Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 17

< December 16	December 18 >

December 17

Template:Amazonimages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template, part of the defunct Wikipedia:Images from Amazon.com project. These images should be tagged under various fair use tags. --cohesion 22:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unnecessary. → JARED ^(t) 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely useful. (Ibaranoff24 16:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

What for? Why do people need to template this I mean? I don't really even see the benefit of a category, but assuming someone needs to organize these together, why not just have that? - cohesion 04:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly weak delete (though I'm open to other arguments) - because it's part of the dead project. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Change it to something like {{Smithsonian}} or {{Library of Congress}}. And these two templates serve as precedence. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Please leave this line alone (MK)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (carried out by Crzrussian.) Picaroon 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template isn't used on any other page and appears to have no purpose. --RobWill80 20:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a test page (CSD G2). The creator's previous (second) edit was to Wikipedia:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox, which contains the template {{Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading)}}. Apparently, he just replaced the "tutorial sandbox heading" with "MK" and created this page. Picaroon 20:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. → JARED ^(t) 22:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Categories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another text box that will not be used on the WikiProject Astronomical objects page. Note that the last three nominations of WikiProject Astronomical object templates were all speedy deleted. --Dr. Submillimeter 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused. → JARED ^(t) 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of stuff should not be templatified. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Collaboration

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another text box that will not be used on the WikiProject Astronomical objects page. Note that the last three nominations of WikiProject Astronomical object templates were all speedy deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused. → JARED ^(t) 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of stuff should not be templatified. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Wikipedia User

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template consists entirely of calling Template:Wikipedia USer... which in turn consists entirely of calling this template. Also: unused anywhere else. –Xoid 09:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One time edit, unused. → JARED ^(t) 22:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marginally sane idea, implemented in a completely insane way. --Dgies 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - g2, test page. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia USe-less. Punkmorten 15:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Wikipedia USer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template consists entirely of calling Template:Wikipedia User... which in turn consists entirely of calling this template. Also: unused anywhere else. –Xoid 09:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One time edit, unused. → JARED ^(t) 22:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Templates don't need misspelling protection like this. If you could go to the trouble of making this, you could learn to capitalize correctly. --Dgies 21:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia USe-less. Punkmorten 15:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Movie-Tome

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable fan-edited film website. --Ibaranoff24 08:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's used throughout a lot of pages, and it seems useful. → JARED ^(t) 22:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Click

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. By no means can one admin and one TfD fix this issue. It must be brought to the community for further discussion. TfD is not designed to change thousands of pages at one time, we have other ways of effecting such grand changes. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 04:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I create a broken template and use it on enough pages, it will never be deleted because it would be too much work to delete? How else is a template supposed to be deleted except to put it on TfD? — Omegatron 05:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly CSS hack, that only works in certain cases. I really don't like CSS hacks. And before anyone complains about me not doing research, yes, I am aware it's used in the featured whatever star. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late for that, but if nobody has any objections, consider it included. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, used in the featured whatever star. ;-) (No, really. Given the choice between having that feature available through a CSS hack and not having it at all, I think we ought to prefer the CSS hack. If we come up with a cleaner way of doing it, it'll be trivial to change; and, in the meantime, the majority of Wikipedia readers can take advantage of its presence without any difficulty.) Kirill Lokshin 05:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hard-code background-images in the style sheets for standard interface elements where they are needed, like FA stars, and get rid of the template which can only be abused. —Michael Z. 2006-12-18 07:46 Z
Keep per above. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—breaks accessibility for disadvantaged readers. Not suitable for an "open" encyclopedia. —Michael Z. 2006-12-17 17:00 Z
~~Comment~~Delete (see below). What we absolutely need, is a way to enforce the Do not use this template unless absolutely necessary command. Otherwise it's going to continue to be used in all sorts of places, like Template:Cquote, and Template:PartofWPCANADA, and in portal lists Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Portals, etc. - Or, we need to elaborate in it's instructions about where its use should be restricted to - ie. Just for Main Page logos, and Featured/Spoken top-right icons? eg I don't think it needs to be used in Template:Infobox Software at all, or those other examples I listed above. --Quiddity 20:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't mainpage logos one of the worst places to use it? After all, everyone sees the main page, so if it messes up, everyone will notice. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The way to enforce that this template should not be used is to delete it. :-) — Omegatron 15:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per comments throughout (bad for usability, web-standards, and accesibility; and run-away usage), and based on the code-aware editors saying it can be fixed/replaced in the places that need it (eg FA star). --Quiddity 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The uses of this are not so important as to break WAI guidelines and cross-browser support. No one needs curly quotes, or little stars. Until we can do this correctly there is no pressing need to do it incorrectly. - cohesion 21:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's really an important template! It's used everywhere, and it's useful for making clickable objects. → JARED ^(t) 22:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...except for people who don't have the right browser to make it work, where it does nothing, and occasionally does bad things. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cluttering up pages with little images that don't actually work the way they are supposed to is not "really important". — Omegatron 15:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I always thought the problem was that Wikipedia's licensing requires that images link to the image description, except for public domain images. An image link works directly against the "free as in speech" thing and I believe gives us legal difficulties. I actually have use this on my user page for a copyrighted image, so I'm a hypocrite in this but given the legal issues, and the fact that it often breaks, I'm willing to get rid of it. Unless, of course, someone wants to volunteer to remove all uses with non-PD images and continue to enforce correct usage indefinitely... - Banyan Tree 05:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's useful, but there should be some sort of fallback for other browsers. If someone can figure out how to make a fallback, implement it and keep this. Otherwise just consider this part of a growing issue; people are going to continue to want to use CSS wherever possible, others are going to denounce it because it's incompatible with older browsers. There is a fine line between offering reasonable support for a variety of browsers and trying to remain compatible with everything. One is exemplary, the other is stupidity. Not having investigated what this hack involves and where it works, it may be nasty and unworkable in a vast majority of browsers; then it should be gotten rid of. Otherwise you have to ask yourself where does it stop? Why not just code the entire site in HTML 1.0 if you're going to demand cross compatibility with everything. –Xoid 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand. An image with a link wrapped around it is trivial. Clickable images have been around forever, probably since before HTML 1.0. Clickable images are not a problem with web standards in any way whatsoever. But Mediawiki doesn't have a function for clickable images. It's not meant to. When you click an image you should go to the image description page, not to another page. That's the way the wiki is designed to work. We do have some images for special features like logos on non-article parts of the page, but that's it. Every image used in the article area should go to the image description page. If this very simple, trivial HTML code was meant to be used in articles, it would be possible to do it with wiki markup. This template is an awful hack to get around a limitation of the software that was probably put there on purpose.

I don't dispute that images should be allowed to have links; they should. But only navigational images that are part of the site itself, and if such a feature were implemented, it would have to take into consideration the licenses of the images, the fact that they can't be used in article text, etc., etc. Like you'd want a separate "Template Image" namespace for navigational images that could be made clickable or something. For anything like that, you file a feature request; you don't hack a workaround with templates and CSS. This template is not a valid solution and needs to be expunged. — Omegatron 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, this never occured to me, but it's true. In HTML, if you want an image link, you just wrap the image in <a href="http://www.whereveryouwantthelinktogoto.com">. There must be a good reason Mediawiki doesn't allow something simple like that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a hack, breaks the user notion of "clicking on every image I go to its description page", and least but not least it has a lot of accessibility problems. I don't think it can be fixed because it tries to implement a wrong concept. --surueña 10:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - If you want a new software feature, ask for it. Don't kludge it with template markup that breaks accessibility and doesn't work in all cases. — Omegatron 15:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin. Please be aware that this is a highly used template, which seems to be of some importance for many internal operations. Many pages would have to be fixed in order to reflect the deletion of this template. I think extra time on this TfD would be in order, to better reflect the opinions of others. → JARED ^(t) 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't so much about opinions as it is about breaking the functionality of the website. I can see a lot of people saying "KEEP! I use it to make buttons on my user page!" without actually caring that it's making the site unusable for others and breaking our commitment to web standards. — Omegatron 20:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until a better alternative is found, then delete. --Qyd 15:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hard-coding in the articles is the better idea. Another template that duplicates the hiding of image descriptions would ignore the "bad conception" argument being made here. - Banyan Tree 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Qyd meant: wait until there is functioning code, then replace all instances, then delete; all as soon as possible.

Is there code ready to go somewhere? If not, where should we be gathering to discuss it? (I'd guess Template talk:Click..?) —Quiddity 03:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've ripped off an admin mop icon that goes in the upper right of my user page, image linked without click, as seen here. Since the featured star, etc, seems to be the things people are mentioning, I imagine that changing the markup would be a matter of replacing the image and link. Also, about a year and half ago, I had to switch out the Wikisource image on the Main Page. If I recall correctly, the sister project images were linked using the "span" markup as well. If they are now linked with Click, then that is a recent development that can be reverted. It's a nasty transition no matter how you look at it; anyone have a bot? - Banyan Tree 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with hacks like this is that they prevent people from accessing the image description page, which is a copyright violation. If you want clickable images, file a feature request. It is trivial to implement, so why hasn't it been implemented yet? There are probably good (copyright-related) reasons. — Omegatron 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I've removed the image link and added a brief description and link to Wikipedia:Administrators at Image:Admin mop.PNG. I imagine that this could be done easily in other instances of the top-right icon links... - Banyan Tree 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mop, featured article star, and so on need to be built into the software; not kludged together with templates and CSS. There are legitimate ways to create clickable images with the site-wide CSS, but each one requires code in the site-wide style sheet, the images need to be licensed appropriately (public domain, I believe?), and they should really just be done in the software. — Omegatron 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a user subpage outlining the arguments on this topic I've seen so far. Corrections and additions are welcome. - Banyan Tree 02:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, breaks usual Wikipedia functionality, the edit top javascript, and interoperability for certain browsers, skins, and users with disabilities. Deletion will encourage them to come up with a more workable scheme. -- nae'blis 20:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are several situations in which the template doesn't work and causes confusing results (I managed to break it with some custom CSS which was reasonable on everything else, for instance); the accessibility problems are just too large (see the 'Main Page in Lynx' mockup in the previous TfD). That this template is used in important things like FA stars just makes it worse. I've started a JavaScript workaround at User:ais523/sandbox.js (which might not be a solution, it'll need to be checked by others), which shouldn't be as bad because it will fail more gracefully. --ais523 09:24, 20 December 2006 (U T C)
Comment Previous TfD was here, closing as no-consensus. --ais523 09:24, 20 December 2006 (U T C)
Comment - The feature request that would bring clickable images to Mediawiki is Bugzilla: 539, which has remained unimplemented since 2004. If you want clickable images, discuss the specific details of implementation with the developers there. — Omegatron 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - {{featured article}} does not contain this template. It was subst'ed back in april. Any established uses of this approach can be hard-coded likewise. Gimmetrow 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Even worse that it can't be tracked. — Omegatron 15:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once replaced - if it breaks in some browsers, then it needs to go, but a suitable code fix needs to be in place first before we go screwing up the main page. Also, I don't consider what the FA star template does a solution- instead of using the template, it uses the code of the template, resulting in the exact same problem. When a code solution is found, that needs to be replaced as well. --PresN 15:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it used on the main page? It shouldn't be. Replace it with standard wikicode. — Omegatron 15:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Used at Template:WikipediaSister. —Quiddity 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the result of this discussion is finally to delete this template, I propose to
1. Fix those few places where clickable images are absolutely needed (see list below; e.g. {{Featured article}} doesn't need replacing it)
2. Temporally change the template {{click}} to do nothing (so pages currently using it won't break, but simply images will back to the normal behavior)
3. Replace it
4. Finally, delete it
This way pages using it don't stop working in the process but the accessibility problem are fixed very quickly at step 2. --surueña 15:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I'm agree with Michael Z.: in the very, very few cases that an image should be clickable this should be done in the standard CSS file. That is, the icons at the top right corner of the page like Template:Featured article and Template:Spoken Wikipedia boilerplate. And probably there aren't much more cases (the links to sister projects in the main page, maybe?). And because it is very easy to misuse the {{click}} template it should be deleted ASAP. --surueña 10:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Places where clickable images are a must (edit this, an exhaustive list is needed):
  - {{Featured article}}
  - {{Featured portal}}
  - {{Featured list}}
  - {{FeaturedPicture}}
  - {{Spoken Wikipedia boilerplate}}
  - {{Sprotected2}}
Comment — We also have to deal with Template:ClickA: it's the same idea but for external links. --surueña 15:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like ClickA is only used within Template:Emergency-bot-shutoff. Should be easy to replace. —Quiddity 20:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.