Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:04, 27 November 2006

November 25

Template:Ellie

Template:Ellie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nonsense, but doesn't really make CSD G2. Also nominating Template:EleanorFan for much the same reason>< RichardΩ612 23:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Adding Template:Ellieh8r and Template:Eliieissexybut for the same reasons as above. ><RichardΩ612 11:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete of course, had half a mind of speedying it as vandalism from a trolling-only account (see repeated creation of Eleanor Walker and the various throwaway accounts involved each time.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Belongs in user space, not template space. Kaldari 01:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Per reasons stated above.--SUIT 05:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not really doing any harm, odd but harmless templates. BoxQWERTY 15:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Not doing any harm" is an argument for keeping userpages. Not templates. -Amarkov _edits 16:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 00:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Change

Template:Change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is a great example of templatecruft. There are three reasons it should be deleted. 1. It serves no purpose other than to insert 1 of 3 images. Why not just insert the image instead? Theoretically instructions could be added that say the template is only to be used through substitution, but no one ever follows those instructions. 2. The only use that has been described for this template so far is for stock quotes. This encourages violation of Misplaced Pages:Avoid statements that will date quickly. 3. It is always preferable to use "+" or "-" rather than this template since they are easier to understand, easier to edit, and don't cost bandwidth or server hits. --Kaldari 19:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Kaldari. I could swear we've seen this template before under another name that I can't remember. FreplySpang 01:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• If kept, suggest rename to something a little more informative (e.g. {{Stockchange}}). David Kernow (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No demonstrated usefulness. Grouse 12:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Eykanal 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:MySpace

Template:MySpace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Blatant abuse of MySpace on Misplaced Pages. Template promotes breach of WP:EL policy, genine, official sites can be added manually if so desired. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Having a Myspace template basically says that we're trying to adopt the use of Myspace links in articles, which, as far as I can tell according to WP:EL, we don't. Plus, how hard is it to copy and paste a link from your address bar? Shadow1 (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: These links should be made to go away. Danny 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Templatecruft. Provides no useful encyclopedic function. Is it really that hard to create a link to a MySpace page? Kaldari 20:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the bands. MySpace was originally meant as a place for indie bands to set up official sites cheaply. Of course, MySpace has moved beyond that, but it remains that many bands use MySpace for its their official web presence. WP:EL states that you should link official sites. For this reason, I think the short-hand offered by the template is useful. In response to Kaldari: No, it's not that hard to make links manually. However, you could use your argument for nearly every template. Short hands are inherently useful. Not to mention keeping the MySpace links uniform, which I like for purely aesthetic reasons. -- HarrisX 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This template isn't used by just bands though - and by having it, it just looks like we're providing a convenient way for people to add all MySpace links - and we don't want editors to get the impression we want links to MySpace. We shouldn't be encouraging bands to link to MySpace either. And, what kind of notable band has a MySpace as their main official website? --Sagaciousuk 21:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• No, it's not just used by bands; I've seen major motion pictures from big studios with myspace homepages as well. And what a band (or anything) uses for a home page is not listed among any notability criteria I've seen (for bands, we use WP:MUSIC). That said, I'm not sure I see the point of this template; it's just more load on the server for a trivial external link. Xtifr _tälk 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Band MySpace profiles often have content that isn't as readily available on the primary official website, such as free music tracks. The fact that these profiles have full-length (free) tracks, music which adds further information to the article (but can't be included in the Misplaced Pages article for copyright reasons) means that it is a perfectly valid external link that does add to the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: This needs to go, having this template makes it really hard to explain why someone's personal myspace needs to go. We don't need to make adding irrelevant external links, that are not reliable sources any easier. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for no other reason than the blatant snobbery of Misplaced Pages editors who act as though MySpace is any less worthy than any other external site. Who are we to judge the validity of someone's choice of "official" site? Iamvered 21:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We have no intention of removing official MySpace websites, we're looking at adding some sort of tag to the talk page of articles confirming that the site listed is an official website and has been checked by an admin or an editor from the Misplaced Pages Spam project, in exactly the same was Flickr photos have their copyright status verified. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And how does deleting the template accomplish that? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, and fast. This is, as noted in the nomination, a clear violation of WP:EL; and we should not facilitate violations of WP:RS.--Aldux 23:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• How are official profiles violations of WP:RS? Determining the validity of a MySpace profile is completely unrelated to adding the links. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, with the caviat that official musician pages or movie sites should be kept and converted into regular external links. -- Huntster 00:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Per above--SUIT 05:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Give me a freaking break. Sometimes, just sometimes, a MySpace link is a perfectly valid link. Holy shit, I know, it's a mind-blowing concept... There's absolutely no way that this template violates WP:EL. The nutshell states: "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." Please explain just how the MySpace link on Cowboy Mouth, Adam Sandler, or Clay Aiken are inappropriate. WP:EL is being tossed around willy-nilly, but nobody has explained just how this template violates the guideline any more than, say, {{sww}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment EVula, please remember to assume good faith and remain civil. Being so condescending in your argument does not make it look appealing. ✎ Wizardry Dragon 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• (Somewhat weak) Keep, I agree that it is not difficult to create a link to MySpace, but neither is an {{IMDB}} link and we have a template for that, and they both encourage consistency. Also, to those who say this is a "clear" violation of WP:EL, I ask how, considering how difficult it is to apply the WP:EL guidelines objectively at all, let alone on a wide scale. -- Renesis (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This sends the wrong message, as people have already pointed out. We don't need a template for the few, rare cases where a MySpace link is appropriate. That bands use MySpace for their official site doesn't outweigh the fact that we generally don't want links to MySpace. There just aren't enough legitimate uses of this template to warrant the headache it's going to cause. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Removing this template isn't going to prevent MySpace links; if we keep the template, at least we can get some semblance of standardization when linking to a perfectly valid external link. Inappropriate links to MySpace will happen with or without this template. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Huntster and Saxifrage. --Alf 08:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of MySpace links and this indicates it as such -- Tawker 08:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no reason to treat MySpace in a special way, and lots of reasons to not make it appear as if we are treating MySpace in a special way. 2005 10:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, how are we treating MySpace any differently than in any other external link template? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete In the few instances where a MySpace might be useful to an article an external link can be created, but this doesn't have to be templated.
• Delete because we should not be encouraging use of MySpace as a link indicating verifiability or notability. 'Official' mySpaces could be linked to normally. The JPS 13:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Eh? MySpace is notable; this template doesn't indicate notability of individual profiles any more than {{imdb}} or practically every other external link template does. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete same as above. also, the template is useless, as far as i see. or maybe it just doesn't work on firefox 1.5.x , since i went to red hot chilli peppers page and it seemed like it was a normal EL, instead of an actual template. capi 14:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment must be Firefox, because the template is indeed being used on Red Hot Chili Peppers. It didn't have the TfD comment because someone threw a <noinclude> around it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - over 200 pages (nearly all of them for notable bands, set up by the band or management) link to this template, I'm not sure that the disruption to make a point is worth it. That being said, I agree that Myspace linkage should be kept to a minimum. Orderinchaos78 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. even if the MySpace links themselves are useful, a template that aids in creating them is not. ><RichardΩ612 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Query How's that? It allows for a standardized presentation of a somewhat commonly occurring external link, the same as {{Isfdb name}}, {{Find A Grave}}, or {{Footballdatabase}}. "Makes it easy to link to a website" isn't a criteria for template deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's perfectly acceptable to link to a subject's Myspace page if it's official, legitimate content. Additionally, this won't actually reduce the number of links to myspace (which appears to be the hidden intent); it will only cause more disorganization and inconsistency on WP. Touchdown Turnaround 19:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Other templates lead to verifiable content which doesn't present a risk of contributory copyright infringement, IMDb for example has fully licensed content, SOME MySpace sites don't. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep No different than any other external linking template, seen in use by major studios, bands and other notable individuals. Keeping the template isn't any kind of statement saying anyone with a myspace page gets an article. If it is deemed necessary to remove this template, all other exterior link templates should be removed.--Crossmr 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete MySpace is often in breach of WP:EL, WP:SPAM and sometimes WP:COPYVIO, and I feel the template encourages the misuse of these links and contributes to the number of breaches of these policies. Those links that aren't in violation are not numerous enough to justify the existence of a template. ✎ Wizardry Dragon 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too open to abuse. Bastiq▼e 23:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We can link to the official pages when needed without the use of the template. User:Zscout370 23:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We can link to any site without a template, so we should delete them all?--Crossmr 19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and delete all references to myspace period. It is not a RS, and basically a place for vanity (yes, I said vanity). As someone (I believe it might have been Danny) brought up on the mailing list a while back, half the people don't even follow the Terms of Service of myspace. Ahh, here it is. Rule 5: Non-commercial Use by Members. The MySpace Services are for the personal use of Members only and may not be used in connection with any commercial endeavors except those that are specifically endorsed or approved by MySpace.com. So, we are linking to things that break rules? Bands that are set up there are personal sites, and we generally avoid linking to those. Otherwise, they're commercial, and we're promoting people to not read TOS's. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Bands that set up profiles work within the MySpace guidelines (there's a different profile format specifically for bands, provided by MySpace). Your argument that we're linking to TOS-violating websites is flawed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually it's quite pertinent. The ratio of proper MySpace Music pages to improperly set up (and linked by us) normal ones is very low, and violations of the TOS are therefor high. ✎ Wizardry Dragon 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of using a wiki-cliché... source? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per above. We dont need a whole template which encourages users to add myspace links to pages, if only a few should even be on WP (the ones that are official sites of bands). GeorgeMoney (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - While the template may be used appropriately on some occasions, it sounds like a perfect example of WP:BEANS to me. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - useful for musical artists' articles. --Anthony5429 07:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - myspace additions violate WP:EL, and often WP:SPAM and WP:COPYVIO. this template is kind of like faking an orgasm: it's not helping anyone in the end. JoeSmack 07:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Renesis. _JD 13:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Evula. Yes, this template can be misused, but so can any other. We certainly link to the personal site of a person we are writing a biographical article about. AnonEMouse 14:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - while there are some official myspace pages, that's the only time it should be linked. I'd find this less objectionable if it made clear that it was only for official pages, but even then it's unnecessary. There's no template for other EL's, what is the point of this? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Take a look at imdb and gutenberg just for starters. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Category:External link templates has several hundred templates in it (including sub-cats). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: there's nothing which will stop people adding links to myspace, but this template would at least enable those links to be well-formed and thus easier to police. It also makes it easier, should the unthinkably annoying ever happen and myspace get rearranged, to change the URLs in one fell swoop. If you're bothered about excessive myspace links, try this and get checking. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: How does this violate policy more than any other such template, e.g. the rotten-tomatoes and superherohype templates? We should delete all or none - in my opinion all, not this one in isloation. I'm no more important than any other person voicing an opinion on this, but I would like an explanation before this vote is closed. Mark83 16:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Any group or individual for whom verifiable information can be gotten only from their MySpace page isn't going to meet the criteria for inclusion at WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO anyway. —Angr 18:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: That's not true... Indie band Mute Math built their fanbase on MySpace. Now that they are major label artists, they still use it as a primary hub of information because it's most effective for their MySpace-based fanbase. I agree, this is a template that can be grossly abused, but I think it should be kept and further documentation be added on its proper use in regards to notability. Perhaps it's outmoded WP:EL policy that needs to be augmented. Although this template challenges WP:EL policy, we should keep it. Souldier77 18:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Myspace links are so rarely useful that an entire template for them is unjustified. Veinor (ヴエノル) 18:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment For those saying that MySpace isn't a reliable source, I'd like to point out that Jon Favreau, director of the upcoming Iron Man film, has been releasing information about the film (such as addressing casting rumors) through his MySpace profile. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Complete

Template:Complete (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It seems to be a non-useful template, because something can never be truly "complete" in a wiki. It's almost like suggesting that we should semi-protect "finished" articles because they are somehow "done". -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep I'm afraid you've misinterpreted my intention for this template. Something like a "List of European monarchs", "List of chemical elements" or "List of Ford automobiles" may be complete, and knowing so would be very useful, especially if someone were to need to know about every entry. For example, if someone wanted to know how many models Ford made, they would need to be assured that every single entry was present in the list-- if this template were not there than the researcher need not even begin. Any doubt as to whether there be more would make it useless to the searcher. The only reason I would support the deletion of this template is that it is not heavily used. Otherwise, what we have here is a useful and discrete template. AdamBiswanger1 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Isn't everything covered under Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer though? WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY (copy&pasted). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Of course nothing on Misplaced Pages is necessarily true-- this is just a relevant piece of information regarding the list that is, admittedly, suspect to falsehood, just as any other sentence in our encyclopedia. But aside from technicalities, we need to ask ourselves why this template is here: because it is helpful and low-key. I really don't think the discussion needs to reach beyond these grounds. AdamBiswanger1 19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's an inoffensive little template. —Jonathan D. Parshall (Talk | contribs) 06:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Absurdtrivia

Template:Absurdtrivia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Automatically generates links to absurdtrivia.com and so is virtually useless. Such links can be created manually without the need for this template. ><RichardΩ612 16:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 19:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Templatecruft. Is it really that hard to create a link? Kaldari 20:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Doesn't seem worth keeping.--SUIT 05:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need templates for every website that we cite as a source. -Amarkov _edits 06:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:20 Categories

Template:20 Categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No transclusions and rather useless anyway ><RichardΩ612 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Useless templatecruft. Kaldari 20:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:ASIA1

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete author's request. Kimchi.sg 15:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:ASIA1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Was previously used to represent the unqualified Asia nation at the 2007 Rugby World Cup. Japan just qualified, so it is no longer needed. --Cvene64 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, Template:ReverseASIA1. Thanks. Cvene64 15:38, 25 November 2006 (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 page.

Template:Infobox Australian Suburb

Template:Infobox Australian Suburb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template has been succeeded by {{Infobox Australian Place}}, and has no transclusions in article namespace. --◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 13:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as obsolete. -- Renesis (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete useless now because of WP:IAP --TheJosh 11:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant — Moondyne 13:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mrgarrison

Template:Mrgarrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Originally created as a misunderstanding of User:Mr. Garrison about Misplaced Pages's signature policies. --Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Supertall skyscrapers

Template:Supertall skyscrapers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Far too large and unwieldy navigation box with dozens of entries, takes up more space in many of these articles than the article text itself. Duplicates what could just as well be achieved through a category or a list article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• This used to be part of an even larger template listing other supertall stuff, which I fixed up by splitting into smaller templates. Why not do the same here instead of deleting it? Bryan 09:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps split into different templates for superhigh skyscrapers by continent? There appears to be an ongoing boom in such buildings. Kimchi.sg 09:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, but wouldn't splitting the page defeat the purpose, which seems to be to have a list of all these buildings together on one page? My question is what use is it to have the list duplicated on each and every page of the series. Does that really help in navigation? For me, it's something for a "List of..." article. (Better than a category, because the list article could then be structured by continents, or distinguish between finished and unfinished buildings, etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  Ah, we already have that: List of tallest buildings in the world. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• IMHO these huge "navigation boxes" are starting to get silly, evidenced by the fact that people are starting to use insanely small font sizes or incorporating scrollbars and "show/hide" buttons to shoehorn everyting in there. I'm sure it's well meaning, but it's just causing a mess IMHO. This template is not the worst, but still delete and replace with a link to List of tallest buildings in the world. --Sherool (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• A simple solution. Change the threshold from 300 meters to 400 meters. That should get the template size under control. Kaldari 20:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that the template is becoming to large. I feel that splitting it by adding a new threshold is the optimal solution. Deletion is the wrong solution.TonyTheTiger 21:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• I don't see your problem. The template is quite large, but it fits fine. You could consider changing it when the skyscrapers abve 300 m are becoming more. Zara1709
• I understand why a threshold change would be called for, but unfortunatly, a supertall is commonly defined to be above 300 m (or more exactly, 1000 ft). That said, 400 m would still include common supertalls, like The Empire State Building, but would disculde buildings like the Chrysler Building. Ctrl build 14:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Euro birth date and age

Template:Euro birth date and age (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to {{Birth date and age}}, as both templates allow for the user's data preferences and display accordingly. Propose deleting this template and transcluding {{Birth date and age}} on the small number of pages that use it. robwingfield  08:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very strong keep. Neither template allows for a user's date preferences; my preferences are set to Euro date and {{Birth date and age}} displays only American date. I might support deletion only if either template can actually be "fixed" to display as claimed; still, a proper article should by default display dates indigenous to the source—as it does in the text of those articles. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I sit corrected; for no evident reason, my preferences reset to "none". The second portion of my argument remains. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Both templates should be deleted as age is not encyclopedic. Kaldari 20:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's already been discussed; the consensus was keep. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the result of that "discussion" was a speedy keep since the nominator didn't cite a reason for proposing the deletion. Regardless, I'm not actually proposing that both templates be deleted here. I'm just stating my opinion that both should be deleted, which in the context of this discussion is only relevant to Template:Euro birth date and age of course. Kaldari 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion here. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that that discussion misses the point entirely. The problem with putting someone's age in Misplaced Pages is that Misplaced Pages content must have longevity. A person's age is only accurate for 1 year at most. Misplaced Pages content is burned to DVDs, printed, archived, reused by other websites, etc. A statement that is going to be false in one year should not be put in Misplaced Pages unless it is important and encyclopedic, like "George Bush is the President of the United States". I know that the age templates updates the age automatically, but that doesn't help Misplaced Pages content that is transferred to other mediums or websites. We don't need to know that William Shatner is currently 72 years old, and if that is the only thing in the article that is preventing it from being able to stand the test of time, then why should it be included? My other problem with these templates is that they are commonly misused. For example, we don't need a template call to calculate how old someone was at the time of their death every single time an article is loaded. That's just a waste of computer resources (and makes the article more confusing to edit). Kaldari 01:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As you note, the template automatically changes by date; if you turn 21 tomorrow, it will show you 20 today and 21 tomorrow (UTC). As I noted here, this is "an opportunity to do a simple little thing with a live encyclopedia that paper can't touch—and, this template could also be made to use any individual computer's clock to create the same effect within a CD Wiki." The {{infobox}} already doesn't translate off-Wiki, so the argument for any templates within is moot. Given the current consensus and returning to the instant subject, the Euro date form is used far more commonly around the globe than is the US date form, so this template unquestionably (in my view) should survive. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with keeping {{birth date and age}}, in fact I use it a lot myself. However, I just don't see the need for a separate template to change the format of the date. That's what preferences are for! This template is utterly redundant as a result. robwingfield  23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My primary reason for disagreeing is that Euro dates are specifically used in article subjects based outside the US and, if that's how it appears in text with no preference set, that's how it should also appear in the infobox, thereby removing the repetition factor. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Then {{birth date and age}} should be changed to represent the most commonly used format worldwide, and {{euro birth date and age}} should be deleted. As I've repeatedly said, there is no point in having two templates to perform the same function. The question of formatting of the date is purely a user preference. The default should be standard across all templates. robwingfield  11:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you'll pardon the cliché, we'll agree to disagree. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep useful, as most of our users don't have preferences set up. AnonEMouse 14:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Esfpicturescopyright

Template:Esfpicturescopyright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fair use template redundant to {{fairusein}}. No apparent reason why a school should get its own specific fair use template. (Not to mention that all non-logo images tagged with this template are replaceable fair use.) Attempt to redirect to {{logo}} was reverted. --Kimchi.sg 06:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, redundant to existing templates, body text suggests inappropriate use of fair use (as it were). Xtifr _tälk 11:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Kaldari 20:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Free speech

Template:Free speech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do not see any use for this template. It is not encyclopedic. --Khatru2 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's not used anywhere but this TfD template. Created by User:Physchim62. It's an orphan, it's meant for the user talk space, but it's time to delete this awkward template.
• delete - Should not be in the public template space. RichMac (Talk) 09:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Belongs in user space. Kaldari 20:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Nonsense template --SUIT 05:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Poor use of the template namespace. Should be in userspace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)