Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 21

< March 20	March 22 >

March 21[edit]

Template:HurricaneWarning[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 debate was Pretty much defines no consensus Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's been sent down to Tfd several times already, but still, this is still a clear violation of WP:NDA, and is currently orphaned. {{Currentdisaster}} does this job better and isn't so "in your face" about it.

p.s. As a request, could we please also ignore WP:IAR in this discussion (since it technically "is" a rule too)?. ViperSnake151 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete consistent with my (way too wordy) nomination at the first TfD and inasmuch as {{Currentdisaster}} addresses the defect in the instant template that has been noted on the template talk page and that I gave a go at addressing a while ago, viz., that it instructs readers (in, it's probably fair to say, a patronizing fashion) to undertake to consult local authorities; we're not here, of course, to tell people what to do, and the template need, at most, say that information on Wikipedia may not be current (and, one would gather, perhaps ought not to be relied upon), as well {{Currentdisaster}} does. Joe 03:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per past discussions re: liability. It is currently orphaned, but it isn't orphaned when there are active threats. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{Currentdisaster}} serves the purpose. We're not here to tell people to seek help. Presumably if there was a disaster that could affect people, the News and Weather broadcasts will be more effective than a Wikipedia article. PeterSymonds | talk 11:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Yes, I know the WP alphabet soup would say its a bad idea. No, I don't care. Far as I'm concerned, preserving lives is a few billion times more important than complying with Wikipedia polices. Sorry if that reasoning doesn't comply with the request that I "ignore IAR", but c'est la vie.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't {{Currentdisaster}} address the "preserving lives" concern adequately? It too notes that information in the article might not be current or accurate, but it doesn't go so far as to offer suggestions to the reader as to what sources they might want to consult; since we're not here, after all, to offer people advice about how to stay safe, oughtn't the only purpose of an applicable template, if it is to exist, to be to indicate that the article ought not to be relied upon in the determination of what actions a reader in an affected area might take? Joe 23:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was going to see about adding that secondary suggestion for the disaster template (of adding the exclamation triangle to the current event icon). ViperSnake151 23:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I honestly don't think that {{Currentdisaster}} does the job adequately. To be honest, my biggest concern isn't so much about advising anything (I'm not entirely convinced that's a bad thing, but I can see the logic against it) is that it's rather un-eye catching. Its far too easy for someone to ignore. Hurricane warning has the exclamation point instead of the little current events globe, it says "attention" in bold, capital letters, its larger...it draws the eye far more than the alternatives, in my opinion.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Any encyclopedic role that this template could have is filled by {{Currentdisaster}}; anything beyond that is covered by Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. As far as content disclaimers are concerned, the policy is unambiguous: no disclaimers in articles. If we continue down this path of giving advice regarding emergency situations, where should it stop? How about travel disclaimers advising people to seek information from their government regarding the safety of travel to countries like Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, or Kenya (see 2007–2008 Kenyan crisis)? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service, and we should delete any templates that give the impression that it is a news source to which people should turn. (I realise that this template is intended to do the opposite - to warn people against making decisions based on information in articles; however, giving advice does not diminish dependency and reliance.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a very clear violation of WP:NDA. --Kildor (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When you have an active hurricane and people do a Google search for it, the Wikipedia article on the storm will likely be one of the top hits. People will use Wikipedia for information. Directing them to use official sources for their information is not a bad thing. Also, the template is not being used because it is March. Right now in the world there is two tropical lows and a weak storm well off the coast of Madagascar. --CWY2190^T^C 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main issue is whether we should go so far as to offer advice to readers (if so, how far do we go?) or to simply state the fact that the article may be inaccurate or out-of-date. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with telling people to go and seek official sources Seddon69 (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see several problems. First, the advice applies to "residents of areas under threat", which almost automatically directs readers to check the article to see which areas are listed as being under threat or affected. This information may be inaccurate or obsolete. Second, the advice is not especially informative: it tells readers to "seek information from the respective authorities", but does not specify the identity of these authorities. (Incidentally, given the potential for mistakes and vandalism, we should not try to provide such information.) Third, despite its purpose, the advice makes Wikipedia seem more like a news source, which goes against WP:NOT and might actually make people more dependent on it for updated information. Fourth, the presence of advice on some articles and not on others may create legal liability issues (see WP:NDA and my comment further below). ... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is used by possibly ten's of millions of people or more on finding out information on these storms whether or not its our role to or not and most people wouldn't know where to look about Wikipedia's policy anyway. This template does a very specific job during these storms directing people looking for advice away from the articles to where they should be finding out information. I think that this template does a FAR better job than what the current disasters template is supposed to be. I think these needs some common sense. Seddon69 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:NDA? What about the possible legal liability created by having disclaimers on hurricane articles and not travel warnings on country articles (just an example)? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is no more of a problem liability caused that what already exists. If we want to avoid all liability we should have a disclaimer on every wikipedia article saying that the content contained in the articles cannot be guaranteed not just on current events articles. But that wouldn't be sensible would it. Seddon69 (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a disclaimer on every Wikipedia page, in the form of a link to the Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which states that content in articles may not be accurate or current. The legal liability is created by having additional disclaimers beyond that, and the solution is not to place additional disclaimers on every article, but rather to remove such disclaimers from the few articles on which they appear. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the precedent this sets is really horrible. Wikipedia is not a replacement for the rest of the Internet, or for the real emergency services, and we should seek to ensure that this is made abundantly clear by enforcing policy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt poilicy, it is a guideline and it is wrong for you to state it as being any different. If the template was adjusted so that it complied with the guideline and still kept the advantage that it is bolder, or that the current disaster template be expanded so that it can be used in more specific situations would that perhaps be a better outcome? Seddon69 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also dont forget that this template is being used so that wikipedia is not being used as a replacement for the whole internet or emergency services. Seddon69 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made a suggestion here that will hopefully solve the problem. Seddon69 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NDT is a guideline, not a policy. This template is legitimate for when there are active hurricanes and active articles. It doesn't hurt to reinforce that Wikipedia might not be up to date and that it isn't the most reliable source for current info. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have gone through this several times before, and nothing has changed since the last time the template has been nominated for deletion, so I'll just refer to the point I made in the previous nomination. And Joe, about the point you made in the previous nomination as a reply to my comment: yes, I fundamentally disagree with your statement that deaths would not be an issue. They would be a public relations nightmare for Wikimedia, if nothing else. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have, in fact, rather come around to your way of thinking about the public relations issue, which, inter al., is why I'm not agitating for the removal of the "Though this article is updated frequently, it may not reflect the most current and/or official information about this disaster" language from {{Current disaster}}. I continue to fail to see, though, why that language does not suffice to discourage the reader from relying on Wikipedia as a base upon which to base IRL decisions, and why we must break the "fourth wall", actively (more-or-less self-referentially, in a quasi-imperative form) advising readers to search out local media or governmental sources in order that they might make decisions, contra, if nothing else, WP:NOT. I appreciate that there is a consensus that something beyond our general disclaimer is appropriate, but I can't imagine that the purpose of such a disclaimer should be anything grander than simply the making clear that Wikipedia should not be understood as a reliable, up-to-date source, especially relative to ongoing events. Joe 19:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I did add some new functionality to the Current Disaster template, which supports the adding of the "for all areas" line and a link to the general disclamier (which I hope to turn into a switch too). Try the new example offered by the documentation on it. ViperSnake151 17:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A major hurricane is a specific term and would cause more problems. If you look at the link i have given just above. I have provided a solution to this by suggesting a modification to the Hurricane warning template that is accurate, complies with the guidelines and is bolder. Seddon69 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To all who are paying attention, I've done some other adjustments, such as being able to "tweak" the wording depending on the situation. And yes, placing an adjective in front of the disaster type is now optional. ViperSnake151 18:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of modifying the wording of {{currentdisaster}} to more clearly express the message that people should not depend on the article for up-to-date information. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon69, your proposed change to {{HurricaneWarning}} would make it a lot like {{currentdisaster}} - in that case, why is there a need for two templates? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iv been working with ViperSnake151 on the current disasters template. Until its finalized and can get ratified by other natural disasters wikiprojects i feel its better to have the option of a stable template till we can fully agree on this template. Seddon69 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - People do come to Wikipedia for current information, which they could get from this template. Soxred93 | talk bot 02:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not understand why there is a need for three different templates for almost the same thing: {{HurricaneWarning}}, {{Current disaster}} and {{StormWatch}}. What does "HurricaneWarning" tell that is not told by "Current disaster"? The proposed change above makes it almost identical to "Current disaster" in which case it is superfluous. And if kept as is, the message is a violation of WP:NDA and should be removed. The Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer is pretty clear: "ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS OR ILLEGAL". Also, you never see those warning tags on other websites reporting about disasters. CNN articles do not have a big disclamer tag at the top advising people to seek information from authorities. --Kildor (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response the current disaster one has been updated by Viper and from input by me. However i feel that this template needs to be discussed not just by those in the TfD and WP:TROP but from other natural disaster projects as well. I don't want to be using a template that may change. I would rather that we wait and temporarily change our templates for the current disasters one to be finalised and speedy these templates once we can agree on a wikipedia wide template. Seddon69 (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't use {{current}}? It has all the information and customization you need. BTW - any template may change, even {{HurricaneWarning}}. So if you more or less have decided to use {{current disaster}}, there is no reason not to delete {{HurricaneWarning}} now. --Kildor (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Anyone looking for current and updated news in an encyclopedia is looking in the wrong place (even if this encyclopedia does have *some* updated news). Nabla (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly violates the 'no disclaimers' policy, and redundant to {{Current disaster}} anyway. Terraxos (talk) 19:47, 30 March 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:NPBPL franchise and postseason[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 debate was Delete, it is now going to qualify for WP:CSD#T3 anyway. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Template:Infobox baseball team. Delete and replace with that template — AW (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redundant template. PeterSymonds | talk 12:04, 23 March 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 debate was withdrawn. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn, template rewritten to address all issues. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crufty, semi-broken frame which is no longer used on articlespace. Videos can use image tags directly, and this template just provides a wrapper which looks ugly and has float issues. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep due to Template:Video removals by the nom, preventing notice of impending template loss to involved article editors. Cunningham/thumperward (12:33): "no longer used on articlespace" Well, now that would be because you made an unconcensed series of article edits to remove them from article space - which prevents a reasonable stakeholders' discussion. Another issue is that the notice to the affected template spaces seems to be technically defective, in that it lists the name of the article where the template is used, rather than a link to this deletion discussion. I had a lot of trouble finding it. [Fixed bad nom code.] The template to be deleted notice also does not show up at the top of the article, and may not be noticed by regular editors. After affected editors are reasonably notified this deletion, nom can be reconsidered on the technical merits.

...and Keep Template:Video on the technical merits. Still images are not the same as video, and video frames should display playback information All browsing computers can display still images. Many but not all computers can display commercial video formats like Windows Media, Realplayer, and Quicktime, somewhat depending on whether they have bandwidth greater than dialup. Probably many computers cannot display Wikipedia's public domain ogg/Theora format because they either lack bandwidth on dialup, or they don't have the necessary ogg/Theora player components. My computer says it can't get them at all from the offered ogg/Theora download link. Users need to be notified of what they are facing if they try to play an ogg/Theora video, and that means using the video template with the details. Ok, so the template needs editing to improve the float positioning. Other than that, its a plain frame with a marquee and I see nothing ugly about it. That seems to a be mere WP:IDon'tLikeIt statement of fashion slavery. Movies traditionally have marquees, but if that's somehow a problem, the template can be edited to make the marquee optional. Milo 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- As I pointed out in the nom, the template is nothing but a wrapper around an image tag currently anyway. No videos which fail to work with a plain image tag work with the template. And the few templates that it was used on have all been converted successfully. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a matter of hideously underhanded style of nomination. Don't know any of you, but I've seen others do this before and it is bad faith. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom mass removed 24 by my count. I've put notices on most of the affected talk pages, which the nom was instructed to do and didn't. Then the nom had the nerve to revert me and claim I couldn't put any video templates back because the template was up for deletion. Milo 04:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a useful template, especially the included link to Wikipedia:Media help that is directly relevant. On a policy basis, the nomination does not specify a valid deletion criteria: "no longer used on articlespace" does not apply since the nominator deleted pre-existing uses that were in place; "looks ugly" is a personal opinion; and "has float issues" is a technical detail that can easily be fixed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a good template as it saves space and looks neater, than user putting a line of pics trying to make a "storyboard like" effect. Plus videos are just better than pics, WW2 articles for instance. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking section for the sake of separating out a reply. I don't think people have actually looked into what this template does. All it does is wrap a table around an image tag. compare the following two videos - have a look if you can identify any particular need to use the template:

{{video|
  filename      = Annie Oakley shooting glass balls, 1894.ogv |
  title         = Annie Oakley shooting glass balls, 1894 |
  description   = Video clip of Annie Oakley exhibition shooting with a rifle (2.71 [[Megabyte|MB]], [[ogg]]/[[Theora]] format). |
  format        = [[Theora]]
}}

Video clip of Annie Oakley exhibition shooting with a rifle (2.71 MB, ogg/Theora format).

A title (which can adequately be covered in the caption) and a help button. That's all. In fact, the image tag version has additional flexibility in that it can accept a size parameter, can be a thumbnail or frame, can have its alignment changed, can be used in galleries, etc etc.

All the functionality described here:

Still images are not the same as video, and video frames should display playback information All browsing computers can display still images. Many but not all computers can display commercial video formats like Windows Media, Realplayer, and Quicktime, somewhat depending on whether they have bandwidth greater than dialup. Probably many computers cannot display Wikipedia's public domain ogg/Theora format because they either lack bandwidth on dialup, or they don't have the necessary ogg/Theora player components. My computer says it can't get them at all from the offered ogg/Theora download link. Users need to be notified of what they are facing if they try to play an ogg/Theora video, and that means using the video template with the details

Is covered by the image tag, not the template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the template to display the "format" parameter that was not displaying previously. I also added a "duration" parameter, and updated the documentation. The video display now looks like this:

{{video|
  filename      = Annie Oakley shooting glass balls, 1894.ogv |
  title         = Annie Oakley shooting glass balls, 1894 |
  description   = Video clip of Annie Oakley exhibition shooting with a rifle|
  filesize =2.71 [[Megabyte|MB]]|
  format        = [[ogg]]/[[Theora]]|
  duration    = 24 sec
}}

The display can be further improved, but this provides more useful information than an image tag. Duration & filesize are useful in deciding whether to watch the video or not. The template also features a clear title above the video display. Seems quite useful to me, I don't understand why this is even listed for deletion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed for deletion because none of the given reasons are sufficient to add additional confusion to how to add a video to an article. The image tag is perfectly sufficient for most purposes. If duration, file size etc. are particularly important to a given clip they can be included in the caption. One of the reasons video on the Web was such a hassle prior to YouTube and similar sites was that users had to learn additional syntax and keep whole separate concepts in their heads for videos when really they're no different from images with play buttons. Not one of the articles I recently fixed up to go without said template is negatively impacted by its removal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Your reasons appear to be personal opinions and not based in any Wikipedia policy, so are not compelling arguments for deletion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two out of the four criteria for deletion were satisfied:

The template is not helpful or noteworthy: It adds negligible value above an image tag, and loses some functionality built into the image tag.
The template is redundant to another better-designed template: Again, it's no better than an image tag usually, and worse because one can't float it or specify the size.

My personal opinion here is based on considerable experience building, editing and using templates. I wouldn't be nominating it if I thought it were a good template, and I had a go at editing it into a better template before I concluded that it was useless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you for explaining. I respect your experience with templates which I'm sure is more extensive than mine.

However, I respectfully disagree with your two points. The template is helpful in that it provides a title above the video, and encourages the addition of filesize, format and duration info. The issue about not being able to float it or change the size can be fixed in the template code, or, if someone doesn't want to use the template, they can choose to use a direct tag. That's the same with many optional templates, for example the citation templates impose formats on footnotes but are not required. Some users like the way they work, and others prefer to use piped external links or other methods. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with the references tag is that it is not obviously deficient in several ways comparing to the less sophisticated mechanism. In this case, for the sake of adding some minor details (a title and some metadata about the format) which could easily be stored in the caption, a considerable degree of flexibility in the size and placement are lost - details which would require considerable extra complexity in the template, and increase its already significant overhead conceptually comparing to the already-familiar image tag. The two are not equivalent, and the template is so seldom-used (less than thirty pages in articlespace after nearly three years of existence) that pulling it now would prevent users from picking up a habit of using a bulky template where an image tag suffices. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This whole Template:Video deletionist exercise analogizes to the discovery that, hey look, one can file papers in file drawers without using file folders. Yes, occasionally people do that when they don't have any folders left, or when something is too big to fit in a standard folder, but overall paper filing is easier when folders are used most of the time.

Cunningham/Thumperward (16:39): "...the template is so seldom-used (less than thirty pages in articlespace after nearly three years of existence)"

Yes, of course there isn't much use yet. Video is still fairly new at Wikipedia; as of 2006 there were only about 200 video files. Some of the reasons are described at m:Talk:Video policy.

Cunningham/Thumperward (12:33): "this template just provides a wrapper"

That's what it's supposed to do. The simplest model of all layered software is a kernel surrounded by a shell (i.e, a "wrapper"). Using this analogy the image tag is the kernel, and the template is the shell. Kernels have control functions that are harder to use, but more flexible. Shells have fewer control functions which are less flexible, but they are easier to use, so more people having fewer technical skills can use them.

Cunningham/Thumperward (13:40): "image tag version has additional flexibility in that it can accept a size parameter, can be a thumbnail or frame"

Yes, of course. Wikipedia:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files#Video_usage explains how to use either the video template, or the image tag if a thumbnail is needed.

And what's next on the slippery slope? The Image tag will handle audio files too. If the Template:Video gets deleted, is Template:Listen next? When Wikipedia video file use gets really heavy, as YouTube foreshadows that it will, I'm probably not the only editor that wants videos and audios to be easily noticeable among the still images like those at edit view of Apollo 11 section 8.

This whole line of thought has the smell of the BSD-CLI vs Linux graphics interface feud. One isn't better than the other; each has it's advantages. Trying to force the exclusive use of one or the other may be well-intended, but without a compelling reason to do so, it's also fascist.

Cunningham/Thumperward (13:40): "A title (which can adequately be covered in the caption) ... "

Conflating the artistic function of marquee title with that of a caption, is in my opinion, philistine. There are videos so trivial, say, an animated GIF of a steam piston, that a title might be unnecessary or distracting from the point illustrated – in which case, use of the image tag "kernel" is available to avoid a visible video title bar.

The same goes for shrinking the size of a video display frame. Shrinking a video should be done only when the simplicity of the illustrated detail will tolerate it. Compared to a still image, motion causes increased loss of perceived detail, so most videos should be framed larger than the equivalent still.

Marginalizing the ~#11th historic commercial movie "Little Sure Shot" of the "Wild West" (a.k.a., Annie Oakley shooting glass balls, 1894.ogv), by putting it in the same trivial unmarqeed frame as an animated piston – that is an editorial offense against art, history, and therefore the undue weight provision of NPOV.

The "Little Sure Shot..." Movie details are not so easy to see, so that movie should be formatted for viewing at the default largest size – especially since, if it's too small, the average user has no easy way or knowledge of how to enlarge it.

Cunningham/Thumperward (22:37) "Not one of the articles I recently fixed up to go without said template is negatively impacted by its removal."

The sad part is that you don't even know what were your negative impacts. Your editorial offenses got even worse than marginalizing the first female superstar movie.

You demarqeed, shrank, and therefore trivialized, the second most important movie, of the single most important event in the secular history of the human species: Buzz Aldrin steps onto the Moon

Was:

Original Apollo 11 oldid=199533308#Lunar surface operations wikicode:

{{video|filename=A11v 1094228.ogg|title=Buzz Aldrin steps onto the Moon|description=|format=[[Ogg]]}}

Now: Cunningham/Thumperward's edit at Apollo 11 oldid=199669280#Lunar surface operations wikicode:

[[image:A11v 1094228.ogg|thumb|Buzz Aldrin steps onto the Moon]])

Cunningham/Thumperward (13:40): "... That's all."

In some or many cases "that's all" because editors didn't finish filling out the template file information form when they should have, or lacking info left it to others; for example, the Buzz Aldrin video template above.

I concur with Jack-A-Roe (18:14): "Duration & filesize are useful in deciding whether to watch the video or not."

I for one, want to know what's behind that button before I click it.

On dialup, a video file may take hours to download. Even if one has broadband, one may be short on drive space. Probably in most cases, the average Wikipedia user can't watch (or listen to) the video for lack of ogg/Theora/Vorbis components, and should be forewarned.

Cunningham/Thumperward (13:40): "... and a help button. ..."

As though the help button means nothing??

Clicking the Template:Video Help button inclusively leads to this statement (referring to ogg): "... Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X computers do not support these formats by default, and require additional software to play them..."[1]

In 2005, another editor removed a link to the same help page with the following responses:

"I restored the link to user help. Here is the rationale: Many Wikipedia articles contain sound files. They are labeled with a link to Ogg. The Ogg Vorbis format continues to be obscure, and most people's computers are not set up to play these files. Computer-savvy people will immediately know what to do; they will find and download a player that can handle Ogg files. However, many Wikipedia readers are not computer-savvy. They deserve to be given help, immediately and clearly. Otherwise they will simply give up. This is why the Ogg article needs a link, prominently located, to the help file. Thank you for your understanding. Opus33 17:04, 6 Mar 2005" • "A link to a Wikipedia: or Help: page next to each sound would actually be more helpful, in that it would be more direct; and if the link was added using a template, it would be a lesser breach of the avoid self-references policy. - IMSoP 19:49, 6 Mar 2005"

So that is a reason that there is a help button, and also the reason for a template which has a self-contained help button. Wikipedia consensus has been here before, and it remains: keep and increase user-friendly and helpful templates.

Cunningham/Thumperward (16:39): "...increase its already significant overhead..." :

"Generally, you should not worry much about little things like templates and "server load" at a policy level." (Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance#Some quotes from other developers in other contexts)

IMHO, what's happening here is that you are thinking like a programmer instead of like an editor, which typically means thinking in black or white binary terms instead of the nuanced colors and shades of thought continuums. Unlike stereotype programmers, stereotype editors are comfortable with and prefer many choices, as do encyclopedia users when considered as a spectrum.

If you really insist on thinking like a programmer, please go do Mediawiki development work.

However, if you are willing to learn editorial flexibility that you analogously value in the image tag, as well as teaching-learning methods to help those encyclopedia users with modest abilities, then what the editors here are communicating to you about Template:Video is an opportunity to advance your own liberal arts education. Milo 10:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the allegation that I'm being "fascist" (or "philistine") slip. Points I can pick from that response:

WP:PERF applies to computational compexity. I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing notional complexity, whereby there is more than one way to do something and it's unclear which to choose. We shouldn't introduce unnecessary notional complexity, which is why we delete or merge overlapping templates.
You've suggested that Ogg Vorbis is not playable by default on a majority, or at least a notable, amount of viewing computers through the image tag. This isn't true; the default player is Cortado, which is Java-based, and the majority of readers have an installed and functional JRE. They may wish to know more about the format, but it's not critical to the viewing experience of a notable amount of readers.

I'm going to have another shot at editing the template to eliminate the major complaints I have, however. If I can do that, I'll drop the nom. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten video template[edit]

Test version up here which preserves everything addressed above except the title marquee, which I still feel is unnecessary. Much thinner wrapper around the image tag. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cunningham/Thumperward (17:15): "the default player is Cortado, which is Java-based, and the majority of readers have an installed and functional JRE"

As do I. I have Java (tested ok), Winamp, Windows Media, and Quicktime, yet ogg still doesn't work for me by default. I assume I could make it work by troubleshooting, but that's not the point.

The bug may not be permanently fixable since the players are constantly contending over filename-extension execution defaults. The Java ogg player is just one more contending player that may or may not work for the average user.

Cunningham/Thumperward (17:15): "shot at editing the template to eliminate the major complaints I have"

Since it's "kernel" wikicode rather than template "shell" wikicode, in this semi-finished template form it's not directly comparable to Template:Video for evaluating end-user ease of use.

I plugged in "Annie Oakley shooting glass balls, 1894.ogv" where "Image-request.png" was, and that displayed ok as a default-sized movie frame. Without the time to analyze the code, I didn't know how to make it float center or left, which may have been one of your original objections. Likewise, some tinkering made the optional parameters appear, but not quite as they should, had I researched the details of exactly what to do.

Cunningham/Thumperward (17:15): "the title marquee, which I still feel is unnecessary"

To my previous point, editors don't think like that. Since use of the bare image tag will eliminate the title marquee in the exceptional cases where it isn't artistically desirable, eliminating it by default in the video template is unacceptable.

A related point is that the aspect ratio of "image-request.png" is portrait rather than landscape. For movies and video it should be landscape, 4x3 minimum. Also, forcing a 4x3 video into a default portrait thumb frame makes it even smaller than the equivalent still image, and so factor-of-2 smaller than it should be to compensate for perceptual loss of detail in motion.[2] As 16x9 video becomes prevalent, that problem gets even worse by factor-of-3.

Again, still images are not the same as video or movies. Laying out a page with video/movies requires a different editing-artistic mindset. Milo 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed User:Thumperward/video so that the marquee is optional. This should now be a drop-in replacement for the existing template, with all options intact. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are still significant problems. I got "float=left" to work (and "float=center" sort of works), but I can't get the "width= " parameter to do anything, using numbers with or without "px".

Despite your concerns about complex code at the base user level, you've written template code for the template coders level that is significantly more arcane than what was there previously. For example, previously it was obvious that three tics (''') made the marqee title bold. Now the source of boldface is a mystery.

There are also new float problems. The marquee title is centered, but the frame under it has shifted to the right, making the title look left-shifted in articles. You can see this problem in the Annie Oakley example above; the image is not centered in the white background rectangle.

It's not obvious that the obvious new float problems are worth whatever unobvious improvements you were seeking in the old float characteristics. What exactly did you gain, if anything, in float ability? Milo 06:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"float=center" doesn't work. I'm using CSS floats, which doesn't allow for this. I'll eventually special-case "float=center" to do the right thing. "Width" only works if "thumb" is present, because by default the video displays in a frame (which doesn't accept a width value). The left-shifting is a bug which can be discussed on the template talk. As for the relative complexity of the code, that's worthy of an {{esoteric}} tag, but it's not an argument to revert to an arguably more readable but demonstrably less flexible / functional version.

The old template simply didn't float properly at all. If stacked with images, it usually ended up breaking out of the column it was floated in and invading the article body. Yes, this could be fixed piecemeal, but far better to have the template behave in a similar way to Wikipedia's other floated templates and have it stack in a predicable manner. Anyway, this is best discussed on the template talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:05, 27 March 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:TOINK[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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These topics have no particular connection other than that they can all be placed in Category:Government of Kazakhstan designated terrorist organizations. Using a navbox for this purpose clutters the articles and implies affiliation where none exists. —dgies^t_c 04:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For major terrorist organizations, maybe, but I don't think the organizations as designated by the Gov. of Kazakhstan is remarkable enough to warrant a separate template. PeterSymonds | talk 12:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and PeterSymonds. Some organisations are designated as terrorist in dozens of countries and having templates for each country would create a tremendous amount of clutter. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:18, 26 March 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:Non-free screenshot[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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, deprecated. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A previous discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_21#Template:Screenshot. Nabla (talk) 14:23, 30 March 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:Non-free image[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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template provides almost no information. Please use one of the more specific tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free instead. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending the modification of Image:Dmitry Rogozin and Ratko Mladić in Sarajevo - January 1996.png, which still uses this template. PeterSymonds | talk 11:52, 23 March 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:Iraqcopyright[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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an image is still copyrighted in Iraq is not a suitable basis for making a fair use claim. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PeterSymonds | talk 11:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template does not claim this is a suitable basis. Anthony (talk) 12:48, 25 March 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.