Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 22

< March 21	March 23 >

March 22, 2006

Template:Currentpast

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. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an affront to reason --DV8 2XL 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only use would be the satirical placement on a userpage. -Xol 01:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODN. ~MDD 46 96 03:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless Wh e re ^(talk) 16:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless --Quiddity 21:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 11:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete funny, but - cohesion^t 09:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giggle. Errr... I mean... Delete —Cuivi é nen, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 @ 20:46 (UTC)
Delete Funny because it is useless. Brian Jason Drake 01:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 11 days and there has been a unanimous decision to delete! What's going on? Brian Jason Drake 03:34, 2 April 2006 (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:Catbar

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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories · Glossaries · Lists · Overviews · Portals · Questions · Reference · Site news · A-Z Index

The template above shows up at the top of 355 categories; here are some examples: Category:Alternative education, Category:National trusts, Category:Wikipedia administration, Category:High-temperature superconductors, etc. I fail to see that template's relevance in those categories, and almost all of others. At most, I would think that template should have only the bottom row, and show up only in the categories actually listed there (10 of them). But even there it is not necessary I think, as those are grouped together in Category:Top 10 anyway. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the surest way of browsing things is to just go to the Main Page, the globe in the upper left corner of any Wikipedia page, rather than from such a template. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I completely agree. It's inconsistent and irregular use is confusing at best. - The DJ 00:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per both above, plus it is visual clutter, distracting and unfocused. --Quiddity

FWIW, It should be noted that this discussion began with the Template:Browsebar, and many of the arguments emcompass them both. (see Template_talk:Browsebar#Is_this_bar_useful?) --Quiddity

Delete as cruft --DV8 2XL 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least the top 10 cats. It is the browsebar in Wikipedia:Browse. --Ancheta Wis 01:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Browse one may use a subst'ed version I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this template was created to eleviate confusion about the meaning of the subbar of {{browsebar}}. People thought that they would get Categories related to the subject, after they had clicked on "Categories" in the topbar. Perhaps the real problem here is {{browsebar}} ??? - The DJ 03:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. see my comment a few lines above. --Quiddity

Comment: So the problem is that it's used everywhere. Deleting it (as I understand it) doesn't automatically remove it all from all those pages. Why not just remove it from those pages, rather than deleting the template itself? Stevage 16:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, it should not be removed from pages until this deletion discussion is closed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

! Strong Keep - The essence of catbar is that it is a master menu to Wikipedia, and as such is its ultimate "look-up tool" and "browse aid". It was designed to assist newcomers and seasoned researchers alike immediate access to Wikipedia's overall structure, and assist them to most rapidly find whatever they are looking for, even if they don't quite know what that is. The bottom line of the bar represents the ten categories at the top of Wikipedia's category system, allowing the user to restart his search at any time at any of the main subject categories of Wikipedia. The top line represents all of the main directories of Wikipedia: its tables of contents and its indices. These are the places where users will most likely find anything they are trying to look up:

Categories leads to an alternate top-end to Wikipedia's category system.
Glossaries leads to all the mini-dictionaries within Wikipedia, in each of which the terms defined are live links to Wikipedia articles of the same name.
Lists links to Wikipedia's master List of Lists, which includes the directly editable hierarchical tables of contents of Wikipedia, distinct from "categories" in that adding topics to these lists is a lot easier than adding an article to a category, and therefore they are better maintained, and with more levels viewable on any given page.
Overviews is a browse page listing major topics, also known as "root" topics - almost every article in Wikipedia is linked through subtopics to the "overview articles" on that page.
Portals is a master list of portals, which in turn provide an expose on major subject areas, and therefore provide another doorway to the various articles that make up each subject area within Wikipedia.
Questions directs the user to all the places on Wikipedia where they can ask and get their questions answered, whether help-related, or relating to subject matter they are trying to learn.
Reference leads to Wikipedia's version of an almanac, and is a huge list of the reference tables included throughout Wikipedia.
Site news is a central location through which to find out what is going on with Wikipedia.
Index is an alphabetical listing of all the articles on Wikipedia.

This array of Wikipedia's entry points is the most powerful and convenient tool to have on hand at any given moment, and that is why I have placed it on so many pages. It is the best tool to have available to begin a search when the search box has failed you. It, and its browsebar variations, were designed together to grace the top of every page within the directory systems they represent, to grant access to the top end of Wikipedia's overall directory system wherever the user happens to be along his or her current research path. Catbar is the categorical version of Browsebar, and so the subjects listed on its bottom line lead to categories rather than portals (as they do on the browsebar). Together, they are a familiar and convenient tool which many readers of Wikipedia have come to rely upon, myself included. The pages listed upon it need easy access granted to them, for they are the true front doors to the information contained within Wikipedia. Without this kind of access, the usability of Wikipedia will suffer, and the increase in the public's reliance upon Wikipedia as an information source will likely lag, as it did when the original category bar was temporarily removed years ago. This bar, by comparison, is far more useful. Please carefully consider each of the above points before making your decision. Thank you. Sincerely, --Go for it! 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate way of browsing Wikipedia is (and should be) the Main Page, which is always one click away. Either that, or Wikipedia:Community Portal is acessible from the "Navigation" bar on the left. There is no need for one more navigation tool. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"and that is why it is displayed on so many pages."

It is displayed on so many pages, because You have added around 300 of them since December. --Quiddity 21:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those arguments are fine, and I've arguments why I want a special "My Watchlist" for Wikipedia and Meta everywhere. It's easy, I just added it near the top of my user page also on Meta, I didn't put it on each and every page annoying others with my personal preferences. Try the same with {{Catbar}} and similar stuff, offer it for user pages, maybe integrate in welcome templates used by you, everybody is entitled to create his or her very own personal portal. -- Omniplex 17:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whenever I see this template in a category, I feel that it doesn't belong there and just clutters up the category. Shanes 21:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Oleg. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I never liked it, I never used it. Renata 23:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you/anyone does find the links that useful, then we should integrate more of them into one of the Main Page / Community Portal / Help:Contents / WP:Help pages, where they belong.--Quiddity
The portals/cats are the least useful part, and are easily accessed via the main page still, so those should be more of a non-issue to remove. --Quiddity 00:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fine on the main page, a pain anywhere else. ReeseM 02:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – if it does get deleted, some pages (such as Wikipedia:Browse) will need to have {{browsebar}} added instead – Gurch 12:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep I think the bottom half (and maybe the link to Browse) should be kept and used only on the 10 pages it lists.Suicidalhamster 15:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep -- Like Suicidalhamster, I find this only makes sense when used in the top levels of categories or navigation methods. It lets you know that you are at the top of a hierarchy and lets you move to other forms of navigation or topics. -- Samuel Wantman 20:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's using in too many category pages. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 06:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - it's a useful template, allowing browsing between different categories. -- infinity0 12:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I already delete whenever it shows up on a category I'm watching. It should never have been used except at the highest levels. --William Allen Simpson 13:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as excessively annoying behaviour. Let author create it again and use it sparingly on a few selected pages like WP:H. -- Omniplex 13:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Replace it on the relevant pages, but don't delete it. It's been a mainstay at Wikipedia for sometime, and I'm sure it has some use. Эйрон Кинни (t) 07:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need, at most, one of these templates - cohesion^t 09:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep per Ancheta Wis. This template is useful in the top-level categories to navigate between them, but its placement beyond them is pointless proliferation.--cj | talk 07:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! I agree with Go for it!. It's very helpfull navigation, at least for me. The search through the lot of information in Wikipedia is essentiall to maintain as easy and as quick as possible. Save people's time. The argument, that main page is just click away is fine, but that click (and than another for navigation, and than another for item and than back and forth..) could be needless. Keep it at least for the top of a hierarchy. Reo ^ON | +++ 19:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about putting it in every category and customizing it using the stylesheet? There could be an option on the options page to do this automatically, and each Wikipedia would then be able to easily change the default (I don't know if any other Wikipedias have considered this). Brian Jason Drake 04:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, that browsebar is not really relevant there. And the default Wikipedia interface has enough sidebars and menubars to warrant introducing a new one in every category. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk)

"To start with, that browsebar is not really relevant there."
I don't understand. Brian Jason Drake 05:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the browsebar (catbar) is not relevant in categories, so there means categories, to follow up on your comment above. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But surely a template outlining the category system is relevant when browsing it? Brian Jason Drake 08:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is confusing. There are templates called "catbar" (links to categories) and "browsebar" (links to portals). These templates look identical. Obviously I am suggesting that we have the catbar and not the browsebar in the categories. Brian Jason Drake 03:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ugly clutter. People who want to use these links can always find them easily enough. CalJW 14:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but possibly subst it into the top level categories only. the wub "?!" 14:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't subst it! What if we want to change it, or if we want to change which categories are top level? It will also add clutter to any page that uses it. Brian Jason Drake 01:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia's nice clean interface is one of its good points. Nathcer 14:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Her Pegship 23:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. If decided to remove this template from all categories, I can use a bot to do that. ~300 categories is a lot of work by hand. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - Delete at the discretion of interested parties. The template is useful and attractive on the Portal:Architecture where people expect to be ported around. It can be mis-leading, though - I expected to get the specific "Categories" or "Lists" within category "foo'" the first time I tried the template, but was instead pulled out of context to the global Wikipedia. People know what they want when they navigate to a category, and might mistake the template links as going deeper into the topic, instead of popping back up to top levels. – Dogears (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Portals use a different template altogether. They use Template:Browsebar.--cj | talk 23:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As i said in my vote (3rd from top) - It should be noted that this discussion began with the Template:Browsebar, and many of the arguments emcompass them both. (see Template talk:Browsebar#Is this bar useful?). The proponents of the one will probably move on to the other next. And the same arguments all apply (except that the browsebar does have at least 1 required use in the old main page design Main Page alternative (Classic 2004), and possibly others.) --Quiddity 02:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see the point. Noisy | Talk 10:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Duplicates existing facilties and looks messy. It is there whether you want it or not and it seems that many users don't want it. Osomec 05:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main page is always readily accessible and contains all the necessary links. Athenaeum 06:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it's a useful navigation tool — but not in 355 categories! Just the top 10, and the fundamental categories will do. In fact, maybe even just the top 10 (and other pages like Wikipedia:Browse). Neonumbers 10:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's kept it won't stay in just 10 categories so it should be deleted. Calsicol 05:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We accept other policies. What makes you think we can't restrict this to 10 categories? Does it really matter if it appears in other categories anyway, given that anyone can remove it? Brian Jason Drake 05:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the vandals that don't follow policy? What about all the people who won't be aware that such an obscure policy even exists? Enforcing it is a struggle that doesn't need to be inflicted on the community. Calsicol 22:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. In the interest of "least surprise", I think that categories is the wrong place for this template. This is because when a user clicks on a category, the person has a certain expectation about what he or she will find there. This template would seem to be tangential to that purpose, since the entries in the "Catbar" really have nothing to do with the category. For the latter reason, it might even cause confusion if a person were to click on an entry in the bar believing it will take him or her to a subject related to the category. Nonetheless, a "subject bar" might have uses elsewhere.
-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of hints as to the global nature of this template - the second line is obviously global and it has a link to "categories" on the category page. However, if this is not clear enough, could we make it clearer by formatting it differently (putting it above the tabs on the MonoBook skin?)? Brian Jason Drake 02:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The top half is a diminished list of the options at Wikipedia:Category_schemes. The bottom half is a diminished list of the main titles at Wikipedia:Browse. A good alternative to this catbar, might be to just improve the Wikipedia:Category_schemes page, and have a link to that on the Main Page (it's currently linked from the bottom of the Wikipedia:Browse sidebar).--Quiddity 04:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All templates are just summaries of what can be found on other articles. However good those articles are, templates have their place. Your alternative might be good, but not because the template is just a couple of diminished lists. Brian Jason Drake 05:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks messy and these facilities are covered by the links on the main page. Hawkestone 23:01, 4 April 2006 (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:WireImage.com

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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WireImage.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template's only text is "Free for use as long as watermark is kept intact." WireImage copyright policy says "All Rights Reserved." and "This Website may contain photographs of clothing, fashion collections and trademarks which are protected by intellectual property laws and which cannot be used or reproduced, in whole or part, without the prior written consent of the owners, or their authorized licensees, of such intellectual property." Fallout boy 08:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since we try not to have images with watermarks attached on the images, and once the editor removes the said watermark, then we will violate the terms of the template. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Quiddity 21:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 22:04, 29 March 2006 (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:Infobox Veronica Mars Television episode and Template:Infobox Veronica Mars television 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 Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Template:Infobox Veronica Mars Television episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Template:Infobox Veronica Mars television episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These appear to have been created by a user who didn't understand the template (the history at Pilot (Veronica Mars episode) shows that he eventually figured things out). The templates don't work, and are unused. TimBentley 02:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless. Chairman S. ^Talk 06:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete right now - The DJ 00:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worthless --DV8 2XL 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. ~MDD 46 96 03:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:16, 26 March 2006 (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.

Orbiter (sim) templates

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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused and redundant. Chairman S. ^Talk 05:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously - The DJ 00:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crying out for deletion --DV8 2XL 00:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surely there could be a more economical solution to all these reduntants. -Xol 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:16, 26 March 2006 (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.