Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 1



Template:Dojo

 * 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) 17:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)



This is a template with no sensible purpose. To list/include every dojo in the world? That would be like having a template called Church and listing every place of worship in the world. Seems it was really intended primarily to promote dojos and organizations of interest to the creator. Himatsu Bushi (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. About half of the articles aren't even dojos - there's a couple schools which have karate in the curriculum, two karate associations, one Japanese term referring to the leader of a dojo... this would be underfocused as a category. As a navigation box, it's entirely useless. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is redundant to Category:Dojos and offers no significant navigational benefit. --RL0919 (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2009 (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:Shark Attack

 * 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) 17:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)



Three barely notable films of a trilogy do not need a template for navigation -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By that argument, we should also delete templates for the Scream trilogy and other film trilogies. I know that the Shark Attack films aren't exactly the Star Wars Trilogy, but the template makes it easier to access the other film articles, and after putting so much effort into making this template, I'm not prepared to see it deleted so quickly on the grounds that it's "barely notable". --Crablogger (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The scream template has FAR more links than just the three films and has a central series articles. This one never will and will likely lose some. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful template. It makes it easier to navigate between articles. It makes no sense to hinder navigation between articles on notability grounds. If you think that the articles have notability issues, that's what the talk page and AfD are for. Jafeluv (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three related articles do not need a template for navigation. All of the articles already link between one another just fine. A template is for navigating between many articles, not three little ones. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now that you've made me look, Navigation templates actually says "A navigation template with less than a handful of links can easily be replaced by "See also" sections, or relevant main and see also links within the articles' sections." So I guess you're right. Jafeluv (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then by all means replace with See also sections, but next time, please don't try and be rude when putting your argument across, Collectonian. I put a lot of hard work into this template, and although I'm now backing down over it, I still don't like being made to feel as though my contributions are unwanted. --Crablogger (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking the truth is rude? I'm sorry if you put a lot of hard work into making it (though if it was hard work, I'd highly recommend studying templates more as that was a pretty simple one and should have been a 2 minute creation at most), but the fact is that the amount of effort you put into something does not mean it has a free pass to exist. It is not my fault that you did not know the guidelines before making it, nor should you get defensive about someone pointing out you made an error and making steps to correct it. See note that appears at the bottom of every edit page...-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The small number of articles involved makes a navigation template unnecessary and redundant to links easily found within the body of each article. --RL0919 (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2009 (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:Branding timeline

 * 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 keep with no prejudice toward renaming if the community agrees to it. JPG-GR (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)



A template designed for non-free galleries of historical logos. If historical logos are genuinely important, they can be included inline- including them in a gallery like this will never be appropriate for NFC, which logos almost are. Only used a few times, those of which I have checked are clear abuses of the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This template provided a 'gallery' of historical brands and other images/things in a visually pleasing way in around half the file size of other gallery methods originally used. I believe that historical brands contribute to an encyclopedia, and their use is compliant with the History field of Template:Logo fur.  SEO75  [  talk  ]  06:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In specific cases, of course, historic logos are useful. However, when they are useful, this is not the way to display them- instead, the logos should be placed inline alongside where they are discussed. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep From a user perspective, I find it very useful to have some information, such as historic logos, is represented in a gallery like this one, especially when comes to researching the history of a company. A picture tells a thousand words, having it in a gallery is concise and easy to use as the logo's historic usage period is clearly listed (eg. 1990-1992, 1992-2000 etc).  If you have the logos inline, considering having 5 logos placed vertically on a page with an one-liner describing 'this is the logo of Company X between 1990 to 1992' or just a paragraph describing all five of them, the paragraph would not be long enough to take up the space of 5 logos lined vertically.  I am voting to keep this from an usability point of view. Aviator006 (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's all you have, you shouldn't be using the logos. That was actually more of an argument for deletion than for retention... Basically, you're saying "this template is good because it allows us to use images that do not meet our policies in a way that looks nice". J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. One example of where the template is being effectively, and with no NFC issues, is at St Kilda Football Club. Compare also North Melbourne Football Club guernseys. These in themselves may be sufficient reason for a "keep".  See also Nine Network, where all the images are considered PD-textlogo.
 * As for examples like Quantas and ABC 1 (old revisions), J.Milburn has a consistent long-standing position that visual information about logos, branding, cover art etc is simply not a part of the understanding of a topic readers should seek.
 * However, apart from himself, I don't think that is a widely held view. Personally I view the visual identity used to epitomise the national flag carrier of Australia, or its most important public national television station, as something very significant; and tracing their evolution over the last five decades is entirely encyclopedic.  Compare the Quantas page before and after J.Milburn's intervention, and it seems to me a significant piece of understanding about the flag carrier has been lost by this intervention -- contrary to the intention of NFCC#8.
 * It is also well known that Mike Godwin sees no legal objection to the appropriate use of historic logos in such circumstances - the question is simply for us to judge as a community when they have appropriate significance.
 * In my view therefore the Quantas page and the ABC 1 page should be reverted, and, regardless of the actions on those pages, the template should be kept. Jheald (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete; the nominator is quite correct, although obviously it may be possible to use this template without NFC concerns in some cases. If this is kept, at least it might make our job easier in that at least the "What Links here" tab on it will enable galleries of non-free images to be swiftly nuked from articles, I suppose. Black Kite 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete While the template itself is not a violation of the fair use policy, it is intended to be used to violate the policy. We do not support fair use galleries. Galleries routinely fail the significance criterion of WP:NFCC. If there were sufficient text in the article to support the gallery, then there's sufficient reason to put them inline in the text, rather than a gallery (so nix the gallery). If there's not sufficient text to support the gallery, then nix the gallery. Either way, the gallery must be nixed. See also NFC. Get that wording removed (via consensus) from the guideline, then the template could stay. While that wording remains on the guideline, this template must go. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Take an example like Quantas (link above, to the version before J.Milburn nuked it). Is this in fact a gallery?  Or has the template just given the editors an appropriate choice of laying out the images horizontally rather than vertically?
 * If the sequence of historical logos is significant -- and for as public an entity as a national TV station, or a national flag carrier, it may well be -- then it seems to me that the template is actually not a bad way to show it.
 * Note also that WP:NFC says that arrangement "should be considered on a case-by-case basis". Galleries are deprecated, but not forbidden if they are actually appropriate.   Jheald (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are precious few examples of such legitimate use that has passed consensus. There's a reason for that. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see no reason this can't be used in a way that complies with the NFCC.  Sometimes, displaying the images inline makes it harder to compare them to each other; the gallery format can be useful in those situations, even if there is plenty of text expounding upon them.  Powers T 20:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and of course it can easily be used for free images in addition to non-free ones. Powers T 20:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Aviator006: it's useful for displaying logos in a concise format, which is exactly the opposite of what the non-free content policy requires. If you can't write something along the lines of NBC logos, you probably shouldn't be showing historical logos in the first place. --Carnildo (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a danger we must avoid, of letting "the best become the enemy of the good" as the phrase goes. I agree that NBC logos is a fine article.  But more humble presentations, like that in the Quantas example, can still represent a significant contribution to understanding and justify their inclusion.  WP is built on the whole idea of encouraging and nourishing the good so that it can become the best.  Let's be very careful to keep that ladder in place.  Jheald (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per User:LtPowers. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with LtPowers, I don't see why this can't be used for free content as well as non-free content. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Jheald and LtPowers. Powergate92   Talk  03:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Aside from user:Jheald's Nine Network example, I can think of several other legitimate uses for this template. For example, several historic logos are in the public domain. Anything originating in the U.S. from 1922 or earlier, for example. Also, programs/idents from the DuMont Television Network are public domain as their copyrights were not renewed. The same may be true for some other early TV networks. "This template could be used incorrectly" isn't really a valid reason for deletion (nor should "what links here" be used to mass-purge content without very careful checking!). Firsfron of Ronchester  05:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's possible I took the intended use as the only possible use. As it has been argued there could be some legitimate uses, I have made this edit, and will be patrolling the transclusions. I hope others will be doing the same. However, as this template seems it will create an awful lot more problems than it will solve, I still support deletion. J Milburn (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename. Basically this template is an alternate to the gallery tag. Perhaps "image timeline" or so would be a better name. (could be used for e.g. displaying the evolution of Volkswagen Beetles, or historical pictures of the same site). Of course, remove uses where non-free images are used without good cause, as in the Qantas example. Kusma (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep on condition that its use is strictly policed. The requirements of WP:NFCC are clear, and the documentation explains this.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename, the template ITSELF can be useful for stuff other than logo timelines. I support the image timeline idea though. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:38, 3 August 2009 (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:1

 * 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) 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)



this is moar-evil; *one* damned br-element; delete. cheers, Jack Merridew 14:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * someone tag the protected thing, please. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * comment - this is used quite a bit on articles, but I'm not at all sure it's used even as intended. I removed it from Woburn, Massachusetts and Wall plate, where I suspect it someone may have confused it for a cite-reference tag of some kind (and where it didn't contribute at all to the actual formatting of the page). I'm darned if I understand how it's used on Stuart Whitehead, and I suspect that there too it might be being used by mistake (as if it were something to to with 0). So I'd strongly suggest that if this template is to be deleted, that the cleanup for it be a manual process of figuring out what its intended use was on a specific article, rather than a blind bot substitution of a BR tag in for each 1. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, there should be a clean up first but let's not worry too much about what the intent was as long as we can get the pages in decent shape. J IM ptalk·cont 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blind subst and delete. Anything that gets broken can be fixed.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with the anon on this; anyone passing by, please go fix a few instances. use bots or manual as you see fit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as replaceable by . If someone cares so much about typing one extra character, I don't know what they're doing writing an encyclopaedia in the first place. Jafeluv (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as replaceable by, which is one character shorter than  and two shorter than  . Plastikspork (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It turns out that a common error in template programming is not including enough braces around the input variables: { or } or instead of  . Whilst searching for pages which link to this template, I found (and corrected) about twenty or thirty such errors. It seems to me that it if this template were to exist that it could help expose these errors by issuing some sort of a warning message.  Just a thought. Plastikspork (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2009 (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:2

 * 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) 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)



This is evil; use a blank line, get two paragraphs; use two linebreaks if you must. delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * someone tag the protected thing, please. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Utterly, utterly pointless, and not easier than just hitting RETURN twice.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete One of the many useless formatting templates we've got to clean up. J IM ptalk·cont 17:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Replaceable by . Jafeluv (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as replaceable by . Plastikspork (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: this template is often accidentally used in userboxes and templates due to the similarity between  and ,  , and  . Plastikspork (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2009 (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:Dts2 and Dts3

 * 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) 19:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)



Redundant to dts the template is already deprecated. It has no main space transclusions.

Unused & redundant to. J IM ptalk·cont 09:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and have a bot/script replace any remaining useful dts2/dts3 with dts. Plastikspork (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2009 (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.