Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 April 13)
< April 12 April 14 >

April 13 edit

Template:Corrections 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Corrections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not really a template and borderline spam. PC78 (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We have many other templates for the purpose, including {{cleanup-rewrite}} DGG (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant to cleanup templates and needlessly denigrating. Maralia (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete badly worded cleanup message masquerading as prose opinion comment 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2009 (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:User Akpantue 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 discussion was moved and speedy deleted. JPG-GR (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Akpantue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Copy to userspace & delete. WOSlinker (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2009 (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:User ChronaBoxes 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 discussion was moved and speedy deleted. JPG-GR (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ChronaBoxes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Copy to userspace & delete. WOSlinker (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2009 (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:User BlackThor/1 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 discussion was moved and speedy deleted. JPG-GR (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User BlackThor/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Copy to userspace & delete. WOSlinker (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been moved & there is just the redirect left to delete. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2009 (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:User BlackThor/links 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 discussion was moved and speedy deleted. JPG-GR (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User BlackThor/links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Copy to userspace & delete. WOSlinker (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been moved & there is just the redirect left to delete. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2009 (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:FinlandPrimeMinister 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FinlandPrimeMinister (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Nowadays, there's a better timeline in Prime Minister of Finland in use. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 21:11, 13 April 2009 (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:Cork rock and alternative bands 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cork rock and alternative bands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template created by banned user that links to no articles and is in a non-existent category. McJeff (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2009 (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:Kansas Congressional Districts 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kansas Congressional Districts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete -- obsolete, replaced by {{USCongDistStateKS}}. Search indicates that this is the last of its kind.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2009 (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.

Category:Interwiki translation templates 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 discussion was Keep. Happy‑melon 10:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating all these templates as they seem to run afoul of WP:SELFREF and WP:RS. If an article has been translated from another language Wikipedia, that should perhaps be noted on the talk page in banner form, not in the article itself. These may also impart the wrongheaded belief that using one of these templates negates the need to transfer over the actual references used in the source article. –xeno (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that attribution really ought be made in the edit summary of the initial edit/edit that brought over the information. This, and a talk page banner, should be more than enough for GFDL attribution. –xeno (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not needed, not useful, invites not to properly cite sources and GFDL violations. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions
  • Delete or convert to talk page banner form similar to {{translated page}} –xeno (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are two issues. WP:RS and attribution. Yes the other wiki is not a reliable source but attribution to it must take place. Talkplace attribution does not really cut it GDFL wise in particular when the content is later copied elsewhere. (see also this TFD) -- Agathoclea (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't attribution take place in the edit summary of the initial edit, or edit that brings information over? I note that Wikipedia:Translation now says to place the attribution note on the talk page: Because Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, the translation source must be credited to avoid copyright violation. The template {{Translated page}}, which is placed on the article talk page, is the recommended way to credit the source of the translation. –xeno (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Tech77jp (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The talk page is not the place for attribution, it's the place to discuss the article. -- User:Docu —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC).
    And what about the history log? You don't see me adding "This article was heavily penned by Xeno" in the Reference section, because attribution belongs in the history. –xeno (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...or, even better would be to Do What The Germans Do, and import the entire history. See http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyves&action=history –xeno (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ... Now there is a great idea. But it is not that simple to implement. In particular after the effect. FWIW I think the sourcing issue causes a problem which should put a dampener on translation. ATM I am worried about thousands of Germany related articles having a tag instructing every flyby IP to translate from de-wiki resulting in neither attribution nor sourcing - never mind any constancy. Agathoclea (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, you may be right. I've raised this particular suggestion at Wikipedia:VPT#Special:Import, if you are interested. –xeno (talk 20:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks - still it would not solve the translate and article when a stub is already here issue. I do think though this is an issue with quite some wide implications and TFD should not be the where it is decided. Tfd should be where it is implemented once it is decided. Agathoclea (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I contemplated on that before bringing it here. I would be fine with a procedural close if you feel this requires further discussion at another venue. –xeno (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A close to defer to wider input would be a good idea. Where do you think is the best venue to discuss this? Agathoclea (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    if I knew, I would've went there instead ;p ... perhaps the WP:VPP? –xeno (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or convert to talk page templates. While I'm not entirely against the idea of crediting significant contributions taken from external sources in the public domain or under GFDL or compatible licences, as we have done for the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica for instance, I entirely fail to see the point crediting sister projects let alone language variants of Wikipedia. It's all one big collaborative project. "This article is based on Wikipedia ?" Well, duh. Now there is a good reason to point out a given article was based on another page in a different language: other editors might be interested to check, improve, and/or keep the translation up to date. The right place for that is on the talk page, preferably on both sides. Equendil Talk 18:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not comparable to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, as its status is entirely different. Seems dubious even for that though. -- User:Docu 05:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have raised the issue at VPP but defer to a procedural close to someone else. Agathoclea (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now; that these point to other language Wikipedias doesn't really make them different from other attribution templates (yeah I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). PlanetMath isn't a reliable source either, yet we use the attribution template {{planetmath}}. Once we move to a more reasonable license, perhaps we can check again what attribution templates we really need. What will the license update mean for the legality of importing from other Wikipedias with just an entry in the page history? Are mirrors supposed to copy the attribution template? Kusma (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is perfectly legitimate to reuse text from any free content source, and the other WPs are such sources. Not only legitimate, but its a good way of getting articles started and discouraging cultural bias. When this is done, its well to let people know. In fact, I think its a requirement of the licensing that at least a link be made. This is the link. Once the licensing change is approved, and the entire contents is relicensed uniformly, a link like this will meet all possible objections about licensing details. Iti s not a self ref--the article stands or fails based on what refs are transwikified or added to the enWP version,DGG (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or convert: User:Xeno said it all (including his responses pre-dating my !vote). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC) PS, to User:DGG: The link need only be in edit history. See for example recent GFDL attribution in the history of Glossary of cue sports terms. It needs to be on record, but does not need to be in our worldwide, general-public readers' faces. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Valerian456 Hush, Rush 09:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all we should cite the original sources, not other language Wikipedias, which do not constitute reliable sources. Regardless of this, self-references should be avoided in the articles, so the history is a better place to include attribution. The licence-related issues can be resolved using the edit summary of the edit used to remove the templates from the articles for attribution. --GW… 11:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "self-reference" page is meant for links within English language Wikipedia, not for other languages. -- User:Docu 05:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - they tell the truth, which is what we're about. Though if you insist, modify the templates to include some text like "references can be found at the original article - please help to add them to this article in an appropriate form". That makes it clear that these are not to be a substitute for real references; they're kind of halfway between a list of references and an unreferenced tag, and appear on the article rather than the talk page for the same reasons that both of those items do.--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Firstly, having read WP:SELFREF, I don't think I actually talks to this issue. Rather it is about discouraging inappropriate mentioning (ie referencing in the general sense) of Wikipedia in articles (eg. 'this Wikipedia article') that are stylistically poor and raise barriers to text reuse; none of this applies here. Secondly, I agree that citing other language WP articles as sources is somewhat dangerous; if the original article is not itself well-sourced it means that the translated article won't be either. But that is an argument for hunting out articles with these type of cites, and improving them by adding cites from the original article or elsewhere. Not an argument for getting rid of the cite altogether. Doing this does nothing to improve the article, but just makes it more difficult to improve them later. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a talk page template that indicates the version the article was translated from. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issue is relevant only to copyright. Under the wikipedia license, we are obliged to give credit to the authors of the other languages wikipedias. A reference at the talk page is not appropriate, since talk pages do not contain author information. Reference in the article is certainly appropriate. These templates have necessary copyright information. A reference in the edit summary is not appropriate. The point is not that "this article is based in wikipedia". The whole point is that "this article has been co-authored by the users (link to contributors) of xxx-language wikipedia". The same is necessary when copying articles from this wikipedia.--FocalPoint (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So the history page is fine for local users but for other-languages users we have to write in the reference section? Why wouldn't an edit summary be enough, it is for us? –xeno talk 16:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You prefer to input copyright information to satisfy licenses of other collaborative projects in an edit summary. You may do so. That is not the point here. The point is your proposal to delete copyright templates. If you think that there is one or several other acceptable solutions, that does not make deleting the templates necessary. These templates serve the purpose of referencing the authors of these other wikipedias adequately.--FocalPoint (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My point here is that these particular ones are inappropriate where they lie. –xeno talk 14:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I understand correctly that you do not want these templates deleted, but to be used in another way? Or to put it in your words with a modification from negative to positive: Your point here is that these particular ones would be appropriate if they were to lie somewhere else?--FocalPoint (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do these serve as replacements for references? No (though I'll admit I've been guilty of using them as such in the past.) But they're awfully good road signs, if you will, pointing the way to a possible source of other useful information. I think they serve a valuable purpose, and ought to be kept on for that. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 17:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They would seemingly serve a good purpose for stating the initial source if translating and starting an article from another wikipedia. Then as referenced are found they can be replaced but as an initial source I think they are better to state it that not in this way. I definately understand the reasons why the nominator nominated them for the self-publishing reason but a lot of articles ar estarted from other wikis and in my ciew its best to mention the source initially than leaving it completely unreferenced. Its not ideal but as the article develops it will be superceded with primary sources. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or deprecate in favor of talk page templates We shouldn't be using another wiki as a "source" (that is, a reliable place where information comes from). Articles sourced to other wikis are as unreliable as unsourced articles here. Attribution of this sort is better suited for the talk page. {{Translated page}} is a far superior solution. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think of that. I agree. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG, AlbertHerring, and Blofeld. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if really not needed for GFDL compliancy. For sourcing they serve no purpose since using a foreign wikipedia as a source is as bad as totally unsourced. A mention of the talk page is then sufficient and we have {{Translated page}} for that. Garion96 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ddima.talk 05:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above copyright reasoning. De728631 (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are also good for editing purposes. Editors are one interwikilink away from seeing the source text and making modifications if they think the translation isn't quite right (and I notice this is fairly common). Hiding the attribution in Talk or history withholds vital information about the text's source.Kelisi (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah not everybody looks in the talk page. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the normal use of these templates is as the sole reference, violating WP:SPS. any idiot should know that if they are looking at an article about a french city that there is probably a french wikipedia article about it.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would dispute that this is the normal use, but even if it is that is problem in the way the template is used, not in the template itself. See Dresden Transport Authority for an example where such a template is used with other references. -- Starbois (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If someone wants to look at the inadequate use of the template, you should look here. Since I saw its inadequate use, I deleted its instances as references and moved it at the end of the article.--FocalPoint (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The proper place for attribution is the edit summary in the history. The proper place for finding useful information in Wikipedias in other languages is the list of interwiki links under "languages". This is in no way "hiding", much less "withholding" this information; these are easy to find. The article itself is for encyclopedic content, and meta-information is not encyclopedic. – McDutchie (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But "unreferenced" tags and the like go on the article page - how are those not meta-information?--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; there have been arguments to remove these as well, or hide them from those without a preference set to show them. –xeno talk 16:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK but those arguments have not got anywhere. That means that if we delete these translation templates, they will simply be replaced by generic unreferenced templates; and that would be a worse solution, as they suppress important relevant information (important both to readers and to editors trying to improve the referencing) about where the material was sourced from.--Kotniski (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All use of other Wiki material should be attributed and there is nothing wrong for the attribution to be noted at the bottom of the article's page. It also serves as a highly visible flag for multilingual editors to check the original Wiki's article and see if new material has been added. W. B. Wilson (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Depreciate in favour of {{Translated page}} - per section 4.i of the GFDL. It places key importance on attribution - deleting this template outright, regardless of its self-reference status, makes it more difficult to properly attribute translated work to the original authors. --Malkinann (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the decision here is "delete" or "transmogrifty to a talk page template", I would fully expect the bot(s) removing it to leave a detailed edit summary for the history that will fulfill the attribution clause. –xeno talk 16:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    please no bot. Most will need human intervention. When this has settled we need some systematic way forward. One way I was thinking was to change some of the templates to throw up a maintenance-category, if only the mainpage is linked and not the article. This assumes, that this will be kept. Even if closed as delete this work will need to be done first manually -- Agathoclea (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but change. Could these templates be reworded to say something like German Wikipedia was used as a reference for this article? Yes, the references from the source article should appear in the English article. There is the problem that some foreign-language pages don't provide references. They should be treated as one would treat copyrighted material. The usual {{noreferences}} banner can be placed at the top of pages which misuse this template, or probably a special banners should be created (or already exist?) for (1) translations which don't provide the references or (2) word-for-word translations of unreferenced pages. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but again, that runs afoul of WP:RS. Good ideas about the other things though, getting some eyes on these articles to properly source them should be a priority. –xeno talk 16:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia can't be a reference to itself. So this banner should not be used with the same way 1911 Enc. Britannica does. Moreover, the later in on the article pages now and not in the talkpages anymore. I wonder if a page is a translation of the German Wikipedia and someone adds a line, should we remove this template or not? If the original text in the German Wikipedia changes what should we do? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per W. B. Wilson. Tymek (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As used to be stated in the translation guidelines, at least {{Translation/ref}}n serves only initial purposes, hence the text "This article was initially translated...". Once the translation is edited by anyone else, it has become a full part of the English Wiki and the template may be removed. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: once again, the translation templates are not meant to be (sole) sources at all, they only serve GFDL purposes to credit other authors on the respective foreign language Wiki. If the original article is poorly sourced, this is not the translator's fault, nor can we blame the template for it. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal edit
  1. Merge all into one uniform template, taking the language as a parameter (for ease of management and to allow any source language to be treated the same way).
  2. Add an additional sentence to the template text, something like (quoted from {{Unreferenced}}): Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (This sentence could be suppressed using another parameter in cases where there are references in addition to the template.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is so far the best proposal for a solution I've read here. We should in fact have such a template for any language version of Wikipedia, so a parameter for appropriate language code should solve that issue. Plus the "unreferenced" comment would work around that other problem. Support. De728631 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you follow the link above to the VPP thread as a few more issues are mentioned there. This issue will keep us busy even after this TFD is over. Agathoclea (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that depends on the result of the TfD;) The VPP thread (assuming I went to the one you meant) seems to be mainly about technical solutions that might be applied if it were decided to delete these templates or remove them to talk pages. However the discussion here implies that there is no consensus to do that yet. If this "alternative proposal" is adopted then there will be a bit of work to do merging and designing the new template, but it shouldn't require any technical jiggery-pokery.--Kotniski (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well before someone goes ahead just another item that needs to be in there is a category that flags up if there is no link to the actual source article/history, as as it stands at the moment there are a number of placements which don't include this information. Agathoclea (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2009 (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:CityRail platforms 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 discussion was Speedy deletion G7 --Agathoclea (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CityRail platforms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I created this template, was the only editor, and have superseded it by an updated template. Endarrt (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2009 (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.

--Agathoclea (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USLateNightTelevision 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 discussion was Delete. Happy‑melon 10:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USLateNightTelevision (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Virtual duplicate (in content, not layout) of template:Late night added to most of the same articles. Comments justifying its creation ar at the tfd's talk page. 68.167.252.210 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template was built to be comparable to the sidebar templates {{Template:USSundayMorningNewsShows}}, {{Template:USNetworkEveningNewsShows}}, and {{Template:AmericanMorningNewsShows}}, and therefore I believe it should be left for purposes of keeping all types the same. The {{Late night}} is meant to be more expansive, with the sidebar covering just the basics, if anything, I believe {{Late night}} should be deleted first and this template could be expanded. --Flyguy33 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This proposal fits the "The template is redundant to a better-designed template" reason listed here, but has had insufficient attention from the community. I will mention this discussion at WP:TV and at Template talk:Late night. 67.100.127.102 (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC) (full disclosure: I am the editor who proposed this TFD)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2009 (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:SPATRAcite 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 discussion was Keep. Happy‑melon 10:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SPATRAcite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Self reference, links or references to WikiProjects should not appear in articles. GW… 15:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The actual sources for the information should be whatever sources the Spanish Wikipedia article used but as long as much of the text is a direct translation, the link is necessary to maintain the attribution to the authors at the Spanish Wikipedia (and is better than an edit summary note IMO). The self-ref problem could be eliminated by removing the last sentence, though this isn't part of the actual article body, so I don't see how its more of a self-reference problem than a stub tag or a maintenance template. Mr.Z-man 02:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per section 4.i of the GFDL - attribution is important. --Malkinann (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should probably be rolled into the above discussion #Category:Interwiki translation templates. –xeno talk 22:42, 19 April 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_13&oldid=1088279208"