Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 4

< February 3	February 5 >

February 4 edit

Template:Stationery-logo edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken, not used. Abu badali ^(talk) 23:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused, broken and full of typos – Qxz 19:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: redundant, orphaned, and generally poor quality. Chris cheese whine 01:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as orphaned, and thank gawd nothing links to this... --DeLarge 15:15, 9 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:NOT GFDL edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template reads "This file is fair use has not been licensed under GFDL". 1. There's no such thing as a "fair use file". We have no reason to tag all non-GFDL images (are we going to tag public doman images, cc-by or cc-by-sa images, etc?). The accompanying category Category:Images not licensed under GFDL should go as well. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should we have a tag for images which aren't in the public domain too? -Amark moo! 05:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; images should say what their license is, not what it isn't. —An gr 13:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{Fairusein}} is a better template for these types of images. -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --GunnarRene 02:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe modify to make wording more clear The intention of this template is to discourage persons reusing wikipedia content from using the tagged image in a manner inconsistent with the fair use assertion of its use on wikipedia. It is redundant to the boileplate conditions of use statement linked to the bottom of each article, but seems a prudent and non-disruptive banner to display on the image space pages. It also warns editors not to use the image as a decoration or for other uses not consistent with the fair-use rationale.Jerry lavoie 17:47, 10 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Copyrighted_Flickr_Photo edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "fair use image" tag for "Copyrighted Flickr Photographs:". There's nothing inherently "fair use" about a non-free image posted on Flickr. If none of the existing fair use image tags applies, then the image can't be used. The accompanying category Category:Copyrighted Flickr Images should go as well. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This at first looks just redundant, but then it turns out that it left out the reduced resolution that's in the standard copyrighted fair use template, which is important. Any pictures with this tag should be tagged correctly or deleted. -Amark moo! 05:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's extremely rare that a copyrighted image from Flickr is non-replaceable anyway. —An gr 13:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flickr photographs can be replaced with free use images. -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:40, 6 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:DS9 navigation edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is redundant, because previous and next episode info is already in the specific episode infobox. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Keep~~. This template is used by close to 200 pages. I'm not sure I see why it should be deleted? - grubber 04:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But, about 75% of those pages have this exact same information in the episode infobox at the top of a ds9 episode page. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I hope someone will clear the template out of the pages so we dont end up with a redlink on the bottom of 200 pages tho. - grubber 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, here, I'll try and remove it from the pages that have the template and infobox.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 19:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded, can easily be removed by bot or assisted browser. No major issue here, just something overlooked and then copied a great many times. It's almost a housekeeping thing. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Nominator) Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Illyria05 explained, this template is completely redundant, as the same information is replicated in the infoboxes. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We ought to consider deleting the other Star Trek series navigation templates for the same reason. -- Hawaiian717 19:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, I'll do that.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It helps see which episode's next, plus it would be really hard to delete. Don't kill it! It's not old enough yet!!!!!!!!!!! Plus, on some it's the only way to see which epise's next, example Chimera. lunakeet
Comment Lunakeet, Have you read what I wrote, it is completely redundant, the previous and next episode info IS in the episodic infobox for most of the articles... Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after check redundant if someone verifies all information is already in the episode infobox. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a backup to the infoboxes. It's not very intrusive. Just H 22:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wholly redundant, and yes, they are intrusive. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but if you think those little succession boxes are intrusive, you should stay away from every single political leader on here. I concur that it's redundant, but it isn't taking anything away from the encyclopedia. Just H 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I ain't interested in back-chat, so please, don't try and start a "fight" with ad hominen attacks. Also "eff-why-eye" I rarely edit/view political pages. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - JustH, come on, what does this have to do with this discussion? This is not the place to talk about political leaders etc.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 17:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no point in duplicating the next/previous links. Mike Peel 15:34, 18 February 2007 (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 page.

User:Peter M Dodge/Userboxes/AGF edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Okay, so this is a bit procedural, but head to WP:MFD for userspace discussions. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peter M Dodge/Userboxes/AGF

Useless repeat of User AGF. Urhixidur 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Falls under userspace and is therefore ineligible for TFD. How do we know that {{user AGF}} isn't a useless repeat of the userfied one? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's an unused template (no incoming links) but it is in userspace. I have placed a note on the user's talk page about the template. We'll see if he wants it deleted. - grubber 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. The user has declared he is not using this template and doesn't care if it's deleted. - grubber 04:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless User:Peter M Dodge wants it deleted. It's in userspace, and it's not harming anything. Gavia immer (u|t) 18:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care. Delete away, if you want. I don't use it anymore. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If ok with everybody, I'd like to use it. I like it because it gives userpages a positive feeling, and I follow it anyway. Nevermind, I didn't know there was a template for it. First time I saw it. I say it's up to Peter then. JackSparrow Ninja 20:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, but being a "useless repeat" is not a good reason for deletion. -Amark moo! 05:33, 5 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Bell System edit

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant to the AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest templates. It is not well designed and ultimately adds clutter to virtually every Bell Telephone related page. The user that came in here thinking he could "run" the AT&T related articles; creating Wikiprojects, this template, rearranging redirects, adding new, redundant categories, etc., seems to have disappeared. I suggest partially replacing this with a category "Bell Operating Companies". --X570 15:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those other templates represent the new companies while there was nothing that represented the former bell system. it is my first template so it may not be the best designed templete but it's a Work in progress as i learn more about wikipedia and how templates work this template will get better in fact i saw the other day a feature where by you can set the template to hide by default when i find it I'll add it to the template. Please don't delete something i put a lot of hard work into, just because you don't like it does not mean it cannot exist.(Ke5crz 17:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the design (which isn't a deletion criteria anyway), and I can see its usefulness. I also can't see any way of easily navigating around the pre-1984 pages using only {{AT&T}}, {{Verizon}} and {{Qwest}}, so I'd dispute it being redundant. I find {{United States telephone companies}} a lot more redundant, given its size and design; it's better served by Category:Telecommunications companies of the United States (and there's no obvious explanation of why that template has only 14 entries while the associated category has 118). However, {{Bell System}} does need redrafting with more piping, so that there's always a bold highlighted link on every page where the template is used (see Pacific Bell for an example of where this doesn't happen). Also, I think Category:Bell System (Pre-1984) is a redundant duplication of Category:Bell System and should be taken to WP:CfD.

I'd also comment that there's no need to include corporate data in the various templates. Templates are for navigation, not information. --DeLarge 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. {{Bell System}} template should be kept. I don't think the other templates mentioned can be a effective substitute for navigating the pre-1984 U.S. telecommunications system. However, there is a lot of redundancy with the various telecom templates. This is probably due to the massive changes in telecom recently. A comprehensive revision of some of the templates might be in order.--Janus657 17:00, 12 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Ferrol edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox that's specific to a single city but isn't used in its article. No transclusions, and seems not useful at all; redundant with the generic infobox its code was taken from. --Flyingtoaster1337 14:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for this single-use template (that's not even being used). - grubber 18:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it's not going to be used in multiple places, what's the point of having it around instead of just the code? delldot | talk 01:14, 6 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Miss USA state pageants edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted due to author requesting deletion. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be unused and I think it has been superceeded by {{Miss Universe Organization titleholders}}. I'm posting a {{tfdnotice}} for User:PageantUpdater. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created last May and currently not in use. - grubber 18:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't even remember creating this! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:21, 4 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Emot edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. ~ Arjun 03:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same justification as the recently deleted Template:Smiley. Wikipedia is not a social network, image emoticons add server load for no encycloapedic benefit. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or else someone will be going after the Barnstars for the same reason. NipokNek 14:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, this is an utter non sequitur. There's nothing remotely similar between images and emoticon templates which are used inline frequently with comments. --Cyde Weys 15:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, Cyde! Calling this an utter non sequitur amounts to a personal attack, and an unwarranted one at that. It doesn't matter in which way a picture is included. And, even if you disregard WP:PERF, you haven't made the point why you think one 23KB picture is decidingly better than 23 1KB pictures. — Sebastian 04:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per earlier TFD precedent on smiley templates. Also, this template was used by our template vandal yesterday. We should use very few templates in our user discussions, primarily internal link templates. NoSeptember 14:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Why not just require it to be substed then? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 15:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I use this template a lot, so my first reaction is keep. I attempted subst on it, and it din't work: simply puts in a long list of image names, and it still requires the server to parse. I vote keep, but if server load can be reduced by removing it, then delete. xCentaur | ☎ 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Try subst'ing it now, i fixed it so that it'll work with subst. --Random832(t c) 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also consider the reasons for not having images in signatures, which apply for smileys too. NoSeptember 17:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If you two are worried about cluttering the source code page with useless templates and text, have you seen your signatures? Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/August 2005#Template:Sad, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/January 2006#Template:Smiley, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 31#Template:Smiley. If people insist on inserting images into discussions, let them insert the actual images. Re-upload at File:).png and similar as necessary. —Cryptic 21:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove images and still print the text equivalents as in {{{1}}} for compatibility. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Call this a comment since I already expressed my opinion above. If the template is causing too much load, fix the template. Legislating behaviour ("We don't want people using smilies") is always a bad idea. NipokNek 07:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a template redundant to the recently deleted Template:Smiley. It's not about "legislating behavior" — a whole separate slippery slope argument on its own — it's about maintaining the focus of what the wiki is, an academic encyclopedia. There're forums, IRC, email, chat, and many, many other venues for editors who want to get together for social networking, which is all well and good. But this isn't the place for it. Tijuana Brass 10:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I definitely agree with NoSeptember here. We should be using as few templates in the course of regular discussion as possible. I don't want commenting to eventually become a mess of various formatting and emoticon templates. It'll be hard to read in edit source mode (which I read a fair number of comments in, because I frequently know before hand that I want to comment, so I'll click over to edit, read the conversation, and put in my comments as necessary without having to try to find where they would go again if I read it in normal mode and then clicked over to edit). The conversation should look the same in edit mode as it does in normal mode (well, except for those infernal sigs), but the use of various templates like this emoticon causes some of the meaning to be lost in the edit source. I really don't see why we would want to move closer to a chat room, or a bulletin board, or IM. And anyway, if you really really want emoticons, you can do it in plaintext and nobody will be able to stop you :-P Cyde Weys 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, is identical to the others. I don't understand why JZG felt obliged to start a TfD for it? --Quiddity 19:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & suggested compromise. These discussions are getting really surreal, it's like a children's story where some villain wants to remove all the smiles from the world. I'm not going to bother voting since it's already a foregone conclusion like it was for Template:Smiley, though I'd like to re-iterate that "server load" is a red herring per WP:PERF. However, since it is the case that some people seem to experience negative feelings when viewing graphical smileys, and that's entirely contrary to the whole point of smileys, I would like to suggest that a font smiley (e.g. ☺) be placed into the insert box on the edit page. That would keep big yellow smileys from glaring out at people who don't like them, reduce server load to nothing, and still allow people who feel the need to use them access.--Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete – completely unnecessary and this isn't the place for it. As Cyde Weys suggested above, use text ;P +mwtoews 05:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I have not used this template before, I believe it to be a very useful template. This is the first time that I have seen it and it is kept, I will start using it. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Couldn't this be moved into the userspace? Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Replace it with a template that puts in a span class like {{IPA}}, and users who want graphical smileys can install user javascript. --Random832(t c) 02:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and subst: Now that it's possible to subst I don't see any reason to forbid others such a harmless fun. The 1-2KB extra server load can't be it. Some people find it annoying when others wear yellow T-shirt, but there's no law against that. The only reason for deleting it is that it doesn't include a symbol for "shaking my head in disbelief". — Sebastian 04:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey could someone please tell me how to fix my user page at first I didn't mind the whole templates for deletion page thing but now all the emot things pop up in place of the one smiley I want. So if you could tell what to do or do it for me I'd like my user page fixed, thank you.Sam ov the blue sand 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this for you by typing [[Image:Smile.png]] where you once had {{Emot|:)}}. Yes, this is perfectly legal to do. See? this template isn't really necessary after all +mwtoews 21:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though smilies can have a useful function of expressing emotion of which words cannot, I feel there is no need for smilies in an encyclopedia (apart from its article). Is there any way that the images of smilies used in Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons?) could be reviewed? --tgheretford (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the last nomination; the whole smile things are getting out of hand. And anyway :), are cooler. ~ Arjun 13:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal Put a font smiley, e.g. ☺, into the insert box under the edit window. We could have it right next to the, oh so useful ♦, ♥, ♣, & ♠ symbols.—Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... or instead of them. — Sebastian 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or next to them. I like this proposal. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NoSeptember and Cyde. Lets keep discussion textual. Picaroon 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreation of Template:Sad previously deleted: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/August_2005#Template:Sad. —Dgies^t c 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Delete per above, but like above proposal. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 03:36, 17 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:CATV_USA edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no use for this template when there is a better template already available. The better template is Template:CATV_America.

Keep '~~(Weak) Merge and delete one~~' one into the other. Both templates are relatively new. {{CATV America}} isn't included in any of the pages it references; it's prettier and not as dense, but is it going to be used? - grubber 06:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
US is big enough that it makes sense to give it its own template - grubber 16:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, too many non existing interwikis and the original has all of them, delete it and use the original one.Telly addict 12:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete --Bill Clark 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that cable systems by country are a much better idea than by continents.75.14.211.175 21:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Cable in The Americas Template:CATV_America includes other multichannel television providers that do not use cable, such as FiOS, DirecTV, and USDTV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.165.15 (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

~~Delete~~ I'm not sure if this is a good use for a nav template in the first place, let alone for two nav templates. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'm not a big fan of these kinds of nav templates... but if you guys got a plan for them then might as well let you run with it and see how it turns out. -- Ned Scott 16:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I prefer categories over these kinds of lists.

They take up a great deal of space on the footer
They require manual maintenance to be current
As they grow they become unmanageable

Alan.ca 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:CATV America Cwolfsheep 05:54, 11 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Manhattan_Streets edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. ~ Arjun 12:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the links are not notable and will remain redlinks, and the box is unnecessarily, but inevitably large. Template:Streets of Manhattan, while not completely redundant, covers most of the streets in this template. Notable one-way streets can still be found in the Streets in Manhattan category. --talk to Ytny 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is better presented as a category and possibly a list. --NE2 02:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and convert to a list (maybe List of city streets in Manhattan or something similar). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the template provides a convenient means of navigating to other streets in Manhattan, that cannot possibly be accomplished by use of a category or list, all of which would be external to the article. Dozens of articles already exist for those not found on the Streets of Manhattan template, and more are being created. Unless anyone can explain what is lost by retaining this useful template, this TfD is just a matter of imposing an arbitrary personal preference on the issue. Alansohn 04:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll need to go back and read the WP on templates, but my understanding was that we preferred to avoid templates that take up large amounts of space, especially in smaller articles, which most one-way street articles are. Also, the number of blue links on the template a little misleading since one-way streets from 23 to 42 all redirect to Manhattan streets, 23-42. In addition, articles for 1st, 2nd and 3rd are almost word-for-word identical and mention very little about the streets themselves. That still leaves 19 one-way street articles by my count, but with the exception of West 4th Street (Manhattan), very few claim notability of the streets themselves or expanded beyond stub status (I realize this is now starting to sound like an Afd for non-notable street articles, but I digress). I'm not sure if there are enough full articles to make this template worthwhile. talk to Ytny 04:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If your actual issue is that it takes up a lot of space, there are far simpler solutions than the destructive choice of deleting the whole template. Perhaps a change in font size might solve the problem. This does not seem to be a serious attempt to address a Wikipedia problem; it seems to be more and more an attempt to impose a rather arbitrary aesthetic choice, by taking away the most useful means of navigating to different streets. That the nomination doesn't even bother to mention any Wikipedia policy should be clear demonstration that this nomination is just an arbitrary personal choice. Alansohn 16:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While there is no policy re: size, but there is a guideline at WP:NAV, which advises against large templates on small pages, which one-way street articles almost invariably are. But the size is a secondary issue and symptomatic of the main problem, which is that the vast majority of the links will remain red, and the template is and will continue to be less useful than the bi-directional street template. If you discount the duplicate links between 23 and 42, and many of the minor streets that are non-notable and should be deleted, there's just not much to navigate to. And as far as specific deletion criteria, I argue that the template is not helpful (not enough notable articles to be worthwhile), and the template is redundant to another better-designed template - not completely redundant, but for all intents and purposes. -- talk to Ytny 17:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I've started an Afd for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 13th Streets. talk to Ytny 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add the "View-Edit-Show" links, and hide by default. It is included in a lot of pages, so it's clearly being used; but, I would also recommend going through and fixing the pages that include {{NYC Streets}} rather than this one and maybe prod that one. - grubber 06:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems rather useful to group together the streets in this plan. It would be one thing if the streets were just named like that for symmetry but this is a planned civic system. I think it deserves navigation. VolatileChemical 07:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delte To many non-existing interwikis, not really good enough anyway for a template.Telly addict 12:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim down -- keep only midtown manhattan 14th-59th streets. That will keep the template size down and only the notable range will be there. Also started Afd for 112th, 116th, 118th, 122nd, 132nd, 181st, 187th, --Hateu 22:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no problem with the template. The real issue seems to be which streets in Manhattan deserve coverage. It certainly shouldn't be restricted to midtown. 4th, 125th and 181st are particularly important. Others should be judged on their merits.--agr 04:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do as Grubber said above. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate in favour of {{Streets of Manhattan}}. This one is not much more than a redlink farm. Chris cheese whine 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEep--Sefringle 05:56, 12 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Spoiler-season edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template appears to be wholly redundant to {{spoiler}}, I can't see much value to this except adding to the "spoiler drama" - which is unneeded, imo. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator knew about, and has commented on, a closely linked TFD before starting this nomination: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Sgspoiler --GunnarRene 02:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneccessary, single template for spoiler is good enough. xCentaur | ☎ 16:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In many articles spoilers of different episodes appear. And in other articles, it is handy to quickly see if this will be a spoiler for the reader. Cristan 17:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. {{spoiler}} is all that's necessary for spoiler warnings. Gavia immer (u|t) 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge with {{spoiler-other}}. -- Ned Scott 19:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a fancy spoiler for Stargate, not required.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're in the wrong discussion. I agree with you that we should subst away the use of a Stargate only template, but I think we should keep the general season spoiler template. --GunnarRene 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The normal spoiler template is adequate. Beno1000 01:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the articles this is used on are organised sensibly in a clear chronological order, then a single {{spoiler}} tag will be sufficient. QmunkE 08:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just gave a reason to keep. Treating a subject in an article only in a story-chronological puts restrictions on how articles can be written. The deletion of this template might restrict some editors to story-chronological organization. --GunnarRene 02:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's useful to know if the spoilers are from something you've already seen or not. What harm is there is giving readers some extra info? In the case of a simple plot summary, you can get away with simply having everything in order, but not all articles about works of fiction are just plot summaries (and they shouldn't be, either). And this isn't "just a fancy spoiler for Stargate", it's a general spoiler template, it is used by the specific stargate one, {{sgspoiler}}, which is also up for deletion. --Tango 11:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's useful to sort through information, avoiding certain spoilers when necessary. I've managed to avoid several spoilers, because of these templates.Ghetto Gandalf 12:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to be rude or anything but seriously if you want to avoid spoilers why go into articles that *will* contain spoilers? The simple solution would be to stay away until they can't spoil you, we don't need a horde of "this section also contains spoilers as well but this time they are on series xyz, it may also contain spoilers on xyz's death." like templates, a simple {{spoiler}} suffices, always. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should someone have to go without certain information in order to avoid learning other information that they don't want? There is no reason at all. This spoiler template does no more harm than the standard one. If your problem is with multiple templates on the same page, then improve those pages, don't delete the template completely. --Tango 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all spoiler templates. I find them rather distracting and annoying in articles. It's not a secret that if you come to an encyclopedia looking to read up on something, and you haven't seen/read it yet, you might get spoiled. --Cyde Weys 15:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the place for that discussion. Deleting all spoiler templates by voting "Delete" in each one individually is disruptive - the only reason this TFD will be meaningful is if spoilers templates as a whole are kept, so all comments here should be assuming that there is consensus to keep spoiler templates. If, in another discussion, it is decided to delete all the templates, then this discussion is null and void. Disruptive this discussion with votes that belong in another discussion is not helpful. --Tango 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about as your message seems slightly convulsed, however, please do not accuse another user of being disruptive because they will not agree with your points. That is disruptive. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say anything about me disagreeing with him, I said this isn't the place for his comments. He's answering a question that hasn't been asked. --Tango 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Matthew seems a bit confused, forgive him. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overkill, the standard spoiler template is enough. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 16:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect and Delete~~ changed to Edit and Weak keep (see below) – I fail to see how any reader will find this helpful, and will only offer ambiguity to any article. If spoiler templates are here to stay (and it certainly appears so—there are currently 34 interwiki links in Template:Spoiler/doc), and there is a strong anti-spoiler presence (related TfDs: here and here), then there should be a minimal selection of spoiler templates. Redirect to {{spoiler}}—this I think is a fair solution. +mwtoews 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does it make anything ambiguous? Ambiguous means it has more than one possible meaning, what are the multiple possible meanings of a spoiler template? --Tango 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, we'll never know if this particular spoiler templates is useful or not, since everyone at this discussion has probably edited a few articles, and knows what is going on inside Wikipedia. We should really leave the topic of Information transformation to the psychologists. However, to a common Wikipedia reader of an article, such as Joe Public's Grandma, she may read an article, top-down, see the spoiler heading, and may:

Observe that the plot of the article she is reading will have details about the plot (gosh no!); but fair-enough, maybe she didn't want the plot ruined after-all
Observe that in the spoiler heading reads "Plot and/or ending details for this show" ... but wait, isn't this article already about this show? Why is this important to point out here, midway in the article?
Observe that in the spoiler heading also reads "Season #" ... okay, but this template appears to be used once in an article for a single season, which is already stated usually at the top of the article.

The only possibly useful piece of information to the reader is from the first point (e.g., {{spoiler}}). The last two points repeat information already stated at the beginning of the article, and add nothing important to the warning—thus they can only add to ambiguity of why they are repeated, since the reader should know what they are reading.+mwtoews 22:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This show should be replaced by somthing better, be blanked even. I guess I'll just go ahead and do it. --GunnarRene 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I favor a change to {{spoiler-season}}, similar to the edited by GunnarRene (found here) such that the Show Name is not unnecessarily iterated in the spoiler. I will only change my vote to a weak keep, on the condition that it does not reiterate painfully obvious and unhelpful information. I now see the usefulness for the season number, for instance in Stargate SG-1, where it is used multiple times. However, this template should be avoided in articles that contain only one season (which is where this template is used most frequently, for example in Thirty-Eight Minutes and hundreds of other cases). Question: is it possible for the template to ignore the SHOW argument all-together, and only display the season number? +mwtoews 06:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done (let's test it out ...)+mwtoews 07:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information being repeated is a problem with the article, not the template. This template can be used without that redundancy. (Well, the season number will probably be included within the spoiler text as well as the spoiler tag, but I don't think that's a problem.) Hundreds of spoiler tags such as in Stargate SG-1 are a problem. I fixed the same problem on Jack O'Neill by just removing them all and putting a generic spoiler tag at the top and stating the relevant season very clearly at the beginning of each paragraph (see [1]). I'll see if I can do something similar for Stargate SG-1. This template is good for articles which aren't just a chronological plot summary. Describing the technical specifications of a spaceship when those specifications were stated in various seasons and some of the discussion about them includes spoilers, for example. Plot summaries can use a single generic tag at the top - it should always be obvious what is being spoilt. --Tango 13:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have answered my own question, and edited the template to a much simpler one (archived here) ([Note from GunnarRene:Se below, this hard link may not point to intended version.]). This also solves the {{Sgspoiler}} problem, since there are no more default values. Are most pro-keep users happy with this change?+mwtoews 07:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like not having the name of the show included by default, but it should be possible to show it for cases where they are multiple possible shows (Stargate SG-1 vs Stargate Atlantis vs the Stargate move, the various Star Trek series and films, Buffy vs Angel, etc). That can go in a different template if people want, I suppose, although it minimising the number of spoiler templates seems popular. --Tango 13:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my argument is if this is necessary? I'm yet to find an article that mixes plot spolings from multiple sub-series and seasons, in which case your argument would be valid.

Note: When making substantial changes to a template and doc, please copy the whole structure to user space or subst it here to show what you mean. Hard-linking to a version will not work as expected. Could we please leave it at "my" version and any further changes be made in user-space or another kind of sub-page?

OK, test complete, and note observed. That was my moment of being WP:BOLD...template style! (yes, I agree, probably the worst kind of bold philosophy). +mwtoews 18:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the template proposed by me, with usage instruction. Template:Spoiler-season/proposal1 I've made the show OPTIONAL and said Only use when not obvious. The change proposed by mwtoews would lack the ability to refer to a specific show when discussing a concept, and actor, or something else that does not make it obvious which show in a group of shows etc. is in question. --GunnarRene 16:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not everybody would have seen every season of a show. If looking up an episode they may not realise what season it is from, or they may not want to be spoiled for the rest of the season.User:Million_Moments

Proposal 1 edit

{{spoiler-season/proposal1|3|episodelist=List of Babylon 5 episodes}}

Results in: {{spoiler-season/proposal1|3|episodelist=List of Babylon 5 episodes}} (The season link goes to the episode list for the show.)

{{spoiler-season/proposal1|3|Babylon 5|episodelist=List of Babylon 5 episodes}}

Results in: {{spoiler-season/proposal1|3|Babylon 5|episodelist=List of Babylon 5 episodes}} (The season link goes to the episode list for the show.)

{{spoiler-season/proposal1|3|Babylon 5}}

Results in: {{spoiler-season/proposal1|3|Babylon 5}} (The season link goes to the article on television seasons.)

Proposal 1 discussion

I'm not sure if I see any substantial changes to the present template, athough I acknowledge the documentation changes. I still regard the SHOW argument (#2) unhelpful and redundant, and ignoring it is a compatible change that appeared to work for my "test" (and it alows {{sgspoiler}} to be made into a redirect with no modification). Perhaps the documentation should clearly state that this template should be used where there are multiple seasons on a single article; otherwise, for articles about one season/show, keep things simple with just a {{spoiler}} tag.+mwtoews 18:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the compatibility has to be discussed on the individual articles. In many cases it is not needed, in others it actually is. On your second point: How about if we word that as "In articles that reveal plot information from only one season, and where it is obvious to the reader which one it is, use {{spoiler}} instead. Similarly, where a spoiler is obviously about one show, omit the SHOW parameter, but keep the SEASON parameter. See also how to remove redundancy." --GunnarRene 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the wording. However, I stress that I cannot find any articles where the show name parameter is needed ... Can anyone find any articles where different show names needs to be displayed? I've looked around, but have not encountered the need to display the show name, again. In my view, this template is on very thin ice, and the only way to save it would be to slim it down as much as possible, and remove unnecessary redundancy. +mwtoews 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many Stargate articles refer to the film, Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis. The same applies to Star Trek articles. --Tango 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm completly aware of this; however, you are missing my point: do these articles ever mix Stargate Atlantis and Stargate SG-1 using this template in a single article? Or in other words, is there a need to distinguish the show names in an article using this template, that isn't already obvious elsewhere in the article? Otherwise my claim holds that the show name is not needed in this spoiler template; but I'm looking for someone to prove me wrong by listing any links to actual articles that prove this "need"! +mwtoews 00:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K-9 and Company discusses spoilers from one show season in an article about another.

Apart from that, you are right that the redundancy is staggering in the Startgate article spoiler warnings. Still, there's no more articles than what can be fixed manually. I can do this over the course of some days on my own. How about we leave it at the proposal 1 version, and then I promise to go through the articles and fix them? --GunnarRene 22:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that is fine—I barely see the use of optional arg#2, and it is clear in the documentation how it should be used, so this shouldn't be a problem for other users to use (if this template stays). I wouldn't be too concerned about manually editing all the articles immediately; fix them as you see fit.+mwtoews 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I have an idea: rather than manually replace hundreds of {{Sgspoiler}} templates in Stargate articles, it can be made into a redirect to {{spoiler}}, then update the cases using the proposed {{spoiler-season/proposal1}} where the season numbers are needed ... thoughts? does that seem reasonable? +mwtoews 04:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about holding off on the redirect until no articles use sgspoiler and just re-nominate as a procedural delete as un-used template when we've had time to replace? --GunnarRene 06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that almost the same thing? As a wild guess, of the {{sgspoiler}} template uses, at least 90% will probably suffice with {{spoiler}}; the remaining 10% or less will need {{spoiler-season}}. If {{sgspoiler}} proceeds to a {{spoiler}} redirect (I'm not sure who makes these decisions), then the 10% or less will be mildly crippled to not show specific season numbers, until manually patched with {{spoiler-season}}. I don't think this is too damaging to the articles for a few weeks, and you can always use the "What links here" for the redirect to find those specific articles. If you still feel strongly about your decision above, then we'll delay the procedural delete as you suggested.+mwtoews 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2 edit

I've made a {{spoiler-season/proposal2}} proposal to remove unnecessary redundancy by ignoring argument #2, and effectively not displaying the show name (if anyone feels this is still "needed", please, supply proof where it is needed!). This proposed edit does two things:

Reduces some "weight", "risk", "bulkiness", etc. – this is both a visual and ideological concept that the "Delete" nominators speak of, and reducing the visual presence helps
Makes a compatible template with {{sgspoiler}}, such that it can be made into a redirect without any modification, nor loss of functionality.

You can observe that: {{spoiler-season/proposal2|3|Stargate SG-1|episodelist=List of Stargate SG-1 episodes}} will result in: {{spoiler-season/proposal2|3|Stargate SG-1|episodelist=List of Stargate SG-1 episodes}}

Argument #2, or "Stargate SG-1", is ignored by the template. Of course, this were on Stargate SG-1, we don't need to be reminded every single spoiler that we are still reading about Stargate SG-1! +mwtoews 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2 discussion

Proposal 1 will suffice. +mwtoews 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussion edit

Keep. Useful refinement of the spoiler template for works with many seasons. When discussing the show, this template makes it easier to organize the article in ways more beneficial for discussing the topic instead of needing to proceed in a story-chronological fashion. --GunnarRene 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all spoiler warnings. Having big warnings about that an encyclopedia article contains information is ridiculous. Shanes 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, no, see, this isn't that discussion. This is about one particular spoiler template. If you wish to get rid of them all go to WT:SPOILER. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I want them all gone, do you really think I might want to keep this one? Here's a "spoiler" for you: No, I don't. Shanes 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's one thing to say "Delete because I don't like any of the spoiler warnings" vs "lets use this TfD to delete all spoiler warnings". If you only meant the former, then I apologies. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Will be obsolete in a few weeks anyway. --Stlemur 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I'm not mad about spoiler warnings on Wikipedia in general, I think that if we're going to have them there's no harm in them being specialized for different uses. Since television programs air at different times in different countries, it is reasonable to think that some readers might be looking for information about such-and-such a show through season 2 (the latest to air in their home country), but might not want to be "spoiled" for information through season 4, which has already aired in the program's country of origin. This is a very common circumstance, and probably one of the most reasonable cases for spoiler warnings. Therefore, it makes sense to have a specialized spoiler notice for this purpose. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All variants on these templates are redundant to {{spoiler}}, which does the job simply and cleanly, and carries less risk. Chris cheese whine 13:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Carries less risk"? What's that meant to mean? Risk of what? And we've already discussed the redundancy issue, it provides more information, so it isn't redundant. --Tango 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should not provide any more information - if it does, then the articles it is used in are badly-written. Chris cheese whine 00:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question - risk of what? And I disagree about articles being badly-written - the information about the season will be included elsewhere in the article, certainly, but that elsewhere could easily be at the beginning of the spoiler, and the spoiler tag has to go before the beginning of the spoiler. --Tango 13:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but facts are facts - there should be nothing in a spoiler tag that is not already in the article. If the spoiler tag adds to the article, then it means that the information was missing from the article in the first place. I'm not spelling out the risks, since I'm assuming that by participating in this debate, you have the necessary intelligence to work this out yourself. Chris cheese whine 02:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A spoiler tag exists so people can avoid reading information they don't want to know. If the information in the spoiler tag is mixed up with the information they don't want to know, then there is a valid reason to repeat the information. If you're adamant that the information only be mentioned once, then it should be in the spoiler tag, and removed from the main article, which is hardly a good idea. If you are not willing to state the risks, then I hope your comment is discounted by the closing admin. A risk means there is a chance that something bad will happen as a result - what bad thing can happen as a result of a spoiler warning? --Tango 13:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if {{spoiler}} is allowed, so should this be. The point is, if we are caring about spoilers at all - by agreeing that {{spoiler}} should stay - then this template is needed. Television seasons are a massive thing, this isn't an obscure type of spoiler. It's a major one. So if we keep {{spoiler}}, surely this stays too. By the way, this template was designed as a meta-template, so that sub-templates for individual shows could be made - I see no problem with this, as templates on wikipedia aren't like articles - they dont need to assert notability. If it's useful, it should stay. --Alfakim-- talk 06:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring all the logical fallacies in your statement, you do not say why {{spoiler}} being allowed means {{spoiler-season}} must stay. All you say is that it must. I don't think it was designed to be a meta-template (WP:AUM). Templates still need a reason for living. "Easy to type" and "I like it" aren't reasons for keeping a template. Please read Wikipedia:Template namespace. Chris cheese whine 08:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, series-specific templates should not be allowed if they cause the name of the series to always be included every time, even when it's obvious. Editors will have to make that decision on individual articles. And there are hundreds of TV series; making templates for them might cause some of them to stop using spoiler-season.--129.241.126.121 14:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As previously stated, shows have different airdates in different countries, so someone in Australia may view an article on Stargate SG-1 but not be spoilt for a Season they haven't seen yet, whereas someone in the US won't mind seeing spoilers for Season 10. It provides more information as to what the spoiler contains and IMHO is a worthwhile addition. Murray-Mint-UK 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NDT. Chris cheese whine 02:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NDT#The exception --GunnarRene 04:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not {{spoiler}}, and many of the other variants do not impose m:instruction creep as this one does. We need fewer rules on the use of templates, not more. Chris cheese whine 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a variant of {{spoiler}}, and as mentioned in WP:NDT#The exception such variants are excempt from WP:NDT. {{spoiler-season}} is here because people find it beneficial to the encyclopedia. Threre is no instuction added with this template, and the editors of each article are free to choose if spoiler or spoiler-season are most beneficial to them. With "insrtuction creep", are you referring to my comment in the doc that the SHOW parameter only should be used when necessary? That doesn't really add instruction; we already instruct people to write brilliant prose without unnecessary redundancy. (Redundancy is sometimes good...) --GunnarRene 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude, but you made that edit, and mention it if it were policy. Hmm... As per the instruction creep argument, I'll agree that it could be a potential problem here, however, I've been marginally convinced that this template is helpful. I don't see any other need to add any other form of spoiler templates (I say that, but we'll probably be here discussing this again with another spoiler template in a year or so). +mwtoews 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to standard spoiler template, as unnecessary instruction-creep/forking, and more annoying/distracting than the default. I like the default {{spoiler}}, but don't like this. --Quiddity 19:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no reason we can't use different varieties of these templates. NoSeptember 04:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Merge, delete redirect. this can be accomplished just as well by adding a parameter to the {{spoiler}} template. --Random832(t c) 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that's basically a merge vote? You want to keep the functionality of this template, but merge it into the main spoiler template? That would be fine with me. --Tango 16:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, basically. Changed to reflect that. --Random832(t c) 16:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with {{spoiler}} and then delete, for the same reasons I gave at the Template:Sgspoiler AfD. --DeLarge 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You guys have heard of {{spoilerabout}}, yes? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 11:58, 10 February 2007 (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 page.