Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 13



Template:No copyright information

 * 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 and do not merge. Ruslik_ Zero 07:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No copyright information
 * Di-no license

Propose merging Template:No copyright information with Template:Di-no license.

Two templates have become apparently similar to each other. "No copyright information" came one year earlier than the other, but the other is more clean and precise than "No copyright information". Gh87 (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't merge. The main user of No copyright information is User:ImageTaggingBot, so it doesn't need all the garbage found at the bottom of Di-no license. --Carnildo (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. IIRC, some bots and scripts use one of these tags, and other bots and scripts use the other tag. I'd prefer not to merge unless it can be determined that it will not introduce bugs in these bots and scripts. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well... I don't see any informative directory template for Carnildo's bot-created templates as for Di-no license shown in Template:Di-no license/doc. --Gh87 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be no technical problems. di-no license seems to take a couple more parameters, but that's not a problem since the template fills them automatically. is functionally equivalent to  --Enric Naval (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sort of don't merge, I guess Technically, they serve the same purpose, they just display different text. However, as carnildo pointed out, "no copyright information" is more newbie-friendly, while "di-no license" has a lot of small text and administrative links that could confuse newbies. For me, that makes "no copyright information" different enough to justify keeping it around, a small degree of Ecosystem diversity is good, etc. (By the way, they should link to each other in their "/doc" pages). --Enric Naval (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak merge. They both say about the same thing but in a different manner. No copyright information says about the copyright license in a question, whereas Di-no license says it in a order. Omkar 1234   Leave me a message!  15:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't merge as per Carnildo. Also, WP:TWINKLE uses the full set of DI templates, and much code is being re-written for the next generation of WP software - I don't think extra work would be appreciated at this point in time.  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:31, 25 August 2011 (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:Cleanup

 * 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 invalid/inappropriate nomination, with no prejudice any toward future discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)



This template should be deleted because it is disrespectful to contributors' work. It blares like a loud horn that "this article sucks, please be so nice as to help us out by cleaning it up". This inadequate notice provides no specific guidance as to how the article should be "cleaned up". The purported " more specific clean up instructions" are useful, but the template itself provides no area to point out what exactly needs cleaning up.

It's useless, utterly useless. Whoever devised it needs a cleanup template on his userpage, blaring that he is untrustworthy. Every time I see the template, I think, "I cannot trust this article because it has been tagbombed and may contained other misinformation". It is a net negative to the project.

Also, on BLPs, how do you think the subject would react to see that his/her article sucks, accentuated by the conspicuous and ugly cleanup template? I would take great offense to see such a template on my page, were I notable, which I am, but I don't have an article yet (maybe someone can create it for me?). 64.183.70.187 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Almost a malicious nomination. Let us just say that the nominator is not quite into the spirit of Wikipedia. I am sure that the edit page used to warn people to expect their work to be "edited mercilessly". The &#123;{cleanup}} tag is just part of that process and is in fact completely merciful since it does not propose deletion. As to the lack of information: the need for cleanup is usually painfully obvious but if the "victim" of the tag contacts the person who applied it, they will usually be given detailed advice. &mdash; RHaworth 16:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As I said the last time I nominate this, I have never seen this used correctly. It's always spammed in a drive-by tagging. The template has been amended so that a rationale can be added, but no one uses that rationale field. Some keepers have argued that it's useful for new editors — but I feel that if they can find "cleanup", they can find something more specific like "refimprove" or "copy edit". It's stating the obvious or stating something so vague as to be useless, just like expand was. Literally 100% of the time that I've seen a cleanup tag, I have either a.) had no idea what needed cleanup, or b.) just replaced it with a more specific tag. The cleanup template's an artifact of simpler times, before there were as many potential problems in an article, and just like expand, I don't think it should get a grandfather clause. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:48, 13 August 2011 (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:Selfref

 * 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 invalid/inappropriate nomination, with no prejudice any toward future discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)



I see this being used a lotta plac es and its annoying. This is an encyclopedia and it shudnt say "oh heres a link to some crap in the wiki space". no readers cares about that and wiki editors shud alredy no wer to find the link.Please delete. it just doesnt maake sense. acording to Manual of Style (linking) we shudnt do this so please everyone just delet it ok thansk bye 64.183.70.187 (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Similar arguments to &#123;{cleanup}} above. &mdash; RHaworth 16:55, 13 August 2011 (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:Catfd3

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just substantially refactored the TFD nomination instructions, and this is now even more obsolete than it was before. I suspect it has not been used for years. It's not often that a TFD process template is nominated for TFD, so let's cherish the moment to cut down on instruction creep and streamline the deletion process. — This, that, and the other (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete since the template was already completely obsolete before your new refactor (which may or may not stand; people tend to revert big changes to XfD processes). I created the template to serve a particular not entirely uncommon need, back when; the need isn't there any longer, as, of which this was a variant, no longer works the way this one does, orphaning it. This template's just old junk now. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 12:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work. CfD has certainly suffered from a lack of maintenance in the past, so it's good that folk are working to ensure that the process is as straightforward as with any other part of XfD. There's nothing at all wrong with deleting process templates: indeed, there should be little reason ever to keep them around if they are obsolete. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:39, 15 August 2011 (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.