Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

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

Closing instructions

Contents 1 How to use this page 1.1 What not to propose for discussion here 1.2 Reasons to delete a template 1.3 Listing a template 2 Discussion 3 Current discussions 3.1 September 5 3.1.1 Template:Fb team Omiya Ardija 3.2 September 4 3.2.1 Template:Infobox imam 3.2.2 Template:Government of the Northern Territory 3.2.3 Template:Israel Squad 3.2.4 Template:See also category 3.3 September 3 3.3.1 Template:Dts-simple 3.3.2 Template:Nene Valley Railway 3.3.3 Template:Victoria politics 3.3.4 Template:IPsockProven 3.3.5 Template:San Francisco 49ers Million Dollar Backfield 3.3.6 Template:WikiProject Record Charts Ad 3.3.7 Template:Presiding Officers in Australian Parliaments 3.3.8 Template:Infobox datespan 3.3.9 Football (soccer) NT squad templates 3.4 September 2 3.4.1 Template:Sectionhide 3.4.2 Template:SectionSource 3.4.3 Template:Section:Author link 3.4.4 Template:Section:Author link and year 3.4.5 Template:Infobox Dalmatia 3.4.6 Template:Serbian Kosovo 3.4.7 Template:Bo-zh-box 3.5 September 1 3.5.1 Movister 3.5.2 Template:Infobox Family Guy season 1 3.5.3 Template:Consonants 3.5.4 Template:Vowels 3.5.5 Template:Infobox episode list 3.6 August 31 3.6.1 Template:AMGcite 3.6.2 Template:Full House season 1 3.6.3 Template:AMG Artist 3.6.4 Template:Uniform polyhedra navigator 3.6.5 Template:Edmonton Oilers staff 3.6.6 Template:Transport by country 3.6.7 Template:Kansas state footballseasons - Template:Kansas State Wildcats football seasons 3.7 August 30 3.7.1 Template:Navigasi ID 3.7.2 Template:Stella4D 3.7.3 Template:Th 3.7.4 Template:Personal info 3.7.5 Template:Economy of Pakistan 3.7.6 Template:Pp-main-page 3.7.7 Template:TDWT Elimination Table 3.8 August 29 3.8.1 Template:Speciescoverage 3.8.2 Template:WPFILMS Films to be released category 3.8.3 Template:Upcoming film 3.8.4 Template:0ws 3.8.5 Template:Infobox testcasejk 3.8.6 Template:Font 4 Old discussions 4.1 August 27 4.1.1 Template:Infobox LIRR 4.1.2 Template:SharedIP US military 4.1.3 Template:Motorsport in the UK 4.1.4 Template:Unit length range 4.1.5 Template:Florida State Seminoles seasons 4.2 August 26 4.2.1 Template:Reorganizing 4.2.2 Template:Royal Parks of London 4.2.3 Template:Infobox Television ASMW 4.2.4 Template:Infobox Indian film 4.2.5 Template:AFDWarningNew 4.2.6 Template:Uw-sandbox 4.2.7 Template:Criticism of Islam footer 4.2.8 Template:Requires Flash 4.3 August 20 4.3.1 Template:Ann anime 4.3.2 Template:Ann name 4.3.3 Language icon templates 4.3.4 Template:Template list 4.3.5 Template:Ute 4.3.6 Template:Country study 4.3.7 Template:Ann manga 4.3.8 Template:NOINDEX 4.3.9 Template:Tfd-inline 4.3.10 Template:Qif 4.3.11 Template:PD 4.3.12 Template:PD-Russia 4.3.13 Template:Canada CP 2001 4.3.14 Template:AR report 4.3.15 Infoboxes for China (PRC) subdivisions 4.3.16 Template:Infobox actor 4.3.17 Template:El Canto del Loco 4.3.18 Template:Baku weatherbox 4.3.19 Template:Bagong Alyansang Makabayan/meta/shortname 4.3.20 Template:Bahujan Kisan Dal/meta/color 4.3.21 Template:Bahujan Vikas Party/meta/color 4.3.22 Template:Pakistani martial arts sidebar 4.3.23 Template:Pakistani people 4.3.24 Template:2009SCCCSenate 5 Completed discussions 5.1 Closing discussions 5.2 To review 5.3 To convert 5.4 To substitute 5.5 To orphan 5.6 Ready for deletion 6 Archive and Indices

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] September 5

[edit] Template:Fb team Omiya Ardija

Template:Fb team Omiya Ardija (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused template which has no content anyways. Pichpich (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] September 4

[edit] Template:Infobox imam

Template:Infobox imam (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Only 2 tranclusions. I haven't done full research but one of {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox religious biography}} must be enough to do the job. Magioladitis (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Government of the Northern Territory

Template:Government of the Northern Territory (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Redundant to Template:Government of Northern Territory. Miracle Pen (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Israel Squad

Template:Israel Squad (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Consensus is that such templates are only for the finals of senior competitions Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Not necessarily on the grounds of notability, but the bigger problem with this kind of template is that any national team squad during a qualifying section will change significantly. This is due to the natural wastage of injuries, suspensions and players coming in and out of favour, as there is more than a year between the first and last qualification matches. Therefore it is impossible to maintain a stable template, unlike the squads in finals tournaments, where a squad is named and that is it - no changes are permitted after the naming deadline. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - This template is unmaintainable. – PeeJay 10:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - This template is unmaintainable.--EchetusXe 14:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - This template would chage too much to be practical, and its contents are not singificant enought to merrit a template. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - navboxes are not needed for qualifying (only finals) and would be unmaintainable. Jogurney (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:See also category

Template:See also category (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Category see also (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:See also category with Template:Category see also.
I've used these templates interchangably. Unless there is a different purpose for each that I don't understand, I suggest they be merged. Thank. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support but leave the other as a redirect. 76.66.194.106 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support and comment The difference between these two templates is that "See also category" permits the linking of only one other category, while "Category see also" permits the linking of several. In that regard, the latter is the more useful template. --Eastlaw ^talk / _contribs 00:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] September 3

[edit] Template:Dts-simple

Template:Dts-simple (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Deprecated template no longer being used. Ohconfucius ^ˇdigame! 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nene Valley Railway

Template:Nene Valley Railway (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Old railway map template with no article links replaced by more complete version - Template:Nene Valley Railway map. Scillystuff (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as useless RDT. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Victoria politics

Template:Victoria politics (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Redundant to Template:Government of Victoria. Miracle Pen (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment shouldn't it be Template:Government of Victoria (Australia) and Template:Victoria (Australia) politics ? The article is at Victoria (Australia). 76.66.194.106 (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:IPsockProven

Template:IPsockProven (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Duplicate of {{IPsock}}. Unneeded. — Dćdalus ^Contribs 20:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:San Francisco 49ers Million Dollar Backfield

Template:San Francisco 49ers Million Dollar Backfield (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

A template with only four articles in it, for a subject that does not have its own article, strikes me as redundant. It will never include more names than the few it does now, and it clutters up articles such as San Francisco 49ers, which has no fewer than ten templates at the bottom. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree to Delete but an article exists at Million Dollar Backfield. Navigation is easily accomplished from that article. A similar template exists for Template:Chicago Cardinals Million Dollar Backfield. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Star, I stand corrected--I had looked for the entire phrase. Still, I don't think that makes a difference for the basic argument, but thanks nonetheless. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject Record Charts Ad

Template:WikiProject Record Charts Ad (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused invitation template. No transclusions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Presiding Officers in Australian Parliaments

Template:Presiding Officers in Australian Parliaments (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Redundant to Template:Presiding officers of Australian legislatures. The former seems to be a cut and paste move of the latter. Miracle Pen (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox datespan

Template:Infobox datespan (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This template is only used on 2 articles. Also it just duplicates text in the article. Snappy (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Football (soccer) NT squad templates

Template:Iran Squad 1951 Asian Games (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Iran Squad 1966 Asian Games (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Iran Squad 1974 Asian Games (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Iran Squad 1990 Asian Games (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Iran Squad 1998 Asian Games (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Iran Squad 2002 Asian Games (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Iran Squad 2006 Asian Games (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Roster templates are only needed for FIFA championships and Confederation championships. -— Lomocompact ^talk 10:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] September 2

[edit] Template:Sectionhide

Template:Sectionhide (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Hides a section title. Unused. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:SectionSource

Template:SectionSource (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused. I just don't see the use. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Section:Author link

Template:Section:Author link (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused and pointless. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Section:Author link and year

Template:Section:Author link and year (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused and pointless. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Dalmatia

Template:Infobox Dalmatia (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This is another hardcoded single-use template which is better located in the article. Green Giant (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Serbian Kosovo

Template:Serbian Kosovo (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This appears to be an unused hardcoded version of {{Infobox country}} but there has been no activity since 2008 Green Giant (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Bo-zh-box

Template:Bo-zh-box (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Only used in five articles. {{Tibetan-Chinese-box}} was apparently created to replace this template more than three years ago, and there doesn't appear to be any reason why this can't now be done. PC78 (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] September 1

[edit] Movister

Template:Movister movie (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Movister title (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Both identical, both unused, both created by Movister suggesting a clear conflict of interests. http://en.movister.ru/ is a Russian-language website which makes it of limited value to our English-language readers. PC78 (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Imzadi 1979 ? 03:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Useless, apparent COI. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Family Guy season 1

Template:Infobox Family Guy season 1 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Infobox Family Guy season 2 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Infobox Family Guy season 3 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Infobox Family Guy season 4 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Infobox Family Guy season 5 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Infobox Family Guy season 6 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Infobox Family Guy season 7 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Infobox Family Guy season 8 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Infobox Family Guy season 9 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

In the process of cleaning up the episode list category, I discovered that all the "Family Guy" episode lists are currently orphaned. The reason for this is that no episode list is needed in the infobox since it would be redundant to the navigation box at the bottom of each episode page (e.g., Template: Family Guy (season 1)), to the previous and next links in the infobox, to the previous and next links at the bottom of the article, and to the link to the list of episodes in the infobox. In addition, the naming for this template is easy to confuse with the similar naming convention used for the navigation box (with or without parentheses), although the "Infobox" bit does help. Plastikspork _?Ś^(talk) 19:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete unused, and apparently (from notes on pages I've seen), WP:FG decided against listing all the season episodes in the infobox. CTJF83 chat 19:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete No longer used for articles. Gage (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as unneeded. Imzadi 1979 ? 03:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unneeded. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as unneeded. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. The template is no longer needed. JJ98 (Talk) 19:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Consonants

Template:Consonants (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Redirect to {{IPA navigation}}. The template was a convolution of the bare table and a navbox. Now these two uses are available separately as {{IPA consonant chart}} and {{IPA navigation}}. Current usage is in Userspace mainly, so deletion is not appropriate. DePiep (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support as deprecated, most recent article discussion I saw using it was Dec 09. --NortyNort (Holla) 13:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Vowels

Template:Vowels (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Redirect to {{IPA navigation}}. The template was a convolution of the bare trapezium and a navbox. Now these two uses are available separately as {{IPA vowel chart}} and {{IPA navigation}}. Current usage is in Userspace mainly, so deletion is not appropriate. DePiep (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support as deprecated, most recent article discussion I saw using it was 2008. --NortyNort (Holla) 13:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox episode list

Template:Infobox episode list (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This template is no longer needed for two reasons: (1) It is currently orphaned (t was only being used in Template:Babylon5TVFilms), and (2) {{Infobox television episode}} has a feature to include an episode list as a flat list, which does not require a separate infobox. Plastikspork _?Ś^(talk) 00:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as superceded. Imzadi 1979 ? 03:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as no longer needed. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] August 31

[edit] Template:AMGcite

[edit] Template:Full House season 1

Template:Full House season 1 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused and unlikely to be used since the individual episodes do not have individual articles. Plastikspork _?Ś^(talk) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per nominator: more than 2/3rds of the articles are red linked, and the others are redirects to List of Full House episodes. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 23:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NENAN. Imzadi 1979 ? 03:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AMG Artist

Template:AMG Artist (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Only 67 No transclusions, redundant to and replaceable with the much more widely used {{Allmusic}}. {{AMG Artist}} has different parameter names, but for the sake of so few transclusions it's probably not worth the bother of adding them to the other template. A straightforward replace and delete should suffice. PC78 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• No objection here, provided a robot or someone with time on their hands will update the articles where it is used. TJRC (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Boldly done. All uses of this template have now been replaced with {{allmusic}}. PC78 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Then I boldly change my limp "no objection here" to a firm Delete. TJRC (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as superseded and orphaned. Imzadi 1979 ? 03:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Uniform polyhedra navigator

Template:Uniform polyhedra navigator (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Polyhedra pages are awash with templates and we don't need yet another one. This one is curious in that its implying some sort of sequence to the polyhedron and the rational behind this ordering is not obvious. Salix (talk): 21:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Edmonton Oilers staff

Template:Edmonton Oilers staff (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

A template full of non-notable people. Is there really a reason for this template other than a collection of every single employee for the Oilers? Probably not. Much more of a fancruft template than anything else, and does not contribute to the quality of any article, nor do much to inform of anything but random employees working for a professional team. The team is noteworthy; not the mostly non-notable staff. Jmlk17 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Template cruft. -DJSasso (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Even if you trim the non-notable people, it is still a single use template. Resolute 21:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Imzadi 1979 ? 03:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Transport by country

Template:Transport by country (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Redundant, many handmade links, Template:Asia topic, Template:Europe topic, Template:Africa topic etc are better to handle this. TruckCard (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kansas state footballseasons - Template:Kansas State Wildcats football seasons

Template:Kansas state footballseasons (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Kansas State football seasons (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:KansasStateWildcatsfootballseasons (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Kansas State Wildcats football seasons (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

All are unused, and redundant to various parts of Template:KansasStatefootball, these may even fit the criteria for Speedy Deletion. EmanWilm (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per CSD T3. Imzadi 1979 ? 03:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] August 30

[edit] Template:Navigasi ID

Template:Navigasi ID (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Appears to be a different version of the {{Navbox}} template. Was used by {{Mosques in Indonesia}} but I've changed that to use Navbox. WOSlinker (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have been copied over from id:Templat:Navigasi ID. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Stella4D

Template:Stella4D (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Great Stella (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Procedural relisting. Following Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 16#Various user specific image templates The two templates were schedualed for deletion. After closure User:Tomruen questioned the deletion on quite valid grounds. So relisting the discussion on these two templates to gain consensus as to what to do with them. Salix (talk): 14:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Old TfD Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 23#Template:Great Stella

• Keep Templates seem to serve a useful function. --Salix (talk): 14:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for relisting this Salix, it's been needing to get dealt with. It's kind of a tricky one. It's not the templates that are the problem, it's the fact that the copyright of the images is unclear. Does the creator of the software have the copyright to all images created with it? Does he agree to license them all freely if so? I suspect they're not his to copyright (no other image making program I know of works this way) but I don't know what the law says. I think we need to delete all those images if that can't be straightened out. Then, of course, the templates will be orphaned and can be deleted too. I don't see a point to deleting the templates while the images exist--that will just make them harder to round up (unless something else, like a category replaces the template. But what's the point of that?). delldot ?. 15:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hum, here is the relevant part of the licence:

There is no royalty fee required for your use of images exported from the Software. However, if any of these are to be used in any form of publication or product, including (but not limited to) web pages, books, public displays, etc, then you must give proper credit to the Software. Proper credit includes the name of the Software used ("Great Stella") along with the web site for the product. In the case of web pages, proper credit should appear on each web page where any such image is used, with links to the Software's home web page. You should endeavour to keep these links up to date, as the Software's home web page may change from time to time. A complimentary copy of any book or poster using images from the Software would also be appreciated where feasible. In the case of physical models or sculptures created with the aid of the Software in any way, obviously credit need not appear on the models themselves, but if they are put on public display, then proper credit should appear in any accompanying documentation and somewhere easily visible near the display.

For the most part this looks like an attribution clause. The other bits look more like a request than a specific licence condition and does not use binding language. No claim is made for the copyright of the images. Attribution clauses are common to most free-licences and I can't really see anything which would make this non-free.

I disagree with the argument that the The copyright claim is invalid. argument from the first TfD. While a geometric shape is free from copyright a particular image of such is an artistic creation, involving decisions such as how a vertex is rendered. --Salix (talk): 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I emailed Rob in July about the licensing issue, and here's part of the email reply. He's got a wiki account, but not active, so if there's specific questions, I'm sure he'd answer.

My issue stands that its dumb to delete a template with a macro expansion, unless the contents are correct/consistent with licensing rules. Besides that, if/when the template is removed, something like Category:Stella_software ought to be added. Perhaps special attribution request information could go there? Tom Ruen (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

From: "Robert Webb"
To: "Tom Ruen"
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:55 AM
Subject: RE: Stella images on wikipedia
...
ME:
> On licensing itself, there's apparent contradictions, and probably your
> licensing is inconsistent with the current wikipedia licensing option added
> with it "Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0":
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>
> Specifically this would seem an absolute statement against any usage at all
> of Stella images: http://www.software3d.com/License.php
> 2. RESTRICTIONS: You may NOT: e. Modify, translate, adapt, arrange or create
> derivative works based on the Software for any purpose.

Rob:
I copied and edited that license from some other software many years ago
now. My reading of the above is that you can't create works based on the software
itself.  That is, don't copy the software or create derivative works based
on the software.

I think I also have something in there asking not to create public databases
based on output from the software, especially collections of nets, since
Stella is the only software able to make many of these.  I figure if the author of
the software allows images to be used, such as on wikipedia, then that would
take precedent anyway, but I'm no expert.

Me:
> My personal position is that attribution is more about courtesy than control,
> and ultimately I'd approve complete replacement of Stella images on Wikipedia
> to other sources with lower restrictive controls. AND I think Stella benefits
> from Wikipedia and derived works much more than any cost to you for
> unauthorized derived works anyway.

Rob:
All I want is an attribution for the images on wikipedia.  Preferably asking
that anyone who uses the images also includes the attribution in their
derived works, if that's within wiki's guidelines.  An attribution would mean my
name and a link to the Stella site.

If there's a standard template that provides this, then that's fine.
I had thought that a "standard template" would necessarily not include an
attribution, since each attribution is different, ie not standard, but this
is where I don't know enough about how wikipedia works.  A standard template is
fine if it allows specific attribution.  Maybe you can suggest such a thing?
...

• Keep. I agree with Salix's rationale. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Th

Template:St (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Nd (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Rd (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Th (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Superscripting of ordinal suffixes has been discouraged in the MoS for over three years now, and at one time (June 2008) {{th}} was apparently orphaned according to talk. It looks as if its use has gradually crept back up, and it looks like the same set of articles is (mis)using each of {{st}}, {{nd}}, {{rd}} and {{th}}. Given the small number of uses and the longstanding admonition against them in the MoS, it's time these were finally gotten rid of. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Someone should also look for transclusions of {{e}} without any arguments, as this is the analogous template over on the Fr wiki (along with {{er}}). Plastikspork _?Ś^(talk) 15:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Superscripting powers of 10 isn't discouraged, is it? Am I missing something? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but the use of {{e}} without any arguments is pointless as there is nothing in the superscript. Plastikspork _?Ś^(talk) 19:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as discouraged by MOS and should not be used. Plastikspork _?Ś^(talk) 15:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Can anyone explain what's wrong with 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th typography? My understanding is that this is the correct way to render ordinals in English. Indeed, it is so widely accepted as the correct way to render ordinals that Microsoft Word autoformats it. At any rate, something needs to be done about the tag which now appears every time superscript ordinals are used, as it makes a complete mess of pages such as List of Prime Ministers of Canada. BartBassist (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 104#Suffix of ordinal numbers and all of the associated discussion; various style guidelines proscribe the use of superscripting in ordinals, and we have for years. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Personal info

Template:Personal info (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template with no transclusions (and, as far as I can tell by searching for the text of the page in each of its six versions, no substitutions, either). Also, template has no apparent purpose as infoboxes would be infinitely more useful. cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}/_{(background check)} 04:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Substitute any transclusions and delete, or userfy on request - Doesn't seem to have demonstrated its utility during its existence. --Bsherr (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Economy of Pakistan

Template:Economy of Pakistan (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This is already covered by the more comprehensive Template:Pakistan topics. Airplaneman ? 02:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: Although, I fixed it up a little but the Template:Pakistan topics is much better and useful. Farjad0322 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Redundant to {{Pakistan topics}}, which is much better and useful. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 06:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Other countries have 'economy of' type templates too. This template exists perfectly as seperate by highlighting all relevant topics within one condensed outline. The Pakistan topics template is really a bit over-concentrated to be honest and it would be practically irrelevant to store every single thing there Mar4d (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have a perfect idea about this...In order to remove the over-concentrated problem we need to follow the pattern as of Template:University of Michigan...it follows the 'Template:Navbox with collapsible groups'...in which there are collapsible lists...If we will write {{University of Michigan}}, then all lists would be hidden...But if we will use {{University of Michigan|academics}}, only 'academics' list is shown in an uncollapsed state while all others are hidden. I think this would be the best way to put the Template:Pakistan topics...because this way we could be able to put lists in the lists...for example we would not need Template:Education in Pakistan anymore because it would appear in the 'Economy of Pakistan' list as a sub-list. If you don't believe me, see Template:Korea topics or Template:People's Republic of China topics. Other countries have begun to use this new pattern and I think we should too because our template is getting way to concentrated. What do you think? Farjad0322 ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Farjad0322 gave us two perfect examples. It would also be a good idea to follow the new pattern, {{Pakistan topics}} is really getting concentrated. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 05:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea is pretty good but is it really practical to store every single article on Template:Pakistan topics? In my opinion, most country templates are supposed to be general outlines. Have a look at Template:Korea topics for example; it mentions that the "template is intended as an index of major Korea-related articles only" and that for a complete list of Korea-related topics, see List of Korea-related topics. I think in best practice, the {{Pakistan topics}} shouldn't go more than the extent of giving an outline. Mar4d (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If you need an example of what I really mean by a good outline, also take a look at Template:Australia topics and Template:India topics; in any state, both these templates are like proper indexes giving basically the relevant and most important topics. Conventionally, other topics are mentioned in Australian/Indian sidebars or independant templates. Mar4d (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think India has the best template, except for the government section. But the question remains about this Template:Economy of Pakistan. Lets wait for another vote. And you can make a rough work template with me on User:Farjad0322/Sandbox and discuss it on the discussion page with it. Farjad0322 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pp-main-page

Template:Pp-main-page (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

With Commons now, {{C-uploaded}} and commons:Template:En main page are used for images. {{mprotected2}} suffices for all other purposes. After deleted, recommend move {{mprotected2}} to Template:Pp-main-page to match naming convention. --Bsherr (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TDWT Elimination Table

Template:TDWT Elimination Table (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:TDA Elimination Table (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Just another elimination table for a animated television series. These get reverted all the time due to fans constantly adding unverified results. Nilocia (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Subst onto the relevant pages, then delete. Since Total Drama World Tour is run in the same style as a reality show, and the show does feature eliminations, the show's article should have an elimination table. However, the way said elimination table is coded is all wrong--many actual reality shows have their elimination tables hardcoded right into the articles themselves, the same goes for the first season of this franchise. This is one case where a template isn't the right way to go. Keep the information, but ditch this middleman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiningpikablu252 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. There was a long discussion on a redo of the Total Drama elimination tables. I was part of it, and once we reached an agreement, I made the table and key into a template, in an effort to block vandalism from the article-which is something this table brought with it when it was part of the article. While I understand that other elimination tables for other reality shows are an integrated part of the article itself, it is mainly this terrible vandalism issue which is the reason that it can not be in the article. On the above point of Total Drama Island's table not being a template, this is simply due to no one getting around to creating one yet, something that was planned for the future. TDI19 (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem with hardcoding the elimination table directly into the article is that it opens it up for a lot of vandalism that's actually been curbed by moving the table to a template. The page has not remained semi-protected for long, and within hours of un-protection, the vandalism begins anew. Setting the table aside in a template has already avoided well over 75% of the vandalism that had previously been occurring, even without the template being semi-protected. In addition, creating a similar template for the first season has already been agreed to and is currently in progress. Twentydragon 08:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, my position is keep. Twentydragon 00:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Substitute then delete - If there's vandalism, it should be responded to as would vandalism in any article, not by unnecessarily creating portions of the article as a template. I understand the concern, but it's not worth the server load of a transclusion when there are more regular options available. --Bsherr (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The entire reason this was done in the first place was that the regular options weren't working, or the page wasn't considered important enough to even bother with applying those regular options. If the template does simply get merged onto the pages, I'd hope that afterward the page would be semi-protected until several months after the end of the season. Twentydragon 00:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed, and that's the regular option. In my experience, protection is 100% effective at stopping vandalism. I'd find it very curious if there were persistent vandalism and protection were refused. --Bsherr (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
        • True. Every protection on that page has worn off quickly for some reason. If we brought the table back into the article the page would have to be locked for at least a year, honestly. TDI19 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Consolidated to a single discussion. Better than repeating in both discussions. --Bsherr (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Substitute, then delete. For a single transclusion, the overhead isn't warranted. If the IP/new editor edits are that problematic, let's just go to longer-term semi-protection on the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] August 29

[edit] Template:Speciescoverage

Template:Speciescoverage (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This is overly-specific to the point where it's not obviously more useful than a talk page comment. Used on only one article (tongue). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see situations where it might be useful, but I certainly haven't encountered any other than anthropocentric ones, which are justifiable (more people are looking for information about humans, more is known about humans, etc.). We should delete it. ~rezecib ^(talk) 19:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WPFILMS Films to be released category

[edit] Template:Upcoming film

[edit] Template:0ws

Template:0ws (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 08:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JJ98 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to its code-equivalent Template:Zwsp (edit talk links history), so its usage on User-pages etc, where we cannot or should not edit, is not broken (probably some 5 such pages will remain). -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Question Is it OK and necessary that the TfD-template is transcluded? This way it will spoil some pages for some 7 days. E.g. this page is spoiled, while I am discussing other issues for that same page. Speedy into redirect? Use <noinclude>? -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Zwsp (edit talk links history). I created the template. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Zwsp (edit talk links history). Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I suggest Speedy redirect. No snowball. Nom writes "... unused", which is incorrect. It is used on Talkpages and so. -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Zwsp (edit talk links history). We can put a note on the page suggesting that users use Template:Zwsp (edit talk links history) instead, should the name this template currently occupies become desirable for a (new) justified template. ~rezecib ^(talk) 19:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox testcasejk

Template:Infobox testcasejk (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Not used. Seems to have been made for Lagadapati Rajagopal, but has (correctly) been replaced with Template:Infobox Indian politician. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• CSD G2? Going by the name of the template I'm guessing this was a test page. Unused and redundant in any case. PC78 (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Font

Template:Font (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Does not seem to be useful at all; I don't think there is ever any real need to change fonts on Wikipedia except on user pages. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 01:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JJ98 (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Well as you can see from the list of uses, I have used it in text such as "The Equestrian Statue of King Christian IX (Rytterstatuen af Christian IX) at the ..." since in my view serif is much better for Roman numerals. I looked for a Roman numeral template but could not find one. Does anybody know a good way to present these? I found that this template does not work inside a wikilink so I have not used it consistently anyway. I can live without this small attempt at perfection, especially as it is only used in the one article. Mirokado (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed the usages of Font in the article and my user page. Possibilities for Roman numerals include: using font tags directly (fussy and also does not work in wikilinks), using code tags (but that would change the font family too much) and using the Unicode Roman numerals (but fonts I have seen do not provide special glyphs for them so there is not much point). I've decided not to bother. So I have no objection to this template being removed. Mirokado (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] August 27

[edit] Template:Infobox LIRR

[edit] Template:SharedIP US military

Template:SharedIP US military (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:SharedIPGOV (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:SharedIP US military with Template:SharedIPGOV.
(Further to just resolved TfD on these templates, but less radical than December 2008 TfD proposal.) See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 19#SharedIP for individual U.S military departments, and I include those arguments by reference. With esteem for the motive for its creation (see my comments in the previous TfD), this is unnecessarily US-centric, and since there is no functional difference in the use of it over the template it is to be merged into, I propose that it be orphaned by replacement with SharedIPGOV and then deleted. Bsherr (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support "soft" merge; I see no reason against replacing the former template's code with {{SharedIPGOV|{{{1|}}}|category=[[Category:Shared IP addresses from the military of the United States|{{{{{subst|}}}PAGENAME}}]]}} to keep the categorization. The only potential problem I see is that the latter template currently has no option to clarify "multiple users" to specifically mention "in the U.S. Military", though that can easily be added. PleaseStand ^(talk) 05:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If done, could you please explain what the utility of the category and reference to the U.S. Military would be? Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this is related to WP:SIP? --NYKevin @008, i.e. 23:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
      • That's good thinking, but the US military isn't identified as a sensitive IP, and even if it were, could effectively be monitored from the category containing all government entities, many of which are actually on the SIP list. --Bsherr (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Motorsport in the UK

Template:Motorsport in the UK (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

I think this list is in danger of becoming too big for its own good considering the inclusion of the many club series that will likely to serve as support races to some major series, if not club series. Not to mention that historics bring in more spectators than a number of international series can, even any VSCC meetings is capable of bringing in more spactators than a Superleague Formula and FIA F2 (that is both held in the UK) can. Also a number of notable motorsport discipline are missing from this list (sprint, rallycross, motorcross, supercross, autocross, drag racing or even powerboats, or even the many varieties of rallying), club or national, whatever. If we were to include them all, then this list will become too unwieldly for its own good. Since motorsport series comes and goes in the UK, there is many older series that is not accounted in this template, if included, that will make it even more unwieldly.

I will say that if we were to list every race series and disciplines in the UK, then this list will become too big for its own good, if we were to restrict it to just professional series, then we all will be scratching our heads and think how do we define professional, do we define it by licensing requirement, media coverages. The Superleague and many pro series like I say although it may have TV coverages, it will never bring in as many spectators as a number of historic events are capable of as the UK is highly regarded for such considering it is the home of the two Goodwoods. If we were to exclude some disciplines, then why do we bother with this list in the first place. Therefore this is my reason for deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Donnie Park (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• keep it as a good quick link to most major motorsport in UK however maybe re edit it to include only active, major motorsport series/events—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mharris99 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 28 August 2010

• So, its the user who created this template saying its a good quick link to most major motorsport in UK. Well first, what do you mean by major series/events, you have forgotten to include all the motorcycle speedway series there, not to mention all the big name historics, also you have forgot to mention the Superkart series that was hugely popular in the 1980s, also you have forgot to include the many mini oval racing series, some popular in its early heydays. Lets put it this way, with your claim of whatever is major I can say this, whatever is seen as major to some is considered to be Mickey Mouse to others. Your consideration that we should include only active, major motorsport series/events still will do nothing to stop it from being cluttered, not to mention unmanageable, also have you attended all these events you have listed, if so, how do you know its a major series other than some of those that obviously are (BTCC, BSB). Now do you have a better reason than what you have said. Donnie Park (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe then edit the template to show only the events at the top of the UK motorsport pyrimid (e.g. British F3 / BTCC / British GT etc) and the classes leading directly to that series where applicable along with major international championships (dont argue again what major means because you can just use common sense for international motorsport). Mharris99 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• to be really honest with you, I don't think I will ever agree with your decision to show those at top of the "pyrimid and the classes leading directly to that series along with major international championships", why, like some motorsport enthusiasts I know, they will tell you there is too many series out there in the UK, they do nothing but just come and go. I know you want your template saving, but your words will never reverse my decision for a deletion considering this template is like having a template consisting of all the British football leagues out there consisting of all those from all four parts of the country including all the minor leagues, at least you know the point I am making. Donnie Park (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Unit length range

[edit] Template:Florida State Seminoles seasons

[edit] August 26

[edit] Template:Reorganizing

[edit] Template:Royal Parks of London

[edit] Template:Infobox Television ASMW

[edit] Template:Infobox Indian film

[edit] Template:AFDWarningNew

[edit] Template:Uw-sandbox

Template:Uw-sandbox (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This warning is particularly BITEy, simply in concept, because we're warning people who are testing things out in the sandbox. They're supposed to test there; if the header is removed then either a bot or a user will replace it. If they add libelous or attacking material, then we can warn or block them for making personal attacks or BLP violations; if they add copyrighted material, we talk to them about copyrights.

This template makes people think that they shouldn't edit the sandbox for trivial things like removing the header, even if that is not our intent. A template saying "please do not attack people or you will be blocked" is fine; one saying "please don't edit the sandbox and put bad stuff there" is not. It doesn't explain as much of the BLP and copyright policies as other, more specific warnings do, and calls removing the header (oh noes!) an inappropriate edit.

Simply put, it's the sandbox, and this warning is too BITEy. Malicious users should be blocked and innocent ones should have policies explained. —fetch·comms 01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite entirely. This might be the most poorly worded user warning template. Compare it currently to the template when it was created. The original language, while it could be and was improved for grammar and clarity, is much closer to the tone and informativeness that this template should have. It also explains exactly why having the sandbox template is important, which the current version does not, and that explanation is still true. The sandbox template serves an important informational purpose. I looked just now at the sandbox, which has no template at the time I write this, and it looks like it's been ages since a bot has been through to replace it. I agree with Fetchcomms reasons; I only disagree on the outcome. --Bsherr (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fetchcomms, I've edited the text of the warning. Does this address your concerns? --Bsherr (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not address mine (see below) - we have this one, special place where users are actively encouraged to experiment, instead of damaging articles. We have a bot to replace the header. Warning users for removing the header is inappropriately bitey; it will very likely be the first message on their talk, and will tarnish their record; it is an 'official' level 1 warning, so if they have further troubles it will be taken into account. I hope you understand me.  Chzz  ?  10:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite; I think Bsherr put it well. I think we do need a template in that role, but wording should be extremely soft and cuddly. Be nice to newcomers instead of warning them, and maybe even encourage experimentation in the sandbox. Including nonharmful deletion of stuff. bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I do understand where you are coming from here, and fully encourage being nice to newcomers, however, this is a warning template, listed it WP:WARN and in Category:Standardised user warning templates. You say we shouldn't warn them. If anyone wishes to create a friendly template to encourage appropriate experimentation, then with all due respect, that is a separate issue.  Chzz  ?  09:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - instruction creep; sandbox is supposed to be 'anything goes'; we ask people not to remove the header, but they still will do so. If you template-warn them, that isn't going to prevent that. If the bot isn't clearing it quickly enough, fix the bot, not this. For a new user strolling along and experimenting...for the very first message they get being a warning about their incorrect editing is...awful. Let them play. Improve the system; reload the template every two minutes or whatever, but why warn people for experimenting? We should encourage such experimentation, and be grateful they are (sensibly) doing it in Sandbox, not vandalising articles. If anyone wishes to chat with the new user, then a standard 'welcome' and a bit of open chat about whatever they were doing in the sandbox would be fine. The existence of the template means people are less likely to make a more rationed contact with the new user; it is just too tempting for people to click the 'warn' button. I don't quite understand the above "Keep but rewrite entirely" - if it needs totally rewriting, then lets just delete the thing, and then anyone can suggest a new page via normal processes (or boldly make it).  Chzz  ?  10:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(more) And note at the top of sand, Welcome to the Wikipedia Sandbox! This page allows you to carry out experiments. - there is no mention of a need to beware headers...nor should there be. We mention libel and copyright, because that is the really important stuff; we don't need to mention the internal workings at all. Or, if you think we should, we'd better add more - about "Don't transclude so many pages that you exceed the transclusion limits", "Don't emulate the Wikipedia interface itself^{unless you have a good reason, or something}, don't advertize here (that'd take some defining; When does a badly-formatted reference become an advert? are we allowed to advertize the IRC help channel? etc etc), etc etc etc.

Welcome to Wikipedia, thanks for not vandalising articles and actually trying to learn stuff in the sandbox - that's great - you can experiment there...oh, except don't do that! - imagine what message this sends out. "The Sandbox header"? Meaningless, to a new user. Fix the interface; don't shout at people if they misunderstand it.  Chzz  ?  10:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment it's been TfD'd before, closed as keep. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete in its current form, or rewrite entirely. The previous AfD was closed on the grounds that the template should be used for vandalism in the sandbox, that is, behaviour that is unacceptable even there. Yet the current template makes no mention of that, and refers instead to an act that is automatically reverted by a dedicated bot every 15 minutes and for which I see no reason whatsoever to issue a user warning or even a note. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Instead of responding in line, I address the above comments here. (1) The assertion that a bot replaces the template with any great frequency is false. Look at the sandbox history. I've observed that the bot takes anywhere from 15 minutes to a day and a half to clean the sandbox and replace the header. During the time that the header is missing, there is nothing to indicate to users that they're in the right place to make test edits, which defeats the purpose of the sandbox. I'm not seeing any comments addressing this concern. (2) A user editing the sandbox already sees that the template is labeled with a notice not to remove it. This template is the user's second notice about it. It's not a warning, it's a notice, and it's designed to remind and inform. It's not a warning, and there aren't levels, because it's intended to assume that the user is acting in good faith, and it's not a blockable offense. If it's too BITEy, as has been suggested, I invite efforts to make it less so. Efforting to do so, I already removed extraneous issues (copyright, attacks, etc.) from this template, because we have other warning templates to deal with these issues. --Bsherr (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• 1. If the bot is not working properly, we can address that issue (separately)—although, right now, it appears to be;

Header removed	Replaced
05:18	05:20
04:11	04:20
03:44	03:45
03:36	03:40
03:33	03:35

• 2. It's not a warning - yes, it is. The letters "Uw" in the name {{Uw-sandbox}} refer to it being a User warning. It is listed in WP:WARN and it is usually placed using WP:TWINKLE's tab labelled 'Warn'. It is in Category:Standardised user warning templates. Chzz  ?  05:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, let's not worry about newbies removing the sandbox header. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• This is instruction creep, and unnecessarily scares editors because of a technical limitation in the sandboxing system. Rather than this quite harmful hack, that problem should be fixed directly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Now that I've rewritten it, keep. —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • How does that address any of the concerns regarding the template? It looks like you basically just tidied up the existing wording. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, but as suggested, it could be rewritten to be much less WP:BITEy. The name could probably be changed as well. What I'd like to do is draw your attention to other such templates:
  1. {{Off-sandbox}}
  2. {{Sandbox-head}}

I believe there may be more, but if this is deleted, there is a chance that those may be deleted too. Why not merge it into one simple notice, or maybe a welcome? Hazard-SJ ^Talk 09:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Several people are apparently !voting to "keep, but rename and rewrite" - this seems odd to me. We could keep anything if we rename and rewrote it. It reminds me of a story; I've had this broom for over 30 years. I've had eight new handles, and 12 new brush heads, but still, it's the same broom  Chzz  ?  05:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Criticism of Islam footer

Template:Criticism of Islam footer (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

See deletion discussion for Muslims and controveries template The same logic applies here. In brief, since there is no Template:Criticism of Christianity footer or Template:Criticism of Judiasm footer it seems hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to write religous bigotry into WP. I respectfully ask that we delete as most of this material is a WP:CFORK from the template already deleted. NickCT (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: This is not a fork or copy of the "Muslims and controversies" template which you just got deleted. Its only a footer version of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, so if you have an issue with this certain template, then nominate the main one too. If these "criticism of" templates are all wrong, what about Template:Criticism of religion? It just looks like its happening again in another way. I guess that's how it goes. Note that I removed the "Muslims" group which was subjective and incomplete and was making the template look bad. Please dont restore it. Should we delete Template:The Holocaust too now because its a POV issue and makes Hitler look bad? I guess whatever the public decides is OK with me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The motion to delete Template:Muslims_and_controversies passed 9 to 3. Matt57 was one of the three who voted to preserve. NickCT (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to the points I raised. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This is rather misleading, reworking the template after the tfd is placed [1]. Will it be reverted back, if this tfd fails, as done before in numerous previous incidents (see [2], [3], [4])? Mootros (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ofcourse not. I think its obvious that it was silly/incomplete to have a List of detainees and Osama Bin Laden and 2 other guys listed under "Muslims". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Bears no relation to Template:Criticism of Islam, but identical to Template:Muslims and controversies footer [5]. Utter non-sense e.g List of Guantánamo Bay detainees, 911 a critic/ criticism of Islam? Who is criticising whom, by saying what? The template has been consistently forked off [6], [7], [8] into a wide array of seemingly unrelated articles. It is a mere WP:battleground, where so far nothing good has come from. Mootros (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, its not identical to "muslims and controversies". Its a footer version of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar as I said. "911, a criticism of Islam", is not present in the template. What are you talking about? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This template is identical to Template:Muslims and controversies footer please see here [9]. This template featured List of Guantánamo Bay detainees, until you just removed it after the tfd was placed. See here [10] It also featured 911, which was tried to be removed several time and reverted back. Pleases see here: [11], [12] So far nothing good has come from this template. Mootros (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Here I'll remind you. Muslims and Controversies contained two areas: 1) Media related events and 2) Incidents.

Like the Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, the Template:Criticism of Islam footer has 3 main areas: 1) Core topics: Islam/Quran/Muhammad 2) Critics 3) Issues. Now in what way is the footer template similar to Muslims and Controversies? If the List of detainees was an issue, you think we should delete the template because its offensive to you and others here? You could simply delete that item in the template or take the issue up on the talk page. I didnt see you or NickCT on the talk page for those templates. We dont have to delete the whole template. "No good has come from this template" is not true. There were minor issues with people putting in 9/11 and so on. So what? We have disputes all the time for all kinds of articles and templates. It doesnt mean we should delete them because "no good has come from them". No good for that matter has come from the Islam template either. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost no one uses this footer. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Criticism_of_Islam_footer. Clearly not much good comes from the footer. NickCT (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"This template is identical to Template:Muslims and controversies footer" Feel free to change it in a way it become identical to Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - is the footer version of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar which deemed acceptable in the deletion discussion for Muslims and controversies template linked to above. Codf1977 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Footer version of sidebar template are usefull. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Requires Flash

[edit] August 20

[edit] Template:Ann anime

[edit] Template:Ann name

[edit] Language icon templates

[edit] Template:Template list

[edit] Template:Ute

[edit] Template:Country study

Template:Country study (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Loc (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:Country study with Template:Loc.
This specific-source template is redundant to a similar, much more widely used template. BomBom (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• {{Loc}} is a crappy template because you just stick it at the bottom of the article and no one knows what content in the article comes from the LOC. The {{Country study}} template I created is suited for putting in footnotes, so it attributes the source of the specific LOC text. If anything, the {{loc}} ones should be converted to {{country study}} where appropriate - but this would require a ton of work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support merger, {{Country study}} is the better of the two, IMHO. The name on {{loc}} is bad, since it could apply to anything related to the Library of Congress. Imzadi 1979 ? 10:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support merger of {{Loc}} to {{Country study}}, if there's anything to merge. Airplaneman ? 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ann manga

[edit] Template:NOINDEX

[edit] Template:Tfd-inline

[edit] Template:Qif

[edit] Template:PD

[edit] Template:PD-Russia

Template:PD-Russia (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Deprecated public domain template. Only two pieces of media use it: one of them is struck through and the other says that it doesn't apply anyway. —Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 18:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• The template is deprecated on Commons. But there are some files which can be uploaded on En-Wiki as free with this template. Alex Spade (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{PD-Russia-2008}}. Deprecated, should not be used. Current documentation from this template can be copied to 2008. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect is bad variant due to necessity of their clear differentiation. It can be redirected to {{PD-Russia-2008}} only after WikiCommons will sort out all remain inclusions of PD-Russia. Or it can be redirected to Template:Copyvio (same as Template:PD-Soviet). Alex Spade (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Per above by Alex Spade, keep until the template is untranscluded on commons, simply for compatibility purposes. Then redirect. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Canada CP 2001

[edit] Template:AR report

[edit] Infoboxes for China (PRC) subdivisions