Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 27

< December 26	December 28 >

December 27 edit

Template:Amazon.com Shopping 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete (G11—Blatant advertising). Ruslik (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amazon.com Shopping (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Though I can see some valid reasons for this, it's basically implying that Amazon is endorsed by Wikipedia as the best place to shop - i.e., it's acting as an ad for Amazon. As far as i know, Wikipedia steers clear of deliberately endorsing or linking to specific shopping sites - this more or less falls under point 5 of WP:NOTADVERTISING on WP:NOT, as well as potentially violating WP:NPOV by favouring one shopping site over all others. WP:GUIDELINES and WP:EL also both warn against the use of external links for commercial purposes. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Absolutely no reason to link to Amazon. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but no need for speedy. There is some very occasional need to link to Amazon or to provide a link to an ASIN, but this template says, in effect, "go buy this from Amazon now". We don't need or want a template to do that. Frankly, the need to link ASINs is rare enough that it's best not to simplify it lest such links proliferate where they don't follow policy. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amazon is a great store, and I shop there often; but I cannot image any circumstance where use of this templete would be encyclopedic, or anything but advertising. bahamut0013^words _deeds 01:05, 1 January 2009 (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:Coor title/at d/dm/dms 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coor title/at d/dm/dms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant. The templates referred to are all deprecated. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – obsolete. Occuli (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – obsolete. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 17:09, 30 December 2008 (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:Infobox Village Ukraine 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Village Ukraine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Not edited significantly since 2007. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 17:09, 30 December 2008 (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:Infobox Country2 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Not edited since 2006. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 17:09, 30 December 2008 (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:Infobox national park 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox national park (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Not edited since 2005. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Use the standard {{Infobox Protected area}}. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 17:09, 30 December 2008 (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:Video 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template was previously nominated (discussion), where it was withdrawn ~~over claims of~~ partly due to significant bad-faith during the nomination (ie widespread blanking followed by "unused in articlespace" claim). In the intervening 9 months there has been no effort to repopulate the template; the only transclusion was on Annie Oakley, which I confess I removed before I investigated the template further. This indicates to me that the supposed 'advantages' of the template raised in the previous TfD do not outweigh the extra hassle involved with using it. As noted by Chris Cunningham in the previous TfD, the template is essentially a (now paper thin) wrapper for a standard image tag; the only alterations made by the template are to add parameters for filesize and format. These parameters are not considered necessary or even useful for images or sounds, despite the fact that browser-compatibility with sounds is at least as patchy as with videos. The MediaWiki video-handling system has improved immensely over the past few months, rendering video support almost universal across modern browsers. It's time to move beyond the notion that we need to treat video any different to still imagery, that is quite simply no longer the case. Unused and unneeded, pointless complexity. Delete. Happy-melon 18:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet another bad nom. This nom is a follow-up attack on art at Wikipedia, by "left-brainer" techies who clearly don't think art has significant value. (This argument is heard all the time when local school boards have to cut the budget, yet research shows that esthetics education increases technical math scores (recall that Einstein was a violinist).) It also looks like a knee-jerk reaction and failure to investigate before acting, with consequent Escalation of commitment (you were wrong but now can't admit you were wrong). One important advantage of the video template is the movie marquee, which you would have known if you had read all the talk before rashly acting here. If you had concerns about lack of use, you should have posted to Template talk:Video, and we could have discussed it. Your follow-up bad nom further rewards bad faith deletion techniques, and disrewards avoiding contention at the originally damaged articles – as though I should have charged into the 23 bad-faith removed uses with keyboard blazing reversions. ~~Your negative message to Wikipedians is either fight, fight, fight or you will side with bad noms based on bad ideas.~~ Ok HM, maybe I should have done just that and I'll start now with you – so let's not hear any backtalk about me criticizing you for this follow-up bad nom. Furthermore, and contrary to your misrepresentation, the original nom was withdrawn after the claimed technical issues were negotiated: Why are you now stirring up more trouble that we resolved? Shame on you. Milo 02:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The MediaWiki video-handling system has improved immensely over the past few months, rendering video support almost universal across modern browsers."

That's news to me. Nine months ago I had IE installed. Now I have Firefox installed – with same .ogg error message:

You do not appear to have the XiphQT component for QuickTime. QuickTime cannot play Ogg files without this component. Please download XiphQT or choose another player.

Maybe you should verify your facts before you make strong statements. The point (as I said previously) is not that with troubleshooting I can't make it work. It's that, contrary to your claim, it doesn't work automatically work without an effort that might baffle non-techie readers. Milo 06:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely impressive, I haven't for a long time seen an XfD response that misses the point quite so completely. In your first post, I see two sentences as relevant: "One important advantage of the video template is the movie marquee..." and "Furthermore, and contrary to your misrepresentation, the original nom was withdrawn after the claimed technical issues were negotiated". The remainder, being as it is essentially an extensive and incivil personal attack, I will ignore, as will I'm sure the closer of the TfD. You are somewhat correct in the second point, I have ammended my initial statement to be more balanced. However, the first is nothing more than a bare assertion. Why is the movie marquee an "important advantage"? Why are videos more worthy of such treatment than images in articles? Why, to come back to my original point, are videos different?

Perhaps, if both your browsers are missing an essential component, it might be a good idea to install that component? It is free and widely accessible. While I agree with you entirely that the important factor is whether it works with an out-of-the-box browser, the point is entirely irrelevant because non-compliant browsers won't display the template properly either. The issue of browser compatibility is tangential at best to this discussion, because without browser support this template is just as broken than a raw file: tag. I do not believe that your comment provides any coherent arguments in favour of keeping this template. Happy-melon 11:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"personal attack" First things first. Indicate what you think are personal attacks. Behavior is commentable, so if I can prove it, it's not a PA. What I can't prove, I'll strike.

"personal attack, I will ignore" Sorry, you can't make a hit-and-run personal attack charge. Unjustified accusation of personal attack is also a personal attack (see WP:NPA), so if you aren't willing to indicate what you claim to be personal attacks, you must strike the charge. Milo 12:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This nom is a follow-up attack..." implies collusion; while I have worked with Chris on the {{listen}} template, I have never discussed this template, or even seen it before this week. "By 'left-brainer' techies who clearly don't think art has significant value." sounds like a fairly overt personal attack on me. "It also looks like a knee-jerk reaction... failure to investigate... you were wrong but now can't admit you were wrong..." this is more an assumption of bad faith than a personal attack, but that's just as bad. "Your negative message to Wikipedians is either fight, fight, fight or you will side with bad noms based on bad ideas..." misrepresentation; that's not what I said at all. So no, I stand by my charge, as it seems to be well supported. What I will not do, however, is escalate; please comment on the content and merits of the template, rather than attempt to shoot the messenger. Happy-melon 13:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I have amended my initial statement to be more balanced." I looked for this in the diffs – did I somehow miss it or did you forget to re-edit?

"'~~Your negative message to Wikipedians~~'" ... "Misrepresentation; that's not what I said at all" I didn't claim you said/wrote that. Messages (for example in politics) are regularly delivered without overt statements. But ok, it's my interpretation as to how you came across, you claim that's not a fair representation, so I'll strike it.

"'failure to investigate'" ... "assumption of bad faith" Got a short memory? Happy-melon (18:07) wrote: "I confess I removed [template on A-O] before I investigated the template further." Q.E.D.

"'follow-up attack'" ... "implies collusion" That's only your notion. It's not so-defined by the dictionary: (COED "follow-up": "2 a work that follows or builds on an earlier work."). "Follow-up" is what you did, irrespective of whether you colluded. (WP:BEANS, now you've got me wondering...)

"' 'left-brainer' techies'" ... "fairly overt personal attack" It's not an attack, it's a description of a significant problem resulting from a lack of esthetic (music-art) and esthetic-production education. If you don't follow brain research, I can update you.

"'I stand by my charge'" I'm not impressed. Your misanalysis of 3-1/2 out of 4 charges inclusively exposes your inadequate knowledge of the #1 Wikipedia behavior policy: WP:NPA. However, in my experience, too many admins and most editors don't fully or correctly understand WP:NPA. It's a failing of the system that they think, 'I don't like being criticized, that's a personal feeling, so criticism must be a personal attack'. Well, no. One just has to live with and hopefully learn from, civilly-stated, reason-based criticism, including tough criticism of questionable actions and other problematic behaviors.

Ok, that disposes of the personal attack charges. I see a hyperbolic incivility charge left over from the PA house of cards. You want to just strike that, or do I also have to educate you on WP:CIV before we get to work on the content issues? Milo 12:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1]: I admit I did forget to make this amendment until I reread the discussion to answer your comment of 12:40 28/12; but it was made well before your most recent post.

I've said before that I have no intention of escalating a CIV/NPA dispute, I stand by that assertion. In my opinion, you have made a bad-faith personal attack, which I intend to disregard and move on from. You consider that assertion to itself be a personal attack; I suggest, therefore, that you disregard and move on from it in the same fashion. TfD is not the place for such discussions of user conduct (there are few places that are); we are here to discuss the merits of this template. I am interested only in perpetuating that discussion. Happy‑melon 12:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←"I have no intention of escalating a CIV/NPA dispute" Of course not: you have no case – because you didn't understand CIV/NPA policies until you finally encountered someone (me) who did know them well.
"In my opinion, you have made a bad-faith personal attack" Even worse: now you are refusing to learn from your mistakes. Ordinarily I'd let it slide, but to protect other editors from your future ill-considered accusations, you have to be held to a higher standard. Therefore, I'm now charging you with tendentious debating: A WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT refusal to take logical points – because of what I'm sensing as your onset case of 'higher-uppity'. The recent election suggests that the community is in no mood for more of it. I'm considering posting a permalink to this unacceptable dialog at your so-far-good permanent record. I don't want to do that, so I strongly suggest that you take the points, cease the button-pushing, and fold while you still can.
Happy‑melon (12:16): "Why is a title necessary for videos when it is not considered necessary for images or other media?" That's the wrong question. The correct question is Why prevent editors from using optional titles on videos by deleting the optional-title video template? The bad general answer serves to inclusively promote anti-art control-freakery under the usual cryptofascist colors of technical efficiency, like "extra hassle".
Now I know you mean well and don't consciously intend to be a fellow traveler of trivial anti-art fascism (see Hannah Arendt on banality), but by analogy Jello Biafra has long warned of the stepwise approach to martial law – steps so small that few notice the danger. The only way to stop creeping fascism (anti-art or any other kind), is for courageous individuals with a liberal arts education to identify trivial fascist steps and publicly call out "Halt!" (see Martin Niemoller).
For benefit of your "right-brain" art education in page layout, using a video title, rather than just a caption, is analogous to capitalizing a proper noun. As already discussed in the links I provided in my first post, trivial videos like animated pistons may not have a proper name and may not look page-layout balanced with an above-frame title that overemphasizes the importance of a simple illustration. But famous feature movies always have marquees available to place in an above-frame title parameter. Even well-known informal films (Zapruder film) and informal videos (Buzz Aldrin steps onto the Moon) without formal names may also need above-frame formal titles because of their importance or notoriety (Rodney King video).
In particular, theater marquees classically generated millions of dollars in the movie industry, with acting careers that rose and fell over positioning on them (see Top Billing). As a result marquees are a traditional art form that has successively influenced many forms of visual media culture, including web page design.
But in general, why are multiple font sizes needed, since governments can function with just typewriter white pages? Why not lay out Wikipedia pages in web white-paper style like Craig's list?
The good general answer is that art has intrinsic social value. Art and music promote human happiness and procreation – and ironically – promote the sciences and technology which allow anti-art techies to exist. "Left-brainers" lacking an esthetic education are typically against providing resources for art and music. Since art has intrinsic value, even well-intended anti-art steps should be intrinsically opposed. Milo 04:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now we have an invocation of Godwin's Law: "As a discussion progresses, the probability of a comparison involving the Nazis approaches unity". And all wrapped up in another bundle of personal attacks, ranging from "ill-considered accusations" to an "onset case of 'higher-uppity'" to an "anti-art techie... [a] "Left-brainer" lacking an esthetic education...". I'm also appalled by this post to WT:WikiProject Media and somewhat so by this to User talk:Raul654, both of which contain similar offensive threads.

It is interesting that, despite claiming to have a significantly superior knowledge of the No personal attacks and Civility policies than me, your posts above demonstrate a rather patchy awareness. You are aware, for instance, that NPA explicitly declares that "stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack."?? That "editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others when it is reasonable to do so"? That "the appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content..."? Once again, if you wish to take this further, you are looking for WP:AN if you believe abuse of admin tools is involved, and WP:AN/I or WP:RFC/U otherwise.

I can extract very little from your extensive discourse on laterialisation, crypto-fascism and martial law; I would appreciate it if you could clarify without reference to such tangential (if not entirely irrelevant) topics. None of the three links provided in your first post provide any further insight. The fact that established 'titles' or marquees exist for many video files offers no insight at all into why those titles should be included in wikipedia articles, while equally well-titled works of art and music have no such distinction. Why would it be necessary to title Buzz Aldrin's touchdown but not any of the historic images in Painting? Why is including the title of the media in the caption sufficient for images but not adequate for videos? Regardless of what marquee titles have done for the movie industry, they certainly aren't going to create millions of dollars of revenue for wikimedia. Except in articles directly evaluating the history and significance of such titles, their status as a "traditional art form" is entirely irrelevant: we are writing an encyclopedia, not a fine art portfolio. The only "intrinsic value" to that encyclopedia that these marquees can provide is if they increase the professionalism and quality of appearance of the articles they appear in. And, "Left-brainer lacking an esthetic education..." that I allegedly am, I have seen no evidence that this is the case. More relevantly, the complete lack of interest in using this template for any of the now over 2,000 video files in use on wikimedia is evidence that the perceived advantages do not outweigh the hassle of using an unnecessary wrapper template. It is not a question of "political capital"; there is no such concept on wikipedia. If the template was useful, it would be in use, it's as simple as that. If the marquee title improved the quality of the articles they were added to, there would have been no "tussle"; their reinstatement would have been uncontroversial. The fact that that was perceived not to be the case is evidence that this template is of questionable if even plausible utility. Happy‑melon 12:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritarian fascism with a small "f", is a much-debated subject fit for a disciplined discussion among intellectual peers, concerning its application to politics, workplace supervision, art, and even parenting. But confusing fascism with genocide is uneducated at best and offensive at worst – this is one nontrivial reason that Godwin's Law is observed by the online intellectual community.

I gave you initial benefit of doubt on having a liberal arts education adequate for this discussion. But when you read Crypto-fascism#Origins, you failed to comprehend and avoid the same mistake Gore Vidal had to correct. I'm disappointed, but do keep working at it.

You have stepped over the line by writing the n-word, so this dialog must conclude leaving you to ponder what you otherwise might have learned. You have violated Godwin's law with the debate consequences that implies: in case of doubt as to which of us is correct, your positions are to be presumed wrong. Milo 08:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts of this comment are to be interpreted as arguments in favour of keeping the template? Happy‑melon 11:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This template does not include anything that could not be equally accomplished by the caption field of an embedded image code. I think that the length of the video is something that should be included but this template is not needed for that. Here is an example of the same video embedded User:Jorfer/Sandbox4. The embedded Buzz Aldwin works in my Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer browsers. As for the ad hominem argument against the nomination; I have to point out that only Milo is in violation of WP:NPA. Happy is not saying anything about Milo when he/she said what Milo did, while Milo is saying something about Happy when he/she accuses him/her of being a "left-brainer" techie.--Jorfer (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The raw image tag has no marquee for feature movie clips.

"accuses him/her of being a "left-brainer"" "Left-brainer" is not an accusation – look it up. Milo 12:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what he said; the implication as best I can deduce was that the function of the |title= field in {{video}} is unnecessary given the caption available below. Why is a title necessary for videos when it is not considered necessary for images or other media? Happy‑melon 12:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are basing the assessment seemingly just on his attempt to get rid of the template, it is an accusation. You don't know him personally. He may be an artistic type who just feels this template is not needed. You do not know enough about him to make a fair assessment. On the marquee, yes that is a difference, but the same function (alerting the reader as to what the video is about) is accomplished through the caption. I just changed the sandbox to show what could be done for the title using the caption of an embedded image instead.--Jorfer (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of the actual merits of the deletion argument and keep argument, this discussion is kinda... wacky. Milo, I think you need to calm down and stop the rhetoric. An argument to delete a template should never be met with the assumption of bad faith; not only is it an escalating behavior that inhibits a constructive debate, but it's not necessary logical in and of itself. Diatribes discussing the shortcomings of the nominator are completely irrelevant to a deletion discussion, wether accurate or not. I must admit, you have a way with words; debating you would be interesting, if not necessarily productive.
Let's simplify things: the "left-brain" comment was insulting, and I don't see how you could argue that it was anything less vindictive any more than I could call you a "moron" and not be guilty of the same. Accurate or not, it's not acceptable Wikipedia behavior. bahamut0013^words _deeds 01:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"you have a way with words" Thanks for the fraction of compliment - I'll accept what I can get :)

"assumption of bad faith" But I didn't. In Milo (04:32) I wrote "... I know you mean well..."

"shortcomings of the nominator..." If by that, you mean the shortcomings of the nominator's actions, which if truely described, are commentable without being PAs.

"...are completely irrelevant to a deletion discussion" The consensus was otherwise in the first nomination Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_21. If it was relevant in the first, it's certainly open for discussion in the second nomination.

"left-brain" comment was insulting" No. "Left-brainer" is a popularization of a scientific description of Lateralization_of_brain_function, meaning approximately, a person who engages in activities mostly located in the left brain hemisphere. "Left-brainers" (and for that matter "right-brainers") are presumed to perform their respective hemispheric function tasks adequately to excellently. One cannot logically describe a term for adequate to excellent performance as an insult.

"this discussion is kinda... Wacky" The connection is not difficult to understand, though schools, having necessary fascist elements for compulsory education, tend to stereotype the issue as an Italian political leader who made trains run on time.

The world's first nuclear war (WWII) was fought inclusively to stop fascism (genocide is a separate problem which is fairly well under control). Like bacteria, fascism constantly regrows at the roots of a technically efficient hierarchical society, especially one that is computer networked. It's generally cheaper to deny human choice than to expand it. Many intellectuals consider that art is typically the first victim, and is therefore the coal mine canary to be watched for recrudescent fascism.

At the detail level we are debating whether this particular template deletion action is so unnecessarily controlling and art-choice-denying as to constitute a fascist step worth opposing. I concluded that it is.

But even if you don't, you have been educated that somewhere, someday, there is some threshold fascist step by your boss or government that you might consider necessary to oppose. See Martin Niemoller's poem First they came..., an eternal warning about timely opposition to stepwise fascism. Milo 04:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts of this comment are to be interpreted as arguments in favour of keeping the template? Happy‑melon 11:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which was my origional point to begin with. An eight paragraph response seems to illustrate that quite nicely. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See paragraph eight (of nine by my count of colon prefixes). My closing template retention argument is there and it's specific, but neither of you read what I wrote with adequate attention and comprehension. Being aware of such attention deficits by inexperienced debaters, I even assisted in overcoming them by including an italicized emphasis, and making it findable with an upward page search for "template".

"An eight paragraph response" This bad nomination was supported by a metaphorical landscape littered with trash arguments, and now you're hinting that I shouldn't have disposed of the trash? I respectfully disagree.

As for the nine paragraphs, one was social, four addressed misunderstandings by two debaters, and only four addressed my holistic position opposing this TfD as being trivially anti-art fascist. Considering how holistically complex and undertaught is fascism, explaining it in four paragraphs is an eloquent condensation. Milo 20:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you've taken it as your personal mission to refute every nitpicking detail of this discussion hints that your participation in this discussion is not particuarly constructive. I really haven't the time or inclination to try to convince you that your own arrogance in this topic is uncivil (i.e. veiling an insult as an objective fact), nor does it really compell any editor to attempt a meaningful discussion: any such constructive comments are picked apart in a diatribe that smacks of POV pushing and an elitist attitude. You might or might not be aware that your choice of words lends to the impression you consider every other editor in this discussion to be beneath you in some way; I suspect that you don't really care. It is not your job to "take out the trash", and implying that the worlds of another person are trash simply because you disagree is proof of my point. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"attitude" Having lost a debate on facts and logic, it's bad form to distract with a hoary attitude charge. Full circle – the nominator never had a valid TfD case, so he launched personal charges which distracted from his weak and illogical arguments intended to arbitrarily prevent editors from choosing a useful marquee-art video template.

"worlds of another person are trash" Misrepresentation. I said arguments were trash (e.g., anti-art cramming of a feature movie marquee into a caption). To dispose of invalid arguments is metaphorically to "take out the trash"; so yes, that's my job.

"personal mission" This is normal for a discussion which includes personal charges to be refuted (not initially yours).

"I suspect that you don't really care." Now, now, be nice. I've made an effort to be nice to you. How many other editors have bothered to read all of your approaching 400 userboxes? I read them a few days ago, and we seem to have in common perhaps a third to a half of them. I like the Trekie/Trekker integration concept, and note that I use unquoted elipses sparingly for long pauses or dramatic takes, like 'It was a dark and stormy night...' and 'Say what...?'

"every nitpicking detail" (shrug) That's the way online text debate works.

"constructive comments are picked apart" That's yet again the way debate works. You may initially think you're constructively correct, but when you're wrong on facts or logic, other good debaters are going to identify your errors.

"veiling an insult as an objective fact" I proved it was not an insult. I could explain the English rhetorical structure that gives you that misleading feeling, but I think that you aren't interested since you seem to infer my educational attitude as "elitist".

"beneath you in some way" I could also deconstruct that rhetoric, but by doing so, I would further demonstrate that I'm an educated "elitist". Gee, you've got me boxed in, so I guess you are just too smart for me.

←Since you think attitudes are relevant here, I respectfully suggest that you either improve your attitude toward debate or stop debating. Don't confuse intellect with machismo. Debate losers willing to learn can improve their debating skills. More importantly, debate improves one's ability at critical thinking. This has great life-choices value for seeing through illogic and propaganda broadcast by demagogues, politicians, and economic predators. Milo 21:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came back with the intent to remove my comments and withdraw from the discussion, but then I notice you had already replied. Yet again you've proven that your objective here is not building consensus regarding the template, but simply battling anyone who dares to stand before you. I regret that you are reading my words only to prepare your next argument, rather than actually reading and considering what I and others have to say. In your mind, you've already been proven right, and nothing that anyone can say will convince you otherwise. This isn't suposed to be a debate, with opponents trying to vie over each other; this is supposed to be a cooperative, consensus-building endeavour. You're not building consensus, you are trying to slam-dunk others.

I believe I've wasted enough time on this. I'm afraid that you've drawn me into becomeing guilty of the very thing that drew me into this discussion in the first place: not constructively discussing the template or its impending deletion. I'm sure you'll take this as some sort of victory and conform in your own mind that you've "won" and proven that you have triumphed over the weak-minded little people. So be it! Sooner or later, you will find Wikipedia is not competitive. You can write what I'm sure will be a lengthy response, but it won't be read by myself; I refuse to get drawn in further. Good day. bahamut0013^words _deeds 03:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to respect your withdraw, I'll limit to brief comments four of your parting shots attempting to paintball me as an undeserving winner – rather than my prevailing in debate due to righteous alignment with principle.

"This isn't suposed to be a debate..." Editors do in fact debate. I think you mean that Wikipedia debates should prescriptively be not contentious. In descriptive fact, some are and some aren't, along a cooperative-competitive continuum of degrees.

"nothing that anyone can say" Not factual. If you had read the whole debate more carefully, you would see that HM convinced me that I should, and I did strike one of my remarks.[2]

"reading and considering what I and others have to say" I've twice noted my own similar frustrations. I'd say we're just not going to get as much consideration and agreement as we think our respective debate positions deserve.

"you've drawn me into" So you blame me for your loss of control? Well, I'll just pass-on that drawn-me-into-it blame, to this stir-pot bad nomination where it properly rests. It wasted everyone's time.

In the original TfD nomination of 2008 March 21, the nominator deleted all of the instances of the template and then TfD'd it as "no longer used on articlespace". One reason why this is such bad-faith, is that no one who might be interested in using the template sees a TfD message above it that it is being considered for deletion. HM correctly described that nom's act as " ...underhanded and entirely inappropriate."[3] Aside from HM's hasty and flawed use-analysis of Template:Video's intrinsic value – he deleted an active article use without even noticing that it has a marquee feature – is HM's problem that he admitted in his nomination post: he deleted all template instances and then TfD'd it - hypocritically performing the same act as the underhanded 2008 March 21 nom. Milo 02:41, 5 January 2009 (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:ConfirmationImageOTRS 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Keep, possibly merge or redirect, but certainly no consensus to delete. Happy‑melon 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{permissionOTRS}} Stifle (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently these two templates are similar but not clearly indentical/redundant.[4][5]. {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}} has an additional parameter called "license" to specify whether the copyright holder releases an image under the GFDL, public domain, or some other free licence. Thus amerge would have to be discussed instead of a straight deletion and replacement. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ConfirmationImage also has a parameter for "source". -- Avi (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 12:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 12:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but deprecate: Keep all current templates (could be replaced i guess) but for future use replace with a single template in a single template location (maybe template:OTRS) and create template that can replace both, for example i had some spare time so i created an example of what i mean User:Peachey88/Sandbox/012 (coding side) and User:Peachey88/Sandbox/013 (example side with a lot of different output methods to show what i mean) [of course these are examples and no way perfect]. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 14:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't someone from OTRS tell us how these templates are used differently, and why can't {{permissionOTRS}} be merged into {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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.