Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 14



Template:PD-LOC

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

The result of the debate was keep, but deprecate. Tom (talk - email) 22:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This template has already been deprecated on the Commons. It should be either deprecated here or just deleted, since it encourages the addition of non-free works. An appropriate tag such as PD-old, etc., should be used instead of this template, since many of the works within the Library are NOT PD. Even though this template states that as a stipulation, it still encourages misuse. PD-old or PD-expired, etc., are much more appropriate. Tom (talk - email) 20:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The creator of this template, user:Evrik is presently on a Wikibreak until March 19, so will probably be unable to take part in this discussion until that date. WjBscribe 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. We should not be presuming that things are in the public domain; we should presume that they are not in absence of evidence to the contrary. -Amarkov moo! 05:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not oppose. I would deprecate it to something similar to what was done on the commons. There is already an exisiting template that it should be deprecated to: LOC-image. I would also add something like this to the LOC-image template:


 * --evrik going back on wikibreak 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There are a number of images that need to be retagged or moved in Category:Images from the Library of Congress. I think it's important to note that the new template on the commons is not a copyright tag, but is a 'source' tag to be used with a copyright tag. --evrik (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Question There are a lot of public-domain images in the LOC that PD-OLD wouldn't apply to; for instance the Chicago Daily News and Look Magazine collections. Maybe we should create specific templates for those before deleting this? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are existing tags for all acceptable images on Wikipedia; pd-old is just an example. If there is not a proper tag for them now, then they need to be speedily deleted anyways. --Tom (talk - email) 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, you sure about that? You sound awfully confident. Okay, so what tags would apply to the examples I gave above? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Look Magazine photos are not usable on Wikipedia, since they cannot be used for advertising purposes. The Chicago Daily News images can only be used under fair use terms.   These are two good examples as to why this template should be done away with. --Tom (talk - email) 12:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I misremembered. Well, hmm. I guess you're right then. I could've sworn there were some PD collections on the LOC site that wouldn't apply under other tags, but I can't find them now. I guess we can come up with a tag if that ever does come up. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm convinced, per the conversation above. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I could swear this was just archived. I went ahead and deprecated the template. --evrik (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:JAG episode

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

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon 01:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet another fork of Infobox Television episode. Adds nothing, was used on 1 page. usage replace. P.S. are you guys sick of me yet ? :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete ... again :) - grubber 16:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to Infobox Television episode, yet again. Kyra~(talk) 21:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, ditto... :) --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  review me! ) 00:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete g7, author request. NawlinWiki 15:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Prepends The before the visual representation of a wikilink. Was used only once (replaced already), and this sounds like a bad idea to have in general. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - I was the author and I actually forgot about it myself... which clearly limits its usefulness. But calling it "dirty tricks" is a bit much. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 14:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox AYAOTD episode

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

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet another fork of Infobox Television episode. It adds storyteller (info from the fictional work), but this information was also present in the article itself. Was only used on 1 page, and it doesn't look like AYAOTD will get a whole lot of episode articles any time soon. All 1 usecases replace --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - grubber 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to Infobox Television episode; no need to duplicate templates when one works rather well. Kyra~(talk) 17:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hong Kong Squad 2003 East Asian Cup

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

The result of the debate was keep. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It already deleted and this is recreate by someone, please see Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 30. — Matthew_hk   t  c  12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk   t  c  12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, Wikipedia is ever-progressing, we cannot simply rule out the templates other than World Cup and major leagues. As a compromise solution, I suggest adding templates for other teams besides HKSAR team in that event so there will not be a bias. As similar problems of keeping/deleting non-WC/non-major league templates are regular controversy in TfD (See here: October 17, November 13, November 17, November 21, November 30, December 4, December 12, Deletion review December 21, February 6, March 8), I think that consensus should be reached and general rules should be made. - INTELer 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (Revised by INTELer 10:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Strong Keep Because it includes the squad for when Hong Kong qualified for its first major tournament since 1968 (no squad data avaliable for when HK qualfied for the AFC Asian Cup in 1956, 1964 and 1968 anyway), whether regional or international, and may be the only one for the forseeable future. It is not an Under-23 event. See here, and you will see that the other three countries fielded strong sides in the finals. - Nick C 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no other templates outside World Cup squads or current season details have survived. This one is no different. - fchd 20:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent. No offense, but Nick C's reasoning is completely irrelevant. Punkmorten 21:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is none of your business. You guys always urging to delete others' effort. Hikikomori.hk 23:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I see no reason why we can only keep World Cup squad templates. Everything which has value should be appreciated in wikipedia. The cup is extra important in Hong Kong football history and the template worths to be kept. It also enhances the cross links between different atricles and is good for the efficient work of wikipedia. Checkiema 11:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can notice that fchd comes from England and Punkmorten is a Norwegian. Their teams are so pro. They never care about us Hongkonger. Hikikomori.hk 06:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a great fan of templates in any article, but consensus and precedent has come to the conclusion that World Cup Squads and current squad templates are OK. On that basis, I'd have no problem with current squad templates for HK league teams. But this one should go. - fchd 08:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a precedent really made? I think the issue if only World Cup and club teams templates can be kept is still under disputed. Can you find me any references about this? It would be nice for me to come up with a better decision. Checkiema 10:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Personally, I appreciate the effort of Hikikomori.hk and Checkiema who contribute much to the articles about Hong Kong football. However, to be fair and square, the comments by fchd and Punkmorten are also true. There isn't any squad templates even for important events like Euro 2000, let alone other minor events like the one in question . The East Asian Cup is a relatively minor football event when compared to the World Cup or other regional events of the six continental confederations (e.g. Euro 2004) . As a Hongkonger, I understand the personal emotion for Hong Kong football, but IMHO, we should not use such reason as sole argument to keep this template.


 * By the way, keep calm and stay COOL guys. We should not make comments on other Wikipedians' action based on their race. This sounds like personal attack and it hurts the Wikipedia community. - INTELer 08:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep World Cup and major leagues squad. That's all for soccer squad templates? No way! Every Wikipedian should appreciate what other Wikipedian made. Asian Cup is a major soccer tourament too. You guys should keep this templates. AdeKaka' 14:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete national team templates, except for World Cup participants and current champions of confederations. Neier 01:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


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

Template:6teen episode

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

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)



Yet another fork of Infobox Television episode. The usage instructions indicate the original auther didn't at all know what a template was. I went trough the articles, and found 6 uses (copy/paste's), all tables replaced with the "standard" infobox template. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 05:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to Infobox Television episode; one version works well, so multiple versions performing the same function are not really needed. Kyra~(talk) 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, already a template to handle this. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  review me! ) 00:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Chaotic Episode

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

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet another fork of Infobox Television episode. was used on only 3 pages so far (pretty new series), and all it's information could be presented by the standard infobox. The 3 uses have been replaced. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. –Pomte 23:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template User:Blade Runner

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete -- The Anome 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is actually an article, not a template (look carefully at the name). Proposed deletion contested by creator. Misnamed page; clearly unencyclopedic as it's a userbox. Identical, correctly-named version already exists at Template:User Blade Runner. A redirect would be cross-namespace and hence undesirable – Qxz 04:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Redundant, incorrectly named duplicate -- BlastOButter42 See  Hear  Speak  05:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and do not take this back to AfD. –Pomte 06:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G6, and tagged as such. --ais523 11:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Futurama episode small

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

The result of the debate was delete and userfy. John Reaves (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Template not in use and dupe with much of Infobox Television episode. Seems like an abondoned project of it's author. I tried to contact him, but he doesn't respond. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy - put in creator's userspace (if not there already), ie out of commission, so that he can have it if he needs it. Unused, and appears redundant. Grace notes T  § 13:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Sliders episodes

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

The result of the debate was delete (or would have been had anybody said anything). John Reaves (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Recently we had the deletion of Sliders episode, but I just ran into this one. This template isn't even used at ALL by any of the sliders articles. Delete as unneeded navbox. There is a proper list of episodes linked from the episode infoboxes. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Youth Empowerment

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

The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this template, except perhaps as a way to gather and advertise the personal interests of one particular Wikipedia contributor. That's not a good reason for creating a template. Its creator says there is "an obvious taxonomy of subjects," but the taxonomy isn't at all obvious unless a person shares the creator's particular personal perspectives (i.e. POV). To illustrate this, I consider several other perspectives. From the POV of a person who is 62 years old and is experiencing employment discrimination related to Ageism, the article about Ageism has nothing to do with Unschooling, Day of Silence, or most of the other articles that are now displaying in this template. From the POV of a LGBT activist interested in the Day of Silence, that event is an LGBT event, not a Youth Empowerment event, and it has nothing to do with topics like Generation gap and Company of Young Canadians. Professional educators are likely to perceive that articles such as Service-learning and Experiential learning are about educating youth, not about empowerment of youth. A former member of Students for a Democratic Society or Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee is unlikely to recall these as "Youth Empowerment" organizations. Either delete the template or convert parts of it into templates for other topics. For example, parts of the template could be converted into a template on the topic of "Youth." orlady 01:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete blegh, one more huge template navigator that deals with way too many subjects from a too narrowed point of view. We don't want to mark all these articles as "type:youth empowerment", which these boxes have the tendancy of doing. Make it an article, and discuss why all these things touch on the subject of "youth empowerment" and provide citations. Basically this is now an article, formed as a linklist and as such avoids WP:ATT etc. Bad idea. I like this comment from the creator: "However, the validity of youth empowerment as a topic that needs a template isn't about POV". When has a topic EVER required a template in wikipedia ? If something is important, it requires an article, not a template. A template can be a navigational aid between several closely tied subjects, but these topics are so diverse you cannot say they are "closely tied subjects". --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can any of the seasoned WP editors please give some constructive feedback that isn't laced with cynicism and sarcasm? I was not bestowed with knowledge about WP upon my birth; much like you, I am learning about WP as I go. I have cleaned up the template, trimming some "far-reaching" topics and parsing it to what articles are directly related to the topic. But I have to admit - I do not know what makes a template worthy, if not the relatedness of the articles. Can someone - anyone - provide some constructive feedback? - Freechild 16:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it easier to think about this stuff when the topic is not one that I feel strongly about. Therefore, to see what a template should be, let's look at Template:TrailSystem. I think that is a worthwhile template, as it provides a useful navigational aid between several closely tied subjects. (A reader interested in the Appalachian Trail or the Nez Perce Trail is very likely to also be interested in articles about other national trails, and thus appreciate easy access to a set of navigational links.) Note that the template also includes links to a few related articles, such as United States Forest Service, that are directly relevant to the topic (because, for example, the Forest Service manages much of the land crossed by national trails) and therefore may be of interest to "Trails" readers, but that do not display this template (because these are not articles about trails). Also note that there are many other articles that are likely to interest many of the readers of U.S. trails articles (such as Hiking, Boy Scouts of America, Equestrianism, and Potability of backcountry water)) that are not listed. The idea is to provide navigational links to articles that clearly have a close relationship, not to provide a laundry list of links to possibly related topics. --orlady 16:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The current version at least looks much better then the older one. When i have time later, i'll check it out more thorougly again. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but continue to pare down and focus; it now has better direction than the older version.? Ropcat 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, if the template can be trimmed down a bit and focused onto the main point, then there's no reason for it to be deleted. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  review me! ) 00:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that many of the articles that were removed from the template still display the template. (I've removed it from a few articles.) If the template survives is there a 'bot that can clean up the rest of the irrelevant links to it? --orlady 17:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. In general a template on this topic can be very useful, and this particular template has been refined significantly since the beginning of this discussion. — coe l acan — 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Crusade episode

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

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon 01:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundant with Infobox Television episode. replaced all usages. Only information lost is the "year in fiction" of this infobox. But since all episodes play in the same "fictional" year, and the year is mentioned in the main Crusade article I do not consider this to be a problem. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Thanks for replacing them before nominating, and for attempting to standardize these boxes. :) --Fang Aili talk 13:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, all of these episode templates are getting pretty overwhelming. Let the Infobox Television episode take care of things. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  review me! ) 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.