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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-game (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unilaterally created template in the uw- series that is simply not required. Accusing someone of gaming the system by slapping a template down is not likely to build a productive conversation and this is not a clear-cut blockable offense. Pol430 talk to me 18:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Terrible breach of WP:AGF. SpinningSpark 08:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, blatant violation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:46, 10 June 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.

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 Lol U trollin, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Doon School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Eton College, the best school in the world does not have a template, why should The Doon School, only, perhaps, the best school in India should have one?? Makes no sense. Delete instantly!!! OnianEt (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose Template has not been tagged. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Idiotic deletion rationale amounting to WP:OTHERSTUFF. SpinningSpark 18:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Unsound reason. Also, per Spinningspark. --DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 15:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Err, 21-hour old account (as of this edit) nominates a template for deletion in his third edit with the rationale "Delete instantly!!!", along with the comment "talk to the hand" on his user page? Is there a reason we are taking this seriously? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:14, 9 June 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.

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expert-subject-multiple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template overstretches: if an article really needs expert attention from two (or more) separate domains then it's almost certainly in need of work too significant for a mere cleanup tag. In addition, the implementation means that in the most common case (two domains) this template actually uses up significantly more vertical space than simply stacking two ((expert)) tags. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If two WikiProjects need to come in, then a template probably isn't the right way to go. Alternatively, ((expert-subject)) can be tweaked to have more than one project field. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Ten Pound Hammer, update ((expert)) to handle more than one project. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This template was requested at some point to clean up a bunch of pages with multiple ((expert-subject)) tags. It was originally a direct copy of that template and I have no issues with pushing the "multiple" functionality back to that template or to ((expert)). Adam McCormick (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into ((expert-subject)) and set that up to handle multiple projects. (Note that "expert" is a redirect to "expert-subject" so they're effectively the same template.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:03, 13 June 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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Episode list/Colbert (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer in use since conversion to main episodelist template, no doc to delete. Was made in early days of template episodelist when it would not cover this type show but does noew Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:09, 8 June 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.

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

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted under CSD G5 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).  →Bmusician 15:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused Template OrenBochman (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused, redundant and grammatically incorrect ("Lives in the West Virginia"). (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD G5, created by a suspected sockpuppet of User:Spidey665 (User:AwesomeSponge) while the block was active. →Bmusician 12:22, 10 June 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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox The Apprentice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. All articles that were using the template have been converted to use ((Infobox television season)), to which this template is now fully redundant AussieLegend (talk) 06:13, 8 June 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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox television The Big Break (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. All articles that were using the template have been converted to use ((Infobox television season)), to which this template is now fully redundant AussieLegend (talk) 06:12, 8 June 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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox television Top Chef (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. All articles that were using the template have been converted to use ((Infobox television season)), to which this template is now fully redundant AussieLegend (talk) 06:11, 8 June 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.

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) 00:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Empire of Trebizond (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are no attested "arms of Trebizond", indeed the Trapezuntine state seems to have used pretty much the same symbol as the contemporary Byzantine state. This design dates from the 19th-century armorial of Johannes Rietstap, but it is unclear what its ultimate provenance is. Given that medieval armorials (which Rietstap probably relied on) included all sorts of fanciful "arms" for the more remote realms, this cannot be regarded as a reliable source. Constantine ✍ 09:54, 30 May 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) 05:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The claim that there are no attestations to a Trebizond flag seems to be disputed by "Standards and insignia of Byzantium", Byzantion: revue internationale des études byzantines, Volume 71, Issue 1, page 37, Fondation Byzantine, 2001. "A 1421 source describes the flag of Trebizond as carrying a one-headed red eagle on a yellow (golden) field: this probably means that both one and two-headed eagles are used in parallel until the very end of the Trapezuntine empire." This paper also seems to support banners with horizontal lines [on page 34. Whether or not these are the same same as Byzantine emblems is beside the point. If the flag shown in the template is inaccurate then it should be replaced, but that does not make a case for deleting the entire template. SpinningSpark 10:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm I was not aware of this source as I have had no access to it. All right, I withdraw this. Constantine ✍ 16:21, 8 June 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.

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 move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Template:Wowwiki to preserve history, or in case someone wants to history merge it with another template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Generally redundant to ((wowpedia)) for some time now: both are user-generated, but the latter is typically better-maintained. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but use ((Deprecated template)) for historical reasons. There is a discussion on the template's talk page regarding adding the deprecated template. It's always better to phase the usage out, and since this template has been present for 6 years, I think it's appropriate to keep as a historical marker. Hasteur (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Hasteur. It would be inappropriate to delete a template which has had such significant usage for a period of six years.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 16:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as this template is completely superseded by Template:Wikia using the prefix wow. --Izno (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not strictly true: http://wow.wikia.com/ works, but it's not the canonical domain name (which is wowwiki.com). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty sure that's not something to worry about from this end and for the purposes of this discussion (whether a link is canonical and whether one template of the more general sort can be used to link to a redirect). /shrug --Izno (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:EL#Redirection sites, paragraph 2. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "It is generally preferred" is hardly a mandate. Where there exists such a case as we have here, I see no reason not to ignore the guideline. --Izno (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a foolish consistency that would deliberately present the wrong URL so as to be able to pipe something through a standard template. But this is all pointless quibbling. Leave it as it is, deprecate it, check the state of the articles that transclude it in six months and (in the likely event that the wowwiki articles remain outdated and ad-heavy compared to their wowpedia counterparts at that time) delete it then. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, if someone wants to keep it for historical purposes, then move it to a subpage in project space. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 31 May 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) 05:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Frietjes m'encarta (t) 11:20, 9 June 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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spaced mdash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template exists solely for either 1.) typographical uses in articles which violate WP:DASH or 2.) ornamentation. It is routinely used in text in a fashion that is incorrect (in fact, all uses of it are incorrect, as mdashes aren't spaced), so any benefit to having it for ornamentation is nullified. Furthermore, it's just as easy to type ((mdash)) as it is to type — or to use the drop-down menu in the edit window. (Note: I can't tag this as it's protected.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is supposed to be used to build templates, since separation between items uses different separators to indicate class of separation, so WP:DASH does not apply, since it is not for prose text. It is used with shortcuts, so the actual use is longer than what the nominator states ((spmd)) is much shorter than " — " 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Response But longer than " [character from pull-down menu or pasting]" and since it is chronically misused, it will only cause problems in the future for very marginal benefit. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply but the person typing it must know how to enter HTML elements such as that nonbreaking space before going to the pulldown, and know its coding. Since Wikis are designed to get away from using HTML elements, and we want people to be able to build templates without resorting to HTML coding, instead using MediaWiki coding, it's better to have this template. The template documentation clearly points out that the template should not be used in prose text, and should be used in building templates, tables and lists (non-prose); If you rewrite the redirect ((mdash)) to become a simple — or delete it, it should solve the problem of people using it in the wrong areas. Templates can be updated via bot to use ((spmd)) -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is still no notice posted to the template or its talk page regarding this deletion request. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 11:50, 5 June 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) 05:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – this template appears to be doing much more harm than good; I went through a bunch of the "what links here" and found only errors, no sensible uses such as for separators in template lists (I'm sure there are some, but the point is that the usage is domiated by errors). The question is really how to fix this mess; just deleting the template will cause a lot of breakage. Is someone prepared to do the work, or make the scripts and bots, to help decide what to do with each use? Probaby just converting to space endash would be OK in most cases. Alternatively, if someone can see a way to repair the wrong uses and discourage more of same, maybe we can keep it. Many of the errors, like at Cape Town, would be fixed by redirecting Template:— and Template:Emdash and Template:mdash to an unspaced version instead of to Template:Spaced mdash; who has the power to fix that? Dicklyon (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  More on this. The spaced mdash template has had the deprecation warning in its doc since this diff in 2008, but many articles still included it after that. See for example this 2010 conversion of a (spaced, at the time) en dash to space em dash. Dicklyon (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A template that serves no genuine purpose, and encourages usage counter to WP:MOS. The consensus against spaced em dashes was confirmed in probably the longest and most comprehensive consultation on a style matter that Wikipedia has ever seen: the meticulous and widely advertised discussions in 2011 that confirmed and refined the MOS provisions for dashes. We see the outcome in the WP:DASH component of WP:MOS. It serves the community's needs admirably. Against that, what consensus can be shown for this renegade template? Noetica^Tea? 23:55, 8 June 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.

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) 00:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iw-ref (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:French Wikipedia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

violates WP:DISCLAIM, WP:SELFREF, to a lesser extent: WP:RS; translating one article from one wikipedia into another wikipedia does not need disclaimers; we already have tags to indicate this; we already have tags that indicate this on the talk page; these may also impart the wrongheaded belief that using one of these templates negates the need to transfer over the actual references used in the source article; attribution shoud be made in the edit summary of the initial edit/edit that brought over the information. This, and a talk page banner, should be more is more, if not too much, for GFDL attribution.

Initial deletion discussion here. It has related talk page discussion there too.Curb Chain (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added templates in Category:Interwiki translation templates. Category:Interwiki translation templates will probably need to be deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The original debate makes it quite clear why these were kept. In the case of print derivatives, a note in the edit summary is not sufficient. Printed books generally take the list of authors from the history, but they do not duplicate all the edit summaries, nor do they duplicate the talk page notices. Consequently, a printed article which originally translated from German Wikipeida will not have any reference to the original German authors. Without this template, it will not even have an indication that there were German authors at all.

The WP:SELFREF argument was answered in the original debate - it is not a self-reference in the terms of that guideline since it still makes sense in a printed form, indeed it makes more sense. WP:DISCLAIM does not apply; the guideline explitly defines disclaimers as "templates or text inserted into an article that duplicate the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages". None of those five deal with interlanguage disclaimers, and in any case, the templates are not intended as disclaimers. ((WP:RS]] is a silly argument, unless it is being argued that translations from other Wikipeidas should not be done at all. SpinningSpark 08:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you address and police subsequent versions of a translated article in the determination if it has been changed so significantly that such a disclaimer does not apply? How do you address the removal of such templates? There is no policy that such a template MUST be applied to a translated article. Why should such disclaimer be appended to translated articles?Curb Chain (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no pressing reason why the template needs to be removed. It must be quite rare that an article develops to the stage where there is nothing left of the original translation - perhaps only in the case of a short and poorly referenced one, which begs the question why translate it in the first place. An editor could legitimately remove it on such an article after checking the history, but it is hardly a disaster if it gets left in - after all, we don't fret about the names of editors still being in the history who no longer have a visible contribution. Agreed that there is no policy that articles must have this template (although perhaps there ought to be), that is not my argument. My argument is that the templates significantly aid reusers in complying with the licensing requirements. SpinningSpark 23:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does that work, because this warning should stay to warn users who plan to copy it that they should look at the history to attribute properly? Moot when they should be looking at the history every time to copy or otherwise.Curb Chain (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the template as a warning to look at the history for attribution. The template is itself a substitute for attribution. The theory that reusers will trawl through the history looking for signs of unattributed imports is totally unrealistic - most reusers are using fully automated processes. Even Wikipedia's own built-in print/export tools will fail to pick this up. For instance, a pdf rendering of Teutonic Knights fails to list German Wikipedia amongst the contributers, nor does it list any of the original German editors. For instance user Schewek on 14 February 2003 doubled the size of the original German article but is not credited in the pdf rendering. Same is true of the "create a book" tool. Until a technical solution for this problem is found, these templates will remain useful - arguably essential since their deletion would put Wikipedia's export tools in breach of the CC licence. SpinningSpark 07:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So should ((de)) be put on Teutonic Knights assuming that the language it was translated from and assuming that ((de)) was removed. On this point, what would happen if someone removed this disclaimer? It would be legitimate if the article HAS changed, and not logically it has changed from the translation. We go back to how much change does an article require before these warnings cannot be true essentially and would simply be false. How do you solve that problem?Curb Chain (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Spinningspark m'encarta (t) 11:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional keep, until implementation of better attribution. Attribution should be preserved, but ((translated page)) is often a better way to deal with this. The trouble is, it's somewhat labour-intensive to go through page-by-page and figure out which revision incorporated the translated text, which revision of the alternate-language article served as a source. I'd support a migration process for those pages that incorporated straightforward translations at some point. We shouldn't be using these nominated templates if at all possible, but their temporary presence is better than nothing. (Also note that ((translated page)) could be easily deciphered by the book tool, so that only contributors to the alternate-language article up to the point of incorporation would be credited.)

  There also exist pages that aren't so much a translation as a close paraphrase or précis of the alternate-language page—see Cottbus-Drewitz Airport, for example. In those cases, a human needs to decide whether they're a close paraphrase (and hence a derivative requiring some kind of attribution, e.g. an edit summary calling out the oldid), or a new work (inspired by the other article) that nevertheless stands alone. The standalone works don't need any template whatsoever. The derivatives might as well keep this for a while, until we can figure out whether to create another template like ((translated page)) for them. TheFeds 07:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nominator, it's unnecessary, unpoliceable and creates a lot of clutter. Tom B (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I don't see the point of deleting these templates. They do help reduce the difficulty in directing information for multi-lingual sites such as this.--Bumblezellio (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, the deletion of these templates has already been decided, and they contradict existing policy. _R_ (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• According to that discussion, the decision was to deprecate in favour of importing revisions from the translated article, not to delete outright. Deletion could only occur (according to that discussion) when all articles in the category had their original histories imported from the foreign wiki. As this has not happened, they cannot yet be deleted under that TfD. It was recognised in that discussion that there are some articles (ones which were not translations from genesis) that could not have a history merge and the template should remain. It seems to me that histmerges can never be done on such articles and there is no way to prevent similar cases arising in the future. A better way forward would be to amend the template documentation to mark them as deprecated, point to the guideline for the process of importing histories, and spell out the rare cases where the template can still be used. SpinningSpark 08:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if these are kept, they should all be renamed to a specific scheme. Say "((from langcode))" or "((from language))" where langcode or language is the language code or language name. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment these should be talk page templates like other attribution templates for getting content from one Wikipedia page from another (ie. ((copied)) ) 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How does that deal with the attribution problem for print reusers? SpinningSpark 10:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Print reusers should be checking the history/log(s).Curb Chain (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have not read the rest of the discussion above. It's a great theory that print reusers should check the history, but completely unrealistic. The reality is they use automated tools to extract the list of user names from the history and have no ability to extract semantic meaning from edit summaries. Even Wikipeida's own built in print/export tools will fail to do this. Again, see the example cited above. SpinningSpark 19:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do print users extract the edit history of every page that was merged into an article, to go with the edit history of the page they are printing? If not, then wouldn't we need to add these templates for every time a page is split or merged into a section on the articles for attribution purposes? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other side of the coin, it would be misleading to keep such templates when indeed the article has gone way past the translated version. There is no policy to determine when the template should be removed, nor is there any checking mechanism to remove these templates when the articles have been "rewritten".Curb Chain (talk) 07:32, 15 June 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.