Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closing instructions

Contents 1 How to use this page 1.1 What not to propose for deletion here 1.2 Reasons to delete a template 1.3 Listing a template 2 Discussion 3 Current discussions 3.1 July 6 3.1.1 Template:Category relevant? 3.1.2 Template:Category unsourced 3.1.3 Template:Kristinia DeBarge 3.2 July 5 3.2.1 Template:Please help us improve the information on this page (this goes out to Annapolis historians, citizens and Annapolis High students / teachers) 3.2.2 Template:Torchwood (series 3) 3.2.3 Template:Michelle Paver 3.2.4 Template:Clarence Gagnon 3.3 July 4 3.3.1 Template:Breaking News 3.3.2 Template:Diagnosis Murder character 3.3.3 Template:Honduras Squad 1999 FIFA World Youth Championship 3.4 July 3 3.4.1 Diagnosis Murder 3.4.2 Template:Wronguser 3.5 July 2 3.5.1 Template:MOVE The Film 3.5.2 Template:Extra album cover 2 3.5.3 Template:Improve references (small) 3.5.4 Template:New Zealand's Next Top Model 3.6 July 1 3.6.1 Template:TheAngryBeavers 3.6.2 Template:500 saves club 3.7 June 30 3.8 June 29 3.8.1 Template:Fort Myers Miracle roster navbox 3.8.2 Template:FC Messina squad 3.8.3 Template:Atomic Betty 3.8.4 Template:Ex Corde Ecclesiae US Catholic colleges 3.8.5 Template:Ref indent 4 Old discussions 5 Completed discussions 5.1 Closing discussions 5.2 To review 5.3 To convert 5.4 To Substitute 5.5 To orphan 5.6 Ready for deletion 6 Archive and Indices

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] July 6

[edit] Template:Category relevant?

Template:Category relevant? (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Category:Articles with unsourced categories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template was recently changed from a section comment to be placed on Talk pages after a category was removed, to an in-line template on main article pages after a category was retained. This is contrary to requirements that all categories be WP:V from WP:RS. That is, the category should always be removed. This (rarely used) template no longer serves a useful purpose.

This was previously nominated for deletion shortly after being created, and was no consensus kept after a 6D:3K discussion. Participants agreed that it would rarely be used, as the usual practice is to immediately remove "dubious", "irrelevant", "unreliable", or "unsourced" categories, with an appropriate edit history.

Currently unused. Function parallels Category unsourced below, and uses the same category. This is even more egregious, as it would be used for unsourced categories that don't even appear relevant....

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep I don't understand your statement claiming "requirements that all categories be WP:V from WP:RS." I don't think that applies to maintenance categories, which this category clearly is (also note that the category is hidden). I think this is a very valid maintenance template and category; the fact that it is not used is not relevant to the deletion discussion. I don't think WP practice is to immediately remove unsourced information (except from WP:BLPs); that is why we have maintenance templates and categories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and use. Not at all egregious - it quite often happens that the connection between article 1 and a category X is established in sourced article 2 and the source/mention merely needs to be transferred. Eg an author might be awarded a category-worthy prize, noted in the article on the prize. Occuli (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I have followed the use of this template for over half a year now. It has been used not that many times, but its use has always resulted in the discussion and sourcing or removal of categories. Which makes it a very usefull template. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Category unsourced

Template:Category unsourced (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Category:Articles with unsourced categories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template was recently changed from a section comment to be placed on Talk pages after a category was removed, to an in-line template on main article pages after a category was retained. This is contrary to requirements that all categories be WP:V from WP:RS. That is, the category should always be removed. This (rarely used) template no longer serves a useful purpose.

If kept, it should be restored. As its previous Talk page function, then it might be useful again to start a discussion section.

Currently used on 2 articles, clearly showing that it's not really useful in the article space, and the maintenance category itself is not well maintained:

• Wieland Speck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), since 2007-10-08 21:56:30
• Warmachine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), since 2009-03-13 12:49:41

Each should have been removed after a week!

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and use. I do not agree at all that unsourced categories should be removed on sight, unless they are controversial. It quite often happens that the connection between an article and a category is established elsewhere and the source merely needs to be transferred; or a source can be established easily if requested. Occuli (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• keep, unless better is proposed - it might be needed to show that an article belongs in a category; especially if controversial or debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud0011 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I have followed the use of this template for over half a year now. It has been used not that many times, but its use has always resulted in the discussion and sourcing or removal of categories. Which makes it a very usefull template. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Both articles in this category are being discussed,, but no solution has been found. That is to say that consensus is that the categories are relevant, but that proper sources have yet to be found. This means that editors unfamiliar with the proper use of this template and categories in general should inform themselves before making unasked for removals.Debresser (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kristinia DeBarge

Template:Kristinia DeBarge (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

no pages linked Alankc (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Premature template.
• Delete Enigma^msg 04:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 5

[edit] Template:Please help us improve the information on this page (this goes out to Annapolis historians, citizens and Annapolis High students / teachers)

[edit] Template:Torchwood (series 3)

Template:Torchwood (series 3) (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unnecessary navigation template: navigation template for a television 'season' which only contains a single episode/miniseries. No possibility of expansion, as there will not be any further episodes in this season. Robofish (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Neither Torchwood nor List_of_Torchwood_episodes has this template (It is only used on the page for that single episode). The list of episodes already lists everything. I would be fine with it being recreated once the 4th season is aired. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cs-wolves(talk) 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Michelle Paver

Template:Michelle Paver (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

All but 2 items of the content were converted to redirects because of lack of sourced content. No need for a nav box consisting solely of the author and one book. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - not needed at this time. Robofish (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Clarence Gagnon

Template:Clarence Gagnon (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

A navbox comprised only of red links, therefore redundant. Ham 18:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - entirely redlinked templates are useless. In this case it could be converted into a list and added to the article, but I'm reluctant to do so as it says 'and many more', so is clearly incomplete. Robofish (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. All red links. Should be in the article as a completed list with a reference. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 4

[edit] Template:Breaking News

Template:Breaking News (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Disrupts page layout, as happened to the Steve McNair page, and unnecessary given existing templates. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I agree that it disrupts the page layout, and no offense, but it can be a nuisance. --Alxeedo TALK 22:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Unneccessary given the 'current event' template. A news item can be an event just like anything else. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Diagnosis Murder character

Template:Diagnosis Murder character (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphan, unused, {{Infobox character}} does the job. I would send it for "speedy" deletion but I noticed that it takes 20+ days to delete templates with this way. I would delete it alone after 7 days but I find it a bit inappropriate. Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - unused and redundant. Robofish (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Honduras Squad 1999 FIFA World Youth Championship

Template:Honduras Squad 1999 FIFA World Youth Championship (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Pre previous discussion, no template for minor tournament. Matthew_hk tc 12:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - navbox template is not needed for youth tournaments. Jogurney (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. -Masonpatriot (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 3

[edit] Diagnosis Murder

Template:DiagnosisMurderSeason6 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Consists only of redirects to the same article. Magioladitis (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating these as well:

• Template:DiagnosisMurderSeason1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:DiagnosisMurderSeason2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:DiagnosisMurderSeason3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:DiagnosisMurderSeason4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:DiagnosisMurderTVMovie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

-- Magioladitis (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - not needed at this time. No prejudice against recreation if the episode articles are recreated. (I notice that Blood Ties (Diagnosis: Murder episode) exists, but I don't think that's enough to justify keeping the templates...) Robofish (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wronguser

Template:Wronguser (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Superfluous duplication of Template:Wrongtitle. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment how is this even possible? If it's not a valid page name, how can it be a valid user name? 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 2

[edit] Template:Extra album cover 2

Template:Extra album cover 2 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

WP:NFCC#3 requires that multiple non-free images not be used where one would suffice. Looking through the articles that transclude this template, all of them that I can see violate this policy, and having this template encourages a violation. In album articles, the album art is included in the infobox to identify the album, and one image can do that. If a second album cover is notable in itself, discussed in critical commentary (e.g. Ritual de lo Habitual or Yesterday and Today), then the image should be included in the section that discusses this. But having it a part of the infobox just encourages the unnecessary use of copyrighted material. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep because this album was released internationally. The 2nd cover depicts the deluxe edtion of the album and the other cover depicts the international version of the album. I think that this is sufficient enought justification for having more than one album cover present. a rational is provided where needed. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Which album? Are you aware this is a debate about the template, not a particular image? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep because many albums have distinct covers in different markets (Europe vs US), and because the vinyl and cd covers often vary. Add to the list that older albums often get rereleased with updated artwork and you've got a list of reasons to keep this. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see where multiple covers are nice to have in these cases. I don't see where having multiple covers is compliant with our policy. If the image is being used to identify the album, a single image will do; we don't include a non-free image of Jack Bauer from each episode in the Jack Bauer article, because one is sufficient to identify him, even if he wears different clothes and goes to different locations. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

However, music covers and characters of a TV show are quite different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.120.3 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep: it displays the original cover artwork before it was changed, this is also mentioned in the main article, so this image is important. JWAD ^talk 17:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware this is a debate about the template, not a particular image? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not the template that violates policy, it's individual pages. Deleting this template will not change that, it will simply make things messy. Fix the articles that have problems first. Some albums (ie The Dark Side of the Moon) have multiple distinct covers. While one image certainly allows us to associate an album cover with the article we are reading, the point of the articles is to provide us with more information, and seeing various cover artworks does that as well as text. "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Can one cover convey the information contained in a completely different cover? Does one image convey the information that there are other versions? From the opposite view, does showing more covers increase the likelyhood that a person will recognize that album in stores or on their shelves if they don't have what the end result of what will likely be major edit wars decides as thee cover for that particular album? YES!!! -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep: I feel the problem is with articles, not the template. "3a" states minimal usage. If two covers look similar, we can get rid of one. But if they're significantly different, like in here, we should keep them. Lots of singles/albums are released under significantly different covers, I fell there should be a little leeway, allowing a max of 2. In big articles, 3 (maybe?). "8" states sifnificance: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If you happen to find an album in a store, with the other cover? Albums/singles are also released in different regions under different covers. Though having multiple images on articles would not "significantly" improve understanding, but it will, to an extent. Again, NOT having them COULD prove detrimental. Just an opinion. Suede67 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep: when multiple, substantially different, covers exist, each one is valuable in describing the album in question. I don't think a maximum is useful, No Way Out But Forward Go!, for example, has 4 completely different covers (of which atm 3 are in the article). Brambo (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep when multiple, substantially different, covers exist, each one is valuable in describing the album in question. This is helpful in talking about album in describing subject such as "deluxe edition", "limited edition", "imported cover", and "advanced cd". Lovejonesfly (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Floydian above is right. If you have a problem with a certain image's fair use status, list that image for deletion. This template doesn't violate any policy. It's almost always better to deal with things case-by-case than to remove an entire feature because of a hypothesis that it might be misused by someone-somewhere-maybe. —Gendralman (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The purpose of this template is to serve for extremely distinct covers for albums/singles with multiple releases or in some cases other artists' covered version. Nostalgically I was looking up the article about the song "Flying Without Wings" and stumbled here. I have observed other examples (such as the Beatles, whose UK/US released albums have diff covers) so yeah. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Removing the template doesn't solve this supposed 'problem' with the non-free images. They should be deleted on a case by case basis, not by mass removal of the template. This would be as rediculous as removing genres (*cough cough*). k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I'm seeing a lot of people !voting keep because it is helpful to illustrate other similar albums e.g. deluxe etc. The thing is these arguments don't meet WP:NFCC Cr.3a "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." or Cr.8 "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". I definitely think there is a problem here, and the majority of articles (if not all) that use this, shouldn't be having second images at all because it doesn't meet NFCC. The reason I'm not !voting delete is because I see some problems in deleting this template. This will automatically orphan many fair use images and they'll be deleted within days. This is actually largely a good thing, however it doesn't leave much time to sift through the thousands of transclusions to non-orphan the useful ones that meet NFCC. Generally this a good idea, and I agree this template seems to encourage using multiple album arts, but I think more time is needed because this will have a knock-on impact on a lot of articles/images. Now if someone's willing to sift through all the transclusions I may reconsider, but I think that is unlikely in the duration of this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Rambo's Revenge raises a valid point but as he also points out that it will not solve any problem. Instead we will land up in a huge mess of orphaned images. There are many cases where the alternate artwork is as important as the original cover. Aerosmith (Nine Lives), Beatles (Y,T and T), Jane's Addiction (Ritual de lo Habitual), Tool (Undertow), etc. have the original artwork banned in stores / regions, etc due to various reasons of censorship. Also there are numerous examples where two cover arts in two territories are entirely different. Appreciate and support Floydian's POV. 54UV1K (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. In that case, then were you upload the image were it says Source[1] make them put a website link there to provide that it is an official/alternate cover. Links like Amazon, Label's site, Music Stores, Fye, etc. If they can't provide a link to were came, then the cover is fake. So that way, you won't have many images floating about. Lovejonesfly (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Per well thought out nom. In reply to Rambo's Revenge, we don't have to delete this template immediately but we can have a waiting period to clean up the bunch of orphaned images deleting this template will cause. Garion96 (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes maybe, but there are over 4000 transclusions to be checked, and that could take along time. Also, should we also include {{Extra album cover}} in this nomination, as it is a deprecated template to this one, doing the same job, and has over 1500 transclusions. I do think these two templates are encouraging misuse of non-free images and I'm just being cautious as I don't want BJBot to go placing lots of {{Di-orphaned fair use}} if someone does delete this template. I don't know if there is precedent for holding closed TfDs or if there is a time limit on it, but if we can gather volunteers to trawl through thousands of transclusions in a reasonable time period then I'm willing to !vote delete. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You do realize you're sitting on 10 Keeps and 2 Deletes, including the nominator. Making plans for the processes following the deletion of this template seems like it is going to be a complete waste of your time. I am of the opinion that these non-free images should be dealt with more in conjunction with the music projects of WP. To make such a big change without questioning prior policies would be quite ignorant (as said before, a la the genre deletion scandal), especially if you undertake such a stance on a large scale, before letting all parties be aware. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not questioning prior policies, because none exist that disregard WP:NFCC. It boils down to these images don't satisfy the non-free content criterion, and as for it being 10–3, we consider the logic of the arguments not the quantity. From WP:Consensus: "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." As I said most of the keep arguments aren't based on policy, taking one example above, it mentions that Flying Without Wings has two distinctly different album arts. Yes they do, but they aren't both significant and just because somebody likes it doesn't mean we should keep it. Personally, even if this ends as "keep" it has illustrated a very real problem with thousands of images not satisfying NFCC and this needs to be addressed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So if three people think everyone else is wrong, they get their way? That is not consensus. I agree majority does not rule, but if your argument is failing to waver people over, then you're not achieving consensus. As I said before, the NFCC deletions should be done on a one-by-one basis, not mass deletion. There will be too big of a backlash. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but whose opinion of 'significant' is taken will largely determine the outcome of those many images that may end up orphaned. An album cover is significant by being different, because that album comes in various forms. If you read the article, you'd have a better understanding of that album and its various releases... Especially true of bands whose artwork contributes to their overall image/reputation. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• delete our FAIR use guidelines about album/CD covers are pretty clear that we can include more than one only when we have sourced content discussing the different usages. The 2nd image should be placed by the discussion and not in the info box and so this template should never be used. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Improve references (small)

Template:Improve references (small) (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

I see this template as being used to hide article issues, rather than bring them to the attention of editors. We already have {{refimprove}}, a second version will just cause edit wars over preferred versions. After having a quick look through , this appears to be the only small template of this type we have. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment it looks like a section template, so perhaps rename/merge it to {{refimprove-section}} ? 70.29.208.69 (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Yep, this needs merged with {{refimprove-section}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant to {{refimprove-section}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The primary purpose of such templates is to call attention to the issue; this template does the opposite! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:New Zealand's Next Top Model

Template:New Zealand's Next Top Model (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Redundant to the main article where this show has only one cycle aired. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Still doesn't mean that it should be posted up for deletion. NZNTM will air Cycle 2 starting in October, so there's no need to post it up for deletion. CNTM is in their 3rd Cycle, and before Cycle 3 even appeared, the CNTM template wasn't posted up for deletion. Keep it!Wikipedian girl (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It'll be used within a few months and it isn't detrimental to have it ready, even if it is a few months ahead of time. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 1

[edit] Template:500 saves club

Template:500 saves club (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template is pointless, considering there are only 2 members of this exclusive club and there will only be 2 members for a number of years. Furthermore, the information in this template is a subset of the much more valuable List of Major League Baseball all-time saves leaders article. Lastly, an article was created to duplicate the content of this template as well. Neither one is needed. This is an example of over-templatization. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete only two people, pointless--Yankees10 01:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete Minimal utility with only two people. No potential for future growth for a number of years. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete I concur, though 300 saves might be a justifiable cutoff. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June 30

[edit] June 29

[edit] Template:Fort Myers Miracle roster navbox

Template:Fort Myers Miracle roster navbox (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This navbox is for players of a Class A minor league baseball team. No reason for this. Most of the players are themselves not notable and are redlinked. Spanneraol (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: concur with the above assessment per WP:NOTDIR (not a "list or repository of loosely associated topics") and WP:NAVBOX ("Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles … Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles"). There's no guarantee that any of these players will make it to the majors or pass WP:GNG at any point in the future. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete Per Spanneraol and KV5. - Masonpatriot (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete I concur. Most of the players that have entries have them on the single page "Minnesota Twins minor league players" --Muboshgu (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom and KV5. Even those redlinks that will one day have articles will no longer be part of this template by the time they do. -Dewelar (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. This template is just one of dozens of similar navbox templates for minor league teams (see Category:Minor league baseball team rosters navigational boxes and its subcategories). I'd like to ask the nominator how this nomination relates to these other templates. If this nomination leads to deletion, do you intend to use it as a precedent for deleting all of the similar templates? Some of them? (and if so, which ones?) Or does this template have unique characteristics that make it uniquely deserving of deletion? And if the intention is to establish this case as a precedent for the other similar templates, have you notified the editors of the other templates of this discussion? BRMo (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There are actually not "dozens" of navboxes for minor league teams.. I have only found a couple of them. Most minor league teams have roster templates (see Template:Fort Myers Miracle roster to see the difference) but only this one and a oouple of others have naxboxes, this is the only class "A team with one. Since most of the players don't have existing pages a navbox makes no sense. Spanneraol (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Spanneraol is correct. I just went through all the subcategories of the linked category. There are a grand total of four other minor league navboxes, all of them for International League (Triple-A) teams (specifically Buffalo, Indianapolis, Syracuse and Toledo). All the other templates in the list are roster templates. -Dewelar (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected. However, assuming that articles exist (which they do—the template is transcluded in nine independent articles), providing a navbox to allow the reader to navigate between them seems like an appropriate use of navboxes according to WP:CLN. BRMo (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I think it's important to keep the merits of the template separate from some other issues. First, the case for keeping the template is that a reader of an article on a minor league team, coach, or player is likely to be interested in reading other existing Wikipedia articles on the teammates, other coaches, etc. So, while I think navboxes are often over-used, this case seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate use of a navbox within Wikipedia's guidelines, WP:CLN. I think this discussion is perhaps being clouded by two peripheral issues. The first is whether some of the players on the roster are actually notable enough to have their own articles. I agree with the other editors here that most minor league Single A-level players should not have separate articles. But there are exceptional cases where an article is appropriate. I count this template transcluded in nine articles. The managers and coaches are former major league players, so they are clearly notable. A couple of other articles have survived AfDs. IMO, some of the remaining articles might not survive an AfD, while other might. But the point is that there are several legitimate articles about players or managerial staff on this team, so I think it makes sense to link them via a navbox, which is a separate issue from whether all of the players who have articles are actually notable. The second issue is all the red links. WP:RED says that red links should be used to indicate that a topic is notable and verifiable so that a new article is welcome. Thus, the use of red links in this template is clearly inappropriate and they should be removed. I notice that most of the other minor league templates I've looked at do not use red links, so this is a problem specific to this template, and one that can be fixed without deletion. BRMo (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Change to delete. My argument for keeping this template was based on an assumption that someone was keeping the tempalte up-to-date and useful. Spanneraol's latest comment indicates that this is not the case. If no one is taking responsibility for updating the information, we're better off without it. BRMo (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

surely this can be better dealt with by a list of those from the team who went on to become notable players. DGG (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The template (similar to templates used in many other minor league articles) shows the current roster. The manager, coaches, and a few of the players are considered notable (at least to the extent that some of the players have survived AfD challenges). I think the template would work fine if the red links were removed. If there are questions about notability of some of the players, they should be taken to AfD, not here. BRMo (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that many of these links all point to players on the Minnesota Twins minor league players page, not to individual articles.. a few of the other players that have articles are not even playing on the Miracle anymore. Only three of the players with links are still on the Miracle and have existing stand alone articles. People wanting to learn about the teams roster would be better served to go to the team page where the full roster is located.Spanneraol (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:FC Messina squad

Template:FC Messina squad (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

The team currently at 5th level of Italian football, out of fully-professional level. There is no need for template with all red links. Matthew_hk tc 13:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, as per nominator. --Carioca (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - we should not have navigational templates for such lowly-ranked teams. Robofish (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Atomic Betty

[edit] Template:Ex Corde Ecclesiae US Catholic colleges

Template:Ex Corde Ecclesiae US Catholic colleges (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This template is "Point of View" violation. Someone or some group must have made this list in accordance with what schools they consider theologically acceptable. It no doubt contains arbitrary or accidental omissions, as there are very many Catholic univerities to consider. There is no official list of schools that teach "from the heart of the Church." —Preceding unsignedcomment added by Chrysologus (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak Delete or Rename: I shared many of these same concerns when I first saw this template. I raised these issues on the template's talk page. I suggest anyone commenting here read the discussion first. The source for the list of schools comes from here. This source does use objective criterion in determining accordance with Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which in turn is based on theUS Catholic Bishops' document on implementing Ex Corde Ecclesiae. However, not all of the objective criteria is actually found in the bishops' document, but is established by the source based on the language of the document. This is were the POV concerns can come into play, judging schools based on criteria not explicitly given by the bishops. The other weakness of this template, acknowledged by the creator himself, is that will not be responsive to the changing status of schools. As an alternative to deleting, because this template is not without merit, I suggest renaming it to denote the source. Twinkie eater91 (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep. This template was taken from [2]. It is (therefore) not WP:OR. Having said that, renaming is a possibility. The current name is "high-level" enough that it doesn't seem to cry out for deletion. That is, it is not, obviously, a poke in anyone's eye IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete There are too many degrees of fulfillment to recognized by a template. If kept, specify exactly what is meant. DGG (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep As mentioned above the list is taken from Colleges Catholic Identity Guide 2006-07, listed here; original source here, which is an older list of schools from the National Catholic Register's Catholic Identity College Guide (2008 list here). The National Catholic Register (hereafter NCR) invites Catholic schools to fill out a questionnaire assessing their fidelity to the US application of the encyclical Ex Corde Ecclesiae (this process is detailed in the link). The two weaknesses mentioned by Twinkie eater91 above ('judging schools based on criteria not explicitly given by the bishops' and that it 'will not be responsive to the changing status of schools') are addressed by the information given in that NCR article - each criteria used in assessing the schools has a source quoted from an official document; additionally, the NCR updates this list yearly (and actually the template should be updated to reflect the latest assessment). I think reading the NCR source link should also satisfy Chrysologus's objections. It is not an arbitrary list of what is "theologically acceptable" as much as it is a self-identification on the part of the schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SHarold (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ref indent

Template:Ref indent (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Ref indent end (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This template, in wide use in articles on South American history, appears to be an arbitrary deviation in style from the normal reference markup provided by {{refbegin}}, and apparently has display issues on different browsers. If the indentation it provides is desirable then it should be added to {{refbegin}} itself rather than having two templates with slightly different formatting. Recommend that this is redirected to {{refbegin}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. No need to indent references nor to duplicate templates. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Unless and until this "hanging paragraph" format is added to {{refbegin}} template, this template series is necessary; it is the way of producing hanging paragraphs in "Bibliography", "Works cited", "References" or "Further reading" lists (not notes lists), and it results in separating alphabetized bibliographical entries so that they are easier to perceive (pick out) of a list. Use of asterisks producing bullets is neither conventional bibliographical format nor easy to read and is unfamiliar format for many readers who are not Wikipedia editors. Bullets are suitable for External links sections, but not for bibliographical lists. Unless the hanging paragraph (indent) feature is available in the {{refbegin}} (which is probably unlikely, since it does not work with bullets properly and most Wikipedia editors may still want to use bullets), deleting this template series and redirecting to {{refbegin}} will leave Wikipedia editors with no way of creating hanging paragraphs, and all those articles already using the template series, will lose their hanging paragraph format. --NYScholar (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Here's an example of my usage of it in Bibliography for Harold Pinter. --NYScholar (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that there is currently discussion regarding a motion to topic ban you from that subject specifically because of your refusal to keep to Wikipedia's accepted refencing styles, I don't see that as a positive example. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not an argument. NYScholar being banned for his bad conduct does not reflect on the template that he and other editors use.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary: it seems very pertinent to note that NYScholar's opinion on referencing above is incongruous with that of the wider community to the point where his continued insistence on using it actually led to a site-wide ban. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it isn't -it is the logical Fallacy of association. And furthermore NYScholar's ban wasn't carried out because of his ideas about citation styles specifically. His personal misconduct was a much larger issue. Frankly I find it insulting that you seem to put other editors in favour of the template in the same category as problematical editors merely on the grounds of preferring a hanging indent. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's misdirection. having several different citation styles for no particularly good reason is a bad idea. It's a bad idea when NYScholar did it, which is one of the several reasons he was sanctioned, and it's a bad idea when other people do it. I'm not implying cause and effect so much as simply pointing out that this conclusion was already separately reached outside this TfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that the use of less common citation styles is so undesirable as to merit disciplinary measures (you actually seem to imply that it was an important part of the decision to ban NYScholar) then I think you should start by gaining consensus for this opinion and inserting it in the MOS. Currently the manual of styles allow any number of different citations styles as long as they are consistent within the article - it even states that other editors should use the citation style used by the main editor of an article (NYScholar was quite possibly the "main" editor of Harold Pinter). In short you are fudging the issue by suggesting that NYScholar's ban shows a consensus for allowing only one kind of citations styles while the fact is that no such consensus has ever been reached and that multiple citation styles are explicitly allowed by the MOS. There is no valid reason in policy for deteling this template the use of which is currently sanctioned by the MOS. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[Point of information:] I am not currently banned. Your statement is irrelevant to the consideration of this particular discussion about a template. Whether or not you see it "as a positive example", any trained bibliographer will. Please stop injecting unresolved "Wikipedia politics" pertaining to a contributor into a discussion of "Templates for deletion"; to do so is disruptive, in my view. (cont.)

My point is to provide an illustration of the use of the template in Wikipedia. It is appropriate for me to provide a current example of a usage of hanging paragraphs in this discussion. I provided the link to a bibliography that is not the subject of disputes as a bibliography. Many other bibliographies in Wikipedia still use the hanging paragraph/template under discussion here. (cont.)

Please see the rationales for the template by its creator (directly below), the use of it in "See also" sections pertaining to such highly developed lists in WP:MOS, where it remains an option to use (especially if one takes into account the statement at the top of the page of WP:MOS, and the "comment/question" provided and raised by cjllw, which are entirely reasonable and which provide links to Featured articles in Wikipedia that currently use this template. Those comments are in the spirit of this template deletion discussion. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. When I created this template over a year and a half ago now, it was designed to address a specific problem of usability and readability. It has a practical intent, not an arbitrary or purely stylistic one. The issue concerns how alpha-sorted bibliography lists such as references (not "Notes" or inline cites produced by {{reflist}}) are most often used and read. Bibliographies are consulted, not read like normal text—that is to say the reader turns to the section in order to look something up (namely a specific reference or source). The reader needs to be able to pick out the keywords—usually author(s)' names, publ. year—from the bibliographic list in order to find the reference work sought.

  Unfortunately the default (read: absence of any) presentational style for bibliographies in wikipedia is in undifferentiated bulleted-list format. When the length of the biblio list grows beyond a few entries, and individual entries start to word-wrap over two or more lines (as they are easily wont to do when the references are to scholarly publications in many fields, eg a chapter by multiple authors in an edited book or conference proceeding), then it becomes increasingly irritating & tiresome to pick out what you are looking for from the undifferentiated mass of text, or even to tell where one reference finishes and the next begins. By using a hanging indent, this template rectifies both: individual entries can be told apart at a glance, and the keyword/s (authors' names) being looked for stand out, easily identifiable by running your eye (as it is naturally inclined to do) down the left-hand side of the list.

  If this approach seems novel or 'nonstandard' in wikipedia, might I suggest that this has more to do with the majority of articles paying little-to-no attention to the readability or functionality of their bibliographies/references sections. The formatting provided by this template is not really deviating from some consciously applied and thought-out presentational standard; the default is an absence of any standard. It also has to do with many/most articles' references containing only the bare minimum of information to identify a specific work cited—quite often, less than a bare minimum. If an article's given references are no more than A.N. Author, Some Book then this template prob doesn't help much. But for those editors & articles that do provide a fuller description of the work cited, it is useful.

  It also has the advantage of mirroring more closely how the vast majority of real-world bibliography listings (print & online) are presented. Take at random and non-fiction work that may be to hand, look at its bibliography. You can be practically guaranteed that it will employ some kind of typographical device to separate its entries and highlight the keywords, eg. indents, other offset spacings, bolding, caps, etc. It's all done essentially for a common reason—the reader's eye soon grows tired when confronted with masses and slabs of text. Try reading a mediaeval manuscript or an 18thC newspaper, & one can readily appreciate why innovations such as spacing between words and paragraphs caught on. It's bad enough when you're just reading, but exacerbated if you're looking for something specific in a sea of letters.

  I do not think this template should be merged or incorporated in {{refbegin}} either. This latter template (which I wouldn't describe as 'normal reference markup'), has a different function, primarily all it does is reduce the text's font size ("references-small"). As refbegin is already deployed at who knows how many articles, I doubt it would be appreciated if all these unexpectedly started indenting the text as well.

  Not everyone will find the hanging indent style useful or warranted, and nor should they be forced to use it. Others, besides myself, evidently do find it useful, and there's no reason to desist. It doesn't contravene any policy, nor any MOS guideline. As noted it is used in 100s of articles by now, without any ill-effect. I know of at least 4 Featured Articles that use {{ref indent}}, its presence during FAC did not provoke any apoplectic comments from the FA reviewers. It is no more unnecessary than any of the hundreds other formatting templates and code options available, tidily formatted infoboxes, and the like.

  One last comment, the so-called browser display issue is not really the template's issue, it's a minor glitch in the way MSIE treats bullets, differently and counterintiutively to other browsers. All that happens is the bullet marker in MSIE shifts to the right (ie is indented as well), and so looks a little untidy. The issue is trivially solved however, by using invisible bullet markers—a colon (:) instead of an asterisk (*)—in front of each entry, just how it's done on a daily basis on talkpages, when indenting one's comments beneath another's. I should prob update the doco to make this clearer.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  The {{refbegin}} template does not have a different use: its purpose is to format the references section for readability. If you believe that indentation is desirable then the best thing to do would be to argue to have it added to {{refbegin}}, as it is far more widely deployed. Currently, the effect is that a certain portion of our articles (mainly the ones under your purview) arbitarily deviate in their style of referencing from the rest of the encyclopedia. Whether the MoS dictates one style or another or not is a red herring; it should be obvious that a basic level of consistency is desirable even if it is not stringently enforced by policy. Most of the keeps so far have completely ignored this basic point in favour of the "I like the way this one looks better" argument, which was not the reason for nomination. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per CJLL Wright. It is the best style for readability of references.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Very easy to find the author and distinguish between works when this template is used. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The result looks awful. MOS prescribes a bulleted list for references, and that is a better format than this one; it is just as readable even in a long reference list. I just discovered this template while looking up Robert Brown (botanist) (mentioned in a book I am reading). It is used to format the Publications section, and it just looks like a mistake: a huge hanging indent, like nothing in any publication I have seen. I was going to go in and fix the formatting, then I saw that it was a template nominated for deletion, so here I am. Finell (Talk) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The way in which the template is used in that Robert Brown article (without the authors' names + publ. year keywords) is not quite how it was envisioned. For some examples that are more representative and closer to intended usage, try looking at Ciconiiformes#References, Mesoamerican ballgame#References (this one accommodating text flow around images), Church of Divine Science#References, Trepanation in Mesoamerica#References, Mayan languages#References or Sylvanus Morley#References (these last two are Featured Articles). See if you think these look any better, and consider whether they achieve the stated purposes above of readability and enhancing visibility of the very keywords one looks for to locate an entry in the list. Would it be said that the hanging indents obscure the content and appearance of the reference, or would it not be that it makes each reference entry a little more distinct and easier to pick out as a unit block?

    Re whether MOS prescribes bulleted lists (and I would sincerely argue that it does not), bullets are not part of the template or under discussion, it's the indentation that the nominator appears to be objecting to. And I don't believe the MOS says anything specific about hanging indents in references, one way or the other.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree that the hanging indent style looks awful. The bulleted list for references is more compact and much easier to follow; it is also consistent with the way the wiki software displays the footnotes. The whole point of having the MOS is to try to have some consistency from one article to the next on Wikipedia. Individual editors should not be able to design their own non-MOS reference formats. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• comment/question. As I mentioned in the edit summary of my previous posting here, I would like to consider and address some of the additional points raised by Chris C. , but am running short of time right now. That will have to be for another day or hour, as soon as I get the chance. However, in the interim I wonder whether the nominator or someone else might care to explain something to me. If the effect produced by this template is so deviant and contrary to MOS sensibilities that it demands deletion, then how is it possible that on at least four separate occasions articles using it have passed Featured Article review? The articles Nahuatl, Mayan languages, Rongorongo and Decipherment of rongorongo were all using this template at the time of their respective FARs (a fifth, Sylvanus Morley, also uses it but this was added after reaching FA. I would have added it before if only at the time the template had been available. And in case you're wondering, I only collaborated on the first two of those four). And yet, despite the rigours of FAC and the minute examination for MOS compliance that FAs endure, the reviewers happily assented to promote them to FA ("wikipedia's very best work" and all that) in the conscious knowledge that this references style was being employed. Once might be a fluke perhaps, but four times now different sets of FA reviewers evidently agreed that this template, when correctly used, is in compliance with MOS considerations—or at least poses no threat to the well-being of an article.--cjllw ʘ TALK 16:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Much like everything else on the project, FA review is highly dependent on the specific people involved. On three of those FARs (the failed nom and another two), the referencing style was brought up; indeed, it appears that the primary reason that the issues was allowed to stand was because our guidelines on presentation of Harvard referencing are less clear (because comparatively few articles use it). Given that, I would expect that should this template survive it be restricted solely to articles using Harvard referencing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The template should be allowed to be used wherever it provides value. It should not be restricted to "Harvard referencing"; many articles in Wikipedia already use many other optional kinds of citation styles; it is obstructive to remove an option that is already so widely used in Wikipedia. Everywhere it is currently used and where, in my view and that of other professional bibliographers, it makes the lists more readable, would become unnreadable if the template is deleted. The example I gave (at top) is only one instance of that. The use of this template was suggested to me by another editor, who enabled me to use it. I was not able to construct hanging paragraphs until the editor alerted me to the template, which I subsequently also see is listed in the "See also" section of parts of WP:MOS pertaining to layout of lists and lists. Please see the guidance provided to all editors at the top of that style guidelines page. One is directed to use "common sense". Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) is one of these subsections of the WP:MOS, which refers editors and other readers to this hanging paragraph template. --NYScholar (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS makes it clear that those bulleted lists are bare-bones type bibliographies (see others' "keep" explanations above, including that of the creator of the template). "Full citations" in Wikipedia (including even those provided by citation templates) produce more information than the bare bones lists; when full bibliographical entries are given, and the lists are alphabetized, the correct format is a hanging paragraph, so one can see the first line of each alphabetized entry. When bullets are used and lists are not being alphabetized by the last name of the author/compiler/editor(s) or the first letter of the first main word of a title (defaults in bibligraphical formatting), then hanging paragraphs are not needed. But when lists are alphabetized and there is more than one line in the items included, then hanging paragraphs increase readability. The choice is currently up to the editor and compiler of the bibliographical list (e.g., References, Works cited, Further reading, etc.). These are options currently in Wikipedia. [I will not be working on articles in Wikipedia in the near future due to time constraints; so I do not expect to be able to participate further in this discussion.] --NYScholar (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I can only comment, in response to Chris C's remark "FA review is highly dependent on the specific people involved", that if so then this is doubly true for XfD discussions like this one here. Like it or not, whether reviewed by two or two hundred people, the FA process is the highest level of quality review we have on wikipedia. If some aspect of content or style survives—several times—the FA process, then surely one is entitled to infer that its fitness for articles and compatibility with MOS has been actively reviewed and found acceptable.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: ugly and unnecessary. Bulleted lists are the convention throughout wikipedia (including in the documentation for this template), and render this template superfluous for separation of list items. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Further, I see no basis in WP:LOW for this ugly variant style. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi Hrafn. I wrote those template instructions, and I can categorically affirm that my intention was not to demand the use of bullets in bibliographies, either with the template or without. I wrote them up when I was first developing it, and the usage examples I provided at the time pre-dated me working out the better solution to the MSIE peculiarity by using invisible bullets (as we all do on a daily basis in talk pages, even this one). Rest assured, if this template is retained I will update the documentation to reflect its intended usage better. I had just not got around to it.

    You are free of course to have your own opinion on whether this (or any other) template results in an ugly, or an attractive, presentation. That's a matter for your own taste. Others, such as myself, have different opinions. But WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT are insufficient grounds for XFD discussions. Instead, if there is a particular instance (presumably it was Church of Divine Science that led you here) that you're involved in and don't think the presentation is suitable, then like anything else the first step would be to sort it out on the article's talk page with any other interested parties. In that particular case, if you want to take it out then go right ahead, if it's ok with other major contributors there. But personal dislikes on one page should not spill over into other articles where contributors are happy with and agree on it being used.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• A few points for your consideration CJLL: (i) it is up to you, as the documentation-writer, to explain in your documentation what valid purpose (if any) this template serves. If your documentation fails to articulate this, then it is your problem, not ours. (ii) Your characterisation of my comment as "WP:ILIKEIT" is inaccurate. I did not only describe the style that this template imposes as "ugly" but also as "unnecessary"/"superfluous". I will also make the further comment that the indentation creates a disjoint in the middle of the entry, that in fact makes it more difficult to scan (as it makes subsequnt lines look like they are part of a different entry). (iii) You failed to address my point that the style that this template imposes has no basis in the appropriate MOS: WP:LOW. I would strongly suggest that acceptance there as an (alternative) standard should be a prerequisite for inclusion as a style-template. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

LOW uses for its examples bullets and no indentations, but does not prescribe either of them. Personally I like bullets for most purposes, and use them when I make a list, but there are other ways. I don't want to assume that guidelines deliberately left ambiguous are intended to follow my one preferences. As it happens, I like hanging indentation also, but did not realize we had an easy way to do it. I should point out that the basic principle of our underlying default handbook, the Chicago Manual of Style, is that there is a general style, but it is not compulsory--just like our guidelines. This flexibility is what makes Chicago so useful in the first place. (and they do not use bullets--it's widespread use is a web convention dating from html 1.0, at a time options needed to be kept as simple as possible. DGG (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:LOW opens with the statement "This style guideline aims to create a consistent method of displaying lists of works..." It thereafter gives examples that are consistently delimited by bullet points, not indentation. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that the "consistent method" involves bullet-points rather than indentation. A style guideline whose stated object is consistency should not be read as being "deliberately left ambiguous are intended to follow my one preferences". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Hrafn, after introducing itself the top-level MOS page begins with the statement, "An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. One way of presenting information may be as good as another is, but consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion." If used this template fully complies with internal consistency. As for WP:LOW, it is apparent that it was not written with the specific type of "full" bibliography in mind, that we are talking about. It is directed more towards internal lists such one of author's works, in an article about that author. And not, reference bibliographies. Still your point about updating the style guideline is noted, and it may be well to seek more explicit mention of this template's style alternative in the relevant MOS sections.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not seeing the case for having a separate template when one already does the job. If the other one needs to be fixed in some way, better to make proposals to change that one (without making it non-standard). I just don't like the idea of having two templates which do basically the same thing and which evolve and change separately, because redundancy becomes a major problem. Orderinchaos 05:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• comment. There seems to be some confusion here. First Eleassar, and now Orderinchaos, are commenting on the grounds that this {{ref indent}} template has the same function as, and is redundant with, {{refbegin}}. But this is not true. All that {{refbegin}} basically does is to make the apparent font size of the bibliographic references smaller (to match the output size of {{reflist}}). It is only a wrapper for the code <div class="references-small">. It also sets the left margin to 1.5em, and apparently has the optional facility to display output in multiple columns (but this functionality does not work in MSIE browsers). That is all.

  By contrast, what {{ref indent}} does is to apply a hanging indent if the reference's text wraps over more than one line in the browser window display. That is a different visual effect to reducing the font size; if one template was just redirected to the other then its functionality would be lost. Ref indent does not do the job of refbegin, or vice versa. In what sense are these 'doing the same thing'?

  Although Chris C. has advanced the argument that these templates basically have the same purpose, ie apply formatting to references (actually they'll apply their formatting to any text that you wrap them around), it does not automatically follow that all templates used to format references should be merged into one all-purpose template, or that any one's function should subsume the others'. There exist scads of Biographical infobox templates around for example, all with a common purpose and many with similar or identical fields. It would be technically possible to merge their functionality together into one template, but is it necessary or a good idea?

  However, I don't think the option of incorporating the hanging indent functionality into {{refbegin}} can be decided upon in this TfD. It would require some discussion and consultation with the maintainers and users of {refbegin} first, as the unexpected introduction of functionality and appearance change would likely cause some alarm. It would also take some template coding nous to implement, probably outside of the responsibility of this TfD's closer. By all means, raise a separate discussion on it somewhere. Personally, while I do appreciate there can be value and savings in maintenance in some template mergers, it needs to be properly considered (look at how long it's taken to unite some of the main {cite XXX} templates to a single code engine). {Refbegin} and {ref indent} both function perfectly fine as independent templates, and they can also very simply be used together (by stacking one after the other) to produce both their effects. If you want to see smaller-text references, use {{refbegin}}. If you want hanging indents for multi-line references, use {{ref indent}}. If you don't, then don't. How could it be simpler?

  In any event, I think the main bugbear for the nominator is the principle of whether editors should be allowed at all to apply the minor styling change to references that this template supplies. As I have tried to explain, this indent styling has a function and specific purpose, it is not purely cosmetic. It is a simple solution intended as an enhancement and visual aide for identifying entries in bibliographies. In particular, for bibliographies that may be lengthy and/or contain elements that wrap over multiple lines, where the denseness of text acts to camouflage the keywords that the reader is looking for.

  Now I think that it is highly probable that the nominator, or probably most folks, has not experienced or noticed this to be an issue. Most articles' bibliographies are short, and most contain abbreviated references that take up only a single line each. This template is not for those cases. But just because someone has either never thought about, noticed, used, or imagined that this can be an issue in articles with 'fuller' bibliographies, does not mean that such issues go unnoticed by others.

  Let me provide an example, hopefully this will make the intent clearer. I invite any/all of you to look for a specific reference, say Suárez 1977 or Flores Farfán 2006, in this list first. Then, try looking for the same references in this one, which uses ref indent. Can you see any difference? (NB, this is not a contrived example, it's the bibliography taken from the current Nahuatl article).--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not add code to refbegin to do that, and have an "indent=yes" type option turning it on? For example {{Census 2006 AUS}} which I designed a while ago has options which, depending on what you select, links to a completely different page depending on whether the "quick" variable is turned on or off. That way we get the functionality without having to keep two quite different codebeasts consistent over time. Oh, and those instances of it which do not link the attribute work the same way that they always did, as the extra code hinges on a conditional. Orderinchaos 11:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep , but consider the coding that Orderinchaos suggests. There are advantages to bringing options together, but also strong advantages to keeping templates simple. This particular template's format seems like a good idea in principle: there is no need to be perfectly uniform, but we should recognize the needs of different situations. I am very glad we have this option, which I intend to use--I think for long lists where the entries are multi-line, that it is a much clearer style than our present usual one, particularly in the very wide column general format of web pages. We will of course have the problem of deciding which style to use, and the general rule for references should hold, not to change the style established in an article with necessity and consensus. (a very good rule--we should be devoting most of our efforts to finding references where we need them; arranging them is secondary)DGG (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the suggestions and constructive comments, DGG and Orderinchaos. I would be prepared to consider migrating this hanging indent functionality into {refbegin}'s code, if that can be done as an optional switch, turned off by default/if not selected. It would have to be debugged first naturally, & I'm pretty sure it won't display properly if refbegin's multi-column option is used so maybe there'd need to be some circuitbreaker for that (though I don't see advantage in using multicolumns for full biblio list). Really, both templates are little more than wrappers/shortcut for div coding statements, so in that respect they are quite simple and once set up it is hard to see that they would require much maintenance. I personally think they could go on living as separate templates, but if it is thought more convenient to bring these reference formatting templates together into one then wld be glad to discuss options. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment To the comments about the style being "ugly" it would serve to look at the styles used for bibliographies in APA[3], MLA[4] Chicago[5] styles require the use og hanging indents in bibliogpahies. It would seem weird to discourage it here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  What works in one format does not necessarily work elsewhere. The whole point in having our own MoS is that if people simply chose to follow the guidelines of whatever work they pleased, we'd have an "ugly" encyclopedia because of significant inconsistencies. This template exacerbates that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, the current MOS does not discourage the use of different styles for citations and references. If you wish to enforce uniformity the right place to start would be to change the MOS - currently the MOS does not provide a rationale for deletion of non-standard reference templates.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem to me that arguments advanced against this template's usage run counter to the spirit, if not the actual letter, of the three Wikipedia:MOS#General_principles. Strict style consistency between articles is neither demanded nor expected; internal consistency is the recommended goal (Wikipedia:Cite#How_to_present_citations explicitly allows for half-a-dozen or so distinct cite/ref methods, "Editors are free to use any method; no method is preferred" etc). If major contributors are happy with and agree on some given style, it's inappropriate to change on basis of stylistic preference alone. And in the absence or ambiguity of specific MOS recommendations, it's quite permissible to see "what other writers do about the problem", which would include pointing to widely used conventions such as MLA, APA etc.

The regrettable episode surrounding NYS' recent ban is a complete red herring; I can see no mention of this template anywhere in the disputes that led up to this (IMO, disquieting) turn of events.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] Completed discussions

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Holding cell (edit)

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'.

[edit] Closing discussions

Closing procedures:

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Administrator instructions

Closing in progress:

• None Currently

[edit] To review

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_23#Template:Film_screenshot_fur

  • Template:Film screenshot fur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

All occurrences of this template have been substituted. The existing usages of the template listed at User:Erik9/transclusions of Template:Film screenshot fur require manual review to determine the disposition of the images on which they appear: in each case, an acceptable fair use rationale should be supplied, or the image should be tagged for deletion using template:dfu, or nominated for deletion at WP:FFD. When the review of the relevant images is complete, no substituted text of the template should appear on any image, and the template may be deleted. Erik9 (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals get put here until the conversion is completed.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• None currently

[edit] To Substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) get put here until the substitutions are completed, then the template is deleted from template space.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 12

  • Template:ImageStackRight (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - see discussion for details. JPG-GR JPG-GR (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

GargoyleBot is a replacement for ^demonBot2, and is available for many large-scale orphaning or replacement projects.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 23
  • Template:Infobox Political Division (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 10
  • Template:Sourcebible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) replace with Template:Bibleverse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). delldot ∇. 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6
  • Template:Hrwiki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- see detailed instructions for replacement
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached and have been orphaned can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• None currently

[edit] Archive and Indices