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) 20:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template gives excessive prominence to the use of a certain source. Such templates should only be used when text from public domain sources has been incorporated into the article and no other solution for citation is preferable. SFB 22:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly delete, I would slightly differ about the use of such templates. They should only be used in the case that an article is mainly due to the existence of a certain source. An example would be like some antiquated Jewish Encyclopaedias and Britannicas where articles have been written based solely, or almost solely, on them (including reference about diseases in the past and interesting stuff), and these publications get a note from Wikisource. I mean, I wouldn't have an issue if a (for instance) NASA logo was placed on a page which contains a NASA image (and I do believe that is how it is done). But on articles about NASA missions, the publication work is not theirs alone so they don't get the sticker on that page, and it probably says something similar in one of the guidelines. Question Does anyone know the guideline to that NASA-image-type circumstance? ~ R.T.G 22:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a deeper implication to this listing. There is another template called ((CIA World Factbook)) with a similar purpose. but that template is used 500-1000 times. However, half (ish) of that use is in userspace... but the fact is, there is a category for categorising articles that incorporate statistics from the CIA book, and much as I appreciate the information, everybody elses refs get reffed in the same way. I do not see the benefit of desperately informing people of things based on the fact they might not have had any interest. That sort of informing has a negative connotation. ~ R.T.G 16:07, 20 September 2014 (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) 20:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are 348 templates in this category. The substitute a single english language word to denote that an external link is in another language.

• They do not display the text in some strange script or anything and they do not include words to suggest what exactly the word is there for. For instance, the one for Arabic external links displays as (approximately) "(Arabic)". It's just a single word, but this particular template requires you to write ((ar icon)), and that is longer than just writing the word in the brackets without the template. (note: comment changed to avoid this TfD page being in category. DexDor (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Most of these templates are totally defunct with only a couple dozen uses each, but the ones that are used plentifully, such as Arabic, have the potential to be added dozens of times to the bottom of a page for the sake of adding one word, possibly causing a resource drain.

• They are commonly used without a space, for the sake of not writing one(word).

• And, most significantly, these templates are mainly composed of two letters, aa, ab, ac, etc.. and these template abbreviations should be reserved for high access templates (speed dial) which actually help the editor to complete a lengthy task in short time, such as "sd" for "speedydelete" notices instead of a single word, "(Sindhi)" ~ R.T.G 19:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, all two letter templates should be reserved for languages, because xy:pagename is an interlanguage link, so the corresponding ((xy)) should be some sort of template about or for that language. These are international standards, not parochial Wikipedia minutiae. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you say has value, but the fact remains that these templates are not much used except a dozen-ish. That leaves hundreds to consider, and functionality is the point here, not arbitration. These templates are not a mark of respect to anything. They are simply a tool. Marks of respect are for content. Templates are for ease of use. ~ R.T.G 09:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke 'em all, from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. ~ R.T.G 19:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, (1) the two letter versions are commonly used on other WPs, and repurposing these two letter templates for something else would just cause a mess, (2) the two letter versions are used on commons for ((lang-xx)), so if anything we should make them all function like ((en)). the fact that they are being misused suggests we need a bot to go through all the transclusions and generate a report of the improper uses for clean up, rather than throwing out the entire system (i.e., they generate more than text, but also add articles to categories). Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't being misused. The directions clearly say to use these to put the word at the end of an external link, to show that it is in another language. We do not have multiple languages on the English language WP. There is no other use for them here. Not the way there is a use on Commons or Wikimedia.org. They are defunct, providing no other service than a single word addition at the expense of similar amount of typing to create the word, and tying up of the handiest template dialling code.. They really are not important enough to have the most important template abbreviations. This site is in one single language... ~ R.T.G 11:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes, they are being misused in many many cases in the |native_name= field in infoboxes to mark the language of the name in the native language (see here for example). Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but to say that a significant part of the usage of these templates is not even proper, taking Frietjes word for it, while they are (most of them) barely used at all after that, and only to produce a word in English language script... just points further to the waste of the templates. But it is more specifically the two letter versions. You will pay more for the domain name useful.com than you will pkktpw.info because it is more useful and can be put to that use. These templates are sort of like web addresses too, and the two letter ones are among the most valuable, not suitable for low use, low understood, and low functionality(!), templates. ~ R.T.G 15:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• General keep per Frietjes: The two-letter ones are ambiguous, and could be deleted and salted like ((Ar)) and ((De)). ((En)) was kept for use in only file space, to support Commons' usage, which has nothing to do with this category. I don't know that en.wikipedia needs the other languages in its file space, except maybe during the translation period. When translating articles from other wikipedias, it is relatively easy to add the icon part. (I do this by userscript, myself.) I think other templates use the icon variety, but that could be handled by a module or #switch, instead, if needed. Some two-letter ones try to support both Commons usage and icon usage, but this doesn't always work right. The two-letter redirects could possibly be deleted, but that is a matter for RfD. Alternatively, they could all be turned into informative error messages. (See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 18#Ar and En) —PC-XT+ 03:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 03:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... the two letter templates are redirects... which were the templates that prompted me to request review, and those should be deleted for other more common purposes (speed dial). However I would still point out that this WP is in one language and, these templates do not add "icons" that you suggest. They add one word in brackets in the English language... So there are probably about 150-200 actual templates without the two letter redirects... Proposal Let's delete the two letter ones and inform others that they are available for speed dial of other functions, and add little flag icons to the xx-icon versions to actually make them valid... We could ask WProject Languages to suggest flag icons for ones that are difficult, and come up with something neutral to add to ones with no appropriate flag. ~ R.T.G 12:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a hand up to volunteer to add the icons as well if you like. It's simple enough. ~ R.T.G 12:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, these should not have any images added to them, per MOS:FLAG, or they would have them, already. I meant that adding " icon" to the template code, converting to use the en.wikipedia template, is easy. The redirects should probably be deleted or turned into error messages, but that is a matter for RfD. They should probably not be used for other functions, at least not immediately. If there are no problems with others recreating them, etc., maybe they could be repurposed. —PC-XT+ 21:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a template that was apparently successfully repurposed is ((No)), even though I have still occasionally seen it used instead of either ((No icon)) or ((lang-no)). Most editors see this doesn't make sense, and fix it, themselves. —PC-XT+ 22:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to change such a swathe of content, let's do it properly. There is definitely a lack of polish to these templates. Here is an icon designed for this purpose years ago, and not a flag at all so okay by MOS, (File:Other_languages_icon.svg so it is informative on hover over too), but currently it languishes in userspace. The closest I can find similarly purposed is the Wikiproject Languages image , but it is obvious the other one is designed for this purpose and even goes kind of artistically with the grey text. We could even add the word language or in xxx language. Like:- " (In Sindhi language)  "? If these templates are clear it will help certain readers to decide wether or not to follow a link. I added it there with non breaking spaces which should probably also be used in any template work. ~ R.T.G 23:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep these to the same standard as the other citation templates. When provided with |language=en, ((Citation)) shows (in English). I don't think we should be adding images to citations in bulk. I believe the general consensus is that citations are better using only styled text, due to images in citations being too expensive and distracting. —PC-XT+ 00:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are correct about the images. On some pages the template would repeat dozens of times. ~ R.T.G 09:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but modify as needed: Images get moved between here and commons quite regularly, and language templates need compatibility between the two sites so that things aren't broken by the moves. In particular, as we accept content free in America, but not in its source country, we will regularly get content that hasn't quite cleared its source country, but which has translations using the language templates.

However, it would be entirely appropriate, I think, to make them dummy templates: So long as they return (({1|))}, they will maintain the functionality, without adding the undesireable marking up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:21, 26 September 2014 (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) 01:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Team data Borussia Dortmund (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Banner/core (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Bannericon/core (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Team data Dortmund (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Team data BVB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Team data Werder Bremen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Team data Bayern Munich (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Bannerright/core (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

User:Template:Team data Bayern Munich - rouge page, now a redirect, created in the process of moving page.

Templates add copyrighted images in violation of wikipedia policy and has no use outside of that. LRD 16:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused. Kante4 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to build a free banner/logo template system like the country flag one but for all the other images which do not fit there. With easy syntax which will overcome the bad filenames on wikimedia like: My-first-Picture.svg - btw main sport tables would become quite pretty with then easy to paste, use and alter team banner pictures because of the team data templates (e.g. german wikipedia uses team banner pictures on score tables but without template system ... so most of the files have bad non standard file names which are a pain to use) Berni2k (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Berni, start to copy these templates into your WP:Userspace quickly before they are deleted and when they are complete, add them back to the template areas and it can be seen what they are... ~ R.T.G 22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Berni has now moved several of the pages to his personal space, meaning that the redirects left behind would make anyone able to use the old links on articles for the same effect. LRD 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the TfD pages at their original links. LRD 01:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you RTG you were the first user who was helpful, before today I did not know there are user spaces like that, sadly LRD is only after removing others work he does not like, no idea what I have done to him or maybe he is like that all the time who knows, I moved the 3 team data pages from my banner template system and wanted to delete the original ones afterwards but that was not possible, so I thought one of you would do it, but instead LRD came and restored them ... which was only a move against me as he could have easily removed the redirection link from them instead, now he added my templates I created for point tables, as there were no point tables on wikipedia before I created them I had to create a template for their coloring too, I know they are not perfect so far because I was not finished with them but the Banners took all my time so far, I say so far because I lost any motivation now to work on with them, all this complaining without helping is not what wikipedia is about I think, wikipedia should be about working together creating new content and not about destroying others work where possible because you don't like it, I think others would find my stuff useful, but not with me anymore (because the natural reaction to LRD would be to search after his work now and complain about it as much as possible, but I do not do things like that) Berni2k (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oh btw just if anyone wonders I recreated all 3 banner images in question (from the 3 teams in the data templates) by my own, with an open source svg editor I found on google code and released them by my own under cc-free public domain, so the original problem is long gone in my user spaces, I will edit the originals one last time so no one can say I left before removing all things in question, but I think LRD will come again and bring it back to blame me again, maybe he finds such things funny, I do not, but this will be your problem then because I'm gone Berni2k (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have only restored the versions at their respective TfD pages, removing the redirects in the process. It means that those that you have moved into your personal user pages were left untouched and would not be affected by any page deletions. That, in fact, makes me help you instead of working against you. The templates are listed for deletion for good reason, and you were informed per protocol and have the right to make your defence of keeping them. As mentioned, the problem is not with any coding, but with violation of the fair use policy pertaining to copyrighted images. I do not see how those templates might improve any articles at this point in time, and you might make them work and are welcome to spend time on them. I just feel you should consider the strict policy regarding copyright content and the consequences surrounding it before you proceed to spend valuable time on them. LRD 04:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He just added all my other templates which have no copyright violation or copyrighted images in or connected to them, so I will undelete them now as I think it was an error. I did/do not complain to the things you posted in your last post but you indeed did not read my post so we just talk side to side which makes no sense. Berni2k (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The four templates have been removed from the list since they were included mistakenly for copyvios. LRD 07:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The next place you should go, Berni, is the relevant wikiproject, (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football), because they will usually have the last say on how the articles look. ~ R.T.G 12:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - This will only encourage users to add non-free images to articles (and other places). – PeeJay 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per PeeJay EddieV2003 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all over-templating. Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, because, even though I applaud Berni for being bold in trying to improve the encyclopedia, these templates have too many problems, and I believe that, according to userpage guidelines, non-free images are to be deleted immediately from user space, so userfication is not an option. —PC-XT+ 03:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —PC-XT+ 01:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as above. GiantSnowman 15:53, 21 September 2014 (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 mark historical, since it appears the bot has not materialized. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POTD commons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is currently almost two years out of date. While I do think that salvaging it would be nice, if we're going to fail this spectacularly at keeping it up to date, I think we should at least mark it as historical. It's just displaying Commons POTD from November 2012, and has been doing so on a loop ever since then, from what I can tell. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This template just needs some sort of script to update it. And of course the script needs a programmer and a slave, but... Don't delete it anyway... Unless there is a problem with cross site linking. ~ R.T.G 22:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, this is templates for discussion, after all. We do need to find a solution to this one... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• substitute, mark as historical, and then move to project space without redirect. Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I second Frietjes' !vote if a bot isn't found to keep this updated. —PC-XT+ 04:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I am planning on writing up a bot task for this purpose in the upcoming week. Jason Spriggs ^chat 22:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piandcompany Seems this hasn't happened? Frietjes (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2014 (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 merged by nom Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bishops of Mthatha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Template:Anglican Bishops of St John's and of Mthatha inludes the information in this template, and provides continuity, I see no advantage in having both. Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AgreeBashereyre (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If they are the exact same for the exact same articles just redirect one to the other and if they are slightly different but for the same purpose for the same articles, merge, and then redirect one to the other... I recommend using the longer name as the redirect. If they are sort of like what I just said, but there is something just a little bit different, let's hear the different... ~ R.T.G 22:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant, now that I added the one wikilink to ((Anglican Bishops of St John's and of Mthatha)) in Special:Diff/626036208. Even if that is reverted, it already has that wikilink in the St John's section. —PC-XT+ 03:58, 18 September 2014 (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.