Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 25

< November 24	November 26 >

November 25

Template:Ellie

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 M a rtinp23 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, but doesn't really make CSD G2. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 11:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tonywalton | Talk 23:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course, had half a mind of speedying it as vandalism from a trolling-only account (see repeated creation of Eleanor Walker and the various throwaway accounts involved each time.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs in user space, not template space. Kaldari 01:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per reasons stated above.--SUIT 05:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not really doing any harm, odd but harmless templates. BoxQWERTY 15:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not doing any harm" is an argument for keeping userpages. Not templates. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 00:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Vanity or fancruft, either way, there seems no point to any of them. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Danny Lilithborne --T-rex 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vandalism by a nonsense article account. I'm tempted to say that this content would've already been deleted if the user hadn't been clever enough to prefix the page names with "Template:", thus subjecting us to several days of unnecessary process. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:22, 29 November 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:Change

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 M a rtinp23 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a great example of templatecruft. There are three reasons it should be deleted. 1. It serves no purpose other than to insert 1 of 3 images. Why not just insert the image instead? Theoretically instructions could be added that say the template is only to be used through substitution, but no one ever follows those instructions. 2. The only use that has been described for this template so far is for stock quotes. This encourages violation of Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. 3. It is always preferable to use "+" or "-" rather than this template since they are easier to understand, easier to edit, and don't cost bandwidth or server hits. --Kaldari 19:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kaldari. I could swear we've seen this template before under another name that I can't remember. FreplySpang 01:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, suggest rename to something a little more informative (e.g. {{Stockchange}}). David Kernow (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No demonstrated usefulness. Grouse 12:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Eykanal 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. It seems (in my experience) far simpler just to type the image name. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:49, 28 November 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:MySpace

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. On the delete side, there is the belief that {{myspace}} condones the indiscriminate use of myspace links, where in many (but not all, as pointed out by those who want to keep the template) cases the use of such links can violate wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:RS). The result of this belief which may be inferred by some users is making the job of those on recent changes patrol much harder. On the other hand, those on the keep side feel that the use of a myspace template is good, as a way to standardise the format, and in the understanding that in certain cases, myspace links are inherently useful and permissible under policy, and citing the fact that we have other templates for linking. M a rtinp23 22:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant abuse of MySpace on Wikipedia. Template promotes breach of WP:EL policy, genuine, official sites can be added manually if so desired. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Its an easier, faster way of adding a valid link; it saves space compared to the actual myspace URL.. Seriously, get a life people.. jerkmonkee 23:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having a Myspace template basically says that we're trying to adopt the use of Myspace links in articles, which, as far as I can tell according to WP:EL, we don't. Plus, how hard is it to copy and paste a link from your address bar? Shadow1 (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These links should be made to go away. Danny 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Templatecruft. Provides no useful encyclopedic function. Is it really that hard to create a link to a MySpace page? Kaldari 20:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the bands. MySpace was originally meant as a place for indie bands to set up official sites cheaply. Of course, MySpace has moved beyond that, but it remains that many bands use MySpace for its their official web presence. WP:EL states that you should link official sites. For this reason, I think the short-hand offered by the template is useful. In response to Kaldari: No, it's not that hard to make links manually. However, you could use your argument for nearly every template. Short hands are inherently useful. Not to mention keeping the MySpace links uniform, which I like for purely aesthetic reasons. -- HarrisX 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This template isn't used by just bands though - and by having it, it just looks like we're providing a convenient way for people to add all MySpace links - and we don't want editors to get the impression we want links to MySpace. We shouldn't be encouraging bands to link to MySpace either. And, what kind of notable band has a MySpace as their main official website? --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 21:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just used by bands; I've seen major motion pictures from big studios with myspace homepages as well. And what a band (or anything) uses for a home page is not listed among any notability criteria I've seen (for bands, we use WP:MUSIC). That said, I'm not sure I see the point of this template; it's just more load on the server for a trivial external link. Xtifr _tälk 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Band MySpace profiles often have content that isn't as readily available on the primary official website, such as free music tracks. The fact that these profiles have full-length (free) tracks, music which adds further information to the article (but can't be included in the Wikipedia article for copyright [and common sense] reasons) means that it is a perfectly valid external link that does add to the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This needs to go, having this template makes it really hard to explain why someone's personal myspace needs to go. We don't need to make adding irrelevant external links, that are not reliable sources any easier. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for no other reason than the blatant snobbery of Wikipedia editors who act as though MySpace is any less worthy than any other external site. Who are we to judge the validity of someone's choice of "official" site? Iamvered 21:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have no intention of removing official MySpace websites, we're looking at adding some sort of tag to the talk page of articles confirming that the site listed is an official website and has been checked by an admin or an editor from the Wikipedia Spam project, in exactly the same was Flickr photos have their copyright status verified. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how does deleting the template accomplish that? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and fast. This is, as noted in the nomination, a clear violation of WP:EL; and we should not facilitate violations of WP:RS.--Aldux 23:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are official profiles violations of WP:RS? Determining the validity of a MySpace profile is completely unrelated to adding the links. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with the caviat that official musician pages or movie sites should be kept and converted into regular external links. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per above--SUIT 05:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Give me a freaking break. Sometimes, just sometimes, a MySpace link is a perfectly valid link. Holy shit, I know, it's a mind-blowing concept... There's absolutely no way that this template violates WP:EL. The nutshell states: "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." Please explain just how the MySpace link on Cowboy Mouth, Adam Sandler, or Clay Aiken are inappropriate. WP:EL is being tossed around willy-nilly, but nobody has explained just how this template violates the guideline any more than, say, {{sww}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment EVula, please remember to assume good faith and remain civil. Being so condescending in your argument does not make it look appealing. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm isn't the same as condescension. I don't feel that I've broken either linked-to rule (feel free to drop me a line about what specifically you take umbrage with), but I appreciate the note just the same, and will watch my future responses on this TfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:WQ - they are rather clear. Whatever your intent the wording of that comment was overtly abrasive and therefore unneccesary. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a neutral third party to look at my behavior. Though he didn't think I was being outright uncivil, he did point out where I could curb my attitude a bit. If you continue to see the same behavior from me in the TfD from here out, please drop me a line on my talk page (rather than us continuing to clutter up an already extremely cluttered debate). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Somewhat weak) Keep, I agree that it is not difficult to create a link to MySpace, but neither is an {{IMDB}} link and we have a template for that, and they both encourage consistency. Also, to those who say this is a "clear" violation of WP:EL, I ask how, considering how difficult it is to apply the WP:EL guidelines objectively at all, let alone on a wide scale. -- Renesis (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MySpace - Arbitrary Section Break 1

Strong delete. This sends the wrong message, as people have already pointed out. We don't need a template for the few, rare cases where a MySpace link is appropriate. That bands use MySpace for their official site doesn't outweigh the fact that we generally don't want links to MySpace. There just aren't enough legitimate uses of this template to warrant the headache it's going to cause. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Removing this template isn't going to prevent MySpace links; if we keep the template, at least we can get some semblance of standardization when linking to a perfectly valid external link. Inappropriate links to MySpace will happen with or without this template. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Huntster and Saxifrage. --Alf ^melmac 08:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a collection of MySpace links and this indicates it as such -- Tawker 08:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reason to treat MySpace in a special way, and lots of reasons to not make it appear as if we are treating MySpace in a special way. 2005 10:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, how are we treating MySpace any differently than in any other external link template? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the few instances where a MySpace might be useful to an article an external link can be created, but this doesn't have to be templated. Thethinredline 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we should not be encouraging use of MySpace as a link indicating verifiability or notability. 'Official' mySpaces could be linked to normally. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Eh? MySpace is notable; this template doesn't indicate notability of individual profiles any more than {{imdb}} or practically every other external link template does. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as above. also, the template is useless, as far as i see. or maybe it just doesn't work on firefox 1.5.x , since i went to red hot chilli peppers page and it seemed like it was a normal EL, instead of an actual template. capi 14:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment must be Firefox, because the template is indeed being used on Red Hot Chili Peppers. It didn't have the TfD comment because someone threw a <noinclude> around it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - over 200 pages (nearly all of them for notable bands, set up by the band or management) link to this template, I'm not sure that the disruption to make a point is worth it. That being said, I agree that Myspace linkage should be kept to a minimum. Orderinchaos78 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. even if the MySpace links themselves are useful, a template that aids in creating them is not. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Query How's that? It allows for a standardized presentation of a somewhat commonly occurring external link, the same as {{tl|Isfdb name}}, {{tl|Find A Grave}}, or {{tl|Footballdatabase}}. "Makes it easy to link to a website" isn't a criteria for template deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's perfectly acceptable to link to a subject's Myspace page if it's official, legitimate content. Additionally, this won't actually reduce the number of links to myspace (which appears to be the hidden intent); it will only cause more disorganization and inconsistency on WP. Touchdown Turnaround 19:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other templates lead to verifiable content which doesn't present a risk of contributory copyright infringement, IMDb for example has fully licensed content, SOME MySpace sites don't. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No different than any other external linking template, seen in use by major studios, bands and other notable individuals. Keeping the template isn't any kind of statement saying anyone with a myspace page gets an article. If it is deemed necessary to remove this template, all other exterior link templates should be removed.--Crossmr 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MySpace is often in breach of WP:EL, WP:SPAM and sometimes WP:COPYVIO, and I feel the template encourages the misuse of these links and contributes to the number of breaches of these policies. Those links that aren't in violation are not numerous enough to justify the existence of a template. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too open to abuse. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 23:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can link to the official pages when needed without the use of the template. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We can link to any site without a template, so we should delete them all?--Crossmr 19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete all references to myspace period. It is not a RS, and basically a place for vanity (yes, I said vanity). As someone (I believe it might have been Danny) brought up on the mailing list a while back, half the people don't even follow the Terms of Service of myspace. Ahh, here it is. Rule 5: Non-commercial Use by Members. The MySpace Services are for the personal use of Members only and may not be used in connection with any commercial endeavors except those that are specifically endorsed or approved by MySpace.com. So, we are linking to things that break rules? Bands that are set up there are personal sites, and we generally avoid linking to those. Otherwise, they're commercial, and we're promoting people to not read TOS's. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bands that set up profiles work within the MySpace guidelines (there's a different profile format specifically for bands, provided by MySpace). Your argument that we're linking to TOS-violating websites is flawed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually it's quite pertinent. The ratio of proper MySpace Music pages to improperly set up (and linked by us) normal ones is very low, and violations of the TOS are therefor high. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of using a wiki-cliché... source? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to argue that myspace passes WP:V, WP:RS, and others as a personal website? We generally don't link to personal websites, because it would be like linking to the NRA on an article on gun control. Here, I'll spell it out for you: myspace is not a verifiable source, or a reliable source. WP:EL links to be avoided: number 2: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources., number 10 (and I quote): Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET., and of corse number 11: Links to personal websites, including blogs and anonymous websites or webpages, except those allowed by policy (see WP:V). Are you prepared to argue against 3 policies? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I was actually talking about a source for the claim that the ratio of proper MySpace Music pages are improperly set up. WP:EL#2 isn't an automatic disqualification; as I noted elsewhere, Jon Favreau has used his MySpace profile as an official source of information. The other two issues are more of a case-by-case basis, one that deleting this template won't actually address. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. We dont need a whole template which encourages users to add myspace links to pages, if only a few should even be on WP (the ones that are official sites of bands). GeorgeMoney (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the template may be used appropriately on some occasions, it sounds like a perfect example of WP:BEANS to me. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful for musical artists' articles. --Anthony5429 07:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - myspace additions violate WP:EL, and often WP:SPAM and WP:COPYVIO. this template is kind of like faking an orgasm: it's not helping anyone in the end. JoeSmack ^Talk 07:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Renesis. _JD^talk 13:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Evula. Yes, this template can be misused, but so can any other. We certainly link to the personal site of a person we are writing a biographical article about. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while there are some official myspace pages, that's the only time it should be linked. I'd find this less objectionable if it made clear that it was only for official pages, but even then it's unnecessary. There's no template for other EL's, what is the point of this? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at imdb and gutenberg just for starters. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:External link templates has several hundred templates in it (including sub-cats). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there's nothing which will stop people adding links to myspace, but this template would at least enable those links to be well-formed and thus easier to police. It also makes it easier, should the unthinkably annoying ever happen and myspace get rearranged, to change the URLs in one fell swoop. If you're bothered about excessive myspace links, try this and get checking. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How does this violate policy more than any other such template, e.g. the rotten-tomatoes and superherohype templates? We should delete all or none - in my opinion all, not this one in isloation. I'm no more important than any other person voicing an opinion on this, but I would like an explanation before this vote is closed. Mark83 16:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any group or individual for whom verifiable information can be gotten only from their MySpace page isn't going to meet the criteria for inclusion at WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO anyway. —An gr 18:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: That's not true... Indie band Mute Math built their fanbase on MySpace. Now that they are major label artists, they still use it as a primary hub of information because it's most effective for their MySpace-based fanbase. I agree, this is a template that can be grossly abused, but I think it should be kept and further documentation be added on its proper use in regards to notability. Perhaps it's outmoded WP:EL policy that needs to be augmented. Although this template challenges WP:EL policy, we should keep it. Souldier77 18:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Myspace links are so rarely useful that an entire template for them is unjustified. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those saying that MySpace isn't a reliable source, I'd like to point out that Jon Favreau, director of the upcoming Iron Man film, has been releasing information about the film (such as addressing casting rumors) through his MySpace profile. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a news site. Try wikinews instead. This kind of stuff isn't but rumourmill hype type stuff and should not be in Wikipedia. See WP:V. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...huh? I was talking about MySpace being used as an official source of information on a project, not regurgitating news on Wikipedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Promotional material does not belong on Wikipedia. See WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:NPOV. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? How is the official source of information promotional material? I'm talking about citing a reliable source for information here; I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need for the template.__Seadog^♪ 17:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the original creator of this template, I saw a need for it then and still do now. jareha ^(comments) 19:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MySpace - Arbitrary Section Break 2

Keep Myspace is being used more and more by actors and bands, some movies are using it as their official site. The myspaces also can provide usefull information on an Actor/Actress. Theres no reason to delete it besides that some people dont like myspace. Malevious 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:RS - there is a standard for what is considered a reliable source. WP:EL is very specific about linking to self-promotional content, too. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official websites are, almost without exception, self-promotional in their nature. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I'm not really in favor ok keeping the template, due to the fact that it isn't so difficult to put an [External link External link], a link to an official band MySpace profile is as valid as a link to the official site of the band and sometimes MySpace, has said above, even has complete tracks for listening, which would give the reader of wikipedia an even greater idea of the artist. Do not blindly follow the rules should be (or is it already?) a policy here. Just because it is usually said that a social networking site isn't a reliable source, it is if you are an established artist talking about yourself. When it was included in unreliable sources list, I believe it was thinking about when the person quoted is talking about someone else...--Serte * Talk * Contribs 15:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're thinking about WP:IAR. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:IAR is shaky grounds for an argument, at best. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go and actually read IAR: If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. IAR does not apply here. Deleting this template will not prevent us from improving wikipedia. Deleting on the othere hand will help us maintain wikipedia (you see how that one went 180 there?) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go and actually read what I said. I'm in favor of deleting the template, but not the links of MySpace, which help improving (indirectly) Wikipedia.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 21:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the MySpace profile for a subject (such as a band) provides additional information that can't be included in the article (such as full length songs by the band), and the link is being removed and a policy or guideline is being cited for its removal, IAR could be a relevant policy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Myspace is pretty much standard for bands, and always has the same content - pictures, songs, and so on. I think it should be kept --AW 16:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, though I completely understand why most editors don't want it, even though it's not the whole point. Myspace isn't always spam, it's like a library. Give it a chance. Things aren't always as they seem. PinkMoon 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep as blanket assertions ("MySpace links violate WP:EL!") are almost always incorrect. As pointed out by others, it's useful to have a standardized way to display these links and it's handy to keep track of them. Deleting the template won't stop people from improperly placing MySpace links in articles. --ElKevbo 19:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment bear in mind please that this discussion should be more focused on the template itself and how it's unnecessary rather than dragging up policies about how MySpace links should or should not be added to Wikipedia.

--Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're begging the question. And to evaluate this or any other decision or discussion in Wikipedia without placing it in context is quite silly. I understand your point but I disagree. --ElKevbo 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saga is quite correct, ElKevbo. MySpace is not on trial here. We are debating the usefulness of a {{myspace}} linking template. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 21:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I clearly stated in my original statement that "it's useful to have a standardized way to display these links." I have stated my view on the proposed deletion of this template quite clearly so I'm not sure where this discussion is going. --ElKevbo 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If MySpace itself isn't on trial here, why have most of the arguments for deletion been referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines (particularly WP:EL) in regards to the MySpace links themselves? I'm not trying to be contradictory, but I'm seeing a reversal of position that seems contrary to the initial nomination of deletion for the template. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep only because of those rare links where it's ok... but realy alot more attention needs to be paid to where we link to. ---J.S (t|c) 19:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, we're heading towards no consensus, so I guess I'll just do the second best thing: check all transclusions of the template, and remove those that don't fit policy. Anyone want to join me? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I want someone to comment on this now and tell me that it's alright for companies (like Aquafina) to have a link on their page to a myspace page that is basically a full page advert. Anyone want to say that we should be linking to that? myspace pages which are masquerading as ads? Anybody? I didn't think so. I've found 3 in about 15 minutes of looking at transclusion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we should also go through all of the myspace links and make sure they are official. If theres no proof (such as a reliable source or official website) the links should be removed. --Malevious 00:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then lets decide right now:band linking to myspace, yes or no? Because I'm going to delete all references to all ones that don't say "myspace music" because that's considered personal site, and that's against EL (#10/11). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why don't you calm down and let this TfD run its course? It's not up to you or any of us to arbitrarily make a blanket decision about multiple articles without any knowledge of them or the context in which they were written. --ElKevbo 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, this is a wiki, and nobody is bound by any policy or other to wait for this TfD to end to do anything (unless it's deleted, then that would solve all of this). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course you're not required to wait but don't you think it a good idea to let this play out and gather further attention and discussion before running out and taking unilateral and contentious action? This is obviously not a black-and-white issue despite your attempts to reduce it to one. --ElKevbo 04:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful for what it does. if there is going to be a link to myspace anyhow, there is no reason not to have pretty formating --T-rex 23:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ElKevbo and others. It's short and handy, it enforces a standard format for certain links (in the same vein as {{imdb name}} and {{allmusicguide}}), and its subject is an obviously notable site to which links are constantly posted. Edits using the template rather than just indiscriminately posting MySpace links may also somehow help sort out legitimate editors from spammers/vaniteers. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MySpace is a vital portal for many bands, comedians, porn stars, etc. Users are gonna add the link anyway, so why not make it easier for everyone? RobbieNomi 05:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep MySpace doesn't mean immediate deletion. It's the content that matters --Fred McGarry 10:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MySpace links are legitimate, and a template to standardize them is legitimate as well. There has been nothing to indicate that this has any less worth than the hundreds of other external link templates we have, unless there's something particular about myspace itself, although wizardrydragon has denied that myspace is on trial here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are hundreds (if not thousands) legitimate myspace pages that act as official sites for bands, artists, comedians, performers, etc., thus a high number of legitimate myspace links from wikipedia, thus a standard linking template is useful and appropriate. Pimlottc 13:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It seems like this debate is more about linking to MySpace than the template. Shadowbot almost banned me from wikipedia for trying to provide a legitimate link to a LiveJournal page for Stryker_(disc_jockey). This all of this energy against linking to social networking sites seems bizarre and condescending to me. I think Wikipedians should focus more on improving content, and not passing judgment on social networking sites. -- Craigtalbert 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the times where a MySpace link may be useful, this template doesn't need to be used. It's unnecessary. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - May expedite the process of adding MySpace links. In any event, if a person or group runs or endorses a MySpace profile, it's just as worthy of being in an EL section as if a person or group runs or endorses a webpage. --zenohockey 21:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL disagrees with you.--Isotope23 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the end of the day, WP:EL guideline is pretty clear that MySpace and other social networking sites should not be linked in articles. What possible reason is there to have a template that goes against an accepted guideline? In the few cases where the guideline should be ignored and a MySpace link is warrented what is so difficult about adding a normal external link that a template is warrented?--Isotope23 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion is not supported by the actual text: we are talking about official pages of the subject of the relevant article:

Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid:[…]Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
— Introduction & Item 10, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, [1]

HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. WP:EL forbids links like myspace, but makes an exception if they are the official page of the subject of the article. Since myspace links are only allowed for official pages, would this template be more acceptable if the wording was changed to something like "X is the official myspace page for Y"? Or put a warning in the template explaining the limited case in which myspace links are allowed? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Define "official page". I've seen oficial myspace pages for Aquafina, but just take a look at the page. The page would be official, but is as blatent as an advertisment can get. We've just linked to a page that is in fact an advert. What say you? What about personal pages of famous people? Or "the "official" myspace site of _insertnamehere_", or "Bob's page", or "My Garage Band". -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of response which prompts me to childish ripostes such as "well, duh!!!". Should Microsoft not link to http://www.microsoft.com, because the latter "is as blatent as an advertisment can get"? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's official if the subject of the page says it is. And linking to aquafina.com (another example of "official page") is allowed (and encouraged) on the Aquafina article, even though corporate websites are usually "blatant ads". As far as the policy is concerned, there's no real difference between FooBar's myspace page and FooBar.com. And there really shouldn't be, if the content of both is what FooBar put there. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you missed parts 1 through 5 of the question there. Your two-step needs work. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aparently none of you read WP:IAR above. I believe when it said social networking sites, it implied sites that are not official. Such as those of fans or fakes. An official myspace of an actor/band would be the same as an official website of said actor/band. And as stated before MYSPACE IS NOT ON TRIAL HERE. This discussion is for the myspace template not the site itself. As long as there is no official verdict that myspace links are not allowed under any circumstances, the template should remain there to make linking easier. There are no reasons stated that prove that the template should be deleted. The only reasons are its useless(an opinion not a real reason) and that myspace violates the rules(myspace isnt on trial here) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not saying we should endorse MySpace or anything, but why do we need to keep around a questionable template to make things sort-of "easier"? I don't see why the arguers for this template can't use regular URL links. --Shiori 01:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanna put it like that, why get rid of the imdb template and all the other ones that make it easier to link to websites? if they get to keep theres why should myspace? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 13:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why it's any different than the IMDB template. And it keeps consistency. Joltman 19:51, 1 December 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:Complete

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 keep M a rtinp23 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a non-useful template, because something can never be truly "complete" in a wiki. It's almost like suggesting that we should semi-protect "finished" articles because they are somehow "done". -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm afraid you've misinterpreted my intention for this template. Something like a "List of European monarchs", "List of chemical elements" or "List of Ford automobiles" may be complete, and knowing so would be very useful, especially if someone were to need to know about every entry. For example, if someone wanted to know how many models Ford made, they would need to be assured that every single entry was present in the list-- if this template were not there than the researcher need not even begin. Any doubt as to whether there be more would make it useless to the searcher. The only reason I would support the deletion of this template is that it is not heavily used. Otherwise, what we have here is a useful and discrete template. AdamBiswanger1 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't everything covered under Wikipedia:General disclaimer though? WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY (copy&pasted). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Of course nothing on Wikipedia is necessarily true-- this is just a relevant piece of information regarding the list that is, admittedly, suspect to falsehood, just as any other sentence in our encyclopedia. But aside from technicalities, we need to ask ourselves why this template is here: because it is helpful and low-key. I really don't think the discussion needs to reach beyond these grounds. AdamBiswanger1 19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an inoffensive little template. —Jonathan D. Parshall (Talk | contribs) 06:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not disruptive, but not useful either. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 19:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to quibble, but I've tried to stress just why I think this template is important. Could you respond to the claim that it is "not useful" in light of this? AdamBiswanger1 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AdamBiswanger. I can see this being particularly handy in a list that could very easily be outdated within a day or so of its completion (ie: still an active subject). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adam above. It has a good use...there just needs to be some appropriate documentation included alongside the template so folks know how to properly use it. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't like the wording, I'd like it to have more emphasis on when the list is up to date as-of, because at any given moment past then it may in fact not be complete. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can be usesfull for some lists, but as Night Gyr, sayed may require a little rewording. --Malevious •Userpage•Talk Page•Contributions•</small> 11:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adam. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rest. I didn't even knew it existed until I checked TfD. I may just incorporate it into a page or two. --Ppk01 14:01, 30 November 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:Absurdtrivia

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 M a rtinp23 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically generates links to absurdtrivia.com and so is virtually useless. Such links can be created manually without the need for this template. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 16:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 19:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Templatecruft. Is it really that hard to create a link? Kaldari 20:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Doesn't seem worth keeping.--SUIT 05:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need templates for every website that we cite as a source. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question that's probably really just a thinly-veiled delete: What's absurdtrivia.com, and what makes it a reliable source? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 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:20 Categories

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 M a rtinp23 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions and rather useless anyway [would a page need 20 different categories?] ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless templatecruft. Kaldari 20:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How is this even remotely useful? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why would you use a template to add cats? --T-rex 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can see how it could be useful, but if it were ever used it would probably just cause more confusion. _JD^talk 00:26, 29 November 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:ASIA1

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 speedy delete author's request. Kimchi.sg 15:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was previously used to represent the unqualified Asia nation at the 2007 Rugby World Cup. Japan just qualified, so it is no longer needed. --Cvene64 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Template:ReverseASIA1. Thanks. Cvene64 15:38, 25 November 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 Australian Suburb

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 M a rtinp23 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been succeeded by {{Infobox Australian Place}}, and has no transclusions in article namespace. --◄§ĉҺɑʀκs ► 13:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete. -- Renesis (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless now because of WP:IAP --TheJosh 11:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant — Moondyne 13:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 03:39, 30 November 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:Mrgarrison

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 Speedy Delete. There's no reason this should run through the standard amount of time; this is a very clear case of a mistakenly created template. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally created as a misunderstanding of User:Mr. Garrison about Wikipedia's signature policies. --Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete; probably accidentally created and definitely irrelevant to all but one person. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; useless template that is only for one user. belongs in userspace not in templates. --Malevious 02:01, 29 November 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:Supertall skyscrapers

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 keep. But needs some form of cleanup (split the template, raise the threshold or cateogris all suggested). M a rtinp23 13:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far too large and unwieldy navigation box with dozens of entries, takes up more space in many of these articles than the article text itself. Duplicates what could just as well be achieved through a category or a list article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This used to be part of an even larger template listing other supertall stuff, which I fixed up by splitting into smaller templates. Why not do the same here instead of deleting it? Bryan 09:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps split into different templates for superhigh skyscrapers by continent? There appears to be an ongoing boom in such buildings. Kimchi.sg 09:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but wouldn't splitting the page defeat the purpose, which seems to be to have a list of all these buildings together on one page? My question is what use is it to have the list duplicated on each and every page of the series. Does that really help in navigation? For me, it's something for a "List of..." article. (Better than a category, because the list article could then be structured by continents, or distinguish between finished and unfinished buildings, etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, we already have that: List of tallest buildings in the world. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO these huge "navigation boxes" are starting to get silly, evidenced by the fact that people are starting to use insanely small font sizes or incorporating scrollbars and "show/hide" buttons to shoehorn everyting in there. I'm sure it's well meaning, but it's just causing a mess IMHO. This template is not the worst, but still delete and replace with a link to List of tallest buildings in the world. --Sherool (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A simple solution. Change the threshold from 300 meters to 400 meters. That should get the template size under control. Kaldari 20:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the template is becoming to large. I feel that splitting it by adding a new threshold is the optimal solution. Deletion is the wrong solution.TonyTheTiger 21:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your problem. The template is quite large, but it fits fine. You could consider changing it when the skyscrapers abve 300 m are becoming more. Zara1709
I understand why a threshold change would be called for, but unfortunatly, a supertall is commonly defined to be above 300 m (or more exactly, 1000 ft). That said, 400 m would still include common supertalls, like The Empire State Building, but would disculde buildings like the Chrysler Building. Ctrl build 14:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this be better served as a category instead of a template? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template can be changed to buildings around 350m and above, 400m is also fine, but some buildings such as Empire State Building will be excluded. There's no need to delete a template because of the template can be getting to big, there's always a solution. Terence Ong 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In my opinion, the qualifier for the template should not be changed; "supertall" is a specific type of building, and I don't think we should change its scope/definition just to accommodate a Wikipedia-specific issue (an ironically supertall template). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split the template into one for current buildings, under construction buildings, etc. Or, just create a new article called List of supertall skyscrapers. -- tariqabjotu 22:56, 1 December 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:Euro birth date and age

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 M a rtinp23 13:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Birth date and age}}, as both templates allow for the user's data preferences and display accordingly. Propose deleting this template and transcluding {{Birth date and age}} on the small number of pages that use it. robwingfield ^«T•C» 08:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep. Neither template allows for a user's date preferences; my preferences are set to Euro date and {{Birth date and age}} displays only American date. I might support deletion only if either template can actually be "fixed" to display as claimed; still, a proper article should by default display dates indigenous to the source—as it does in the text of those articles. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sit corrected; for no evident reason, my preferences reset to "none". The second portion of my argument remains. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both templates should be deleted as age is not encyclopedic. Kaldari 20:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's already been discussed; the consensus was keep. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the result of that "discussion" was a speedy keep since the nominator didn't cite a reason for proposing the deletion. Regardless, I'm not actually proposing that both templates be deleted here. I'm just stating my opinion that both should be deleted, which in the context of this discussion is only relevant to Template:Euro birth date and age of course. Kaldari 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion here. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that that discussion misses the point entirely. The problem with putting someone's age in Wikipedia is that Wikipedia content must have longevity. A person's age is only accurate for 1 year at most. Wikipedia content is burned to DVDs, printed, archived, reused by other websites, etc. A statement that is going to be false in one year should not be put in Wikipedia unless it is important and encyclopedic, like "George Bush is the President of the United States". I know that the age templates updates the age automatically, but that doesn't help Wikipedia content that is transferred to other mediums or websites. We don't need to know that William Shatner is currently 72 years old, and if that is the only thing in the article that is preventing it from being able to stand the test of time, then why should it be included? My other problem with these templates is that they are commonly misused. For example, we don't need a template call to calculate how old someone was at the time of their death every single time an article is loaded. That's just a waste of computer resources (and makes the article more confusing to edit). Kaldari 01:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you note, the template automatically changes by date; if you turn 21 tomorrow, it will show you 20 today and 21 tomorrow (UTC). As I noted here, this is "an opportunity to do a simple little thing with a live encyclopedia that paper can't touch—and, this template [possibly] could also be made to use any individual computer's clock to create the same effect within a CD Wiki." The {{infobox}} already doesn't translate off-Wiki, so the argument for any templates within is moot. Given the current consensus and returning to the instant subject, the Euro date form is used far more commonly around the globe than is the US date form, so this template unquestionably (in my view) should survive. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping {{birth date and age}}, in fact I use it a lot myself. However, I just don't see the need for a separate template to change the format of the date. That's what preferences are for! This template is utterly redundant as a result. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My primary reason for disagreeing is that Euro dates are specifically used in article subjects based outside the US and, if that's how it appears in text with no preference set, that's how it should also appear in the infobox, thereby removing the repetition factor. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then {{birth date and age}} should be changed to represent the most commonly used format worldwide, and {{euro birth date and age}} should be deleted. As I've repeatedly said, there is no point in having two templates to perform the same function. The question of formatting of the date is purely a user preference. The default should be standard across all templates. robwingfield ^«T•C» 11:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll pardon the cliché, we'll agree to disagree. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful, as most of our users don't have preferences set up. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful. Articles are meant to be consistent to the thing/person they refer to i.e. a british article uses british english, so it should use british dates. Hardly anyone has preferences set up. --137.205.76.198 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. The difference between date orders is accomplished by preferences. Non-logged-in users (who don't have preferences to set) can remedy the situation if it really bothers them that much by signing up for an account. —An gr 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question - can the template be overriden by personal preferences? If not, I say strong delete, as personal preferences should not be overriden just because someone is from a different country. But if it can be overriden, I say keep, as default preferences should go with locality. As it stands, I can't make heads or tails of the code, though. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No it can't, but that's my point precisely. For those who have preferences set up, there is no difference between how the templates work at all, making {{euro birth date and age}} entirely redundant. As Angr says, if it really bothers people who don't have an account, they can sign up and change their preferences. robwingfield ^«T•C» 12:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, that's my point precisely: those who do not have preferences set up (as in, most users) see Eurodates in non-US articles because they're typed in that way, and preferences will not override that. This template achieves the identical effect, thereby removing redundancy from the equation. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm too confused by this one, so I'm voting abstain. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Date format used most often around the world + as stated in earlier discussion most users have not set preferences --RockerballAustralia 02:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This TFD isn't about deciding what the format should be, it's about deleting a redundant template. If the default format should be the dd mmmm yyyy format, then that should be set at {{birth date and age}}. There is no need for two templates to perform the same function. robwingfield ^«T•C» 02:41, 3 December 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:Esfpicturescopyright

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 M a rtinp23 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use template redundant to {{Non-free fair use in}}. No apparent reason why a school should get its own specific fair use template. (Not to mention that all non-logo images tagged with this template are replaceable fair use.) Attempt to redirect to {{logo}} was reverted. --Kimchi.sg 06:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, redundant to existing templates, body text suggests inappropriate use of fair use (as it were). Xtifr _tälk 11:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Kaldari 20:15, 25 November 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:Free speech

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 Speedy Delete by Physchim62. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any use for this template. It is not encyclopedic. --Khatru2 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not used anywhere but this TfD template. Created by User:Physchim62. It's an orphan, it's meant for the user talk space, but it's time to delete this awkward template.
delete - Should not be in the public template space. RichMac (Talk) 09:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs in user space. Kaldari 20:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Nonsense template --SUIT 05:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor use of the template namespace. Should be in userspace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:Physchim62/Free_speech. I left a message on the talk page of this user suggesting they do that. ---J.S (t|c) 20:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless and too cutesy --AW 20:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without moving to user space; since it's intended for user talk space it probably is always substed, and therefore not quite as orphaned as it looks. Nevertheless, it serves no purpose either in template space or user space. —An gr 14:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted this template under G7. It was created during a period of tension on Wikipedia over the freedom of users to express their beliefs on userpages, notably through "userboxes". While I still hold the view that there is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia, and also that there shouldn't be any such "right" (we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not a political manifesto), this particular template outlived its usefullness about six months ago! Physchim62 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 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.