Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 11



Template:Translated

 * 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, with due process. The link to the original article is better placed on the talk page. This template should be removed from use, transfering the metadata to the talk pave and the template, then this template deleted. Happy‑melon 19:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Whilst some form of link back to the original foreign language article is required under GFDL, I do not see any necessity for it to be listed on the article page. The translated article will (or should) have an interwiki link to the original article, so other links are unnecessary. The template translated page is designed for use in talk space, and should be used in preference. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Useless. -- Encyclopedia77 Talk 00:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - An interwiki link is not sufficient for the GFDL. There is translated page but I think it actually is better when information like this is placed on a actual article instead of the talk page. Garion96 (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I wasn't advocating the interwiki link as a replacement - merely stating that the template duplicates the interwiki link. Information such as this does not improve the article, and therefore should be only provided on the article's talk page. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It doesn't duplicate an interwiki because it specifies the exact version the translation was coming from. For GFDL reasons I find it better if that fact is mentioned on the article and not the article's talk page. It is the same for public domain text, the fact that an article incorpperates PD text from xx is usually placed in the reference section on the article, not the talk page. Garion96 (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point regarding the version - I'll see if there's a way to incorporate it into the translated page template. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done - see Talk:ICE 1 for an example —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The problem here—which differentiates this template from the PD text example given by Garion96—is that Wikipedia cannot use itself as a reference. As such there is no real value in presenting this information on an article page, and no GFDL issues (none that I can see, anyway) in restricting it to an article's talk page. PC78 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - if consensus is to delete this template, I'll update the translated page template to include the version (see above), and use AWB to make the necessary replacements on the relevant talk pages. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:59, 15 December 2008 (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:PiS

 * 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 JPG-GR (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)



Appears to duplicate Template:Politics of Poland. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as it isn't actually about what it claims to be about: the name suggests it collects articles related to PiS (the Polish Law and Justice Party), but in fact it just lists general Poland-related articles instead. And we already have a 'Politics of Poland' infobox. Terraxos (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2008 (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:PD-US-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 section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus. Happy‑melon 22:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_15. The few remaining uses have all been nominated for deletion as nonfree or invalid source.Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Makes sense to me. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold discussion until no [ transclusions] remain. We don't want one of these images to survive IfD only to not have a © tag.  -- Thin  boy  00  @098, i.e. 01:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's my understanding that as part of template-deletion, we can move that remaining uses be bot-subst'd. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as it's a valid copyright tag. If it is deleted, rewrite one of the existing PD-(c) templates to make it clear that post-1923 expired-copyright items can use that template instead.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But this template does nothing that PD-US-no renewal doesn't do. By the way, only 2/100 uses (before I retagged them) had to do with non-renewal. The rest were misc other PD reasons, and a few weren't PD at all. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. That "or for another reason" text invites serious potential problems. What's needed is a "copyright holder failed to do some specific thing, 1923-1978" tag, without the guesswork. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If that template comes into existance then I may change my opinion.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is already available as PD-US-no renewal. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But it's not. In particular, if works were first published between 1963-1978 (...1989 in most circumstances) in the US without a copyright notice, then they are in the public domain, but wouldn't need a renewal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)-

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10 (Four more years!) 01:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Good for images that meet the criteria. -- Encyclopedia77 Talk 12:55, 11 December 2008 (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:604 Records

 * 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. Happy‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Record label templates seem to be discouraged. What if one of these artists leaves the label? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC) <hr style="width:50%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10 (Four more years!) 02:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom.-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: "What if one of these artists leaves the label?" Move them to a previous artists section in it. Peachey88 (Talk Page 07:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Cancelled process mini.png|25px]] Keep Could use some tune-ups, but useful otherwise. -- Encyclopedia77 Talk 12:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - this is the sort of thing categories should be used for instead. Terraxos (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not even suited for a category. Can you image a category EMI artists? Garion96 (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2008 (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:Wolverine
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Garion96 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Navigation template connecting very disparate articles that only have the character Wolverine (comics) in common. In some cases the connection is tenuous at best. In others the character isn't a sole focal point but is present as part of a larger group of characters. Reducing the template down to the articles central to the character results in a template of minimal use since the articles should already sufficiently interlinked. J Greb (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - it seems a list of X-Men stories, media and characters collected together in one place because Wolverine happens to be in it. Almost all of these are already covered in . It is possible an argument could be made for having a thin, trimmed-down one for characters who have other articles beyond the X-Men (which might allow a few things to be trimmed from the main X-Men navbox) but then you'd probably need a combined box for Cyclops and Phoenix as there is The Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix and The Further Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix and the whole thing starts getting a bit silly. (Emperor (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Delete. Agree completely with nom. Connection between the articles is a stretch. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per other commentators. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep - should keep it, Wolverine has much more history and background than the average Marvel character. Some of those characters don't have to do with anyone but Wolverine. The Wolverine movie is coming out soon as well so more people will be looking at topics that relate to him. Davs34 09:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article interlinking will suffice in allowing readers to move past the Wolverine (comics) article to find him in other places. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2008 (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:DTFD
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Instruction creep and unnecessary bureaucracy. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 22:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The three interconnected "Talk thread deletion notice" templates (Template:DTFD, Template:DTFDB and Template:DTFDN) are unnecessary. They are intended to serve as notice prior to thread deletion on article talk pages--the user is instructed to use all three in the same instance. There is no requirement for prior discussion of harmful talk page entries listed in Talk page guidelines; any inappropriate talk entry can be deleted by any user. In fact, if a talk entry contains a personal attack or a legal threat, or if it contains personal information, using these three templates would slow down the process and expose the harmful entry to a greater number of viewers. Instead of having these three templates, deletion of the bad talk entry is recommended by WP:TPG. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep: DTFDB is used at the bottom of the DTFD red box like the bottom of the occo box. See User talk:Example for useage. As for DTFDN, I will let that go as per WP:DTTR. It is meant to be for things that are disputed or may not be clear-cut, anything else may be removed by anyone. Besides, it may not warrent total deletion but some stuff should be removed. One editor once suggested to me to remove the vowels from insults, especially insultive slurs.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep: Here for days now and no comments at all but mine.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And mine as nominator. I still think the template isn't useful. Simple deletion of the harmful talk page thread suffices. This template draws out the process unnecessarily. Delete is the position I'm taking. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your position as WP:CREEP, but only statements from the nominator and the template's creator isn't enough to delete the template. It's only for things that might not pass the snowball test.--Ipatrol (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent point about instruction creep! I agree wholeheartedly that my opposition to the DTFD etc templates aligns with that set down at WP:CREEP. As for what it takes to delete a template, there's no rule about comments only from nominator and author not being sufficient. If reasonable consensus could be reached among these two parties, deletion could occur. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10 (Four more years!) 02:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Instruction creep. If a comment needs to be removed, just remove it. Garion96 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete all 3 - seemingly not very useful and very little actual usage. If the user wanting to use this wants to keep using it, he can make it a user subpage and subst: it as needed. If people say "oh cool, how'd you do that" enough, that's evidence right there that it should be in mainspace.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC) updated to say "all 3" davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to reinforce the point that three templates are under discussion here as candidates for deletion: Template:DTFD, Template:DTFDB and Template:DTFDN. User:Ipatrol has mentioned that Template:DTFDN could be taken out per "Don't template the regulars" (WP:DTTR) but the two other templates are still in question. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Good if it may need to be deleted but not quite sure if you may remove it. -- Encyclopedia77 Talk 12:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, instruction creep indeed. When in doubt just ask, no need to template. -- lucasbfr  talk 16:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentI still don't see a consensus, just an increasingly messy entry. If we can't form something by the last slot, I suggest we can this with a no consensus outcome, less we create "The XFD that wouldn't die."--Ipatrol (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just let the closing admin decide. Personally I see a consensus to delete here. Four editors want to delete, two editors want to keep. (not counting you voting twice). Although I, same as you, am biased since I already stated my preference. Garion96 (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - WP:CREEPy, and not really very useful (if the thread is problematic, just delete it; there's no need to keep it with these templates hanging over it as some sort of threat). Terraxos (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment For Garion, remember this is not a majority vote--Ipatrol (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You meant What is consensus?. Quite right, but I was not solely counting numbers but looking at arguments. Either way, my point is still the same, let the closing admin decide. Garion96 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2008 (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:LDSInfobox
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 22:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving from MFD, where template was listed by mistake. Original MFD discussion is copy-pasted below. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Any LDS Church-unique info this template conveys is now more comprehensively conveyed in Template:LDSGAinfo (see, for example, redundancy on Gordon B. Hinckley). The biographical info is better presented in Template:Infobox Person (see WP:GA Thomas S. Monson) and any succession info is already presented in the Template:Succession boxs at the bottom of each article. -- Eustress (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tentative support for deletion, so long as someone commits to add Template:LDSApostleshipinfo to the presidents of the church pages, since this nominated template currently contains the information that would regularly be presented there for apostles who were not presidents. This is relatively complicated, but Template:LDSGAinfo does NOT contain the same information as Template:LDSApostleshipinfo—one contains apostle ordination date and one contains membership in the Qof12 date. Some people think these are always the same, but they are not, and some people have been apostles for years without being a member of the Qof12. In the end, I can't really say that I think this proposal is accomplishing much, since one template will be deleted but another will have to be added to all the pages it is on anyway. I suppose it could be seen as a type of standardization, but at the same time it's also a bit of a make-work project for someone. I think the nominator and I discussed this at one point; I just can't seem to remember where it was. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10 (Four more years!) 02:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No exact counterpart, and it seems designed for a small subset compared with the full "person infobox." If the above is correct, and this infobox would be more useful if added to, why not?  Collect (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * [[Image:Cancelled process mini.png|25px]]Keep Useful template for describing prophets and apostles. -- Encyclopedia77 Talk 12:43, 11 December 2008 (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.