Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 19

< January 18	January 20 >

January 19 edit

Template:Future article talk page and User:BigNate37/TM/Future article talk page and Template:Futureart edit

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 of all. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and Category:Wikipedia articles requested through talk page creation per CSD#G3

WP:NOT - Wikipedia IS NOT a crystal ball. I've noticed one instance where the template is being abused to spam the site. Talk:Howitshouldhaveended.com --Kind Regards - Heligo land 14:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I'm going to wipe most of the pages it's on under CSD#G8 as an end-run around policy. >Radiant< 15:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - orphaned talk pages of articles that do not exist are not permitted per WP:SPEEDY, and this is too open to abuse. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke from orbit - Looks to be an end run around WP:RA. Many (most? all?) of the Talk pages that were using this appeared to be blatant advertising, which would have been caught if they had been exposed to the normal scrutiny at Requested Articles. Fan-1967 15:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to stop the user keeping a scratchpad in their user space for this kind of stuff. Spartaz 15:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serve no useful purpose in improving the encyclopedia, and is as pointed out an end run and invitation to adverts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot it with a shotgun. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dellllete - Crystal ball means nothing to me. But, really, is an article gonna get deleted in the three seconds between the time you hit "save" and can make a note on the talk page saying, "don't delete this?" Patstuart^talk|edits 04:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete // FrankB 17:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs)
Keep and boggle at the vehemence of opposition here. Since when do Talk page collaboration attempts warrant such vitriol? "Shoot it with a shotgun"? There are legitimate uses and illegitimate uses for this template, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the wrong response here. Yes, it duplicates other ways of creating new articles, but not everyone a) has a userpage, b) wants to use/understands user subpage sandboxes, or b) wants to build the article by themselves. This does no harm. -- nae'blis 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, first: there is Wikipedia:Requested articles if someone wants to create an article. Second, if they don't want to use that, they can go to a wikiproject. Third, there is {{db-g8}}, which clearly states that talk pages without articles are CSD unless they contain a reasonable history of debate. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:01, 25 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:Birth date and age23 edit

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!) 20:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template for people born on May 26, 1982. The name of the template is longer than the data itself. --TomTheHand 12:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not relevant and not the best template anyway. Tellyaddict 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - test page, user's first contributions. Patstuart^talk|edits 05:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete // FrankB 17:26, 20 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:Birth date and age24 edit

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!) 20:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template for people born on May 26, 1982. The name of the template is longer than the data itself. --TomTheHand 12:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above template. Tellyaddict 17:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per above reasoning. Patstuart^talk|edits 05:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete // FrankB 17:26, 20 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:EP patent edit

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!) 20:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant due to Template:Cite patent and not used. Could delete entirely or redirect to Cite patent --GDallimore 10:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate. Xiner (talk, email) 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete // FrankB 17:26, 20 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:UK patent edit

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!) 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant due to Template:Cite patent and not used. Could delete entirely or redirect to Cite patent --GDallimore 10:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 19:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete // FrankB 17:26, 20 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:JP patent edit

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!) 20:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant due to Template:Cite patent and not used. Could delete entirely or redirect to Cite patent --GDallimore 10:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 19:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete // FrankB 17:26, 20 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:CA patent edit

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!) 20:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant due to Template:Cite patent and not used. Could delete entirely or redirect to Cite patent --GDallimore 10:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 19:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete // FrankB 17:26, 20 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:AU patent edit

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!) 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant due to Template:Cite patent and not used. Could delete entirely or redirect to Cite patent --GDallimore 10:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom (Template:Cite patent exists in template's 'stead). Secondly, template is redundant - doesn't transclude onto any pages. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete // FrankB 17:26, 20 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:Road bicycle racer infobox edit

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!) 20:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is deprecated by Cyclist infobox. It is not used in any pages. --Mk3severo 09:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete // FrankB 17:26, 20 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:NoMoreLinks edit

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. —Cryptic 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is redundant, as a variation of the spam templates (there are many spam templates). Also, it is an eye-sore. +mwtoews 05:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~And ironically, it's linkspam for DMOZ. Delete. >Radiant< 09:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)~~ >Radiant< 11:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- DMOZ is our friend in spam cleanup. We go into a spammy article, delete all the spam links and then tell everyone "Take it to DMOZ" and add a DMOZ link. DMOZ is not just officially sanctioned but encouraged by WP:EL. This approach reduces the hassles of arguing over a lot of marginal or even spammy links one by one. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not intended to be pretty, and it should be an "eye-sore" so pottential spammers notice it, the template was created for a specific purpose, it's creation was announced and disscussed at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Jul#New template needed? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Jul#Template:NoMoreLinks created WikiProject Spam talk pages. No other template serves the same purpose. A simillar template ([1]) has been in extensive use on the Polish wikipedia (the 4 largest) for over a year and I do not remmember anyone complaining about it's use. Keep Mieciu K 13:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it's not actually redundant as far as I can tell. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- many articles have too many inappropriate links yet none are really spam; the language of {{cleanup-spam}} is too perjorative for those situations (but just right for others, so please don't go deleting it too). --A. B. ^(talk) 16:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Duhh -- I mixed this up with {{External links}}. Still useful. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep definatly serves a useful purpose in certain circumstances. --Hu12 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: very useful template. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill dmoz spam, but keep per all above. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, serves a useful purpose, and goodness knows we get too many linkspammers these days. Might head off at least some of them. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful. If you wish to tone it down by removing the dmoz, whatever. It's useful. Patstuart^talk|edits 05:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've written a few similar warnings into EL sections in the past. I'll use this in the future. -/- Warren 08:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--anything that cuts down editor's future time involment or clarifys things, and cuts talk-talk and decision cycles is good -- for more energy and time can be spent on upgrading wikipedia articles. // FrankB 17:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- as it's otherwise a hassle warning new spammers not to link to personal sites - I haven't time to comment on all of their personal wiki pages Brownb2 01:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Many more articles should have this notice with all the linkspam people keep trying to put unto WP. Leuko 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Enough said. Justen 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A valuable tool for anti-spam efforts. -- Satori Son 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've used this a few times; it's an effective deterrent. Besides, it makes it easier to catch further linkspam as anons ignore it and blatantly add their links. Carson 03:35, 23 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:MultiLicensePD edit

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!) 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is an inherent contradiction. People have the right to put their Wikipedia contributions in the public domain. This still allows Wikipedia to distribute articles under the GFDL. However, it is illogical to actively say that you are both putting your contributions into the public domain and licensing them under the GFDL. You can only put copyrighted work under the GFDL, and public domain work is not copyrighted. Superm401 - Talk 04:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you license into the public domain, you lose all rights to the work, including the right to put it under GFDL protection. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is quite possibly the most ridiculous nomination I have ever seen. I recommend everyone who doesn't understand the concept of multiple licensing and copyright and every related issue to actually research it, as I am not going to go into detail here. The nominator's reasons seem logical, but are factually incorrect. --- RockMFR 03:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation- this is how I understand the situation: releasing something under the public domain isn't a strong action legally speaking. It's debatable whether something can be released under the public domain at all. So, when multi-licensing, it should state that the user is releasing their work under the GFDL and the "more free" license, so if the other license does not hold up legally, the GFDL acts as a fallback. The situation is quite complicated and I'm probably getting some details wrong, but this is essentially how I see it. --- RockMFR 03:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that I understand the idea of copyright. It is debatable whether something can be released into the public domain deliberately. However, no court has ever rejected this idea, to my knowledge. Regardless, the public domain is certainly not a "more free" license, since it's not a license at all, but a complete relinquishment of copyright interest. The lice:nse is written with the assumption that PD release is possible; if this is the case, the content can not be licensed. Superm401 - Talk 05:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, releasing things in the public domain is not a license. There's altready a PD tag, right? -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, and there are actually two, {{Public domain}} and {{User Publicdomain}}. I just nominated {{User Publicdomain}}. Unfortunately, there aren't public domain only versions of {{MultiLicenseMinorPD}} and {{MultiLicenseImagePD}}. They would need to be created if the current versions are deleted. Superm401 - Talk 05:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aren't all submissions to wikipedia implicitly licensed as GFDL in addition to whatever else the user chooses? It seems like that alone should be enough of a fallback, but I am not a lawyer. -Fadookie ^Talk 10:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People can always release their contributions into the public domain, instead. Doing both is impossible, but Wikipedia (and anyone else) can definitely combine PD contributions with GFDL ones, so there's no problem. Superm401 - Talk 09:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- or userfy--There's no use for any of these. Vanity insanity. Everything is GFDL, or don't edit here. // FrankB 17:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Contributors agree to license contributions under the GFDL, but they still retain copyright. That means they can dual-license them with whatever, or release them into the public domain. Superm401 - Talk 09:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that as a creator of content, you are within your rights to allow unrestricted third-party use of it. Keep, possibly add the disclaimer from {{PD-self}}. (Alternately, replace with a modified version and redirect.) - Mike Rosoft 17:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But this doesn't say that. It says you are licensing your writing into the public domain and into the GFDL, which is impossible. -Amark moo! 02:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you can first release the content into public domain, and then submit it on Wikipedia (all Wikipedia text is GFDL-licensed). Look, I have nothing against it being redirected to {{Public domain}}; we don't need to have multiple templates saying the same. - Mike Rosoft 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike Rosoft. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - There might be some legal reasons for us to keep this. If deleted, any page this was formerly used on would no longer have the information regarding the public domain status of the contributor's edits. Considering that the history of the deleted template page would not be visible to the public, there would be no evidence anywhere that the user's edits were put into the public domain. If license tags can be changed and deleted at any time, they will lose their credibility and usefulness. Let's say that I use and modify text contributions from a user who has placed them in the public domain, and then the template disappears without any evidence of what it formerly said. What happens if the original user then disputes my claim that the contributions were in the public domain? --- RockMFR 14:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, we have to subst it first so we don't lose license information. -Amark moo! 02:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia:Multi-licensing has a long history, whether you're a supporter or not. This tag is necessary for those people who wish to release their content into the public domain, but fall back on GFDL if that is for some reason not legally possible. --bainer (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provides critical information about the copyright status of user contributions. Don't see the contradiction referred to by the nom. -- Visviva 04:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only copyrighted content can be GFDLed. Public domain content is not copyrighted. Superm401 - Talk 05:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Thebainer. Exactly right reason I use the template.--MONGO 06:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by the argument that GFDL and Public Domain are incompatible. I don't see how saying "you can use this content either under this set of restrictions or under no restrictions at all" is any different to saying "you can use this content either under this set of restrictions or under this other set" but I'm willing to be persuaded on that one. --Cherry blossom tree 12:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly redirect to {{Public domain}}. Multi-licensing into the public domain and GFDL is legally impossible, PD means relinguishing your copyright whereas GFDL requires you to keep it. PD negates GFDL, therefore "multi-licensing into the public domain" is tantamount to fully releasing your contributions to the public domain with no mention of the GFDL. - ∅ (∅), 01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: {{MultiLicensePD}} applies only to text contribution, while {{Public domain}} – to both texts and images, so redirecting may be a problem for those users who want to release all of their text contributions into PD, but prefer to license the images and other files they uploaded. Perhaps a new, text-only, PD template should be created. Kpalion 16:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't be a problem. {{public domain}} does explicitly say that it only applies "unless otherwise stated". As images on Wikipedia are required to include explicit copyright notices/templates, those templates will always override the public domain one. -- intgr 17:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Public Domain means you want to release all copyright. GFDL means you want to retain copyright, but allow use under the license. I agree they are incompatible. It would be better to have a GFDL and Creative Commons multi-license template. Maybe that already exists? -Nv8200p talk 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing#List of terms for use. If your preferred license does not yet have a template, you can create it based on the existing ones. -- intgr 17:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If GFDL and PD are incompatible, shouldn't you people be deleting all the public domain data currently included in Wikipedia? If not then where's the problem? IANAL, obviously. -- intgr 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Public domain is not a license, it is a non-copyright status. Once you quitclaim a right, you can't get it back, or add conditions. This template is also problematic, since it can be removed, and then how do we know the status of particular contributions? Robert A.West (Talk) 23:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC) (previously deleted comment replaced 17:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)),[reply]
Question: Is this just a disagreement with the template name/text, which includes the words "multi licensing", or is there a problem with disclaiming copyright from your contributions? If it's the former, we can redirect the template to {{public domain}}. If it's the latter, please state your arguments on Wikipedia talk:Multi-licensing instead — templates for deletion deals with the deletion of templates, not licensing issues. -- intgr 17:56, 27 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:MultiLicenseImagePD edit

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!) 22:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per #Template:MultiLicensePd Superm401 - Talk 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- or userfy--There's no use for any of these. Vanity insanity. Everything is GFDL, or don't edit here. // FrankB 17:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to this above. Superm401 - Talk 09:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above. - Mike Rosoft 17:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comment about the above comment ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment above - ∅ (∅), 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Public domain is not a license, it is a non-copyright status. Once you quitclaim a right, you can't get it back, or add conditions. This template is also problematic, since it can be removed, and then how do we know the status of particular contributions? Robert A.West (Talk) 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)(previously deleted comment replaced 17:21, 27 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:MultiLicenseMinorPD edit

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!) 22:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per #Template:MultiLicensePd Superm401 - Talk 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with a "Public Domain Minor" type template (Minor edits irrevocably released into the public domain). Users such as myself are attempting to simplify the licensing situation by doing this, but do not wish to release all of our contributions into the Public Domain. -Fadookie ^Talk 10:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- or userfy--There's no use for any of these. Vanity insanity. Everything is GFDL, or don't edit here. // FrankB 17:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to this above. Superm401 - Talk 09:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above. - Mike Rosoft 17:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the above, it's absurd to pick and choose between licensing regular vs. minor comments. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redirecting is absolutely positively not an option. Oh yes, let's change around license tags so their legal meaning completely changes! Fantastic idea! --- RockMFR 12:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting would be morally wrong and possibly also legally wrong. Claiming that people have made their contributions public domain when they've done no such thing is a bad idea. I could understand deleting it on the grounds that genuine minor edits (spelling fixes and so on) are ineligible for copyright anyway, but it isn't doing any harm. --Cherry blossom tree 12:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment above - ∅ (∅), 01:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, the entire concept of copyright for minor edits is problematic. One copyrights word order -- a particular expression of an idea. Spelling and grammar fixes don't have a meaningful existence separately from the sentence(s) changes, so can't have a separate copyright status. In any case, public domain is not a license, it is a non-copyright status. Once you quitclaim a right, you can't get it back, or add conditions. This type of template is nonsensical at best and could create confusion. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:16, 27 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:VaughanWatch edit

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!) 22:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is like giving the vandal his very own spotlight, which is pretty unneccesary. Also quite redundant, seeing you can just use {{Sockpuppet}} alternatively, and it will still work out okay. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 09:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - We've been over this before with the long term vandal page, and it was decided that these tools are necessary. VaughanWatch has a very specific modus operandi and it's important that we keep track of his socks, rather than just lumping them in with all the others. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. {{Sockpuppet|VaughanWatch}} will put the user page in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of VaughanWatch. Superm401 - Talk 05:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia already has a template about sockpuppets, so it doesn't really need another one, although it could be useful but it looks doubtful. Tellyaddict 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep VaughanWatch is a serial offender, and has repeatedly made personal attacks against other Wikipedians. The argument that we're "giving him a spotlight" doesn't really hold water; he's not an attention-seeker like Willy on Wheels, but an obsessive vandal with a personal axe to grind. CJCurrie 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody has yet given a reason why the standard sockpuppet template can't be used. This does nothing that it does not do. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone makes a very good case for why the standard sock template is insufficient, in which case I will reconsider my position - and be very surprised. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. {{Sockpuppet}} will add the sock to a separate category. There is no justification for a custom template. See my
Delete. Vandals are no more deserving of their own template than the rest of us. -/- Warren 08:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep—Give a Nod to the A/V forces, not a job I'd want and time consuming. If this helps, let em have the tool. // FrankB 17:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FrankB. Keep with benefit of the doubt. -Fadookie ^Talk 23:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... that ignores the arguments given. It doesn't help. It does nothing that the standard sockpuppet template does not do. -Amark moo! 01:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(above comments accidentally deleted by User:Heligolandand now replaced)Robert A.West (Talk) 18:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to standard sockpuppet template with parameter. We're not reducing anyone's ability by taking away a redundant template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also found another template, {{Blockedsockpuppet}}. Notice how it looks practically the same as {{VaughanWatch}}. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 06:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find this template useful, having blocked a few of his sockpuppets. One aspect that I like is that is links directly to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/VaughanWatch, since he does have some socks that are not obvious to users that are not familiar with him. This vandal does not seem to be attention seeking, so I do not see any harm in letting it stay. -- JamesTeterenko 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we shouldn't have special templates for certain vandals; the standard ones are fine. This contains no information the standard sockpuppet template could not. Proto::► 14:31, 24 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:? edit

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!) 22:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a pretty useless template, can't think of one reason why we should have this template. Kamope · talk · contributions 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Um... what? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
? I mean, Delete. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of articles uses this template, the clean up would be immense! There is no real use to delete it, it serves a great purpose for all Comparison and Table articles! --[Svippong - Talk] 02:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... no it doesn't. If so many articles use it, it's a pointless addition to server load to save typing six characters. -Amark moo! 02:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Server load? You don't think it calls the template each time some visits a page with the template? Only when the page is updated or when the template is updated, these parts are updated. And since this template is so rarely updated, I wouldn't assume server load being any problem. It's just a bad excuse for doing something unnecessary! --[Svippong - Talk] 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, if I may add, this is not just about saving typing characters, this is about keeping a standard for all articles. --[Svippong - Talk] 02:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, an addition to my argument: Take a look at this article, notice the use of this template. Why? To keep a standard. Now with the deletion tag on it, it screws up the entire article! As an addition, if you delete it, someone will just recreate it again, because it makes sense to have. --[Svippong - Talk] 02:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not understand what you mean by keeping a standard. It is a question mark. -Amark moo! 02:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Even such simple things as a question mark can be kept in standard layout. The bold italic question mark should be generic for all articles using it, so it doesn't change shape. The exact reason for almost all other templates! You have yet to give a concrete argument against it. Cause I have yet to see any. --[Svippong - Talk] 03:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's just another template that could be vandalised, or could need an admin to protect, if a template really isn't needed, let's not waste resources and leave another way to vandalise open to the vandals please. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. And it could be protected. Patstuart^talk|edits 08:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance says that it doesn't mean unnecessary server load should be applied for no good reason. -Amark moo! 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- *:::I was just about to say the same thing, just because we can do something doesn't mean we actually need to do it. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC) (above two comments accidentally deleted by User:Heligoland and now replaced.) Robert A.West (Talk) 19:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand the desire to have a consistent style, and its current use in table cells. It seems a logical way to help enforce the standard. Technically, it could be fully-protected, as it wouldn't ever change, so vandalism wouldn't be a problem (though I'm not familiar with the exact policies of full-protection, so it might not be eligible?). The only concern, is whether a 1-letter template that displays a 11-letter character string, is a resource problem (thinking of things like the template limit, which at 2mb shouldn't be a problem).
On the other hand, I think the 11-character '''''?''''' stands out better visually in the wiki-code, and so might be easier for users to locate and edit. We'd just need to add a line to the MOS somewhere stating that it is the style to use, and make occasional corrections. --Quiddity 03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hurts nothing, used in tons of places, can be protected if absolutely necessary. There's no reason not to keep it, and there's probably a good reason (which we don't know right now) why it was created initially. 08:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Two reasons... One: I'd love to hear the rationale behind presenting a solitary question mark in italics and bold -- wait, no, don't waste my time with that: There is no rationale for that. Without this unnecessary formatting, we have a one-character template -- toss it! Two: Typically this template is being used in tables along with {{yes}} and {{no}}, which also have background colours assigned to them. We've had (and probably still have) other templates that do the same thing with an "unknown" value. e.g. {{dunno}} and {{inc}} had background colours before User:Reisio redirected them to this template last July. If we're going to do a coloured background suitable for table usage, let's resurrect {{dunno}}, or commandeer {{unknown}} for this purpose, and put it into {{Table cell templates}}. -/- Warren 09:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We also have {{Unk}}. IMO, it fits nicely into {{Table cell templates}} and looks better than {{?}}. Based on that I'd vote for delete, but as others have already said, it would probably break a lot of pages. 82.131.29.183 16:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason I created {{inc}} was because (as I recall) at the time {{?}} and the software were not compatible. {{?}} is shorter than {{inc}}, and consequently preferable in every possible scenario (moreso to {{dunno}}, which is even longer than {{inc}}). For those worried for whatever reason about server cycles - consider how much worse it would be if five characters were increased to seven or nine. ¦ Reisio 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and protect. Strong Keep. Keep or redirect. When editing huge tables in wiki syntax (such as in a comparison chart), it's bad enough to try to keep in mind where you are without having to remember to switch back and forth between {{yes}}/{{no}}/{{partial}} and '''''?'''''. When I'm in the middle of an exhaustive update, the last thing I want to worry about is counting apostrophes. Don't worry about server load, worry about user load! -Fadookie ^Talk 11:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Note: Changing my vote to strong keep, protect if vandalism becomes an issue (which it has not as of this writing.) -Fadookie ^Talk 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Note: changing my vote to Keep or redirect, as we only need one of these and {{dunno}} would be okay. But we need at least one! ^Talk 11:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(above comment reflects changes accidentally reverted by User:Heligoland that appear never to have been re-added. Re-added now.) Robert A.West (Talk) 19:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Right, Fadookie. Explain for us why the ? should be bolded and italicised, but yes, no, and partial should not. Consider that "?" is less user load than "{{?}}". -/- Warren 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a separate matter; This discussion is on whether or not a template signifying a lack of data for our many tables should exist or not. ¦ Reisio 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting it would break a large number of pages that use it (check "what links here" on it). It does ensure consistent look throughout Wikipedia, and means the look can be changed consistently, adding colour for instance. In any case, can we do something about the message on the template, it makes pages very messy.James pic 14:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Used on essentially all "comparison of" articles, enforces a consistent style. -- intgr 16:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I don't exactly like how {{unk}} and {{dunno}} look right now, but I guess it's better to merge it with one of these, to reduce the number of redundant templates. -- intgr 05:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [patience Frank!]--some people just have excess time so think it's okay to make work for others. Sigh. // FrankB 17:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. It is slightly easier to type than its longhand form and someone found a use for it. --tjstrf talk 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no very good argument for deleting it. Too many pages use this template for it to be deleted now. Please keep it and protect it. // Cachedio 17:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is the template being considered for deletion? Of course it is not useless. It indicates that a field is unknown. Removing it would be a big hassle, and it is so widely used. Anyhow, there is no harm in keeping it. Althepal 23:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do I have to comment? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 07:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion would be more likely to be taken into account if you provided a reason; see WP:ILIKEIT. --ais523 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, it's just a question mark! Mainly, I don't see why you can't use that keyboard button. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One use of templates is to standardise things across Wikipedia; I see nothing wrong with having a template for a standard method of indicating missing data in a table. --ais523 17:17, 22 January 2007 (U T C)
Keep Aside from the fact that the opening rationale roughly boils down to 'I don't like it", I think that standardizing the presentation of information across articles is an appropriate use of the template namespace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan and delete. Standardizing bold and italics? Ahahahahahaha. No. Bad idea. Bold and italics markup is incredibly simple. No chance of the markup for bold/italics changing anytime soon, so there is no need for an extra template call. And those saying that this is used on too many pages- this is used on less than 100 pages. It would take no time at all to orphan. --- RockMFR 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if there were a guideline or policy stating roughly 'for table cells, if you want to signify a lack of data, use "| foo", most editors wouldn't know about it. Even if most editors knew about it, it'd still be far less efficient and flexible than a template. ¦ Reisio 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of you seem to be hung up on the fact that presently this template has one visible character in it, which is immaterial; what's important is that previously when editing tables where people had been noting a lack of data, every other editor marked it up a different way, which was discontinuous. Templates are for centralization, which is a powerful way of standardization, which is good for continuity. When someone sees "| foo", they might reproduce it any number of ways that appears roughly or exactly the same when rendered, but is not verbatim "| foo". When someone sees {{foo}} and reproduces it, it either works and renders exactly as all other instances, or it does not work, and the editor (or some subsequent editor) will notice and fix it. ¦ Reisio 02:48, 25 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.