Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:01, 23 September 2005 editGrue (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,507 edits bio infobox: keep← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:09, 23 September 2005 edit undoBishonen (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,339 edits →[]: Restore Netoholic's vote minus the personal attacks in it (wtf you can't just VOTE is beyond me, we're all doing our best here). I think he gets to vote.Next edit →
Line 32:		Line 32:
	*'''Comment'''. This is used on some ~400 pages so there does seem to be a considerable population of editors who like/accept it. Also, I am inclined to think that general decisions for how biographies are presented are better decided by improving ], than trying to confront the specific widget that people have been using. ] 08:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)		*'''Comment'''. This is used on some ~400 pages so there does seem to be a considerable population of editors who like/accept it. Also, I am inclined to think that general decisions for how biographies are presented are better decided by improving ], than trying to confront the specific widget that people have been using. ] 08:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
	*'''Keep''' because people use it. ] 09:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)		*'''Keep''' because people use it. ] 09:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
			*'''Keep''' - Since this template is in active use on just under 400 articles at present, I believe its clear that this infobox has become a clear standard. This infobox not only serves a stylistic purpose (it looks really sharp on printed versions kids may use in school), but can and should be used later as a method of gathering metadata on our biographical articles, much like what the ] (]). -- ] ] 08:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

	====]====		====]====

Revision as of 09:09, 23 September 2005

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

Template:Sfd-current

Adding a listing

Please put new listings under today's date (January 13) at the top of the section.
When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages.

September 23

Template:Notable Wikipedian

Violates avoid self-reference both by creating an internal link and in mentioning they're wikipedians at all. There are a few wikipedians that should have a link to their user page in their article's external links section (Jimbo springs to mind), but for most people who've edited wikipedia it just isn't that notable a thing about them and shouldn't be in the article at all (like User:Eric S. Raymond). --fvw * 06:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Unnecessary self-promotion (of Misplaced Pages, or maybe also of the person in question). Also, being a Wikipedian isn't what I'd call a noteworthy fact. Furthermore, people worth an encyclopedia entry not necessarily are "noteable wikipedians" in the sense that they'd be outstanding contributors. And even if they are, mentioning it in the encyclopedia entry would be needless promotion again. Lupo 06:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment. If you'll refer to the CfD log for Category:Wikipedians with Article (which I found out about just now), the general consensus was against the category but in favor of a template. Admittedly it shouldn't apply to people who just happen to have a username but haven't actually made any substantive contributions; I may have been hasty in slapping it on all the articles. —Keenan Pepper 07:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

- Reading that discussion, I don't see a consensus for a template, just someone proposing it and someone else going ahead and creating it. Lupo 07:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- The discussion there seems to suggest having the template on talk pages, which would be fine (though slightly pointless) to me. --fvw * 08:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
It is a warning to the reader that the person in question could influence the article about him/her. It's like Wikinews marking the news related to Wikimedia Foundation in a special way. Grue 07:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Assume people have played nicely. If someone has been influencing their article for the worse we can always tag it as such (and stop them from influencing their article for the worse of course). --fvw * 08:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Suggestion: convert to standard format and apply to the appropriate Talk Page instead...actually if I have time later I'll try that. —Phil | Talk 08:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

September 22

Template:Infobox Biography

Delete - This template is a constant source of dispute between Wikipedians. Its inclusion/exclusion on individual biography pages has been argued over several pages including Talk:John Vanbrugh, Talk:Charles Darwin, Talk:Mark Twain and probably a number of others. Over the last year or so at least 8 editors including me have commented on the talk page that they don't like it. I don't think it adds anything useful to most articles, and makes some look positively ugly. Jooler 22:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. The facts in fhis info box are better in article prose, IMO. DES 22:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete its only function is to make Misplaced Pages look more like Boy's Life or HiLites magazines. "If you can't read the birth and death dates, here is a box to tell you what they are." Further, the "infobox" idea (inasmuch as there is an idea behind infoboxes) is that they present either "interesting side lights" or "the most important 'bite' of information." Following that logic would say that all you really need to know about a biography is when the subject was born and died. Heaven help us if that's what people get out of history. Geogre 23:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Personally I think it's a pointless eyesore. Ugliness may be in the eye of the beholder, but surely everybody will agree it's causing ugly edit wars—look at this. --Bishonen | talk 23:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless. Rivarez 00:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre's reasoning. Some infoboxes are useful: countries and elements, for example, have a certain common set of vital facts that are probably better presented in a table than in prose. Biographies don't: birth and death dates work just as well in the first sentence, and the locations for each can be dealt with in the relevant prose; they're not the most important facts about the subject. Get rid of this. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
DeleteUgly. Detracts from the lead. Adds no new information. Giano | talk 06:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't really see what's ugly about this, and it seems to reside usefully on many pages without dispute. It's nice to create a consistent style in which key quick facts are presented in a central place. Generally, no compelling reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This is used on some ~400 pages so there does seem to be a considerable population of editors who like/accept it. Also, I am inclined to think that general decisions for how biographies are presented are better decided by improving Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(biographies), than trying to confront the specific widget that people have been using. Dragons flight 08:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep because people use it. Grue 09:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Since this template is in active use on just under 400 articles at present, I believe its clear that this infobox has become a clear standard. This infobox not only serves a stylistic purpose (it looks really sharp on printed versions kids may use in school), but can and should be used later as a method of gathering metadata on our biographical articles, much like what the German Misplaced Pages had the foresight to put into place (description in English). -- Netoholic @ 08:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:LedZeppelin

Since I had two versions (the second of which should have been left alone under normal Misplaced Pages guidelines since it was smaller and nonredundant) of a Mike Watt template deleted, then let's see if there's any double standards in Misplaced Pages or not. With that in mind, I say... Delete. This template is certainly oversized and redundant, since the great majority of the links are in the article itself. Cjmarsicano 06:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep - could do with some trimming, but it is useful, and ties together a logical group of articles. sjorford #£@%&$?! 14:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's exactly how I felt about Template:Watt, but certain people did not see it that way. Cjmarsicano 16:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, you win some, you lose some, don't you? sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This vote is based solely on the fact that nomination seems to be an admitted violation of WP:POINT. -- Norvy (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Having read that page thoroghly, let me say for the record that the accusation of my "distrupting" Misplaced Pages is a pile of this. How is pointing out such a horrible double-standard a 'disruption'? Cjmarsicano 17:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- You might also see my talk page. -Splash 16:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  - While you're there, you might also want to see how quickly Mr. Splash responds to messages he is sent. Cjmarsicano 17:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Oh, the apparent lack of replies is because I usually, but not always, respond on the poster's talk page, unless my reply is something insubstantive. I think I answered this particular comment in something like 20 minutes. -Splash 17:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
This nomination does seem to be a case of WP:POINT and that should not normally be rewarded. OTOH, I do tend to oppose all but the most clear-cut of nav templates, and this does seeem over-large to me. Had the nomination argued the case on the merits, I would probably have voted to delete, but as things stand No Vote unless better argumetns are made later in the disucssion. DES 17:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Stbalbach 18:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Led Zeppelin is one of the most popular rock bands of all time. They have many articles on Misplaced Pages about themselves, their songs, albums etc. and this template makes navigation easier and quicker for anyone researching the band. Andrew 20:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- I had the same argument for the second Watt template, and it was bounced rather hastily. Hence my concern that double standards were afoot. Cjmarsicano 01:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - It could use a tad bit of tidying eventually, before every single song ends up on the template, but if anything, somebody should take a few pointers from the Pink Floyd template. Actually, I think I might just remove the song line from the template. - Cooleyez229 06:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Template: poke-creature-cleanup

Delete: Redundant with Template:poke-cleanup, and not currently in use. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I am the creator. It was an attempt to get a template that would go to the left of the infobox, but it didn't work and I forgot about it. Please delete. --Celestianpower 10:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, template is a G7. Aecis 21:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Prettytable

Delete: The template was nominated for deletion (at least) once before. The situation has changed since: The template can now be substituted by class="wikitable". This class has been added to common.css and generates (almost) the same look as {{prettytable}} did before it was changed to merely include this very class. This also applies to several other templates that are based upon this one:

— Christoph Päper 11:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Conditional Delete: delete, but only after we are sure that no pages reference it anymore. −Woodstone 12:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Of course a bot should replace all instances first. — Christoph Päper 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Meanwhile I have put in a request for such a bot at Misplaced Pages:Bot requests. −Woodstone 20:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - very widely used, and in regular use - it's on loads of pages, and probably will be on a few more even before I finish typing this vote. Okay, so it's not exactly much of a shortcut in terms of length, but it is more easy to remember and because of its widespread appeal will take quite a bit of work to stop people from wanting to use it. Grutness...wha? 13:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Currently used on around 5,200 pages. Grutness...wha? 13:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Ouch! Yeah, I'd theoretically vote delete, as a class is the way to go here, but it's clearly going to be a while before everybody moves over to the new method. sjorford #£@%&$?! 13:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    - If we keep the template almost nobody will abandon it, despite its impact on the servers. Christoph Päper 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      - Absolutely, but at the very least somebody needs to run a bot on 5000 documents first. sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
        First someone has to decide the replacement should be done. At present, 5000 editors decided to use {{prettytable}} and did not decide to use a replacement. (SEWilco 20:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC))
        Well, there wasn't a replacement until a few days ago! (and it's not 5000 authors, it's 5000 pages, but I know what you mean). sjorford #£@%&$?! 22:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep Besides being used on lots and lots of pages, I believe this template is one of the default ones included with the wiki software which means that users who cut their teeth on wiki editting elsewhere will be expecting to make use of this template. I have no objection to having people making efforts to subst this on the templates and pages that currently use it, but deletion will make wiki editting less friendly to the casual editor. Caerwine 13:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Um, how would those “default templates” work? Anyhow, I cannot see Prettytable being one of them. Christoph Päper 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  - All I know is that I use several other minor wiki's besides Misplaced Pages and on all them, I've found {{prettytable}} available for use. I find it highly unlikely that someone has independently created the template on each wiki, so I presume that it was included with the software. At the very least, this template is going to need a long period of deprecation before being eventually removed. Caerwine 20:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, too well known, easy to remember and widely used. Dragons flight 14:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. Let me add that if you do delete this, you are going to have a lot of mysteriously confused users. Think about it, it appear inside the <table> specifier in the rendered page image, so one is going to get the redlink stuffed inside the table tag, i.e.<table Template:prettytable> which won't even show the redlink to users. This means that if you break this thing that everyone has been trained to use, then when people try to use it they won't even have any obvious way of knowing the template has been deleted. Dragons flight 14:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  - I don’t see how it’s harder to learn class="wikitable" than {{prettytable}}. If I thought it was, I would have lobbied more for the style to be made the default one for tables nstead of an extra class. Christoph Päper 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    - You're missing the point. If it's deleted, someone accustomed to using it will be confused. They'll try and it simply won't work (won't do anything readily apparent). They'll probably think they mistyped the name. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Probably delete. It's not really hurting anything, unless you're paranoid about meta-templates, but it's been intentionally obsoleted by the new class. Yeah, typing {{prettytable}} is a little easier to remember than class="wikitable", but after we've subst'ed them all, it will be easy for people to learn. You are free to suggest other class names, too. Originally was called class="prettytable". Obviously the ideal is to use templates for everything, but until someone writes better template caching, it's (apparently) a strain on the servers. User:Omegatron/sig 14:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Widely used (though mostly as subst:). Its presence doesn't hurt anything. We should just note that it is deprecated on the talk page. We should only delete it after it hasn't been used for a while, not while it's being actively used. Nohat
- If it was used with subst, I would have no problem with it. Christoph Päper 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is used on a TON of pages. Ryan Norton 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

September 20

Template:Fairuseunknownsource

And redirect at Template:Fuus. It's really, really difficult, if not impossible, to claim fair use without a source. I think that this template is dangerous because it rationalizes images without sources, and encourages laziness (instead of researching where an image came from, or coming up with an iron-clad rationale, people seem to just tag it it as {{fuus}}). As well, I've been re-tagging everything that uses this template, so as of later this evening there won't be any uses. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 21:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Without this template, all images claimed as "fair use" but with unknown sources will be tagged as {{fairuse}}, and will blend in with the mass. With this template, some of them will be tagged {{fuus}}, and will be much easier to find and either fix or delete. It serves the same purpose as {{permission}}, {{noncommercial}}, and the noncommercial Creative Commons tags: it provides a way of finding images that shouldn't have been uploaded in the first place. --Carnildo 22:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- No they won't. There are no images tagged as {{fuus}} as I've tagged them all as {{no source}}. JYolkowski // talk 23:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Provisional keep. Carnildo makes a good point. However, it needs to be noted that all images tagged with this template are now basically speedy-tagged, since Jimbo added a new speedy deletion criterion. In fact, since there is talk of completely revamping image tagging due to copyright reasons, this template will eventually need to be deleted. Titoxd 22:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant with {{no source}}. BlankVerse ∅ 23:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per BlankVerse. ∞Who ?¿? 04:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to {{no source}} - if anyone uses this tag and gets a redlink, they'll use fairuse. If they use it and get a "find the source or this gets deleted after a week", maybe they'll think twice. - SoM 23:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Reuters

Blanked by creator, and subsequently edited to point to Template:Unverified. Also an orphan now that unverified images are CSDs. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. IceKarma ॐ 19:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:AssociatedPress

Very misleading; Associated Press photos are probably not good fair use candidates because we could be construed as competing with them. Not used too much either. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Fairuse-ESA

Despite its name, it didn't say anything about fair use at all (until I added the bit at the end about how the image may or may not be usable in Misplaced Pages); rather, it appears to be a noncommercial-use-only tag, which is depreciated. Since there's only one use, let's delete it before it gets used any more. JYolkowski // talk 01:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. IceKarma ॐ 19:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Font sample

'Strong Delete': The template is actually much more confusing than helping. It only works if users have the proper font installed (and the proper browser settings), and images work a lot better to illustrating them. Consider the entries Univers, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Antiqua, Calibri (font) and compare them with Garamond, AMS Euler, Gill Sans which feature pictures. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Um, don't see why this could be considered useful in any way. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speechless. — mendel ☎ 19:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Utterly useless. I have a wide variety of fonts installed, yet all I see for any of the above samples is boring old Courier. IceKarma ॐ 19:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete. Proved useless beyond any reasonable doubt. Titoxd 23:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I have more font than most and I can't see anything. Anonymous user.
Delete. Agree completely with Drini's concerns. Jgm 11:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Too much potential to mislead. Susvolans ⇔ 12:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Conditional delete. I only agree to the deletion of this template if and only if all the articles that use it have replacement images. Nohat 16:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

September 19

Template:Fair dealing

Doesn't mention anything about U.S. copyright laws, so it's not a valid image copyright tag. Furthermore, fair dealing in Canada only applies to research, private study, criticism, review, and news reporting and various noncommercial purposes, and it doesn't look like most of the images so tagged would apply. It might potentially be useful as an additive tag, but since it's not used that widely, contains a redlinked category and isn't documented anywhere I would say delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. IceKarma ॐ 19:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sesamestreetscreencapture

Delete: Overly precise, contains a badly-named and redlinked category, poor wording compared to Template:Tv-screenshot, just used in seven places before I changed them all to {{tv-screenshot}}. JYolkowski // talk 21:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. IceKarma ॐ 19:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ∞Who ?¿? 04:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Simon_Clarke_Tube_Map

Delete: Now orphaned template was exclusively used for the now deleted and replaced Image:London underground zone 1 small.png. The template now serves no purpose. I suggest deleting talk page as well. —Gabbe 19:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. IceKarma ॐ 19:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

September 18

Template:Editwar

Delete: Redundant with Template: Disputed. The way it approaches the issue makes the tagged page look more like a web forum than an encyclopedia. -- Norvy (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

And a red divbox doesn't help much at all. Delete. Titoxd 19:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Useful for marking contentious pages and just for kicks. Ryan Norton 20:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As Norvy notes, it is redundant with other disclaimers, such as Template:POV and Template:Accuracy. Unlike these warnings, it provides no useful or relevant information to the average reader. While J. Hypothetical Reader should be warned if an article is biased or inaccurate, I do not think it is necessary to inform him of the existence of an edit war if that edit war has not affected the article's accuracy or neutrality. (I would say "confine to talk pages", but there'd be no point to that either: we already have Template:Controversial.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 21:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 21:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons cited above. Scary and unhelpful. And the image covers the start of the text unless the page is very wide indeed. DES 22:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant, uninformative, and possibly inflammatory depending on how it's applied. -Sean Curtin 22:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redundant, polarising, and shouldn't be on an article page in the first place. If there's a content dispute, take it to the Talk page, and if it degenerates into an edit war, go ask an admin for help instead of slapping a template on it (in other words, resolve the war instead of declaring it). --IByte 22:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cities in Sweden

Reportedly, this template is not useful. It's just a rather uninteresting list of Swedish cities, which might as well be replaced by a link to cities in Sweden and a listing of the relevant cities there. There's also the problem that stad and "city" are not equivalent terms, which is bound to confuse non-Swedes. Fred-Chess 05:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: It is not relevant it is not readable ! Lvr 13:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Although the formatting could be improved, the template does no harm, and it it useful because it links to important cities in Sweden's history. Fred-Chess 14:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, although I think it's bulky, I think it would be a good nav template for specific research. It could be made a list, but it's better than a category. Also, why did the nom vote keep after the nom?? ∞Who?¿? 04:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment After someone proposed the template unneeded, I wanted to check for others' opinions. Fred-Chess 14:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Can be put within Cities in Sweden or a category. (SEWilco 16:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC))
Delete: it is redundant and not helpful. The content could be just listed in the "Sweden" article. No need to point from each city to all other cities. −Woodstone 16:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: More items than can effectively be displayed on a template. A perfect situation for a category. - SimonP 17:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Although perhaps totally against the rules, I decided to use your suggestions to redesign the template into a link to a list right away, which seemed to be considered more useful. Fred-Chess 17:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_State

Delete: I made this template (along with Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_Fed), but I've since created a new (and hopefully better) template, Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt. --Markles 01:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_Fed

Delete: I made this template (along with Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_State), but I've since created a new (and hopefully better) template, Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt. --Markles 01:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

September 17

Template:JapanCopyright

Similar to Template:Philippines-fairuse (recently deleted), this image copyright tag states that the image is copyrighted in Japan and elsewhere, and that its use qualifies as fair use in both Japan and the United States. However, since Misplaced Pages's servers are in the United States and not Japan, we're concerned about whether something is fair use in the United States and not Japan. Furthermore, Japanese copyright law doesn't have "fair use" provisions. It does have a number of exceptions, but those are so different from United States fair use law that it's hard to imagine that something could be "fair use" in both countries and still be usable on Misplaced Pages. So, this template is redundant with Template:Fairuse. It's also only used on two images. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 15:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep if modifications can be suggested I'd totally forgotten about this template, that's why it was only on two images (so far). Any suggestions as to modifying this template? I think it would be quite useful, especially given the growing number of Japan pop culture-related items being added to Misplaced Pages. Cjmarsicano 20:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Our general direction for fair use tags is to get away from blanket tags to ones that explicitly describe what category of image it is and where fair use applies (see WP:WPFU for more information). If it described something specific (say, promotional Japanese anime posters or official photographs of Japanese politicians or something like that) then it might be useful. Alternately it might be useful if it were an additive tag that would be used in addition to a fair use tag, and just stated that the image is believed to fall under one of the exceptions in Japan's copyright act. Note that I still prefer deletion to either of the two options I listed, though. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. US copyright law is the one that really matters, and for fair use, we want to use the topic-specific ones if at all possible. --Carnildo 22:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Freenet

Unused, nonsensical. Alas, I couldn't find a CSD case to fit it. —Cryptic (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete linkspam. Titoxd 19:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Not nonsense or spam - it's used for links into Freenet (which runs as a proxy on localhost:8888). But as it's been decided not to have Freenet links, delete. ~~ N (t/c) 22:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

September 16

Template:WashDCInfoBox

Currently orphaned, redundant to all of the other city infobox templates, but looks like it was already "subst"ed onto Washington, D.C.. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:FR-location

Context should be provided as prose within an article's lead section, not as a generic template tacked onto the top. Worse, in several articles on my watchlist, prose leads have been replaced by this. I'm afraid to look at the other articles where it now appears. —Cryptic (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe should people agree on each others. Look here:

This article is about Faerûn, a fictional continent, the primary setting of Forgotten Realms

As for the “worse, prose leads have been replaced”, you may be interested into this, too:

Removed redundant header

I'm a bit fed up with all of these. Lot of critics, few additions. As we say in computing: “Where is your patch?” Reply to David Latapie 13:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

- I prefer the template. I prefered the original bolded statement, but there does not seem to be support for that. Because someone went through and awkwardly rewrote lead paragraphs, I tried a relatively generic statement on top: "X" is a "(city, village, castle, region, character, etc.)" in the Forgotten Realms setting of Dungeons & Dragons. When the new italicized template is added (and I'm not saying the phrasology can't use some work) I went back and removed the header that I added to the articles that I had written. My main reference was a number of Harry Potter articles that systematically state the fictional setting and type in a seperate sentence before the Content box. That is my preference. I wouldn't mind seeing the reference to Toril go, and add a reference to D&D in the opening sentence. --RYard 16:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said on Baldur's Gate discussion page, I'm OK for the Toril reference too, and everyone seems to agree on that. To change the content of the template is very easy: just go to the templates's page and change the text.

On the other hand, I consider that repetitive information should be templated, this is smaller, more elegant (yes, this is subjective) and, most importantly, add consistency to articles. The reason why they are scarcely used seems, IMHO, to be that people don't know how to create template — actually, it is "disarmingly" simple, I think that is the main reason. Templating is for power users, and power users - myself included - are not accustomed to such a trivial way to do it. Reply to David Latapie 16:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As I have mentioned elsewhere, standard Misplaced Pages practice, and in my opinion the best method, is to clearly note a topic's fictional nature within the prose of the introduction. - SimonP 16:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- But as we discussed, it's not standard practice. Compare, say, Luke Skywalker to Han Solo, Spinner's End with Hogsmeade, Ered Lithui with Mordor. Granted, there's no template, but there's no standard either. Still, I don't believe there is a great need for a template, just consistency. --RYard 19:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we should be enforcing editorial content with templates; they're more brittle, harder to change, and can "flatten" the editorial feel of the article. Consistency is good, but there are always exceptions. The solution is aggressive editing, not templating. Therefore, my opinion is to delete. Nandesuka 15:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

pardon me, but for me, aggressive editing is like polling in computing, a quick-and-dirty (and no so quick in the long run, especially with more than 140 articles) solution. Reply to David Latapie

Delete. This information should be at the beginning of the article, and not in italics. -- Reinyday, 20:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Cryptic and SimonP. The most commonly used form is to indicate the fictional context of a fictional place, character, or event in the prose of the lead paragraph. The exact format and wording of this varies. Some articvels may not follow this form, but that is not a good reason for encouraging others not to do so. see WP:FICT for more details. 205.210.232.62 20:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- The above comment was mine, it seems I was loggged out without realizing it. DES 22:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and reverse the many, many removals of clear, standardized information in the introductions of the articles. Quite apart from anything else, this template looks very ugly. I tried very hard to standardize these FR introductions as much as possible when creating them (see the gods articles), and so don't see any practical need to make them "neater". -Erolos 23:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The good thing about a template is that it is very easy to change it <wikipedia>If you don't like it, edit it.</wikipedia>. At least, it has the merit to exists.213.157.237.18

Delete. Articles about fictional subjects should make their fictional context clear as is appropriate to that particular topic, and the context shouldn't need to be bolded or italicized. Does Sherlock Holmes open with a boldfaced statement reminding the reader that he's not a real person? -Sean Curtin 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've seen too much {{context}} flags. I stopped counting and I can assure you it is very frustrating to see people just context-ing all your work. Really. That's why I created the template, because of all these context-ing. Now, if people could stop context-ing, I would be very happy (and could focus on the much more useful FR's template infobox.213.157.237.18

September 15

Template:Copyvio1

Delete: I don't see the point in this, this template and it's partner {{Copyvio2}} perform the exact same job as {{Copyvio}} does without the hassle of using two seperate templates to get the job done. These templates are also not mentioned anywhere in the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. If you vote for this please also vote for Copivio2 below since deleting just one of them makes no sense. --Sherool 16:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. These look like a relic of something and the more usual boilerplate does the job fine. Why have 3 templates doing the job when you could do it with one? -Splash 23:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete As previously mentioned, Copyvio performs the same function as Copyvio1 and Copyvio2 combined - LiniShu 01:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
These were used before it was possible to pass parameters to templates - they are now therefore obsolete. Delete. sjorford #£@%&$?! 14:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I for one have never bothered to learn the new system and still use the old one. Since the results are the same I see no reason to force users to change. - SimonP 16:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- (You could also say that since the results are the same I see no reason to have two different templates... sjorford #£@%&$?! 16:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC))
  - As I mentioned there is a very good reason, that I have not bothered to learn the new method. There are at least a hundred maintenance templates that I use regularly. These templates are constantly in flux. Each probably changes only once every three or four months, but this amounts to an average of one template to relearn each and every day. I personally can't be bothered to do this, so when it makes no difference I simply continue to use the older method. - SimonP 17:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    - "Not being bothered" is not a very good reason at all. Having two templates that do the same thing, and that therefore may get out of sync, for no other reason than somebody stubbornly refuses to learn a very simple syntax change, is also a not very good thing. It ain't complicated, Simon, just bother', please. sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, agree with SimonP. No reason why obsolescence should spur deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Obsolescence is a perfectly good reason to delete. This is because the name copyvio2 was needed by another template, but couldn't be had because the one below was in the way, and almost unused. It was desirable for that reason to remove it, and so copyvio1 would be broken without it. I wonder: you must see some benefit to the Wiki in retain obsoleted templates that are in the way of new templates. What benefit is that? -Splash 18:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  - If it was obsoleted in the sense that it was not in use, that would be one thing; this is "obsoleted" only in the sense that there is an alternative that many (though apparently not all) people prefer. This template is useful and constructive to the purpose of building an encyclopedia and in current use by editors at this moment; wanting to use the name for something else (and why this other template requires that name certainly hasn't been made clear here) is simply not a sufficient reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    - It is obsoleted in the sense that there are about 900 pages using {{copyvio}}, and about 30 using {{copyvio1}} and {{copyvio2}}. It is therefore clear that the vast majority of editors have managed to use the new template, and I would suggest that most of those that haven't simply haven't noticed it exists. It is harmful to have two different templates to do exactly the same thing, as the wording will not automatically be synchronised between the two, and if the process on WP:CP changes, then the older templates, which are not referenced anywhere in the instructions, will likely be missed. I really feel like I'm labouring a point here, but I can't for the life of me understand why anybody is so attached to this template. What is it, an urge to rebel or something? (this is a sort of joke, I think) sjorford #£@%&$?! 22:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Misplaced Pages is inconsistent. I dislike the urge to regiment being displayed here; the wiki method is to keep both in use until consensus manifests itself by disuse of one set or the other. Septentrionalis 03:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- I really don't know what this means. sjorford #£@%&$?! 22:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- In my experience the "wiki method" is to merge (and redirect) or delete duplicates pretty much on sight, and in this case there is nothing to merge, and redirecting won't work. Keeping all three only result in more work as we have to maintain three seperate templates for a job you only need one for. What is so hard about learning to type {{copyvio|url=}} instead of {{copyvio1}}{{copyvio2}}? --Sherool 22:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Usually, I would say that this is just redundant, so it could be kept. However, Sjorford called it right on this one. It's redundant, but not harmless. Delete. Titoxd 23:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Copyvio2

Delete: Same as Copyvio1 above. If you vote for this please also vote for Copyvio1 abowe since deleting just one of them makes no sense. --Sherool 16:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. These look like a relic of something and the more usual boilerplate does the job fine. Why have 3 templates doing the job when you could do it with one? -Splash 23:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Same as Copyvio1 above - LiniShu 01:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I for one have never bothered to learn the new system, and still use the old one. Since the results are the same I see no reason to force users to change. - SimonP 16:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Obsolescence not in itself a reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as above. (I am puzzled why those arguing for deletion on the grounds of efficiency did not make this a single nomination; but it's too late to merge them now.) Septentrionalis 03:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, same reasons as in {{copyvio1}}. Titoxd 23:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:vfdclosed

Never used by anyone but me, made obsolete by the AFD reform. - Sikon 15:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment I am also wondering if anybody uses {{oldvfd}}? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't seen it used recently, but it is still widely linked to in talk: pages, which would take an awful lot of subst:ing. Not impossible though. -Splash 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- The only time I used {{oldvfd}} was when I closed subpages of VfD that hadn't been renamed as AfD subpages. But since that isn't the case anymore, I think it should be safe to ~~redirect~~ it to {{oldafd}}. Titoxd 19:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure if you're talking about redirecting {{vfdclosed}} or {{oldvfd}}, but if you mean the latter, please don't. The vast majority of pages at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/whatever have not been moved to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/whatever, so the links wouldn't work anymore. —Cryptic (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Seconded. {{oldvfd}} and {{oldvfdfull}} must keep pointing to the old Votes for deletion subpages, unless someone goes and subst: both in all places they are used.
      - Hmm, I hadn't thought of that, since I usually substed it whenever I used it. So, I've changed my vote to delete, seeing it has been substed. Titoxd 22:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
subst: and delete, since the nominator doesn't want it anymore. Be sure not to just delete it, or the pages it appears on will suddenly no longer have their vfd/afd link. -Splash 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Substed. - Sikon 01:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:This article is about

Wrong way to do disambigs. Presents redundant information on the article. ed g2s • talk 14:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. ed g2s • talk 14:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ Keep This is for disambig headers, where the phrasing is often useful as an immediate warning that the reader may want the dab page. Compare, but please do not change, the first line of Pine Barrens (New Jersey). Septentrionalis 03:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:SouthAfricaImages

Delete: Is not even used in the South Africa article, and if you look at that article, the images are in a completely different order. Unnecessary template. --Hottentot

Holding cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

(none at this time)

To convert to category

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories get put here until the conversion is completed.

Template:VA_Highways. To be listified and categorified, then orphaned and deleted. Discussion. -Splash 02:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- I started merging the template into List of Virginia numbered highways- the unfinished part is commented out. The links should be Virginia State Highway xx, not VA xx. --Rschen7754 03:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

Template:DecencyWikiProject: I found this not deleted in the August 2005 Deleted Log and found on the template's talk page that it had been accidentally deleted and subsequently restored. I'm putting this here so that the template won't be forgotten. Courtland 01:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's protected against recreation which is probably why it appeared undeleted. -Splash 02:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  - see TFD-talk page for some comments on this — Courtland 02:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
{{Block}} entry moved to Log/Deleted/August 2005 despite a couple of keep comments as the consensus appears to be for deletion; ~~appears on user talk pages~~, which is the target article-space for the template, User:Ceyockey
- Am going to leave this one as it currently appears to be linked to an Arbitration case. -Splash 02:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  - see TFD-talk page for some comments on this — Courtland 02:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)