Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 4 September 6 >

September 5

[edit]

Template:Filmr

[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, no transclusions (just ordinary links due to the fact that it was substituted). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated and unused Bulwersator (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not unused as far as I can see :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2012 (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:Now commons dated

[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) 22:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Now commons dated (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

What is the point of this template? Duplicates Template:Now Commons Bulwersator (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2012 (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:Geobox2

[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) 01:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geobox2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Marked {{In use}} since April 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 5 September 2012 (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:US Third Party Election

[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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Third Party Election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Original research with arbitrary inclusion criteria. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In the United States, the 5% threshold is significant, as it determines funding for conventions and public financing.[1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that true of all elections? My understanding is that there's a federal law applying to presidential elections (5% for matching funds) but in other races funding, ballot access etc are determined by state law. If the navbox were repurposed to only cover presidential elections it'd be less of a problem; as it stands it seems to be applying a single rule across multiple jurisdictions with their own rules, which I think is problematic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's true at the state level as well. I remember some brouhaha in New York a few years ago about parties needing a certain percentage, I believe 5%, to automatically qualify for the next ballot. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You might be thinking of the requirement that a party receives 50,000 votes in a gubernatorial election. We actually have quite a comprehensive article on the subject. (Other states' requirements are listed at Ballot access#State ballot access laws.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well the template is about notability. The 5% threshold is significant as a third party or independent candidate seldom hits that threshold. Few U.S. Senate candidates and gubernatorial candidates reach it in any given election cycle. New York is a bit complicated because of the fusion ballot. The 5% rule would apply to any candidate without a major party line. For example, if Candidate X is on the Liberal and Green Party lines, than X is a minor party candidate. However, if Candidate X is on the Democratic, Liberal, and Green Party lines than X is a major party candidate. One example I can think of is James L. Buckley, who was elected as a U.S. Senate on the Conservative Party line (without the Republican line).--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. This is kind of pedantic, but WP:NOR says "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." Nothing is said about templates being subject to such policy. FWIW, I think this is a fascinating and greatly informative template. I'd be inclined to ignore the rules for this based on its encyclopaedic worth. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not original research to say certain US elections had a significant third party presence, & using the rule of least surprise it is clear that if the article on specific elections significantly mention the effect of one or more third parties, then it should be included in this navigational template. This template is collecting existing information -- which is the purpose of navigational templates -- it is not presenting new information or research. In addition, having a template to collect such elections is a useful & good thing.

    Where I see a point of concern is over what elections to include in this template. The 5% requirement for national elections is as good as any measure. But a third party presence in some elections, especially on the state or local level, may not be notable even if the article (if it exists) mentions it. (Frankly, I have a problem with the notability of some local elections, but that my concern is not relevant here.) The issue of which items to include in this template is not appropriate for a deletion discussion, but for the talk page. -- llywrch (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The part about "since 1990" (which makes up the bulk of the template's content) at least validates the concern over an arbitrary inclusion criteria.RadioKAOS (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to notable third party candidates with entries for the candidates in such elections that have articles. That would deal with the inclusion criteria, rather than an arbitrary numeric and/or date cut-off. It would make it more useful too: right now it's just a list of dates and states: you have to have a good idea which you're looking for to find a particular result. The dates and states could still be included: I suspect the template would be no bigger as many third party candidates don't have articles.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, except: would it actually be limited to third party candidates? The current template appears to mix in actual third party achievements with those of non-party candidates such as Angus King.RadioKAOS (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2012 (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:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1915

[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 merging and renaming the 1900–1909 template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900–1909 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1915 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1916 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1917 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1918 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and blank or contains links to non-independent crash articles. Non-independent articles are routinely removed from these templates. Click here[3], here[4], and here[5] for examples. ...William 14:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be happy with this solution. DH85868993 (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding links to non-independent crash articles, I'm copying my comment from the previous TfD for 1900 - 1909 which ended in no consensus: "*Keep and restore entries As WilliamJE pointed out, this was very early in the history of aviation. Incidents which would not be notable today were notable in regards to aviation history at the time. Because of this, there should be an exception to only include links to incidents with their own article. There were very notable subjects in this template, such as the Langley Aerodrome which was a flying machine which failed days before the Wright Brothers did it. Thomas Etholen Selfridge who was the first person to die in a crash of a powered airplane (which also was being flown by Orville Wright). Eugène Lefebvre was the first person to die while piloting a powered plane. Ferdinand Ferber was a major influence on the development of aviation. The airship Lebaudy République crashed and killed 4 crew, likely one of the deadliest aviation accidents at the time." Michael5046 (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2012 (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:CSAPresidents

[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) 01:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, no article space transclusions. Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Jeff Davis was the only person to actually hold the CSA presidency, so Cobb's inclusion is a bit misleading. Altogether too esoteric to be an effective template. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too low a usage potential to justify a template. bd2412 T 04:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
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:Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show

[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) 04:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Just two albums, not enough to warrant a navigation template. (And yes, I know Jax will come up with his usual "but there are five links"-defense) The Banner talk 09:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:
  1. As of the filing of the TfD, the navbox had 6 links.
  2. Without the navbox, the articles do not all link to one another (if needed, I will provide a list of links that do not).
  3. Even if the articles did link to one another without the navbox, some of the articles are so long that finding the links within the article would likely be difficult at best, and having a navbox would make finding the articles much easier.
  4. What TPH said.
I would like to point out that out of all of the more than 25 templates that I have created that have been recommended for deletion, only TWO (Kip Moore and Back from Ashes) have been deleted (the latter due to the "Back from Ashes" article being deleted months after its original creation). This is likely another example of not performing an adequate amount of research prior to filing a TfD.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is far more a quality discussion. You make your templates just, but only just good enough to match the 5-links deadline. As I don't count the backlink to the article, you often just fail that number. But always, always it turns out that there is more to be linked. Instead of waiting for my TfD, you should make sure that everything possible is linked. And that everything is linked correctly and not to disambiguation pages (as I am a dedicated worker on Templates with disambiguation links) Would it not make life a bit easier, wehn you just up the quality of your work a bit? I value quality over quantity... The Banner talk 17:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:
  1. The quality of the navbox is existent in its ability to link multiple articles that would otherwise either (a) not be linked to by the article(s), or (b) be difficult to find in the article(s) in question.
  2. Just because you (The Banner) do not count the "backlink to the article" does not mean that it does not count toward the "5-links deadline". I have asked repeatedly for evidence that the parent article does not count, and this has not been produced after several weeks. When proof is not met, the status quo (often) prevails.
  3. IMO, the purpose of the "5-links deadline" is that if a musical ensemble has 3 albums/1 single with articles or 1 album/3 singles with articles, the infoboxes will not connect the first and last of the three together. If a musical ensemble has 2 albums/2 singles with articles, there will likely be one article in all of the articles to which the infobox will not link by consecutivity. This situation worsens with 4 singles or 4 albums.
  4. With a navbox like Pigface, it would take a considerable amount of time to link ALL of the articles.
  5. I have worked to eliminate disambiguation pages in my templates from here on out, but I made a slight error on this particular one.
  6. If the template serves a purpose, meets the requirements, but does not link ALL possible articles, per WP:TOOSHORT it should be expanded not deleted. If you are sending a template with obvious potential to TfD that has 6 links, this may violate WP:POINT.
  7. Many articles start as stubs and grow over time.--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go on in this way, and we will meet time and time again. And it would be nice when you start reading WP:NENAN instead of waving with WP:TOOSHORT (what is about articles/stubs, not about templates) and WP:POINT. But here the essential text of WP:NENAN. A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the rule of five. Are there presently at least five articles on which your navbox will be used? (For instance, five books or films in a series; five singles or albums for a music article; five products by a common company; five members of a common group such as a band, comedy troupe, etc.) If not, then you probably don't need a navbox just yet. As you can see, they don't include the backlink... The Banner talk 23:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I have read NENAN several times. NENAN states "A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow", "Are there presently at least five articles on which your navbox will be used" and "For instance". "For instance" means that the text following is ONLY an example and NENAN is an essay, which means that the exclusion of the parent article in "the rule of five" has not been proven. IMO, the four criteria at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates have also been met for my template.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So one time you do follow it as if it is a guideline, but when it is inconvenient you just call it and essay, sweet... The Banner talk 17:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that NENAN and the "rule of five" are hard and fast rules, a navbox would need five articles including the parent article. This is all that has been proven based on what is written in NENAN. Without proof, the status quo of keeping the template will likely prevail.
Assuming that NENAN is a guideline or essay, fewer than 5 articles can be included in the template so long as all other rules are followed. I don't disagree now that the Kip Moore template should have been deleted.--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2012 (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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incoming links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
To clarify, the problem lies exclusively with articles, but the template is being put on navigational pages that are not articles. The root purpose of both this template and the navigational pages themselves is to deal with the same sort of problematic ambiguity. Dekimasuよ! 18:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to quote BD2412 below, "Actually, sometimes it is the dab page that needs to be fixed. Sometimes the dab page is at a primary topic title. Sometimes it is missing links that would make it easy to identify and fix links from incoming pages." Dekimasuよ! 20:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disambiguation pages present a unique problem because they create problems for other pages. Absent this template, just looking at a disambiguation page gives no clue that it is creating a problem, for which a number of solutions are available, including finding a primary topic if one exists, or cleaning up the incoming links. bd2412 T 03:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
But adding a big in your face warning template does not fix the problem. Templates are generally ignored. We have templates that have been sitting on article for at least five years. Lets try and make it easier for the reader. Also, dab pages that need sorting are worked on at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages aren't really articles; they are hybrid navigational devices, and these templates are not ignored by those who do disambiguation work, and hopefully not by those who create a link that they expect to lead to an article but discover to be a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links only lists the top 500 disambig pages at any time. There are still over 450,000 disambig links needing to be fixed - although this is down from over 900,000 a year ago. Why don't we wait until the project has wiped out the worst of these problems before taking away a tool that is actually helping us to resolve the problem. bd2412 T 15:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough comment but why not just use a hidden category? That would achieve the same thing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the tools to do our work need not be so imposing. We can do it all in the background without having the reader encounter a garish editing tool. We can use data base dumps or we could use a hidden category to do the same job as this template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But how effective is it at doing that? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to prove one way or the other. You seem to have a pre-conceived notion that it doesn't work. Do you have any evidence of that? I'm not sure if anyone keeps track of such things, but pages that have the template applied are cleared of the incoming links in relatively short order. Does your objection to the template have any substance beyond "I don't like it"? older ≠ wiser 03:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have any preconceived notion as to its effectiveness. I am looking at the big picture and and I made a judgement call based on readability, seriousness of the issue in question, alternative methods of tracking the pages etc. Also, I clearly stated in my nomination my reason for deletion. Sure, I don't like it but that is because I am of the opinion that it does not help the project. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I've stated above that I don;t think we should have cleanup templates on articles that don't actually need cleanup themselves, I've added a link to the dabsolver tool to the template: this provides a simple, graphical way of resolving the problem, so this template actually provides some small degree of use. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, a helpful addition but does not solve its intrusiveness. Placing the template at the bottom of the page would help in that respect, but how about we simply use the monthly subcat of Category:Disambiguation pages with many incoming links? Serious editors will be viewing hidden categories and anons will not see it. An elegant solution! A template is not required. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is what you see as "intrusiveness" a problem? We want editors to notice that there's something relatively easy that they can do to help the project. older ≠ wiser 23:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a problem for the readers of WP, by far the largest group of visitors. And I don't want the old chestnuts of "but readers are editors" and "we need to attract more editors". The latter rationale certainly has not worked. There is a declining number of regular editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what evidence is there this template is in fact a problem for readers? You say it hasn't worked. But on the other hand, pages that have this template applied are cleaned up in short order (whether by regulars or new editors it is hard to say). Based on your specious reasoning, we should delete all article space maintenance templates. Unless you have something better, I'm not buying what you're selling. older ≠ wiser 01:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, be nice. I would agree, though, that there's no reason to blame declining editorship on intrusive templates. It is more likely attributable to the frustration editors feel when others seek to discredit their contributions. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. In my experience this template has not been used to aid disambig cleanup. The worst thing about it is it persists long after the number of incoming links drops below "a large number". I'm just looking at Claire Hamilton, tagged since April but with currently 2 incoming links. If kept it really needs a bot to remove it when it is obsolete, as with the {{orphan}} template. Tassedethe (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is easily accomplished. If the use of the template were bot-policed so that it was automatically removed from pages having large numbers of incoming links, would that address your objection? bd2412 T 16:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I'd certainly be happier. Although I think you mean 'automatically removed from pages NOT having large numbers of incoming links'. 'Large number' still needs to be defined. Based on the number that the Daily Disambig reports I'd say a number between 25-50. Like User:DPL bot it should probably start high and then be decreased as needed. Tassedethe (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, I have gone through at times to pull the template from pages manually, but I have not been very active on Wikipedia lately. If I had the expertise to get the bot ball rolling, I would have done so, and I definitely am in favor of automating that process. Dekimasuよ! 18:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't have a clue what the use of this template is, although I clean up a lot of links to disambiguation pages. In my opinion, outdated and ready for retirement. The Banner talk 12:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disambiguation pages are intended as navigational aids for searches. When large numbers of articles link to navigational pages, it is worthwhile to alert both readers and editors to that problem. We use maintenance templates elsewhere for the same reasons. This template was created for a very specific purpose which differs from that of {{dab}}, by people working on the dab project praised in the nomination for deletion. (FN: On the one hand I created the template, and on the other I was not informed of the nomination.) Dekimasuよ! 18:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its a useful template for disambiguation, where it lacked was the fact it could lie stale on articles when no longer needed. This is being addressed and as such to me the template is useful and should remain.Blethering Scot 22:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, better served by a regular database report and/or a simple category. we don't need a big banner on the dab page, since it's not the dab page that needs to be fixed. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, sometimes it is the dab page that needs to be fixed. Sometimes the dab page is at a primary topic title. Sometimes it is missing links that would make it easy to identify and fix links from incoming pages. bd2412 T 19:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Convert to talk page notice would solve the problem of "disfigurement" (though dab pages are not articles... ) and people can check the whatlinkshere for the template to check out what dab pages need help with incoming links, or even a non-hidden category, since as a talk page category it wouldn't need to be hidden as they are all maintenance or project categories anyways. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The bot task is written and would remove the template for disambigs with 25 incoming links or less, and add the template for 30 links or more. I'm just waiting for this discussion to be closed and I'll make a bot task proposal. --JaGatalk 16:28, 23 September 2012 (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-Afghanistan

[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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

"On Wikipedia, such works may be used under a "public domain" claim only if their copyright in the country of origin has expired, even though legally the work is in the public domain in the U.S." - Wikipedia:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S. so this template should be modified/deleted Bulwersator (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edit and keep - The template is comprised of two sections, the top section states correctly (for now) that copyrighted works from Afghanistan are recognized as public domain under the laws of the United States. However, as the nominator accurately pointed out, even though that is true under US law, it is not the policy of Wikipedia, which aims to respect Afghan copyright. The top section should be removed from the template, so editors do not incorrectly add this template. The template already has links at the bottom directing editors to more detailed discussion, as the nominator has. The rest of the template, identified as what will be the policy after Afghanistan signs copyright treaties, is actually accurate as of now, since it reflects Afghan copyright law and reflects Wikipedia's policy on Afghan copyrights. So delete the top section, remove the comment about the lower section only taking effect after Afghanistan signs a copyright treaty, and leave in place. Neil916 (Talk) 17:39, 5 September 2012 (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:Location map TEMP-Japan

[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 rename/move as suggested. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map TEMP-Japan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Japan nuke plant map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Japan nuke plant map2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Japan nuke plant map3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deleting {{Location map TEMP-Japan}}, {{Japan nuke plant map}} and {{Japan nuke plant map3}} and then renaming {{Japan nuke plant map2}} to {{Japan nuke plant map}}.
Rationale: {{Location map TEMP-Japan}} is only used by {{Japan nuke plant map3}}, which is itself unused. All the other maps in Category:Maps of nuclear power plants by country are of the same format as {{Japan nuke plant map2}}, so propose that {{Japan nuke plant map}} and {{Japan nuke plant map3}} (which are both unused) are deleted as redundant to {{Japan nuke plant map2}}, and then {{Japan nuke plant map2}} be renamed to {{Japan nuke plant map}}. DH85868993 (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of clear is a design choice and it's particularly hairy with templates. You need to look at all the different places it's used and ask if the change you want to make is best for all or just some of the uses. Many templates were designed with one particular article, but then it gets reused and things get complicated. We should look to the current standard practices with the location maps, which I'm not involved in. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 17:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The larger map is definitely clearer, since the smaller map has overlapping circles for the locations of hte plants. If a larger map is needed, we should have one, if a smaller one is needed, we should also have one. The nuclear power in Japan article is clearly to cover nuclear power in Japan, so should have a larger more detailed map. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:47, 5 September 2012 (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:US Census Labeled Map

[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) 04:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Census Labeled Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 26#Template:US states and territories; pointlessly decorative, inaccurate and confusing for the many readers who can't identify states by their location or by the arcane abbreviation scheme used on US number plates. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This template has been in active use for five and one half years. This template is simple enough for use by a typical seven year old user. The "arcane abbreviation scheme" is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 two letter code for each of the states, district, and territories of the United States. This code is universally used in the United States and by the Universal Postal Union. I have no idea how anyone could consider this template inaccurate. Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know they are used in the US, on car registrations and on postcodes, and even know some of them. But most of them I don't know. And I've had more experience of the US than most people, having travelled there and having family there. A typical user, of any age, will be even less familiar with these abbreviations than me. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the US readers only Wikipedia: abbreviations familiar only to US residents should not be used.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Placing your cursor over a state shows you the name of that state. BTW, U.S. automobile registrations do not carry the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code. Yours aye,  Buaidh  22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, better served by a standard navigational box and placed only on the pages that it connects. the current usage to jam this into a whole bunch of Colorado articles is excessive, and does nothing more than unnecessarily lengthen the "see also" section. Frietjes (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:46, 5 September 2012 (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:Waste management

[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) 04:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Waste management (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merged into and replaced by Template:Waste. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2012 (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/2012_September_5&oldid=1142508908"