Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 31

< May 30	June 1 >

May 31

Template:PAcounty

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PAcounty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:PAcountycolor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:QR Caboolture Line

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:QR Caboolture Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:KL-RTS pink

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KL-RTS pink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Protbox

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Protbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protbox codes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protbox disease (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protbox enzymatic reaction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protbox enzyme (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protbox finish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protbox function (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protbox header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protbox image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ProteinBox image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protein image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protbox location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protbox other (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protbox receptor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protbox start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protbox topfields (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the protbox template family has been deprecated for quite some time, and replaced by these templates. I think we can finally kill it. Frietjes (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete – the above set of templates have not been used for some time. The new templates are more focused and better suited for the purpose. Boghog (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NXEA lines

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NXEA lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NXEA stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

NXEA is defunct, so there will be no future use for these. Frietjes (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox television Chef Academy

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox television Chef Academy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Was transcluded to a single article but a minor modification to {{Infobox television Top Chef}} made {{Infobox television Chef Academy}} completely redundant to that template. AussieLegend (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete. not sure why we even need {{Infobox television Top Chef}}, but this is even less necessary. Frietjes (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced we need need the Top Chef infobox either, but it includes some fields that aren't in {{Infobox television season}}. There are other similar templates, such as {{Infobox television The Big Break}} (7 transclusions), {{Infobox The Apprentice}} (12 transclusions) and {{Infobox television Amazing Race}} (46 transclusions) that could all be merged into or forked from {{Infobox television season}}. I'd probably even go so far as to include {{Infobox television Survivor}} (132 transclusions) in the list of possible merges. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Start Busway box alt

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start Busway box alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:South-East Busway, Brisbane colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:South-East Busway, Brisbane link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused outside of one user's talk page. Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Thameslink colour

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thameslink colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:KCR West Rail colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:RT-HES colour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Prerequisites

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prerequisites (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused template skeleton, replaced by {{sidebar}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is obviously a substitution framework, being unused is the natural state of affairs. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is vastly more flexible than its replacement {{Prerequisites sidebar}} . 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given that User:Frietjes has stated that this is redundant with {{sidebar}}; I have nominated all the "Prerequisites" series templates for deletion. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BIC-Spain

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BIC-Spain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:BIC-Spain-start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:BIC-Spain-end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

currently unused and redundant to the Template:SCI templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Genus species lists

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 substitute and delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Genus species lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Genus Nestor species (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Genus Strigops species (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Genus species (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Genus Pezoporus species (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A logical enough concept, but the implementation is ultimately unworkable. Creates a large table which is intended to be transcluded onto the articles of every member species in a genus. This results in significant duplication. The system has existed for three years and yet there are only a half-dozen cases of it being instantiated: these should simply be substituted into their articles. In general this will never enjoy broad adoption and thus simply results in inconsistency and significant duplication of content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~ This looks like a documentation template to me, as I don't see anything in the template which starts a table. This is probably not the template which should be TFDd, but the templates which rely on this one as documentation. --Izno (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a documentation template so that the doc templates in question do not have to be generated by copying the EXACT same thing over an over again. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies: the nomination is for the templates which transclude this template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, so now you suddenly nominate a whole batch of templates? Maybe what you should do is retract this one,a nd nominate those as a batch with names and links so that people actually can see where they are discussing about. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are only ~~eight~~ four transclusions of this template. The nomination statement clearly indicates what is being proposed. A procedural close here would be a waste of time, especially given that you've indicated to the community via your user page that you are no longer part of Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment are you nominating Template:Genus Nestor species, et al for deletion? if so, why didn't you just tag the documentation for deletion and not the templates? if not, then keep since it is useful to have shared documentation. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An oversight. I've now tagged and listed them all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about species list templates

The previous discussion was about a documentation template that has now been removed, the discussion below is about the species list templates currently nominated.

Delete ~ Had a thought about a procedural close but decided against it with myself. Agree with deletion of all five templates. --Izno (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator does not understand the usage in the first place, as he states that "is intended to be transcluded onto the articles of every member species in a genus". No, it is not, it is intended to be used at pages dealing with the group of species included in the template. As such, it avoids having to duplicate changes at multiple pages that deal with the specific species group. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To add, the discussion is not about the content of the templates itself, but about how the content is best managed. if the conclusion is to delete, they need to be substituted first at all including pages.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Substitution is the correct response, yes. We don't need separate templates for data tables. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
substitute and delete, although probably only in the particular species page and not in all of the related pages. Frietjes (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - redundant. the {Cat main} template is sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk - contribs) 20:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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?Greg Bard (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 web usability issues. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So that is a delete? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.Greg Bard (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete and nominate the others (template:Category-Aesthetics/header, Template:Outline of logic/header, Template:Outline of aesthetics/header, Template:Outline of philosophy/header, ...) 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 WT:PHILO, as a good faith effort on your part. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 {{cat main}}, it is not redundant to that, and I don't understand the claim that there are usability issues. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- {{cat main}} 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). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read or review Wikipedia:Etiquette. 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. Greg Bard (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Greg bard created the template. As for the usability compare this to this 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I have started a competition. You are all eligible to enter. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Competition_for_the_worst_Wikipedia_page_-_be_in_to_win! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur; {{logic}} should not be used on category pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 - contribs) 22:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of WP:NPA, 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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that Wikipedia is "not really needed"? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only justification you've give for the links on the right. But (1) it's true, and (2) it's the only justification you've given for the deletion of the links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm confused. How about giving some reasons for keeping the template instead of making confusing and convoluted replies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
lol So are you testing the closer to see if they read the comments or merely count bolded "votes"? : ) - jc37 13:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness somebody does read this stuff. Me? Nah, I'm just hanging around being deliberately disruptive, seeing how close to the knuckle I can get before the fascists finally get me kicked out. --Matt Westwood 19:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being a sometime closer myself, I've gotten in that "bad habit" of actually reading people's comments : ) - jc37 19:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be incorrect to describe an admin who "kicks you out" as a fascist. Being deliberately disruptive should be a sacking offence for any editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SO SACK ME! TERMINATE MY SALARY! pffthththt. --Matt Westwood 21:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I AM GOING TO RECOMMEND A 50% CUT IN YOUR CELERY. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Sure, the comments were a waste of time, and any decent closer would treat them for what they were (especially since I called them out with some flashing lights : ) - as for the rest they are best ignored I think. - jc37 20:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove the link to the Wikiproject (as that could potentially confuse readers, and it should presumably be linked on the talk page anyway). Adding "see also" and "main" (and other such navigational) templates is a widespread common practice on category pages. And this is just a nicely formatted version of that. - jc37 13:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is nicely formatted. Think about the large text declaring "Category:Logic" and where the template would be used. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Category:Logic" could be re-written to "Logic categories", but otherwise, this is merely a navbox. and could easily reside on the category pages it links to. - jc37 20:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it is used on a total two categories. Makes all this hard work worthwhile doesn't it! <sarcasm> -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps currently. But Wikipedia is a work in progress. I'm sure that this could be used on more than just 2 cat pages. - jc37 21:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to investigate little more closely you will see that there is maybe half a dozen categories that it can be applied to. So just how much prior research do you do before !voting in an XfD? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<Buzzzzz> that answer is incorrect - care to extend, clarify, and/or modify your answer for round 2? : ) - jc37 05:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although this is a little unusual in its purpose, I think the template itself and its implementation are useful. It actually makes an attempt to link the category space with the other spaces (something which remains an issue on Wikipedia). SFB 18:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a range of standardised templates available. {Cat main} is the one in common usage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the uses and results of these two templates are comparable, beyond that {{cat main}} links to one of the sixteen links present on the header. SFB 17:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tradeoff between overlinking (including overtemplating) and usability. The template in question is going too far towards overlinking at the expense of usability. We actually dont know where a reader wants to go once they arrive at Category:Logic so lets just stick to the basic structure that is already in place. Also, by convention article style templates are not added to category pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...sigh... A lot of discussion and kept open for three weeks. All for a template that is used on two categories... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NoFoP-Russia

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. See also TfD immediately following, which is same situation. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NoFoP-Russia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 {{FoP-USonly|Russia}}. Stefan2 (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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 fair use, 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)[reply]
  - 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? --George Ho (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The company Megaupload 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. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, File:BMW Group 5 320i Roy Lichtenstein 1977.jpg is free to use and share, as long as it is attributed. Meanwhile, the subject is also tagged with "non-free 3d art". As a creator of this template, I vote keep. --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The United States has FOP for buildings but not for artworks, so the car is unrelated here. A photo of a copyrighted Russian building is free to share in the United States (as long as the photographer chooses a free licence), but photos of copyrighted artworks are not free to share in the United States even if the photographer picks a free licence. Anyway, I doubt that the car is copyrighted in the United States, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lichtenstein13.JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NoFoP-France

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. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NoFoP-France (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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}}. Stefan2 (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about French Wikipedia? Moreover, even French people may understand English more than anybody expects, especially in France. --George Ho (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
  - Also, would the French government consider using photos, taken in France, in the United States electronic smuggling? --George Ho (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]

Just in case, File:BMW Group 5 320i Roy Lichtenstein 1977.jpg is free to use and share, as long as it is attributed. Meanwhile, the subject is also tagged with "non-free 3d art". As a creator of this template, I vote keep. --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The United States has FOP for buildings but not for artworks, so the car is unrelated here. A photo of a copyrighted French building is free to share in the United States (as long as the photographer chooses a free licence), but photos of copyrighted artworks are not free to share in the United States even if the photographer picks a free licence. Anyway, I doubt that the car is copyrighted in the United States, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lichtenstein13.JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; redundant. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Olympic sports

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus, the discussion has stalled. Feel free to relist it, but perhaps publicise the discussion in a few "public/wikiproject" places? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olympic sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{OlympicSports}} (which is more accurate and includes all events.) As I noted in the talk on my and Sillyfolkboy's talk pages, 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☺M☯ 19:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is this considered for deletion? If this is then it really sounds like a bad joke. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response No, it's not a joke. Your input is not helpful here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this template on the grounds that I would expect that some readers would like to jump from, say Athletics (sport) 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). SFB 21:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? For example I go from Swimming (sport) to Athletics (sport). 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. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - In terms of use, the template consistently receives around 15 direct views a day. One presumes that many more people are clicking the associated links than are viewing the template. On that basis it seems that the template is regularly serving a purpose for certain sections of the readership. SFB 12:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - As an aside, I think the Olympic sport links have much more valency than longer-standing templates, such as {{Team sports}} and {{Racing}}. SFB 12:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with SFB. Absolutely necessary and absolutely different from Template:OlympicSports, that links to the results pages of the Olympic sports. May be Template:Racing is to be deleted. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see this as being both redundant in scope to OlympicSports and as basically a collection of random articles only tangentially related to the topic of the navbox, which is Olympic sports. It sounds strange to hear that, but you might as well have a navbox with all of the Olympic competitors ever; that's how useful it seems to me. --Izno (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge, but having too templates with such a minor difference is just confusing. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:FamilyTree CP/CMS

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FamilyTree CP/CMS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Antediluvian footer template which isn't a navbox, isn't a timeline, and is better explained by prose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It would seem to be illustrating family relationships. Looks like a nice example of: "a picture is worth a thousand words". - jc37 13:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:1889–90 Football League First Division

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1889–90 Football League First Division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

duplicate of standings already in 1889–90 Football League. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I find these templates useful, as it easier to keep track on the table in one template then in one league-season article and numerous club-season articles. Even though it is unused at the moment, it can be used in 1889–90 Football League and the relevant articles in Category:English football clubs 1889–90 season. If you look at Category:England football league tables, this template is not the only one. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and the other templates in Category:England football league tables. I don't see their usage in anything but the league's season article as being appropriate (basically, it's out of scope for the club articles), and then, once those are discounted, these types of templates are only then used in the league article... which means they are out of scope for being in the template space. --Izno (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are all ultimately single-use and their contents are transcluded onto the pages in question anyway. As Izno suggests, it's likely these can all be done away with. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Recent changes category

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recent changes category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

delete. Not needed. The "what links here" does the job. Also, it is no longer used. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But note that removing all instances of the template before nomination is bad form. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what should come first? The deletion of its usage or the deletion listing? The chicken or the egg? In the overall scheme of things it is not a biggie. Judgement call and all that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal Removing a template prejudices the discussion. If you say, "Template X is not needed and it's not even used" then that's disingenuous, as you removed it. Also, if editors can see how it's used throughout the project, they will be more inclined to make a good decision with their !votes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, orphaning before nomination is not always bad, but we should simply note it in the nomination for deletion in case this is controversial. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.