Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 22

< December 21	December 23 >

December 22

Template:Generalitat de Catalunya

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) 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Generalitat de Catalunya (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This image licensing tag is seemingly unused, and seems redundant to existing 'fair use' tags in any event. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:IDGov

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) 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image licensing tag appears to be unused, was it's use deprecated in favour of more generalised 'fair-use' tags? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PD-USGov-CSB

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) 21:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image licensing tag appears to be unused in File space, In any event provably US-GOV images should being uploaded to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PD-USGov-HUD

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image licensing tag appears to be unused, in any case, provably US-GOV images should be on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PD-NYWT&S

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-NYWT&S (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is seemingly unused, was it deprecated for a reasons? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PD-USGov-USDA-FSA

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-USDA-FSA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This image licensing tag appears to be unused, Has it been deprecated? In any case images that US GOV should be uploaded to Commons directly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PD-ad

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is seemingly unused image licensing tag, that seems redundant to other tags handling 'no-notice' images. Was there a special reason why this template was retained? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? A little confused by the question. It was retained because nobody ever asked for deletion. :) Its creation is explained here. Although I created it, I have no particular use for the template myself, and, if it proved unnecessary, no issues with its being deleted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:DSL

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non standard media licensing tag, seemingly unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PD-NCGov

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non standard image licensing tag which is seemingly unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PD-Iran in US

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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Iran in US (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This image licensing tag seems to be unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~unused~~ currently, but expect some version of this to be used in the near future with regards to Iranian government documents/media. In discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 December 13. Buffs (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to list this here for different reasons and then found it already listed. At WP:C#Governing copyright law there is a link to this e-mail from Jimbo that says we should respect the copyright laws of countries even if they don't have a copyright relationship with the US first. Although such images would be in the PD in the US I think we would need a discussion about changing this "policy" (quoted as WP:C isn't listed as a policy but it's very similar) before this template could be used. Currently I think this template is a misrepresentation of policy and so should be deleted until things change. Dpmuk (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, images that are PD-US but not PD-Country of Origin are generally accepted for use on the English Wikipedia but are not accepted at Wikimedia Commons. Can someone confirm/refute that? NW (Talk) 04:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you are correct in that. There are, however, some differences in this situation to the more normal situation. Firstly there is the issue that although most images are PD-US will likely stay that way for ever (barring a law change that applies retroactively), it is my understanding that images in these circumstances will automatically become copyrighted in the US should the relevant copyright relationships be established. Second there is Jimbo's statement that is still linked at WP:C. For both these reasons I believe an RfC is appropriate as is being discussed at PUF. Although I agree that what you say is most in keeping with current practice I think this needs the wider discussion of an RfC - especially given the possibility of such images becoming copyrighted in the future. As RfCs generally take some time I think this template should be deleted until we have a consensus on the use of these images. It can also be undeleted if the RfC goes the way I think it will. Dpmuk (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- English Wikipedia and Commons has near identical policies towards PD. English wikipedia is more relaxed with having copyrighted content as fair-use is welcome here. That said there are cases where content that is hosted on commons are in fact copyrighted in their country of origin such as restorations of historic works in the UK. That is a special situation based on case law however. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- The PD-US images we accept that are not PD in the country of origin are generally those that used to be copyrighted in the US, but the US copyright expired. --Carnildo (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case, there is no copyright protection to expire because nothing existed in the first place. The images for which this template were rightly concluded to be PD. I have labeled them as such: [1][2][3][4][5][6] Buffs (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately while a lack of copyright agreement between US and countries like Iran does create a copyright-free relationship, this is not feasible to mark these images with a {{PD}} template. Why? Iran can choose to be a Berne signatory tomorrow which would make such works copyrighted in that instant as US and most of the world is a signatory. We would then have to remove these images from all published versions of the encyclopedia including the online version (this website and all mirrors), digital offline versions (including all versions wikireader, OLPC laptops etc), printed versions (print outs). When we declare something "PD" it should forever stay PD for the sake of stability. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that isn't exactly the law (and "stability" takes a back seat to what is legal). More to the matter of the facts, it's just speculation. If they enact a law saying it is copyrighted for the next 1000 years, it doesn't make it any less PD in the US. If a hundred years from now they sign the treaty, and maintain that 1000 year copyright, we still won't recognize the claim. What if the US signs a treaty that makes some images copyrighted again? It certainly is possible and happened in Europe. Answer: we'll deal with it. Furthermore, you posed the exact same argument earlier and it was shot down there too. We will adapt and change our use of images as the laws change, but we shouldn't do so just because some country MIGHT SOMEDAY sign a treaty. Lastly, no, there would be no claim to our use of such images prior to the signing of the treaty. Ex post facto is the law of this country and trumps any treaty within the borders of the US. While we might have to remove images then, we certainly don't have to do so now. Labeling these images appropriately now only helps us identify such images later. Buffs (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my comment below. At issue here is site policy not the law. It's agreed that such images are PD in the US but we can still choose, as a site, not to use them or host them. Dpmuk (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree. At issue here is both policy and the law. We shouldn't label something as copyrighted when, in fact, it is not. We don't need a Fair Use rationale for something for which Fair Use doesn't apply. If we are further restricting usage through a more restrictive policy, we should at least annotate it as such ("This image is PD in the US and most other parts of the world as Iran is not a signatory to...WP has decided to honor Iran's copyright on this image and Wou ikipedia will only use it under a Fair Use rationale") However, note that to do so, you must apply Iran's view on what is fair use. Furthermore, this opens another can of worms when it comes to things that Iran has declared a state secret (such as photos of executed protesters). These photos are banned in Iran, though copyright applies, and what, we can't use them? This is a slippery slope upon which I fear we are treading upon. Buffs (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Template:Db-f9: this template violates our policy of recognizing Iranian copyrights as valid. --Carnildo (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, it recognizes that the copyright is indeed valid, but only within the borders of Iran. Within the US, the image is PD. This is the LEGAL status of the image and there is no debate about that. Buffs (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you're missing the point that there is no reason that our policy can't go further than the law and in terms of copyright is often does. Just because something is legal it doesn't mean we have to do it, merely that we can. Current policy suggests that we should respect Iranian copyright even if, legally, we don't have to. Legally we could use such images but our current policy suggest we shouldn't. This isn't the venue to change policy, that should probably be done by an RfC, and until policy is changes this is template is a misrepresentation of said policy and should be deleted. Dpmuk (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are ignoring my point. Yes, related images CAN be denied use under any policy we want, but we SHOULD label these images accordingly. If you believe that the associated files should be treated as copyrighted, fine, but then they need templates that reflect that they are PD in the US (and other places), but WP chooses to treat them as they are categorized in their home country (in this case, copyrighted). To label them as simply "copyrighted" and not provide people with appropriate supplemental information, it gives the impression it is copyrighted everywhere (including the US). I contend that the EN WP should treat these as they exist in the US: copyrighted. Buffs (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Should the closing admin decide to delete this template, I request it be userfied in my user space. Buffs (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Expimgsrc

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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template, to which the last edit was in 2010, This template is felt to no longer be required, as it's wording could be placed manually by contributors with a more personalised approach. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's a substitution template, are you sure its unused? 70.24.244.248 (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it was nominated for deletion in 2010. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to alternate template Template:Bsr-user . 70.24.244.248 (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Non-free mugshot

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free mugshot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now unused image licensing template, whose usage was boldly updated to a restriction tag and appropriate generalised 'license' tag as appropriate to the images concerned. This template should be deprecated or deleted in the interests of having clear licensing tags that cover only 'free' or 'non-free' media respectively. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Newick

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Newly industrialized country

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newly industrialized country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:News date

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:News date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:News in Pictures

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:News in Pictures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, outdated, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Newtalkpost

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) 21:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like (by the name) it was supposed to serve the same function as a talkback template, but was never used. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is there an inline version of Talkback? That could be useful. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Portal box

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) 18:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Portal box with Template:Portal.

I would like to recommend that we eliminate this template and just use {{Portal}} instead. This template used to be needed when an article had more than one portal but the coding to {{Portal}} has been updated to allow the input of multiple portals eliminating the need for this template. Note: This template has over 44,000 transclusions so if we keep it we should Full protect it as a high use template. --Kumioko (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support if no technical problems (conflicts) are found by others with templates like {{Satop}}.Moxy (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Satop}} doesn't use either of these templates. It uses something different called {{Ports}}. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if both handle alt text for the portal images properly. Imzadi 1979 → 08:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, {{portal}} doesn't handle alt text. Take a look at [h0ttps://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/altviewer.py?page=M-6_(Michigan_highway) the Alt text viewer] for M-6 (Michigan highway), which is using {{portal box}}. The portal icon gets "Portal icon" as the alt text, but when you look at the alt viewer for M-1 (Michigan highway), the portal icon name appears instead because it is using {{portal}}. This needs to be fixed before the merger is completed. Imzadi 1979 → 21:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a merge is doable at this point then by all means go ahead. From a personal standpoint I would ask that the template not be immediately fully protected: {{portal box}} is only semiprotected and yet has nearly 45,000 transclusions, and we'll never get new contributors to templatespace if nobody can edit anything. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support : If it makes it smaller! I think these portal templates seem "desperate". Portals don't need adverts on article pages.... and aricles look much better without adverts. The talk pages already advertise these links. Victuallers (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think it's going to make them smaller... but it would make things simpler as we have one template with the same function, rather than two.
- Whether enough portals are needed or not is an editorial decision that should be made on a page by page basis.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support simpler. Rich Farmbrough, 14:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support if deprecated as claimed in nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I see no reason now to have both templates now. Peter (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any way to prevent this TfD from adding {Merge Partner} templates to the clean-up listings of every article the template being discussed is in? Salvidrim! 07:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peter. Rcsprinter (gossip) 13:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, easyer. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support They're exactly the same.Greg Heffley 19:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Can we close this TfD on an expedited basis, please? This is a non-contested, non-controversial merge request, the functions of the two templates are now identical, there are no persons opposed, and the "this template is being discussed" transcluded note is screwing up the layout of thousands of articles. Let's close, delete, and be done with this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support a quick resolution. Salvidrim! 18:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sensible. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:29am • 14:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems as though most folks support this merger and elimination of the redundant template. The oppose seems to be based on the feelings it shouldn't be done and isn't needed rather than a technical reason it can't. So with that said, does anyone see why we can't move forward with this merger or should we wait a bit longer? It also seems we have a couple of possibilities on how to make this work. We can simply combine the logic of Portal and portal box or we can also use the Ports template mentioned above.

Of course this leads if someone wanted to also combine the functionality and logic of the Ports and Satop templates so we can have a one use template that provides the flexibility for all these scenarios that would be great with me. --Kumioko (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support It does seem redundant. Also, the "this template is being discussed" note is really getting on my nerves. Cocoaguy ここがいい 22:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've just converted from Portal Box to Portal, with multiple listings, and no change is apparent (Chrome browser),--S. Rich (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because the {{Portal}} template calls the {{Portal box}} template, as I pointed out. Changing to Portal just adds needless overhead. Seriously, how many dozens of parser calls do we need for a little box that basically says, "Here's a few more links of related material". Sheesh, I could replace all of that with like 20 lines of normal Wiki-table code, maybe adding in a "Portal Box Top" template or something to keep the same style in every portal box. As it is, the Portal template is just going to keep getting more and more bloated and keep making more and more unnecessary parser calls on the server. Sure, pages load lickety split fast now, but it was only a year or two ago that the Barack Obama page took more than a minute to load, because of all the parser calls in the multiple {{cite}} templates. Wikimedia has sort of been rewritten (again) to get past all of that, but it's been a continual cycle over the past decade. We just finished a massive fundraiser drive. Let's try to limit how much needs to be fundraised in the future to handle things like increased parser calls that come from templates (like Portal) that just keep bloating with more and more needless parser calls. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't "fix" it. Portal Box isn't broken -- it works just fine and looks just fine (in fact, Portal even calls it). What needs to change? Why not merge Portal down into Portal Box? Anyway, that's my opinion about the whole thing. :) Banaticus (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is sensible --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 14:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose If a merge is to be done (why bother, the article is in use and works just fine on thousands of pages -- why fix what isn't broken), then the merge should go the other way, since {{Portal}} calls {{Portal box}}. If Portal Box were merged into Portal, we'd be trading out a somewhat complicated template (which after all is a simple "here's a link to more information" template) for a much more complicated template which calls the original template anyway, adding needless parser overhead. Banaticus (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From what I can see, the proposal is "Propose merging Template:Portal box with Template:Portal." and most responders support merging the two, without necessarily specifying which into which. I don't think there is much opposition to your suggested way of doing things. Salvidrim! 00:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't really have a preference (although I would recommend portal to keep things succinct and straightforward). As for being a complicated template that may be true but keeping the status quo won't change the fact that its a complicated template. Its still complicated either way we would just have one less template, with a more direct link to what the actual template being used is. --Kumioko (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You are correct the complexity in {{Portal}} is not needed, though and requires only a little work to dispose of. Rich Farmbrough, 17:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose Just as said by user Banaticus (good logic). The point is that certainly time can be better used here than doing this. TriCycloped (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I second Dirtlawyer1's comment; Please can we hurry up and merge the templates. The template is obviously in huge use and having an ugly notice above the template is dreadful. There's overwhelming support to delete/merge this template, with the only oppostion being the specifics of what template is merging into which... can we draw this disussion to a close, quickly? Peter (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put a post on the admin's notice board and see if someone can come over and sort this one out. Oddbodz (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Redact

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) 15:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think this template is helpful or necessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*This is a second delete nomination. previous nomination discussion here in August of this year, with a result to KEEP. --Ludwigs2 04:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I used it here. Editor retired, leaving a personal attack. I thought this template worked in this situation, and I've seen other appropriate uses, where it stopped situations from escalating (yes, I'm aware it didn't recently-- tough cases make bad law). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really support it in that case either. I'm in favor of outright removal of comments or letting them stand. Simply because there's the technical ability to edit others' comments doesn't make it okay. Just as it wouldn't be okay for me to sign as you, even though I can. Yes, the template leaves an evidence trail, but I don't think that makes using it acceptable. Perhaps I"m alone in this view, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up thought: I think in cases such as User talk:Minaker, this template has nearly the exact opposite of the intended effect. Doesn't it simply encourage every passerby to look at the page history and see what was there? If the comment were simply deleted altogether, there'd be far less intrigue. Surely the increased intrigue from the use of this template is a bug, not a feature. I stand by the view that there's no good time or place to use this template. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyone who wants to see a comment can always find it in the page history; this template has nothing to do with that. The template merely provides a middle ground between striking a comment (which leaves it still visible on the page) and removing a comment (which can destroy the flow of a statement and make recovering the text difficult if the redactor makes an error). Really, this is just the inline equivalent of the well-established {{hat}} template, one which allows finer-grained control over what is and is not obscured. it can - like anything - be used badly, but that's a disciplinary issue, not a problem with the template.
Keep: useful and used template, as per previous deletion discussion. --Ludwigs2 04:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I, too, think it might present usability issues as well. It's convention to use ~~strikethrough~~ to "redact" things that have been said so that the discussion following it makes sense to the observers. {{redact}} makes things much more difficult for unskilled readers—especially because it requires sifting through the page's source and knowing the basics of template syntax to figure out what's going on. If it could be made to collapse/expand redacted text, or possibly allow someone to hover over it, then it might make more sense; otherwise, it's just a fancy form of , something that is highly frowned upon. --slakr^\ talk / 04:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
^ This.
Inline collapsing would be neat. With jQuery everywhere nowadays, it probably wouldn't be very difficult to implement. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another consideration though: if the goal of {{redact}} is to hide text, bear in mind that many web crawlers will still see text in hidden <span> tags, which would partly defeat the purpose of censoring the text in the first place. This means that in cases of personal attacks, if a comment is bad enough to be {{redact}}ed in-part, then typically it should be removed in-whole in order to keep it away from search engines. --slakr^\ talk / 04:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the docs clearly say, the goal of this template is to remove offending statements without disrupting the flow of discussion, specifically so that participants do not feel the need to respond to goading and discussion can more easily stay on track. It's basically a way of saying "this is out of line" without further queering the conversation by being forced to tell the person they are out of line. It's the textual equivalent of cocking an eyebrow, shaking your head, and getting back to business. If you don't understand the value of that kind of non-verbal disengagement tool, I'm happy to explain it to you.

Implementing inline collapsing would be cool, but would require editing the project CSS and javascript files (not difficult to do - I looked into it when I made this template - but probably requiring a good bit of cross-browser testing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)
Though I was swayed to an extent by the arguments and actions in the last TfD, I still don't think we'd actually miss this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not censored. If something needs to go, rev-delete or oversight it. Absent that, wagging your finger at someone will only poke them, and aggravate a situation. Alarbus (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template exacerbates disagreements and infuriates people. I've never seen an instance where it's been used productively. Skinwalker (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Keep]Fuck no! It would be better if we didn't need this, but as long as people refuse to abide by the WP:5P, it has a place.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate of <s></s> and/or  Bulwersator (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alarbus. Personal experience shows me that the situation he describes is very real. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and burn {{Nono}} with fire. {{RPA}} is possibly more appropriate for the rare situations exemplified by Sandy. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nice idea - but against the spirit of Wikipedia ("WP:CENSOR") and it generally causes a lot of usability problems and arguments. Peter (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{redacted}} as a plausible typo, and to save 81 edits to remove transclusions. →Σ τ c. 04:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't eliminate the need to remove transclusions. The two templates as things currently stand have very different purposes. {{redacted}} is specifically used to indicate that material has been oversighted; this one is for material that is removed but not deleted/oversighted, and indeed is used only on material that doesn't merit oversight. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find better using {{RPA}} in this cases. —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] @ 24 December, 2011; 06:40
Delete The purported purpose of the template, that it can help smooth a discussion by removing hostile remarks, won't work -- people will generally follow a discussion, know what was there before redaction, and have a hostile attitude anyway. It could also possibly be confused with oversight redaction. Banaticus (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2011 (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.