Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 8

< January 7	January 9 >

January 8

Template:Pokefair

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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is used just to write image rationale on pages, and is subst for that purpose. My comment is, shouldn't people actually be writing relevant rationale for the image as applicable, rather than relying on a template to do it for them? Do other Wikiprojects or general Wikipedia use a template for image rationale? - T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 12:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as a matter of fact yes, WP:CVG uses {{game-cover}}, {{game-icon}}, {{game-logo}}, and {{game-screenshot}}. If you want non-game related templates you can take a look at these. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are boilerplates to define them AS fair-use images. They can't work without rationale. - T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- keep, fair enough Tesuya-san. However I still think that in this case it is perfectly suitable to use a template to help speed along the process of rationalizing the individual species images, how many were released in D/P? As Night Gyr stated the piint of rational is the "individual consideration" given to each image. However all the 493 little images that adorn each species page are going to have the same rationale. Using a template for these images at least is justifiable due to quantity and similarity. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While it's a little hard to endorse templating this, I don't see why this would be different from something just written out. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagify, having a sample rationale for the wikiproject is alright, but people thinking they can get away with dumping a template on an image page and being done with it it without individual consideration goes against the whole point of a rationale. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the nomination for deletion intends to help make this most distinct. - T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 09:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There's a clear difference between templated licenses for images and templated fair-use justifications. This is only going to cause problems down the road if it gets any visibility, encouraging people that its "close enough" to use rather than actually putting the required assessment of circumstances into the justification. As proof, I suggest that this TFD be expanded to include the following two templates, which already transclude this one as their built-in justification. One "only" seems to encourage improper fair use, the other is also for wildly differing content. No idea at the moment what else might subst: this.
- Template:Pli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Khfair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Serpent's Choice 09:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for using Pli, in particular, are incompatible with proper fair use. Serpent's Choice 10:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fair-use rationale must be explicitly and intentionally defined for each image. Allowing contributors to bypass this process by applying a template is not a good idea. -/- Warren 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template is being used to provide a fair use rationale for images that would all have basically the same fair use rationale. How would the fair usage of Image:ScreenshotPokemonEpi1.gif and Image:Pikachu.png be any different?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

Template:Timeline of the burrito

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to continuing expansion, template doesn't work as a graphical timeline. Moving to article Timeline of the Burrito. --—Viriditas | Talk 09:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, procedural. This does make me wonder if we should be using single-axis timelines at all, when simple prose or HTML tables will suffice... I'd like to think the encyclopedia could retain full accessibility and usability without images. -/- Warren 00:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator is correct, this hardly seems template worthy. Arjun 02:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the graphic; Keep the text. Burritos are very, very notable. And the history of the burrito is so hard to come across in so many places that this is an excellent resource. .V. (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

Template:Tunefind

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam template for non-notable website, possible COI as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 06:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously I have bias as I created the template. However, TuneFind is the only site with a user generated music index. It usually lists the music well in advance of it appearing on any 'official' sites and additionally lists music for shows without official indices. Prior to generating the template, most of the shows already had links but without any consistent formatting or text. A user - Vinjx - created a Wikipedia account on 2 January 2007 in order to remove all of the links that had been added over the previous 1+ year. Another user reversed that malicious deletion and then MatthewFenton removed the links again and proposed the template for deletion. Obviously I love the site and have, at times, been overzealous (adding links on artist pages) in the past - I suspect why MatthewFenton suspects COI. Finally, the templates does not meet any of the four criteria for deletion (aside from not being used after MatthewFenton deleted all instances). Ghouse 04:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Linkspam templates should rarely be used, and never for sites which are not notable in their own right. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

Template:BoNM-PRC

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author nom; considered POV by relevant wikiproject. --Ling.Nut 01:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a barnstar, it doesn't have to be NPOV. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused, no sign that anyone is interested in using it. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes it is a barnstar, it could be awarded to anyone at anytime, it brightens up our encyclopedia, very useful.--Rasillon 19:49, 10 January 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 page.

Template:Bias Warning

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many existing templates for expressing that an article is considered biased, incomplete, etc. These templates, when added to an article, are generally kept in place, even if an edit war is taking place. As such, the kind of articles tagged with this are likely to have an NPOV dispute tag already, and if they do not, the fact that a past conflict has subsided or has been resolved is no indication of bias in the article. In other words, this contributes to needless template inflation -- to additional box-stacking by people who would like to express in as many different ways as possible that an article is "bad" -- and unfairly labels articles because of past activities that have taken place on them. A single troll can now get a perfectly fine article labeled with a "bias warning" simply by edit warring over it. The template should be deleted, especially since its creator insists that it be added to the main article space.--Eloquence * 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not useful since it doesn't identify a resolvable problem. All of our articles may contain incorrect or biased information. It's not clear that the problem is any worse in articles that are the subject of edit wars. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that something is subject to abuse (which applies to virtually everything on Wikipedia) is not a reason for eliminating it. And identifying resolvable problems is only useful for editors. There are some articles that will probably never be resolved and will go on being the subject of chronic and recurring edit wars for the foreseeable future. The problem with all of the current templates, and indeed the mindset of virtually everyone who contributes to Wikipedia (including the people who have commented above), is that everyone focuses only on the editors and the editorial process. This template may not be useful for editors, but it is very useful to readers. There is nothing else out there that tells the casual reader, who strolls through to get some information on a subject but has never even edited an article, that the information they are reading is about a controversial subject and may contain incorrect or biased information at any given point in time, and that they should check the talk page for more information. Point me to where that template is right now, and I will agree to delete this one.-Jefu 02:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That page is at Wikipedia:General disclaimer, and is linked from every page on the site. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a general CYA disclaimer and contains nothing but information that should already be obvious. Where does it point out that an article is particularly controversial, subject to frequent edit wars and that the talk page should be checked?-Jefu 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not clear to me that being the subject of frequent edit wars makes an article more likely to be biased or inaccurate. In fact, I think, rather the opposite. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other boxes that warn about potential NPOV issues address the content, not the actions of the contributors. It is a fine distinction, but an important one. Let better templates serve the purpose this one would aspire to. Serpent's Choice 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existing {{NPOV}} works fine. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That addresses neutrality, not accuracy.-Jefu 06:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{Totally-disputed}}, then. Or {{Controversial}}, depending on what the issue is. Serpent's Choice 11:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - {{Totally-disputed}} would indeed be my next choice, but it sounds more like a complaint about a specific issue that is intended to be deleted if and when that issue is resolved, rather than a general warning to the reader about the nature of an article. And I do not think that is a trivial distinction at all. {{Controversial}} does not work at all. It is clearly meant for the talk page and thus would not serve as a warning to the reader at all.-Jefu 12:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - My issue with this template is that it seems to imply "The article contributors are being bad", which is unnecessary, however true it may be. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Del per avbove †he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. John Smith's 11:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially Christopher. There are other templates that do a better job of addressing an article's problems. -- Kicking222 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in lieu of better alternative templates. TonyTheTiger 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete there are many better templates and this one is just not needed. — Arjun 04:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with what everyone else said. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 07:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with the standard NPOV template (as well as being a template which disturbs the reader). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant template. -/- Warren 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reasons as Jefu. I interpret the NPOV tag as something that is used to challenge specific claims, whereas the current template would be a warning about articles which are prone to be perfectly NPOV one moment, and be edited to a substantially different non-NPOV version the next moment. FilipeS 13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This could happen to any article, should the template go on any article not currently protected? Users should be able to interpret the disclaimer well enough to understand someone may add bias to an article. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jefu and Filipe as well as the fact that there is known history of pages being taken over by edit wars making it impossible for the person who trying to get a NPOV come away with erroneuous information ForrestLane42 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

Strong Delete. There are numerous reasons why this template shouldn't exist. First, a reader reading Wikipedia should understand the risks of viewing an encyclopedia edited by the people, as Wikipedia:General disclaimer says. Second, putting this template on every page that's had an edit war, such as Japan, is uncalled for. If anything, articles that have had disputes are more accurate (oprhaned pagesa are more susceptible to POV). Third, this template is instruction creep. Fourth, who is to say what is controversial? Japan isn't, and it doesn't need a pastel box (I know this template has no color, don't respond) to scare off readers. All articles can be edited to a substantially POV version at any moment, we don't need warnings for pages a handful of editors think are "controversial". I end quoting this famous TFD: "If we have a medical disclaimer on all medical-related articles, we might as well put a legal advice disclaimer on all law-related articles...but that means that we should also put a general disclaimer on all articles, which is the whole purpose of having the disclaimers all in one place. The only disclaimer on wikipedia should be the spoiler warnings, because you don't know where they are, and they ruin things for you."-Frazzydeel. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 06:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.