Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 13

< April 12	April 14 >

April 13 edit

Auto pound-force feet template edit

These are both redundant to {{convert}}. They have no article-space transclusions. They omit the "f" for "force". JЇѦρ 06:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Auto lb·ft 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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect. Given that the other one, bellow, was kept there is not much point in keeping this discussion open, nor in having two copies of the same template. Actually I did not redirected this one. Instead I redirected {{Auto lb ft}} to {{Auto lb·ft}}, since they both use the "·" in the text, it looked like the best target. - Nabla (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Roguegeek (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The torque unit lb•ft does not include a lone "f" for force; it is not a force unit. The force unit ft•lbf is not the same as lb•ft, and the two are not interchangeable. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – No, it is not a force unit. It is a torque unit. However, what torque is is the cross product of distance and force. Nor is ft·lbf a force unit. The force unit is lbf. Multiply by the foot to get your torque unit and you still should keep the "f" for force. JЇѦρ 05:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — That's as may be, but you will have a very tough time trying to find a reliable source of information on automotive torque, whether it be produced by an engine or applied to a fastener, that uses the ft·lbf unit you insist is "correct". It is not for an encyclopædia to prescribe what some of its editors think should be, but rather to describe what is. The Society of Automotive Engineers, every automaker in any way discussing torque in English units, every fastener and tool maker discussing torque in English units, every interested party always uses lb·ft, never ft·lbf. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — It's not the order ("lb(f)·ft" vs. "ft·lb(f)") I'm concerned with but the "lb" vs. "lbf" issue. Nor is it a question of prescribing what should be verses describing what is. As noted below, in discussions on WT:MOSNUM, several editors have expressed the feeling that the abbreviation "lb" should not be used for the unit of force. The Manual of Style is in no position to tell editors what is, no, but it is the very place to tell editors how to describe what is. Torque is torque, you won't have a very tough time at all finding a reliable source with a definition of torque (unless you live in Antarctica). Other publications are free to use whatever abbreviation they choose but it's still a torque of one pound times one foot times the acceleration due to gravity, that's what is. Similarly we are free to call a torque of one pound times one foot times the acceleration due to gravity, something different. If consensus on Wikipedia should decide that the pound force should be abbreviated as "lbf" and not "lb", then we are free to do so. JЇѦρ 05:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment— Respectfully, I must point out it's disingenuous and not helpful to address points and concerns that haven't been raised rather than those that have, and that's what you seem to have done here. Your first comment regarding the order is not responsive to anything I said, and while of course you're correct it'd be easy to find a reliable source for a definition of torque, that's likewise not what I said would be difficult. It's also not what's at issue here. A discussion or debate over the definition of torque would certainly be appropriate at Talk:Torque, but this present discussion isn't the place for it. Fact is, the unit lb·ft is — and long has been — standard formal usage in at least the automotive, motive-power, tool, and fastener fields. This is readily demonstrated with verifiable, reliable sources. Other fields of academy, theory and practice very likely have their own unit conventions, and I don't doubt the accuracy or correctness of the unit ft·lbf in general. The point I am (again) making is that lb·ft is a valid, proper unit and provisions must therefore be made for its use in Wikipedia, for it is a legitimate element of the world we aim to describe in our ongoing process of writing an encyclopædia. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lightmouse (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Of course these units fail dimensional analysis. Nevertheless, this is the unit actually employed, and we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia, and to the Emglish language to attempt to make up our own. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This vote is a joke, yes? Roguegeek (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course it isn't. WP is not an institute for unit reform. This deletion is an effort to compel auto mechanics to use the "right" unit, which a handful of editors thinks they must use, instead of the one they do use. It is as silly as the effort to get Wikipedia to say İstanbul instead of Istanbul because it's the correct spelling in Turkish. (No, sillier. İstanbul is the correct spelling in Turkish, just not in English.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to head off anyone dismissing lb·ft because it's used by what some might consider uneducated auto mechanics, I must reiterate that it is used not only by the mechanics who fix cars but also by the relevant engineers, manufacturers, and suppliers. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:Auto lb ft 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Roguegeek (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The torque unit lb•ft does not include a lone "f" for force; it is not a force unit. The force unit ft•lbf is not the same as lb•ft, and the two are not interchangeable. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Torque is distance times force as noted above. JЇѦρ 05:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The template is specifically for use in automotive articles (hence its categorisation) where torque is far more commonly expressed in these terms, rather than in the ft lbf terminology. Pyrop e 16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why we need different template for the same conversions on different projects is beyond me but it's not merely whether its force times distance or distance times force, it's force not mass. JЇѦρ 17:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Build the automotive terminology into the generic template and then get back to me. Until then, leave it alone. Pyrop e 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We're not talking automotive terminology, we're talking abbreviations for units of measure. The unit in question has no need to be built into the generic template (it's been there for months). {{Convert}} currently does allow "lb·ft". WP:MOSNUM is silent on the matter, however, recent discussions on the talk page tend to show a general feeling that "lb" is an inappropriate abbrviation for the unit of force (making "lb·ft" inappropriate for the unit of torque). If consensus falls in favour of allowing "lb·ft", then these template are redundant. If, on the other hand, consensus falls against allowing "lb·ft", then they (allong with the corresponding {{convert}} feature) should go anyway. JЇѦρ 04:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well I don't know about you, but I am. I'm glad to hear that {{convert}} allows for the construction lb ft in some form. Whether or not there is "a general feeling" that lb shouldn't be used as a unit of force, it is. It is not Wikipedia's place to try and change common usage. Pyrop e 00:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The unit lb·ft is — and long has been — the standard formal abbreviation for English-system torque measurement units in at least the automotive, motive-power, tool, and fastener fields. This is readily demonstrated with verifiable, reliable sources. Other fields of academy, theory and practice very likely have their own unit conventions, but lb·ft is a valid, proper unit in current use and provisions must therefore be made for its use in Wikipedia, for it is a legitimate element of the world we aim to describe in our ongoing process of writing an encyclopædia. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lightmouse (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote. Care to comment further on your justification? Pyrop e 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Of course these units fail dimensional analysis. Nevertheless, this is the unit actually employed, and we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia, and to the Emglish language to attempt to make up our own. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The unit used is one pound times one foot times the acceleration due to gravity, the question is how we refer to the unit. "lbf·ft" does have a life outside of WP, e.g. here and here. But there's more to this tfd than the missing "f". JЇѦρ 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion has become rather side-tracked. I blame myself. Discussions at WT:MOSNUM were seeming to indicate that there is an unwritten rule that "lb" is the mass and the force is "lbf". By allowing "lb·ft" these templates break the rule, as does {{convert}}. The rule is not written explicitely and might well have no force, in which case {{convert}} can remain as it is allowing "lb·ft". Either way these templates are nonetheless redundant as {{convert}} and thus unnecessary. They can therefore be deleted regardless of the "lb" vs "lbf" issue. JЇѦρ 04:00, 21 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:Tprotected 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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is deprecated by other protection templates, has no transclusions (perhaps this is normal, given the temporary nature of the template), and is broken due to changes in the template it in turn calls, {{pp-protected}}. These changes have gone unnoticed, and I think that that confirms that this template should be deleted. If this template is deleted, the category it populates, Category:Temporarily protected, should also be deleted via CSD C3. Nihiltres^{t.l} 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless it just can't be fixed...it's a handy shortcut. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to {{pp-protected}} - as {{Sprotected}} does to {{pp-semi-protected}}). Or delete, as duplicate. - Nabla (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:Fawlty Towers character 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete (I replaced it) - Nabla (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be replaced bu the general {{Infobox character}}. It is used only in one article. Magioladitis (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - unnecessary single-instance version of a generic template. Terraxos (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:Patriarchy (ethnographies) 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. There is clearly no consensus to remove the information in this template from Wikipedia. If the template is deemed to be in the wrong namespace, there's always the 'move' button; but that discussion's more suited for the template's talk page, or Wikipedia:Requested moves. --ais523 08:41, 1 May 2008 (U T C)

Serves only to build a synthesis of published sources in two articles: Patriarchy and Patriarchy (anthropology). — Neitherday (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since I personally copied the material into the template, guided by several sources that provided overlapping lists covering these societies, I know this template is not a synthesis. The sources are all documented in the Patriarchy article or in the template itself.

All articles at Wiki ought to be synthesized from reliable sources. The question is whether such synthesis creates either something new (unpublished) or something contrary to sources by the way the synthesis is presented. Since the evidence presented in the template both comes from published sources and makes the same point as those sources, there is nothing new and nothing contrary to academic consensus in anthropology (see Britannica). The sources are all cited in the Patriarchy article, I suggest people read them before expressing an opinion.

Note carefully, the template is obviously no more than a list of sources, however, similar lists exist in several works. So even the list itself is not original. In fact, Goldberg arranges an appendix alphabetically, so even that is not original. Most writers, though, treat larger or smaller subsets of the list in geographic or historical groups, depending on their overall concerns.

All societies in human history have been patriarchal, it is the foundational justification for feminism. If men did not demonstrably dominate, there would be no need to oppose this. Many commentators consider modern western societies to be the least patriarchal, especially since legislations resulting from feminism (also compare communism and the kibbutzim). Since most feminists still consider modern western society far short of an egalitarian ideal and in need of constant vigilance, the deletion proposer is indirectly suggesting feminism is blind, irrational and unnecessary.

The controversy in the literature surrounding this subject is over whether patriarchy is good or bad, not that it exists, or that it is extremely widespread, if not universal. The fact that this deletion proposal has been made, proves the necessity of providing the evidence. Clearly, educated and intelligent readers are not aware of the evidence and the consensus in interpreting it.

Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this template is nothing more than a list of sources. However, none of the sources alone make the conclusions that they have been put together to support. This is exactly what WP:SYN is about.

If there is nothing more than a list of sources, as you acknowledge, and they don't lead to a conclusion, then they are not a synthesis are they. If, however, Britannica, Margaret Mead, Goldberg and others have published conclusions based on evidence, and their conclusions might appear questionable to a careful reader, a sample of the evidence upon which they have based their conclusions will be of assistance to such careful readers.

The template is not a random series of quotes unearthed by a biased editor to make a point. It is a reproduction of precisely the evidence offered in the publications of experts in the course of debating an issue that resulted in consensus. The publications are all cited in the article and in the template, they prove the template is not a synthesis (and it's somewhat mischievious to raise a "synthesis" complaint when the text of the article explicitly credits its sources).

Wiki is not in the business of interpreting evidence, but in citing the best sources that do so. However, it is not in the business of "silencing" evidence, which is a fundamental part of published arguments.

Would you seriously argue that "only the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker could have done it", "the butcher didn't do it", "the baker didn't do it" so the "candlestick maker did it" is inadmissable in a Wiki article? All we can say is "the jury found the candlestick maker guilty". We cannot report the three facts that were established independently, because to do so would be to provide a synthesis?

Britannica says the anthropological consensus is currently that matriarchy has never existed. To be fair, we have also listed societies that have been put forward by the minority as contradicting that consensus. Also, to be fair, we have included quotes from the writers considered authorities on the alleged exceptional societies, where these have been considered relevant to patriarchy by experts.

Not only are the quotes in the template sourced, the specific quotes themselves were located by experts. The evaluation of which sources are most reliable has been done and published by peer-reviewed experts. The interpretation of those sources has been made and published by peer-reviewed experts. The conclusion drawn from the wide range of independent evidence has also been made and published by peer-reviewed experts. The only editorial decisions have been keeping the material to what is published and what is "on topic".

I can only imagine that this discussion was intiated because someone felt the conclusion ("no matriarchies") seems wrong to them. Hence, given that a lot of sources have been cited that do say "no matriarchies", the reader felt that the sources presented in the article are misrepresenting the truth by being selective -- only citing those who speak in agreement of this view. I commend this responsible scepticism!

However, this is precisely why I provided the Britannica quote. "No matriarchies" so far is the consensus position, not a "fringe loony" position. It is also why many published borderline cases are listed in the template. If you want to find a matriarchy, the societies listed are the best bet, they are not "paper tigers", they have been named in the published work of people who have published "pro-matriarchy" views. However, the first comprehensive analysis of each of these societies, published by a professional anthropologist is quoted (in most cases), where these ethnographies bear on the question of features of patriarchy.

Murder happens in all societies, so does rape. Does this mean we should accept such things, or guard more vigilantly against them? On the other hand, incest is taboo in all societies. Would we seek to change this? Is patriarchy right or wrong? How can we evaluate it? There is a lot of debate regarding that. The article only puts the anti-patriarchy feminist case. But we are drifting off topic.

The template exists only because people have kept challenging the "all known societies patriarchal" claim of Britannica and Mead. In other words, people need to see some of the evidence before accepting this. As a matter of published fact, even this reader-response has been commented on and published. Several feminist writers have pointed out that "an invented past won't give women a future" and "you can't reject science, just because you don't like what you think are the implications". Is does not imply ought.

I'm sorry, but the template is the answer to challenges of bias or agenda. It would be nice to say that various peoples have organized their society around female leaders and it's worked just as well (and just as badly) as the male dominated legislatures we're familiar with. However, even if we could say this, the historical existence of matriarchy or egalitarianism would not prove these to be valid, let alone ideal. There are, in fact, much better arguments in favour of such views; but again it's beside the point, since the article is about patriarchy as documented in reliable sources, not about published speculations about possible improvements, however valuable or true these may be. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I am slightly concerned by the risk of creating a WP:SYNTHESIS, it seems to me this is nothing more than a series of anthropological examples of patriarchal societies; and as long as each individual source is making the point that patriarchy exists in that society, I don't think it's an undue synthesis to collect them together and conclude that patriarchy exists in many societies as this template does. Terraxos (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to article namespace as a new article with the same name, and replace the transclusions with links to it. This is an improper use of template namespace, as templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace. Yet the content looks fine at first glance, so it probably is worthy of an article. - Nabla (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: historically, the template was created in order to use the hide/show feature. Comments on the talk page have often noted the list is lengthy, but when it is not displayed, deletion or weasling of the article occurs -- in my judgement because good faith editors consider the universality of patriarchy to be an extraordinary and POV thesis. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, as they say. Of course, we know that this thesis is old news in anthropology, but others are working with "common knowledge". Yet knowledge of all societies in history on this matter is clearly not available to common knowledge, only to the collected work of thousands of cultural anthropolgists. The sources cited in the article are the "canonical" sources, but how are readers to know this? Britannica in the lead was my solution, but even this does not deter people's incredulity. In sum, I concur with having the list in the article rather than the template, though I would prefer such a decision was made by people who would be willing to also share in the responsibility for the consequences, and to help maintain it against vandalism.

Thanks to those who have commented in this thread. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just had a thought that might be helpful. Were the list a sythesis. This could be easily demonstrated, because it would be contrary to published consensus (rather than to expectation). In that case a source that said this would be readily available. The longer the proposal of synthesis stands without any source to back it, the more it weighs in support of Britannica, Mead, Goldberg, Donald Brown, Steven Pinker and many others. At the very least can anyone supply a case of even a single society that is uncontroversially considered by anthropologists to be matriarchal? So far we having be waiting for something like this for four weeks. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, apart from two sentences from one editor, there is no charge against this template.

We have no prima facie case for synthesis. There's insufficient evidence for the charge to even go to trial. How can anyone attempt to argue a case for the prosecution without evidence? I understand exactly why the TfD was proposed, it's common sense, surely there's got to be a matriarchy out there? The editor has done the right thing in seeking to expose the assertion to publicity. If there is a matriarchy, surely someone viewing TfD will know of it and burst the bubble of the outrageous claim in the patriarchy article.

But the surprising truth is that over the course of a few decades (c. 1970–2000) cultural anthropologists addressed this very question and have published their results. They are documented in the article. There are no matriarchies. TfD viewers are absolutely right, they can't support the proposal because they can't supply a reliable source of even one matriarchy, let alone a consensus that such societies have existed.

On the other hand, the template has already done this work. It lists precisely the societies closest to being matriarchal. It's not a list of patriarchies (there are 2,000 of those!), it's a list of the most likely candidates to be matriarchies. Babylon, Greece, Rome, early modern Europe are all classic patriarchies, why are they not listed? Because the aim of the template is to point the reader to precisely the most reliable sources of information most likely to support a case for matriarchy. Experts have looked long and hard and these are the best.

Is there anyone at all who considers the template to reflect a new synthesis? The two sentences from the proposer (with no following engagement with answers provided) and a month without even a seconder for the suggestion seems to me to be a failure to launch. I spent a month researching the topic, I've documented the sources so it's easy to retrace the steps.

Can we close off soon please, it's Britannica, Margaret Mead, Pinker, Goldberg, Cynthia Eller, plus a month of visitors to TfD who have not supported the proposal, all against two sentences at the moment. With every day that passes the proposal looks worse and worse. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:Plot 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 section.

The result of the debate was snowball keep, Korax hit the nail on the head. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template has encouraged deletion of good faith edits beyond the requirements of policy or style guidelines, by branding "plot summaries" as "too long" without consideration of whether the length includes the discussion promoted by policy, without distinguishing copyright fears from encyclopedic policy, and without promoting the contribution of fair use rationale (if that is what is desired) instead of arbitrary reversions/deletions bordering on vandalism. (See template talk page for more information) — Wnt (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a huge difference between a plot summary and an all-encompassing synopsis of a fictional work. Many articles on movies, books, and television episodes (to name three common offenders) tend toward the latter - this is bad, and having a template to urge the cleanup of such cases is indisputably useful. If users are applying this template inappropriately, or editing inappropriately in response to it, that's an issue to take up with them. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles which are perfectly reasonable with long plot synopses, e.g. The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, which if anything could still use more detail. People expect an encyclopedia article about a fictional work to describe what the work is about. The misapplication of the template is happening because it does not specify whether it is promoting edits intended to make the best possible article, or edits to greatly damage article quality in the hope of avoiding some theoretical legal problem (e.g. Romper Stomper). Which I might add that it does not, since the information in the History is no less a web page than any other, and after deletion from the current article it is no longer even part of an ongoing discussion. Wnt (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to WP:PLOT (linked to from the template itself): 'Wikipedia articles on published works... should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot.' This is a policy of Wikipedia, and a number of articles do not follow it. The template and the page it links to are quite clear that that the problem: not that the plot summary is necessarily too long in absolute terms, but that it is too long in comparison to the rest of the article. If an article fails to meet WP policy in this specific regard, surely it is useful to have a template that can point this out? If the template is being used incorrectly, or indiscriminately, that is not a problem with the template, but a mistake by the editors, that can be fixed by discussion. Anaxial (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is solely a detailed summary of the plot, what will shortening it do to bring it into compliance with that policy? You can only satisfy that policy by adding the other information listed, which is not what the template directs. Wnt (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is, at best, an argument to change the wording of the template, not to delete it. We need to something to indicate when WP:PLOT is not being followed - if not this template, then which one do you suggest would be more appropriate? Anaxial (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - additional thought here. You say that the template directs that the plot summary be shortened, but it doesn't; it says that the article should be edited to resolve the problem. Editing could just as well be adding information as deleting it. Anaxial (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I agree with the nominator that the template has caused problems, but as per WNT, the template serves its purpose and editor misuse is not a valid reason to delete. McJeff (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - has many good uses. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I don't know about the guidelines for books and television episodes, but the WikiProject Film guidelines specifically state that summaries should not be longer than 900 words, except in the case of a very complicated plot. So this template does have a valid use. Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all of the above, wikipolicy is to limit plot summery and this is a good tag to remind editors of it. Jeepday (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a useful template. It can be misused, but so can any template - and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with this one. Articles about fiction should not include excessive amounts of plot summary, because that's not what Wikipedia is for; what 'an excessive amount' is varies from one article to another, but there's always a point where it will be appropriate to apply this template. Terraxos (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it is improperly used, it can be quickly removed. Used properly, it's a very useful tool. FusionMix 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Excessively long plot summary may become unfair copyvio.--Jusjih (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too often, many fiction-based articles aimed at younger audiences (novels, cartoons, etc.) are treated like fansites and inflated with unnecessary in-universe cruft, and it's not just the plot section. For instance, the article about the Teen Titans minor characters was a whopping 66,000 KB at one point before it was whittled down to 43. Beemer 69 06:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — abuse of a tool is not the fault of the tool. — Korax1214 (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:SocEur 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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per ZScout370 MBisanz ^talk 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused restricted use template that has no OTRS ticket as a reason to keep, therefore it should be deleted. . MBisanz ^talk 04:46, 13 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:Sejm 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image tag recently converted from a free to non-free tag. Should be deleted to prevent reuse.. MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't being transcluded on any image pages, and Category:Sejm images is empty, but it's still listed on {{Template messages}} and every page that transcludes that (lots of them), which could lead to mistaken use. Since we images under the new terms aren't free, it's best to delete this. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:PD-nosource 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused misleading template. Images without a source should be deleted per policy and should have a warning template reflecting they will be deleted.. MBisanz ^talk 04:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nominator says, this is one of the criteria for speedy deletion of images (WP:CSD#I4), so just tagging them with this template is inappropriate. The relevant deletion template (I believe it's {{Di-no source}}) should be used instead; perhaps this template should be redirected to that one. Terraxos (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Kelly ^hi! 19:53, 23 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:Polish Foreign Ministry 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted use template, unused in images, should not be used in place of detailed non-free historic or non-free promotional image.. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As creator of this template I agree with the rationale for deletion. Martintg (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unused.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:48, 14 April 2008 (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 section.