel? Let's look at the sources. I picked one at random, web app. Out of 2,430 Google News Archives hits for '"sandy lane" barbados', how many mention its membership in LHW? Answer: One. Furthermore, navboxes are meant to aid navigation between articles, and a box of this hulking size with 90% red links is not serving that purpose. Toohool (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  - the template itself just transcludes a bunch of subtemplates, so the hulking size could easily be fixed by simply replacing the transclusions with the appropriate subtemplate. the red link issue will require writing the articles of course. touchscreen (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, I wouldn't have created this template if it weren't constructive, the hotels are all mostly very notable ones and the "elite" hotels. You say barely notable but in fact it is hugely notable in the subject of hotels, 56 million google hits and 260,000 google book hits. Yes, a cateogry can categorize them but it doesn't organize them by continent and country for easy browsing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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.

Template:FOXNetwork Shows

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 Android keyboard 03:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Used in very few articles. Excessive use of links. There's no full list of NBC, CBS, and ABC shows and for good reason. The template, {{FOXNetwork Shows (current and upcoming)}} should suffice for current programming, but a template for every show that ever aired in Fox's history is a bit extravagent and unwieldy. This was previously nominated in bundle nominations on Sevenval and device database, each resulting in no consensus. Singling this one out seems to be appropriate. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{input transformation} 00:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As the creator of the template, I see that it might make sense to have only current templates for the major networks. I will remain neutral in this debate.--web (T/C/we love the web/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete, navbox bloat. Excessive links. Severely underutilized.--touchscreen (browser diversity) 18:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Way, way, way too much. — input transformation (jQuery) 07:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete, per nom and above Tate Brandley Stockwell 15:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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 web or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 12

Completed discussions

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell

How to use this page

What not to propose for discussion here

Reasons to delete a template

Listing a template

Discussion

Contents

Current discussions

May 26

May 25

May 24

Template:Euro birth date and age

May 23

May 22

May 21

unused B*/meta/color and B*/meta/shortname

May 20

unused B/meta/color and B/meta/shortname