Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 20 December 22 >

December 21 edit

Template:SOTD/... 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SOTD/Monday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD/Tuesday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD/Wednesday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD/Thursday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD/Friday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD/Saturday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD/Sunday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD/Classical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD/Religious (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD/Speeches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD/Portrait (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD/Folk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, from an abandoned project. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Aside from Featured Sounds being inactive, these templates were never implemented and there were no plans for their implementation. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:00, 22 December 2011 (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:Better source 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 for now, but update transclusions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Better source (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a redirect to an inline template transcluded by 291 articles. It redirects to {{primary source-inline}}, but I just saw an article fixed like this to use {{unreliable source}} instead. "Better" seems too generic and ambiguous and should be deprecated. We should probably go through all of those transclusions and replace them with a more specific inline tag. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose better source doesnt mean the source is unreliable, it just means that consideration should be given to improve the source. primary --> secondary source, media release to actual media article etc. Gnangarra 07:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, it doesn't mean the source is unreliable, but with the same rationale it also doesn't mean that "non-primary" is the only meaning of "better", either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, sort of. {{Unreliable source}} redirects to {{Verify credibility}}, which isn't what's wanted here. This is for when you've already determined that the source is (perhaps barely) okay, but you believe that a better source could be provided. Given its name, it ought to point to something less specific than {{primary source-inline}}, because "primary" is not the same as WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. We might, for example, prefer an independent primary source to a non-independent primary source, or a properly published primary source to a self-published primary source. Those would be "better" sources, even though they're still primary sources. (Remember that WP:Secondary does not mean independent.) But I don't believe that any generic "can't you find a higher quality source?" template exists, and I'm not sure that it would be truly useful. So I don't strongly oppose deletion; I just don't happen to see any particularly good reason to delete it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean we can't fork this one into a more generic-sounding inline template, one that would actually match the generic name. In a sense, this is like {{reliable sources}} - it's a very generic name for a cleanup template. Like {{cleanup}}, anyway. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no objection to forking it off to a template that matches (more or less) its name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, since we have consensus for that, let's do that, and let the matter of using a more specific template be dealt with through normal editing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make into template that matches name; not all of the "better source" issues are related to use of primary sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems the best resolution is to edit the existing 291 instances of this template to identify the specific problem with a modern template, verify Better source is no longer referenced and delete the template as a non-controversial delete. patsw (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't seem anything wrong with the term "better" in this context. It's the simplest way of saying what is needed- a better source. Nutiketaiel (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that it doesn't say that. The template name is "better source", but the actual text is "non-primary source needed"—as if the only possible reason we might want a "better" source is because the existing one is a primary source (and not, say, because it was a self-published student term paper, which is technically a secondary source). Being a primary source is not the only possible way for a source to be an undesirable one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose just change the wording because it can an\d should be used for beyond "non primary" (as mentioned above_) there are also other sources that are crap...youtube/twitter without being primary.Lihaas (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just took care of the first 10 references to this template. Of course, none of the editors indicated why they added the template, or what they thought would be bettersourcing. None of them were unreliable sources by the way. We can revisit this template when it has been dereferenced by me or the like-minded editors. patsw (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2011 (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:Non-free mural 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free mural (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing template, possibly redundant to {{Non-free 2D art}} in any event. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2011 (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:Non-free ship image 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free ship image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing template, was this meant to have been deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2011 (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.

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Non-free logo}} with an appropriate category. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems to be a useful template.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extremely useful. The text is different, and using it saves the effort of finding the appropriate category, which causes editors to simply not categorize. Almost none of the hundreds of university logos I looked up recently had a category. All those with this template were at least somewhat categorized. --Muhandes (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2011 (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:Non-free geo image 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free geo image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2011 (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:Non-free data overlay 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free data overlay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing template, This would be better as a 'restriction' tag I feel. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2011 (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:Non-free WWE photo 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free WWE photo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Non-free promotional}} to which usage should be migrated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

I assume you mean {{non-free use rationale}}? — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed typo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2011 (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:Non-free PD-US-NoTreaty 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free PD-US-NoTreaty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing tag? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2011 (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:Non-free Malaysian politician photo 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Malaysian politician photo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing template, Was this meant to be deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2011 (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:Non-free Baseball HoF 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Baseball HoF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing template, was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2011 (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:Non-free spacecraft image 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free spacecraft image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing template , Was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2011 (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:Canadian elections/NLFirst 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian elections/NLFirst (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2011 (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.

Unused bracket 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 delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis5-with 3rd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis5333-Byes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:16TeamBracket-Tennis3-NoSeeds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:16TeamBracket-Two-3Leg-Reseeds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

More unused bracket templates Bulwersator (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2011 (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:Ohio State-Penn State Result 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ohio State-Penn State Result (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2011 (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:Ohio State - Penn State Rivalry 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ohio State - Penn State Rivalry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2011 (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:Ohmi Railway Taga Line 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ohmi Railway Taga Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2011 (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:Okean squad 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Okean squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2011 (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:OldVGpeerreview 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused deprecated template. Bulwersator (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2011 (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:Old Kingdom Egyptian Dynasty list 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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Old Kingdom Egyptian Dynasty list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2011 (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:Oldmb 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. T3. WOSlinker (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oldmb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Oldmb/start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template without documentation, outdated, unused on Discontinued merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) Bulwersator (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as T3 ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:54, 21 December 2011 (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:1911 POV 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 -FASTILY Happy 2012!! 09:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1911 POV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles tagged with this maintenance template have been cleaned up. There are currently 0 transclusions. It is very unlikely there will ever be another tranclusion because there are few or no copied 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica articles left to be checked. I would like to propose that the template be redirected to Template:POV. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to {{POV}} as {{POV/EB1911}} and with a switch "|EB1911=yes" to activate the variant. As EB1911 is a frequently used resource for building articles in the world at large, we should expect that once in a while someone will do it. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are currently 10,000+ articles in the category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with no article parameter which means there are probably 10,000 more articles that potentially could be in this category and there are other EB articles that have not been ported into this encyclopedia which may be when they are placed on Wikisource. The category is useful because there is a difference between POV introduced by editors and a POV introduced by copying text from an old PD source. Usually this has to do with the incorporation of Edwardian opinions on the importance of a subject or an outdated moral POV while inter-editorial disputes tend to be about modern political divisions/modern nationalism etc. -- PBS (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful template. Perhaps somebody could check what Alpha_Quadrant means by "All articles tagged with this maintenance template have been cleaned up"? Does that mean somebody has simply removed the template from them? Debresser (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a dispute tag: it's a cleanup tag. As such, the correct solution is to repurpose it as a proper cleanup tag by renaming to {{cleanup-EB1911}} and rewording to present the potential problems that way. Additionally, we may want to consider creating an actual tag for category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with no article parameter so that the problem is more obvious; this would hopefully help us to work through the massive backlog in that cleanup category, and thus to more accurately judge whether, as PBS hypothesises, there are more articles that could use this tag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I (and anyone else who wants to help) have finished cleaning up the current 700 articles that include {{1911}} and {{cite EB1911}} templates and have pass in to them parameters in a messy state, (there is also another 890 that need examining to see if they are correctly PD attributed), it is my intention to implement visual aid, as has been done for {{DGRG}}. The logic is already built into the template, but I hope to be able to simply it by removing some of the different ways that parameters can currently be added to the template. I suggest that if you want to discuss that specific issue further we do it on the talk page of the template. --PBS (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see little advantage to a tag when the problem is obscure and the cat is easily implemented. Rich Farmbrough, 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Some people find it useful. I am sure more articles would benefit from being edited to express both the Edwardian POV and the current POV; they are both valid.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the only reason for deleting is that there are currently no instances of it that is a poor deletion rationale. The template will still appear in the page history so it should certainly not be redirected which will cause the page history to now say something different from originally intended. Since it is possible it may be used again in the future it should be kept in any case. SpinningSpark 18:53, 31 December 2011 (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:Cleanup-weighted 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. Template:Unbalanced and Template:Undue were not formally nominated for discussion and should be dealt with in a separate TfD. Ruslik_Zero 16:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-weighted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template addresses the same issue as Template:Unbalanced. There is just a minor wording difference between the two. I would like to propose that the two templates be merged together. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • They're not interchangeable. {{Unbalanced}} specifically addresses viewpoints and indicated an editorial bias from the point of view of one side of an argument; {{Cleanup-weighted}} addresses subject matter, and is useful on those occasions where an article is biased not in terms of editorial opinion, but more in terms of the importance given to specific parts of the subject. If the article on Bill Clinton was primarily written as an attack article, dealing with his bad points but not his good, it would require {{unbalanced}}. If it dealt with his time as Governor of Arkansas more than his presidency, it would need {{cleanup-weighted}}. Grutness...wha? 04:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Template:Unbalanced is a bit more generic in wording.
We have three templates intended to deal with the undue weight issue. Unbalanced and Undue have a near exact wording. Cleanup-weighted has a few minor differences, most notably it primarily explains that there is a specific area where the article is lacking proper weight. Do we really need three maintenance templates to address one issue? It wouldn't be too difficult to merge Unbalanced and Undue together. And for Cleanup-weighted, we might be able to add a parameter to one of the templates to explain that it is undue because of a specific aspect. Thoughts? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment they don't seem the same to me. {{Unbalanced}} is a {{POV}} template, while {{cleanup-weighted}} is different, such as an article on Kazakhstan covering the national hockey team for 90% of the text, clearly overly weighted to one aspect, but not necessarily unbalanced towards any particularly viewpoint. Rather, {{unbalanced}} should be merged with {{POV}} (say with "|unbalanced=yes" to add additional text to the POV message, or switch it out for a subtemplate {{POV/unbalanced}} ). 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above that there is a difference, and even though it is not a big one, it is there. Debresser (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The semantic difference between the three is small. It is very likely that editors are using them interchangeably. Having three templates is therefore suboptimal here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Debresser. If people misuse the templates, fix that, don't just merge the templates. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unbalanced and Undue, since I agree with Alpha Quadrant that they mean essentially the same thing. Unfortunately, I don't know any way to "fix" the misuse of templates by editors :-). Miniapolis (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2011 (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:POV-check-section 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   Relisted on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_6#Template:POV-check-section. Ruslik_Zero 16:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV-check-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have added section parameters to three main maintenance templates. Now that the main templates have support for sections, these individual section templates are fairly redundant to the main templates. I would like to propose that:

I second this proposal. Especially since these templates are relatively seldom used, and the usage of a |section parameter is widely spread. Debresser (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment section templates are supposed to look like:
So... redirecting doesn't serve that purpose, an intermediate transclude that sets that up should though. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean somewhat like {{POV-section}}? Actually, are you sure that an intermediate transclude is necessary for it to work? That is definitely what I wanted to be the effect of a redirect. Debresser (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no other way to specify that it uses the section appearance instead of the regular appearance, that I know of, unless you add handling code in POV template to detect "section" and then specify that it look like a section template. Which when some section templates were merged and deleted earlier, no one bothered to add into the main templates... so an intermediate transclude would be easier to maintain. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transclude or keep I don't care, but editors should be able to use these alternative section pseudonyms. There has been perpetual motion between combining and splitting these sorts of templates, which suggests that at least some people find it easier to add " section" or "-section" than "|section". In fact in some cases we deliberately migrate in the opposite direction. A consistent approach would be nice, but that's for an RFC I think. Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 21 December 2011 (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-music 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. Ruslik_Zero 16:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with the more-general Template:PD-old. Carnildo (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Used to populate Category:Public domain music images (which probably should be renamed, but that's a different story). - Eureka Lott 16:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a reason why we need to distinguish images of music (which constitute less than half the contents of that category) from other sorts of image? --Carnildo (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking that the category should be renamed to Category:Public domain music files to better reflect its contents, but that's a conversation for a different forum. I don't see a need to keep images separate from other files in this instance. - Eureka Lott 03:15, 31 December 2011 (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:Non-free Minnesota Historical Society image 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Minnesota Historical Society image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Semmingly unused image licensing template, was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2011 (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:Non-free television commercial 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free television commercial (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused Image licensing template, which is redundant to the more general template covering all TV derived screenshots. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2011 (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:Non-free Indian-politician-photo 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Indian-politician-photo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing template , was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2011 (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:Non-free GFDL-invariants 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing template. Was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2011 (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:Non-free EU website image 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free EU website image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing tag. Was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2011 (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:Non-free Disney image 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Disney image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing tag, was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be deleted now, because I just tagged this image under the template. ~~LDEJRuff~~ 10:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I've untagged it. {{Non-free logo}} works just fine here.
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:Non-free Denver Public Library image 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. Ruslik_Zero 16:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Denver Public Library image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing tag, was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This template was recently proposed for deletion here and kept. What appears to have happened in the meantime is that all occurences of the template have been removed, examples: [1], [2][3][4][5]. No evidence at the template's talk page of consensus to mass remove. SpinningSpark 16:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a short message about what seems to me to be inappropriate removal of this template from images at User_talk:Fastily#Deletion_of_license_tags. Banaticus (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2011 (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:2009 US flu pandemic image 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 -FASTILY Happy 2012!! 09:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 US flu pandemic image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is not used in article besides image which is outdated.JDOG555 (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2011 (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_discussion/Log/2011_December_21&oldid=1138694895"