Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stevertigo (talk | contribs) at 19:25, 12 May 2005 (→[[Template:Pnpov-d]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

This page is for deleting things in the Template namespace, which is used for reusable boilerplate messages and article series boxes. Deletion of these may be appropriate if the template:

  • is not helpful or noteworthy;
  • is redundant with other templates
  • is unused.

For guidelines on acceptable boilerplate messages, see Wikipedia:Template namespace.
For guidelines on acceptable article series boxes, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes.

If you vote, please give a reason how it either does or does not fulfill these criteria. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your vote.

In addition to voting "Keep" or "Delete," a valid vote on this page is "Convert to category". In this case, all pages with the template should be added to an appropriately named category, and then the template should be deleted. You could also vote to Redirect to another template (usually more popular or with a better title). Sometimes an opinion will be to keep the template but fix some perceived problems with it, so some people add "Rewrite" or "Retitle" to their comments. Also, some people will specify Userfy, which means to move to a User's subpage.

Templates listed on this page do not need to be orphans prior to listing, and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing. However, templates must be removed from all pages prior to deletion. Currently, this can only be done manually.

Marking templates to be voted on: Insert the text {{tfd}} to the top of templates you list here. This adds the following message:

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

For clarity, this message should be added inside the box where applicable. When being added to templates which have already been blanked, and are just sitting around as blanks, the message should be added to the template talk page. Again, do not blank templates to list them here - this is just if the template is already blank when you are listing it.

Templates that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised (disputed- see talk). Such templates should be dealt with as soon as possible.

Archived discussions are logged per the instructions at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log, and are located at /Log/Deleted and /Log/Not deleted.

Listings

Please put new listings under today's date at the top of the section.

May 12

Template:Pseudoprotected

This template is not in use. It is also a misnomer since it doesn't have anything to do with protection. Finally, while the idea in principle may be good, I don't see it stopping edit wars in any way (it's tempting for one party to revert to that version, then slap on this template to stop the other party). Bottom line - we have reasonable mechanisms for revert wars and edit conflicts, and this isn't it. Radiant_* 14:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - I have mostly seen this used by people trying to freeze an article on their own version. - SimonP 18:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this seems like a good idea to try to reduce the number of long-term protections. If the querelous abuse it, hit the querelous, not the template. Snowspinner 18:43, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Protecteds, and also Template:Tfds

Barely in use, and redundant with Template:Protected and Template:Tfd respectively. The creator believes in smaller versions of existing templates. That may or may not be a good idea, but it should be discussed (for instance here, or on the village pump) before xe unilaterally forks off new templates. Radiant_* 19:01, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Pnpov-d

Redundant with Template:TotallyDisputed. Creator believes "smaller is better" and made this rather than gain consensus to change the established template. As an aside, the creator reverted my redirect and then protected it, so that's why no TFD notice is on it yet. -- Netoholic @ 02:59, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't think it's a good idea to have multiple, nonstandard versions of the 'official' cleanup templates. For what it's worth, I do think there's somthing to be said for the slimmer format, but a modified template should be discussed at Template talk:TotallyDisputed(I also like the second variant of TotallyDisputed suggested on that page). --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is redundant, and for tricks like 'what links here' it is beneficial to have a single template for such disputes. Also, I think 'totally disputed' is not trivial, so deserves a bright red blinking screen-filling box. Radiant_* 13:43, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant. Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikibureaucracy appears to be strong in this camp. Nuf said. See the Choices entry on WP:TA for more. -SV|t 19:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox pope/dead

This is a holdover from an odd bit of formatting used in Template:Infobox Pope to distinguish between living and dead popes (hiding the death information in living ones). Since this is likely only ever going to be one living pope at any one time, this is unnecessary and we can handle Pope Benedict XVI as an exception. This makes the template easier to implement, and saves a few bits and some processing power. -- Netoholic @ 02:41, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

  • Keep. Templates are more elegant than special-case hacks, and processing power is cheap. Firebug 02:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Snowspinner 02:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless. Radiant_* 09:05, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a useful technique: when editing the infobox, uniformity of the resulting lay-out (apart from the lines about the death) for the current pope and the former ones is maintained. This is not the case if two different infobox templates are used, or if for the current pope no template is used.--Patrick 15:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

Template:Comicbookpub-stub

Stub category contained only four stubs, with no potential to grow. Stubs resorted into Category:Comics Stubs, equivalent category also on WP:CFD - SoM 18:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and NOOB -- this is within the domain of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. This WikiProject was established to vet stubs and we should let them do it. They don't need to ask for our help or permission. Any user who wishes to comment on this should do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. — Xiong熊talk* 23:55, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
    • Stop disrupting this page with this "NOOB" nonsense. Template deletion is the scope of this page. -- Netoholic @ 02:14, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
    • If and when sfd is up and running, what Xiong says will be true. For now, though WP:WSS can only advise on what we think should be deleted. Things are debated at WP:WSS but then (if the project thinks deletion should be undertaken) they must be sent here for vote, so yes, tfd's permission is still needed. (oh, and delete) Grutness...wha? 06:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Tfdnotice

A template designed to post notices on people's pages about templates being nominated for deletion on this page - created by someone who believes there is "extreme" and "rabid" deletionism on WP:TFD. Misuse of the Template namespace. -- Netoholic @ 15:01, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

  • Delete as overkill. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and we really ought to have a policy against vote stacking. Radiant_* 15:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems convenient. Kappa 15:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful template. There's nothing wrong with letting people know a vote is taking place. Nor is there any reason for the Template namespace to be so jealously guarded. If multiple Wikipedians could find a template useful, it should be retained. Firebug 19:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems harmless, but is probably unnecessary. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Disclosure: I am the creator.) -- I find it interesting that a template whose purpose it is to call attention to this process is itself attacked here. The most effective defense of this process' legitimacy is widespread use of {{tfdnotice}}. Have we something to hide? — Xiong熊talk* 23:37, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 00:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Template creators should be notified when their templates are nominated at TFD, as a common courtesy if not by policy. It is helpful to have a template that facilitates that. (And any affected WikiProjects, etc. should be notified as well.) BlankVerse ∅ 03:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that if the creator still cares about the template, he would have it on his watchlist. Radiant_* 09:05, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Even with the template in their watchlist, the template creator might miss the placement of the TFD notice, either because there were more edits after the placement, or the person who added the TFD notice may have forgotten to fill out the edit summary. BlankVerse ∅ 12:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, that's true. However, while notifying the template's creator would be the polite thing to do, the existence of this template in no way guarantees that or even makes it likely. Radiant_* 13:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Nu

This template exists solely to add an image to Category:Images containing nudity, making it completely pointless. Thryduulf 09:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I do not mind if for whatever reason you would like to change the template tags to category tags, but since {{nu}} is shorter, keep the template to have this as a convenient alternative when people place new tags, until a more important need arises to use this particular template name for a different purpose.--Patrick 23:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no need for this template any more than templates for other categories. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 02:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cfd-howto

This template was only used in the WP:CFD page. Since that page has recently been restructured with subpages, the Howto template has been SUBST'ed into there to ease server load. Thus, there is no further need of the separate template. Radiant_* 08:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and NOOB -- This template is used by the folks at CfD; it never appears outside of that process. They should have the final say over it, and we should stay out of their business. Suggest you bring it up, if you like, at CfD -- perhaps on Wikipedia Talk:Categories for deletion. — Xiong熊talk* 09:06, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
    • I am one of the folks at CfD. A template of which only one instance will ever be used is not necessarily useful. Radiant_* 10:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • What's a NOOB...or am I one for asking? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "None Of Our Business", which is plainly wrong since it's in template namespace and therefore may be put on TFD. If Xiong thinks it isn't his business, he shouldn't vote on it. Other people can decide for themselves whether or not it is their business. Radiant_* 13:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah. Well, since there's now a notice on the WP:CFD Talk page, and someone has proposed deletion of the template in question, and this page is Templates for deletion...is it now our business? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it is not now our business. The good people at CfD are empowered to deal with their own process. We have already established that one XfD process has no jurisdiction over another; the precedent has been set. — Xiong熊talk* 23:48, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
            • How was that established? Are you talking about the nomination of the TfD page on VfD? If so, that was a nomination to delete the entire TfD page without any discussion of policy or a mechanism to replace it. I suggest that basing a NOOB argument on that case would be an apples to oranges comparison. In this case, we seem to be looking at a template whose text is used in only one place—to which it has now been subst:ed. Rather than maintaining two copies of the text (and running the risk that one will diverge from the other and result in future confusion), I would argue it makes sense to clear out the no-longer-needed template. Nobody is suggesting a major policy change on CfD; in fact the removal of the template won't have any effect on CfD whatsoever. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have a strong feeling that if CFD were to decide they no longer need the template, then Xiong would pop up there and say "Hey, you can't do that, templates may only be deleted on TfD!". WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Radiant_* 09:05, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 15:04, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Comment - Xiong is right, but if its not being used theres no need for it. I think I was the one who did that just because it was a load to deal with - Im not per se "one of them" either. Reintegration is certainly a good idea - its not a question of "deletionism" then, - its reintegrationism where differentiation is not necessary. -SV|t 00:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VFD

Inappropriate, overused, and oversized for what it means and does. All there needs to be is a category tag in it. Adding a cancerous growth on a template (not to mention chopping it down and removing it from articles before voting: I mean you CC) is just a way of prejudicing the decision in favor of removal by making it as useless and unappealing as possible. -SV|t 02:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn - Er, I um... meant... TFD not VFD. :\ thats what I get for editing way too late. Apologies to all. -SV|t 00:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:TFD is not WP:RFC. JRM · Talk 02:18, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Don't disrupt Wikipedia (yes, adding spurious and trollish nominations to TFD counts as disruption) to illustrate a point. This is "templates for deletion", not "templates for improvement". User:Rdsmith4/Sig 02:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm with JRM and Rdsmith on this one. Interpret that as keep, if needed. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know VfD can be frustrating, but the VfD is the best thing we got atm. (aside from quick del. ;) ) --Cool Cat My Talk 02:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "best thing we got atm" - this implies there should/could be some improvement. "this is not templates for improvement" - what is? Where is this templates for improvement office you say my post should be at? "trollish nominations" - FY-INAT, thanks. See Wikipedia:Huge message boxes for "trolling" -SV|t 02:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's see. Template talk:Vfd, Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Village pump, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the IRC channel and probably half a dozen places more I haven't thought of. Don't put things up for deletion unless you want them deleted. I know many people think that the best thing you can do is propose the most extreme measure as to provoke the most extreme reaction, but I happen to disagree. JRM · Talk 02:40, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
      Nearly forgot: there's always being bold. That's sure to get a reaction too. JRM · Talk 02:40, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
      There is also the recently created, but currently participantless Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates, which could (should?) become a good forum for handling some template issues be handled here at TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 12:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • By BB you mean 'edit it [my]self?' Thats certainly a good idea. I do agree that TFD (like other VFD) shouldnt get abused with inappropriate listings, but I respectfully disagree that with the numbnut assertion that I was just trying to make a point. Instead of passing the buck off to other venues, I had thought it would be a good idea to start the process of trimming down the template here, by consulting people - admittedly not to "delete it," per se but neither to simply make a point either. I will start work on it now, as you suggest. Regards,-SV|t 09:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course - WP:POINT, since this is User:Stevertigo "getting back" for a number of his template creations being TFD'd on May 10. -- Netoholic @ 02:37, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:POINT. Firebug 04:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. WP:POINT. The current large amount of text is as a result of newbies complaining that the original vfd template wasn't conspicuous enough. RickK 05:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact it used to be much larger (cf. [1]), and has been trimmed a great deal in recent months. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 21:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't like the template much, and I didn't like it when I saw this tag pop up on the first article I created as an anon. But we must have a visible tag to warn users that an article may be deleted in a few days. Sjakkalle 07:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:POINT. But it may need yet another rewording. Radiant_* 08:00, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or, at worst, rewrite so as to be unobtrusive and not prejudgemental. If there is difficulty getting enough attention before debate ends, perhaps the period of debate should be extended, or concerned parties directly notified -- but this is not within our purview. Meanwhile, less obtrusive, less judgemental. (And yes, this is the only Templates for Improvement bureau -- badly named and hastily operated.) — Xiong熊talk* 09:02, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
    Ha. Be bold or die! JRM · Talk 09:06, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Keep as an integral part of Wikipedia. Thryduulf 09:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definately rewrite the ugly, bloated template, but keep. BlankVerse ∅ 12:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I

Template:JSTOR

Template used to generate a link to an external site. -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Look, I'm sure the source is legitimate and valid. What I'd like voters to consider is whether Wikipedia should have templates for each and every potential legitimate web source. A better, and already existing, mechanism to use is meta:Interwiki map. -- Netoholic @ 02:45, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to say keep; JSTOR is a valuable independent resource, and having a quick way to add the links has some value. Whether it should be transcluded or subst:ed into articles is another question. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Academic journal since 1985 - not arxiv, but worthy.-SV|t 02:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia users who are not part of an academic institution can't access JSTOR anyway. FreplySpang (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It is a little misleading to provide a link to a restricted external site. But I suspect most public and college library users can access it. The concern is ameliorated by the fact that the template links to JSTOR itself, which explains. It should not be substituted, because all such citations should follow exactly the same format, and that format may be improved in future. — Xiong熊talk* 09:16, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. Using the interwiki map in that way will make it a lot harder for reusers of our content to have working links. They're more likely to have a copy of a template on the English Wikipedia than a copy of the interwiki map from another site. Angela. 12:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • If we're too terribly concerned about reusers, then consider this: they are more likely to want to have plain article text, so they don't have to maintain the templates for (eventually thousands of) external site links. I know this may be seen as slippery slope fallacy, but are we going to get in the business of creating and implementing a template for any and all potential external link targets? Why not just post the external link simply, and avoid using a template altogether? -- Netoholic @ 14:54, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Delete - templates obscure things for inexperienced editors. Unless there's a really pressing need to edit something simultaneously on multiple pages, or to generate boilerplate text that appears on thousands of articles, we shouldn't use a template for it. Snowspinner 15:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: why, apart from the odd notion that most readers will be using a PC in a library with access, would we be linking to a restricted access journal in the first place? Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:15, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It is useful to a significant proportion of users. With regard to the ideology of this whole project, it is worth noting that JSTOR is a charitable organisation that aims to disseminate information, much like the Wikimedia Foundation, but that because of its specialist role in publishing old journal articles they have chosen a different funding route. That funding route does unfortunately penalise individual users, but without it there would simply be no JSTOR. For comparison purposes, the Internet Movie Database is owned by the <sarcasm> really socially conscious</sarcasm> Amazon.com and is extensively linked to by template:imdb. In addition, having a template keeps the external links looking uniform and professional. Dunc|☺ 15:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I access JSTOR from my home computer for free. Anyone can, just get a library card from a participating library. The arguments that this is only usable by a subset of people are incorrect, it is open to anyone, for free, who knows how to get a library card. I believe the JSTOR article mentions that. Also as an aside, please weigh in on the current dispute on Talk:JSTOR if the image should be on the left or right side, it would be helpful to have other opinions than just Dunc. Stbalbach 16:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless template, useful. JSTOR is an acceptable way to assist users in finding journals. What is this, the Template Inquisition? silsor 13:49, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes. Templates are a pain in the ass. They're confusing to new editors and they strain the database. When there is a pressing need for standardization (Like the stub templates) or a meaningful level of complexity (Pink box templates, infobox templates) it's one thing. This is not sufficiently complex to make putting {{random stuff}} into an article a meaningful timesaver, and so instead we just leave what is, albeit a small one, a database drain and a confusing chunk of text in an article. Snowspinner 14:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template:NNDB

Orphaned, template used to generate a link to an external site. A better, and already existing, mechanism to use is meta:Interwiki map. It's better just to put the plain link in place, because it's less obscure for new users. -- Netoholic @ 00:53, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Template:Offensivewebsitewarning

I don't think Wikipedia needs these disclaimers. Offensive websites really aren't good sources wherein we should be providing external links. When specific pages have been linked, a short notice is appropriate (Warning: Nudity), but need not be templatized. -- Netoholic @ 00:46, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

May 10

Template:El, Template:Bio, Template:Refs, Template:Ov

These templates consist solely of the text "External links", "Biography", and "References", respectively. I ran across them being transcluded into several articles as section headings, (and even into the body text of one Talk page). These section headings aren't likely to be modified or updated, so there's no reason to transclude them. These transclusions (some articles even included more than one of the above) are a waste of server resources. Writing out the full form with a proper subst: is just about as much work as typing the actual words, so I recommend these templates be deleted. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (I added Template:Ov to this) - Good intentions, but the trade-off of people who forget to subst: this is bad. A newbie seeing these in an article might think it's standard practice, spreading the mistake. Not useful even as a subst: . -- Netoholic @ 00:40, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Comment who says that subst: is better practice? That was deprecated for all templates. -SV|t 02:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it wasn't. Delete. Radiant_* 07:59, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I can see making a template out of an often-used phrase or section of code, but one word?. -Sean Curtin 03:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all -- a noble effort, very poor execution. They don't even insert the == section head markup. I'll study the issue, and see if I can't crank out a useful standard article skeleton template, akin to {{doctl}}. — Xiong熊talk* 09:30, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Template:Creationism2

This is a duplicate template of Template:Creationism. Joshuaschroeder 18:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- I'm happy with the new version, though I can't imagine why it was forced to assume a new name. I'd be just as happy to see all creationism-related articles merged into one, tagged on top of page as Patent Nonsense -- but we have to live in the world with others. — Xiong熊talk* 09:34, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Keep "restore Template:Creationism?" I did not (to my knowledge) remove the other template, nor do I think one is appropriate for all cases - shorter articles should use the horizontal footer. I disagree that the footer is always "better," or that the sidebar is always "better." Redundancy may be an issue for some, but I likewise dont think that critera alone can decide which of the above is better. Is anyone concerned about the content? I noticed some people removed these - maybe the classification as creationism is thought to be inappropriate ISO? -SV|t 09:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template just looks horrible. Bring back the original. Bensaccount 15:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page contains all sorts of factual inaccuracies, and is extremely biased in favor of evolutionism. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that it was written by someone who has not investigated this issue, or who is hostile to what Creationists believe. The Young Earth Creationist page is especially filled with POV.

Template:Rotten

(and redirect at Template:Rottendotcomwarning)

Hopefully, we don't have too many places where this is needed. As I post this, it is use on one article. We should post any warning message as prose next to the external link, but we don't need a disclaimer template like this. -- Netoholic @ 18:31, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Template:For

A template designed to make "For X, see Y." links at the top of pages. Bad use for a template, and needlessly more complex than simply typing the sentence itself. -- Netoholic @ 18:23, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Template:Answers

Template to generate link to external search engine. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Template:Yahoo

Template to generate link to external search engine. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

(includes Template:Google, Template:Googlethis, Template:Googlim)

Template to generate link to external search engine. Template:Google was previously deleted. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

  • Delete, possibly protect. Radiant_* 07:57, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Current-short & Template:Currents

Both are wholly redundant with Template:Current, and orphaned. -- Netoholic @ 17:59, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Template:Olternateuses

Not used anywhere, appears to be a mis-spelling of {{alternateuses}}:both actually REDIRECT to {{otheruses}}. --Phil | Talk 16:26, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Substub

Thanks to the hard work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, there are no longer any substubs, so the category and template can be deprecated. Radiant_* 14:57, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Rest in peace -- Netoholic @ 16:47, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • I find it hard to believe that there are no substubs. I saw one just 5 minutes ago. BrokenSegue 19:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the following have been tagged with this template today: Analog filter, Forum invasion, Jnes, Doily, Non-linear filter, Lukanka, Kawaks. Uncle G 19:39, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
    • Note that all have since been re-tagged with more appropriate stub subcategories. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Non-linear filter was created with a more appropriate stub tag alongside the substub tag. Uncle G 18:32, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
    • Uncle G -> Yes, but they should have been tagged with {{stub}} instead. The two templates serve the same purpose, hence one should go (or be a redir). Radiant_* 07:56, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree that they were wrongly tagged. I was merely noting that a scant 5 hours after your saying that there weren't any articles tagged as substubs, which was true at the time that you wrote it, 7 articles had been tagged. Uncle G 18:32, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • I think what Radiant means is that all substubs have been categorized as something-else-stubs. I think the template should be kept because it links to substub which tells people not to make them. Kappa 19:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The concept of substubs has been tried and found not to work. The only proper use for this template is for tagging the junk that does not deserve the honor of being called a stub, but does not qualify as a speedy delete canidate. These articles are better handled by the various cleanup templates. --Allen3 talk 21:01, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. See my comments at the substub category deletion voting. Courtland 23:33, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. No longer in much serious use, and redundant since the inception of stub subcategories. The original intention of substub was to mark articles that were too short to stand alone and should have had several thins happen to them (1) vfd; (2) merge; (3) hurried expansion. Now, the same articles are placed in categories where editors who know about such topics can find them more easily (who ever waded through 3000 substubs?). And those editors will know far better than the average Wikipedian whether something should be saved or not - as well as being able to expand those that could. I must say that from a philosophical point of view I like Kappa's argument that {{substub}} should exist to tell people that substubs shouldn't exist, but I still say rest in peace. Given that substubs are simply short stubs, and are being sorted by the same people who sort stubs, redirecting to {{stub}} would be a viable alternative. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The concept of a substub is essential to Wikipedia. Substubs are shorter articles which may offer some, if little, information; they can become valuable articles if worked on. I have also noticed some users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting are incorrectly reclassifing substubs as stubs. The abolition of substubs would most likely have a negative impact on Wikipedia, just as it would if the stub template was abolished. тəzєті 01:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • care to explain how? The work that has previously been done by substub is now being done far more effectively by the separate stub subcategories. It is far easier for editors to tell what should be kept and what shouldn't. Before there were, at one point, several thousand substubs languishing bcause no-one had the energy to sort out what should stay and what should go. Now, in the vast majority of cases, those articles are somewhere where specialist editors can assess them readily. As for "incorrectly reclassifing substubs as stubs", many people at WP:WSS do not believe that substubs exist as a separate entity, and that there is no purpose for the separate distinction between a short article fragment and a slightly shorter article fragment. If it had been otherwise, substub would not now be empty. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If articles are classified as substubs, editors who wish to expand very short articles can easily identify them. A stub can sometimes be longer than a full paragraph, causing me to believe that these articles should be separated from others consisting of only one sentence. I am a member of WikiProject Stub sorting, however I believe that articles should only be sorted as stubs when they would not fit better under any other category. тəzєті 03:20, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • But most of the things that were in substubs were well over a sentence in length! The last few I've re-sorted from there have, for the most part, been a paragraph in length. And as for "better suiting another category - that's exactly what I explained earlier. They far better suit the subcategories of stub than they do substub. Say, for example, you know a bit about French geography and want to expand some articles. Where would you look first - Category: Substubs or Category: France geography stubs? Perhaps it would illustrate my point further by saying that of the ten or so substubs that I have re-categorised in the last 24 hours, three (Interpellation, The Miracle Maker, and Mount Wuyi) have already been expanded further - presumably by the specialist editors working on the stub subcategories they are now in. One of them is no longer a stub, the other two are still short, but better articles than they were. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Substub Categories would allow for this problem to be fixed, or using multiple templates so an article could both be considered a categorized stub and a substub. Also, making the template into a category could offer another solution. тəzєті 22:44, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Consensus in previous TFD was to keep. Andros 1337 03:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:Stub, and delete Category:Substubs. People still use the template, but the stub sorting project has made it redundant and less than useful. -Sean Curtin 03:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this template has always been superfluous. --Yath 04:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, putting into specific stub categories is much much more effective. Bluemoose 09:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless. Substubs ahould be transwiki'd, merged, deleted or expanded to stubs (if they aren't already stubs). -- grm_wnr Esc 09:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and NOOB -- this is within the domain of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. We have no business fooling with it. If they wish to delete it, they don't need to ask for our help or permission. Any user who wishes to comment on this should do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. — Xiong熊talk* 10:16, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
    • If you consider it none of your business, don't vote on it. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Also, you are probably unaware that most people voting against it ARE from the WPSS. Radiant_* 11:11, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Delete (1st choice), or Redirect (2nd choice). Substubs are an idea whose time has come and gone. BlankVerse ∅ 12:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' until the project decide what to do with it. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • The project will decide whether to keep it or delete it right here, right now (This TfD is linked from the WP:WSS pages multiple times), so I suggest that if you're indifferent or want to leave the decision up to the project you should change your vote to "undecided". -- grm_wnr Esc 13:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wonder what will be the faith of the Wikipedia:Substub
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stub - SoM 18:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to {stub} (or {delete} - heh). CDC (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I have not seen a single unrefuted argument for substubs, other than that we have a page about them. So far, as strongly as тəzєті purports to feel, he has not even provided a reason why his two model cases (on Wikipedia_talk:Substub#Abolition_of_substub) should be substubs. — Sebastian (talk) 00:16, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
  • Delete I've sorted lots of stubs and substubs; there is a tremendous amount of overlap. It's a distinction without a difference, anything substubs can do stubs can do better. By sorting stubs into categories editors can find articles they have expertise in and expand them. There are no substub categories that offer the same function. If editors don't want to categorize a stub they can still use the generic {{stub}} and someone will sort it, though it's preferable to sort it out of the gate of course. After a transition period while we spread the word and update pages that refer to it, it should be deleted. The substub template is redundant and eliminating it will streamline the process of expanding very short articles. Rx StrangeLove 01:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: organisation by topic is far more useful than organisation by length. Joe D (t) 02:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant. Stub categories are much more useful, for all the reasons already stated above. --TheParanoidOne 15:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant with {{''stub''}} now that stub categories exist and are in full use. --Nabla 15:31, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Template:ISBN

I don't get the point in this. If you're too lazy to just type the name of a book into Google, why add {{ISBN}} so that everyone can see how lazy you are? I just spotted this in an article and discovered the ISBN in a matter of seconds... — Timwi 10:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, but doesn't the "fix it, don't tag it" line of reasoning apply to nearly all editor-oriented templates? Pcb21| Pete 11:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless. Lack of ISBNs is not such an urgent problem that it requires a big bold notice placed in the article. (Really, if the author, title, publisher, place, and date are specified, the ISBN isn't even necessary.) If this isn't deleted, at least keep it on the talk page. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Mirv. -- Netoholic @
  • Wow. Way OTT. Delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now all we need is {{canbeimproved}}: "This article can be improved in some way. Please do so and remove this message when done". JRM · Talk 02:35, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Convert to category tagging articles which need ISBNs is not a valueless exercise; perhaps changing the template so it just categorised the article would be less visually intrusive. Some of those articles have hundreds of books in them. Josh Parris ✉ 03:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's irritating. It also might encourage the unthinking addition of ISBNs. All too often I see mention of a book that has obviously gone through various editions, and there's a single ISBN for a single, unspecified edition -- mostly likely the one that the writer happened to have in his or hand at the time. But the multieditionality (?) might not be equally obvious to others, who might get the wrong impression that a single edition must be sought. For some of the books listed within Nicholson Baker, I dutifully tried to be more informative; but this was tedious and I gave up without finishing. (Reading the result isn't much fun either.) I don't know what the solution is, but I really don't think that spraying this template on pages is part of it. -- Hoary 05:03, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's unnecessary in many cases, there's the 'editional problem' and there's the additional problem of books that are out of print, not for sale anyway, or books without potential buyers. I'd leave it to the discretion of the editors to add some ISBN's to common and important books on a subject (not to every reference in the article); we really don't need a template for that. — mark ✎ 07:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless overkill based on a misunderstanding of a booksellers' tool. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.. — Xiong熊talk* 10:23, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Delete The value of having the ISBN is questionable. There's a good reason they are not found in most bibliographies: they discriminate too finely between various editions to be useful. I've also seen articles tagged with this that refer to nothing but research papers, which do not have an ISBN. Joke137 16:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this template and have been pleased to see others using it. I have expressed thoughts on which ISBN to use on the template's talk page. PedanticallySpeaking 17:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

May 9

Template:Islamofascism-stub

More of LevelCheck's disruption. The "as is Allah's will" is particularly offensive. RickK 23:02, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:VfDx

A special template that indicates how many times an article has earlier been nominated for VfD sounds to me like needless instruction creep. Radiant_* 10:50, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • I thought so too until I was asked three times within a week for instructions on how to create a second (or third) nomination without screwing up the prior archived discussions. Most times, nominators just blank the prior discussion - creating confusion for everyone. Whenever I discover them, I try to repair the nomination. Preservation of the prior discussions is important. So far, I've resisted forcing my procedure into any of the policy pages because I am also concerned about instruction creep. But making a template available to someone who wants an easy way to repair the nomination seems like a pretty cheap solution. I'd like to argue to keep the template as a harmless and occasionally helpful variation of an approved version if someone will step forward and promise to keep it's wording in synch with the main VfD template. Rossami (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like a good reason... but given this template won't be widespread in use (there aren't that many articles VfD'd twice), wouldn't it be easier to explain to move-and-refer-to the previous VfD, than to explain to use this template? Radiant_* 07:55, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sometimes, votes for deletion that occur again on an article that has been nominated before might get jerked up. Therefore, I created a variation of the deletion template to disambiguate that. So keep it. --SuperDude 18:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since {{vfd}} is always substitued (or at least should be), it is a simple matter to edit the resulting text to include a number in the linked VFD page. Since it will (almost always) be out of synch with {{vfd}}, I say delete. Alphax τεχ 00:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most people who are nominating an article for its second (third, fourth) VfD aren't aware of earlier VfDs, and won't know to use this template. --Carnildo 07:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 00:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

May 8

Template:WH40k-stub

May 6

Template:Sig-2004IOEQ

  • I don't object to maudlin panhandling for disaster victims, but (1) not in this way; (2) perhaps not in this project; (3) nobody else has been fool enough to pick up on it; (4) creator may have left the building; and (5) its time has passed. Delete. — Xiong熊talk* 01:31, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
  • Delete - here's a better reason... never use templates/transclusions in signatures. -- Netoholic @ 01:54, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
    • Sorry; I did not actually overlook that one; I just forget to put it in before or after all the rest. — Xiong熊talk* 07:29, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Template:Ed_Chron and Template:Ed_Menu

May 5

Template:Linear algebra

Very nice template, created at the beginning of 2004. However, since May 2004 we have the categories system which takes care of grouping related items; in particular, we have Category:Linear algebra which contains all the articles listed in this template. As such, this template is obsolete, and is just a link farm. I suggest it be deleted. Oleg Alexandrov 18:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: instructions above (should not be removed from pages prior to listing) were not followed. The template can be viewed within any of the articles it references via the article history. -- Rick Block 03:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I removed the template from all articles before I put it here for deletion. I was not awre of the requirement. Sorry. I also hope that my arguments for removing the template are still valid. Oleg Alexandrov 05:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be so sure. See discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Template:Calculus -- is that needed? about a related template. Oleg Alexandrov 19:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, offers no meaningful distinction from a category. Radiant_* 11:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Color dot

I don't get it. This is linked from nowhere, has no talk page, has 1 contributor, and appears to have no apparant use. Alphax τεχ 14:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. What I'd like to know is, how on Earth did you find this? JRM · Talk 18:45, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hasn't seemed to have been used in over a month. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears useless K1Bond007 06:58, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are times, looking at some templates, when I ask myself "why would anyone ever have considered that useful?" This is one of those times. Delete. Grutness|hello? 08:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- or at worst, userfy. True that nothing appears to link to this template. Perhaps it has never been transcluded. Perhaps its creator invariably substitutes it, in which case its use does no conceivable harm. True it appears useless. I do not understand this template, so I will not be so headstrong as to condemn what I do not understand. The creator's contribs show a history of short periods of intense editing, widely spaced. I am inclined to believe that, as usual, {tfd} tagging has not had its intended effect, and the template's creator has not been noticed of this TfD nomination. I have repaired this error and commented on user talk. Perhaps when the creator has had a fair opportunity to defend his work, we may wish to revisit this nomination. — Xiong熊talk* 09:15, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Template:Color dot Amazing! it works: {{color dot|red}}. -- User:Docu

  • Delete, useless. Radiant_* 11:08, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:EU 10 and Template:EU coins

Both are in serious violation of the guideline in Wikipedia:Template_namespace that templates shouldn't be masquerading as article content. These templates were used to replace long initial paragraphs in a series of articles that should have instead been individualized. The creation and insertion of these specific templates makes said individualization impossible. Aris Katsaris 11:38, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think these two templates should be treated separately. I agree with Aris on the EU 10 but I'm not sure about EU coins. Parmaestro 11:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EU 10 template is no longer in use. Parmaestro 12:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion from User_talk:Aris Katsaris

As I usually agree with almost all your decisions? I'm curious about your opinion of template use. I don't find it particularly hard to edit templates. It seems to me that when you have a dozen or so articles with identical text and especially where this text will be needed to edited in the future because of upcoming changes that it makes sense to have one template that can be edited/updated/corrected as necessary rather than making the identical edits/corrections/updates to a dozen or more texts. Wouldn't you agree ? Parmaestro 11:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are usually good to use, but always in places where the text will *necessarily* be identical. Where it is *good* that it should be identical. This case however is different -- the initial paragraphs of each article should be individual to that article, and if anything these templates worsen and make permanent what was already a not-very-nice redundancy and repetition. Moreover large templates must make themselves obvious as templates: As Wikipedia:Template_namespace says: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace". Aris Katsaris 11:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
We seem to be in agreement than about te use of templates. I completely agree with you about the EU-10 template. The only apparent difference we might have is in the application to this specific series of articles. The initial paragraphs in these articles all include an introduction about the euro before discussing the items that specific to the article. Should those introductary paragraphs be deleted and just start with those items that are individual to tha article ? If not and if we are still going to include the same introductory paragraphs, we'd be better off with the template. Or maybe you have a better solution than these two ideas.
Since I added the templates to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion it'd be better if we took the discussion there, if you will. Feel free to move both my comments and yours there, if you want to, or I can do it, if you have no objections. I think that the introductory paragraphs should be as small as possible, and the relevant information in them (and part of it *is* relevant, e.g. when talking about the other side that is in common) perhaps combined with the rest of the text. Turning it into a template makes this introduction permanent however in a way that I don't think it should be made. Moreover, the specific content of the template was itself lacking, as it actually *enlarged* the repeated non-specific information in them, e.g. by adding mention of the circulation dates that hadn't existed formerly. The content of the templates ended up speaking about the whole of the Eurozone, even adding mention about Kosovo or Montenegro!! Egads. But as I said it's more than the specific content that bothered me, it was the nature of the templates themselves. That's why I didn't just edit them but tfd them instead. Aris Katsaris 12:09, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with what you are saying. I've already replaced the template with text for EU 10. This template is not in use anywhere now. Although I agree with you that one is not interested in Andorra when reading an article about Belgian coins, I think it is germane to talk about where the euro is a currency which is why the article starts out with saying that it used in the twelve Eurozone member states. I think it's particluarly relevant when there are euro coins from the Vatican, San Marino and Monaco. I agree with you that introductory paragraph should be as short as possible. Are you saying that even if the text is identical, it's better not to use a template even though it means that all the articles would have to be edited separately? Parmaestro 12:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a judgement call which I'm afraid I don't have the time to analyze much further right this moment. I'm moving this discussion to the relevant section of Templates for deletion, so that others can enter the argument also. Please add further comments there. Aris Katsaris 12:34, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- however, my vote is not an endorsement of this template. The template should be kept temporarily while larger issues are resolved, then deleted. Templates should not generally contain boilerplate article content, for the reason that articles themselves should not generally contain duplicate content at all. The mere existence of this template calls into question the entire series of repetitive articles which include it -- all of which, perhaps, should be merged into a single article. — Xiong熊talk* 09:25, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Delete, that's not what templates are for. Radiant_* 11:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

May 4

Old Business
Everything from here on down is old business; the current 5-day review period has ended. Everything from this point on should be dealt with and removed from the workflow. Move this marker up as time passes.

Template:PD-Germany

The text is wrong, or at least very very misleading. The law cited applies to nearly none of the pictures suitable for an encyclopedia (it's for the likes of passport photographs or maybe a few holiday snapshots). See the template discussion page. --AndreasPraefcke 17:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC) (I have editited your nomination to conform to en:Wikipedia:TfD standards. --Xiong.)[reply]

  • Delete -- Wikipedia is not local. It is unclear to me that a photograph, say, taken within the national borders of Germany is protected merely by German copyright law -- or, for that matter, that a photograph taken within US borders is protected by American copyright law only. The entire area of copyright law is a morass and its application to a website hosted in the State of Florida yet used throughout the world not a matter which anyone is qualified to address -- the law simply is not settled, and may not be for many many years. For now, I rather suspect, any assertion of {{PD}} is either sufficient -- or not. — Xiong熊talk* 09:40, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
for comparison:

Template:PD-Germany

May 3

These templates are pointless and unsightly. They should be replaced with succession boxes, list articles, and categories. john k 20:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are "all other Polish officeholder-related templates", please ? Could you also be more specific about "pointless" and "unsightly". Are these just your personal opinions or based on any firm argumentation ?
There's a ton of other ones, but they're hard to find - just about any notable Polish office has one, though. As to pointless - current policy suggests that for lists as long as, say, the one for Kings and Dukes of Poland, a succession box, rather than a series template, should be used. As for unsightly, they are especially unsightly in a) articles where most of the article is the template (of which there are several); and b) articles where the person has three or four such templates to their name. john k 20:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful and nice-looking. Also, could you be so kind as to list the "other Polish officeholder-related templates" here? If we are to vote on their future we should at least be informed of their names. Halibutt 07:16, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what they all are, but there are a ton of them - foreign ministers, heads of the Communist party, communist period heads of state, various offices in the PLC...I just don't know what all the names are. john k 20:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find the templates useful and placing a monarch/president article in a wider context. Wojsyl 08:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the templated do stand out in the small, stubbish articles, they are perfectly fitting to the larger articles, and eventually all of the relevant articles will be large, FA-quality. Personally I find them more useful then the primitive and rather ugly succession box. For a compromise, they may be split into smaller ones - for example, kings could be split into Piast, Jagiellon and election era, thus making the template smaller. And yes, do list the other templates you are reffering to. I see no problem in having everything - template, list and category (succession is made unecessary by the template). I prefer the template. Somebody may prefer the list or category. Why should we deny one person his favourite method of navigating? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are enormous and easily replaced by categories. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 02:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Witkacy 21:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A textbook example of the inappropriate use of templates. Proteus (Talk) 22:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I hate to say it, this nomination is not in order. Every such template must be referenced; we can have no "un-named co-conspirators", no blanket indictments. Such would open a door to evil abuses.
That said, these are seminal Polish-steam-locomotive-engineer-family-tree templates, and I will entertain all such nominations favorably. — Xiong熊talk* 09:45, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Template:Twotalk

Made to advertise a dispute which only exists in the mind of its creator (User:Xiong). We have no on-going need for one-shot templates. -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

  • Delete. Creator seems to have missed the point of Template:Twoversions entirely. And aren't we already voting on this below? —Korath (Talk) 00:59, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not voting but commenting: {{twoversions}} is used when two versions of the same page are "in competition", whereas {{twotalk}} (the name of which frankly sucks rocks but that's another argument :-) is about two separate pages which are "in competition", a situation not unlikely to occur again in the ongoing development of policy. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 09:00, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
I take exception to the derogatory adverb. I modeled this template on Template:Twoversions with my eyes wide open. I preserved the link to an existing policy candidate page. — Xiong熊talk* 03:20, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Keep, could be a useful template. Firebug 05:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 02:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or better yet, excuse from this forum. I believe we have established that VfD is not the proper forum for discussion of policy; only for its implementation. By the same token, TfD is not the proper place to discuss policy matters. To the extent that this nomination is about the use of the template, therefore, TfD has no jurisdiction. To the extent that the template is poorly constructed, however, we may all contribute improvement. It is a violation of the collaborative wiki spirit of this project to dismiss contributions out of hand, rather than attempt to improve them. — Xiong熊talk* 03:20, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Delete, if there are two versions of a policy proposal they should be listed on the same page for easier discussion. In fact there are often several (up to a dozen) versions of such. Radiant_* 11:09, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - use {{twoversions}}. violet/riga (t) 12:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alt

Duplicates function of {{otheruses}} & {{otheruses2}}. -- Netoholic @ 17:12, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Template:Adultonly

Superfluous, POV. delete --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

Template:MicrostatesE

This is a very small navigational template that hasn't been used for a long time. There are already categories for European microstates and microstates in general (should be combined and expanded). There has been discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries about template clutter. As far as I know, the microstates have little in common and linking them this way is arbitrary. It should be enough to mention in the articles that they are considered microstates (anyone interested could follow the link). Wipe 03:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ZIMf

This template is not in use and identical to Template:ZIM. Thuresson 01:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not identical. ZIMf links to the Zimbabwe national football team, ZIM just links to Zimbabwe. These templates are only temporarily orphaned, and will be used in the future for football (soccer) related articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't there be only one template with the country name as an attribute? (Plus another one for football.) That would of course require harmonizing the flag image naming (or creating redirects) but it would be very useful. Wipe 03:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? These two templates (Template:ZIM and Template:ZIMf) have links to 2 different articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mean something like this (an example, "Template:Country"):
[[Image:{{{1}}} flag 300.png|20px|{{{1}}}]] [[{{{1}}}]]
and this (the other one, "Template:CountryF"):
[[Image:{{{1}}} flag 300.png|20px|{{{1}}}]] [[{{{1}}} national football team|{{{1}}}]]
used like this: {{Country|Zimbabwe}}, {{CountryF|Zimbabwe}}. Zimbabwe could be replaced here with any country. If you had to edit the template, you'd make one edit and all countries would still look consistent.
Wipe 06:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm already almost done with these football templates. Plus I made quite a few for ice hockey as well. (Template:CANh or Template:USAhw for example)-- Earl Andrew - talk 00:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 1

Template:Doom-stub

Do we really need such a specific category for stub sorting? Firebug 06:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many other topics have their own stub category. (e.g. Star Wars stub template). I think we should keep this one since there are several Doom stubs in existance right now and some that might be generated in the future. --SuperDude 06:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for same reasons as SuperDude. Bloodshedder 20:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, for much more practical reasons. 1) Never even mentioned on WP:WSS, let alone cleared by the project; 2) unlikely to ever reach viable level; 3) Unneccessary as it is already covered adequately by other stub categories; 4) stub categories are not created based on possible future need, but on current necessity. If a stub category becomes viable in the future, it should eb recreated. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and that goes for the editing side as much as for the articles. As to "many other topics have their own category", that is, to be frank, a ridiculous argument, by which you could eqqually argue that because there is a separate stub for American history, we need a toenails-stub. Grutness|hello? 00:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there's likely to be a order of magnitude more of these than at present, I think it's way too narrow, just as Grutness says. What about something slightly more general, like "first person shooter" stubs or such like? Alai 01:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because it's too narrow. The computer and videogame stub category should be chopped a little, but by genre, not by game series. Wipe 02:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stubcruft. Snowspinner 02:46, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (stubcruft, lol...) -- Netoholic @ 05:50, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • This template is Doomed. See comments by Wipe. BlankVerse ∅ 09:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (deorphanize items to cvg-stub). Unless there is a WikiProject that encompasses building the representation of Doom in Wikipedia, we generally don't want to encourage stub-templates as thinly populated as this one is. In the case of WikiProjects, this guideline is set aside because the purpose of the stub is more an aid to WikiProject activities than a general resource for the Wikipedian community at large. Courtland 23:41, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

April 30

Template:Quotable

This was marked by Stevertigo for deletion, but was not listed here. I suppose the reasons were both lack of helpfulness and it is not used. --Dmcdevit 06:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:gettingbig

More or less duplicates Template:verylarge. Do we need both? Grutness|hello? 04:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe we should have a policy that allows us to delete any template that invokes the reaction "Yes, thank you for stating the bloody obvious, but if you are not going to do anything about it then neither am I". Pcb21| Pete 16:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
LOL. That would be most of them, really. So let's delete Template:Notenglish, Template:Wikify, Template:Confusing, Template:Technical, etc. :) --Dmcdevit 06:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support that proposed policy -- no tag should call attention to routine janitorial work that any user can do nearly as quickly as tagging it to be done. — Xiong熊talk* 13:43, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
Dmc:"Delete these too" LOL. There certainly seems to be an issue related to the proper use of these templates: Certain ones are underused, others are overused, yet others are redundant. Maybe a Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates would be useful for general coordination, as a lot of these are redirect/merge/issues. -SV|t 23:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I think that templates like this are kinda useful. For example, if a page is getting big, one editor himself may not be able to go through and throw out stuff, but a tag like this may be a signal that the maintainers of a list need to set stricter criteria, etc. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:45, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
No. If a maintainer sees the template, then they also see the length of the list for themselves. Pcb21| Pete 11:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

Template:Clist

Not used anywhere, not immediately apparent what it could be used for. --Phil | Talk 13:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not used. (And I am clueless about what it could be used for.) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The template creator is still an active wikipedian. Please ask him what he thought he was doing, and then relist here/keep/speedy as appropriate. Pcb21| Pete 17:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Template:Project usage

Violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references; editorial conventions should be collected in a central location, perhaps the MoS. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 02:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) (oh, and I vote delete. User:Rdsmith4/Sig)

  • Keep, as this is something that will be useful to readers. Looking at the uses of it, it's rather useful on billion and natural number, as NPOV prevents us from saying "this way is better" but we have to choose one or the other. As for Date, I'm not sure if it's useful there. "Avoid self-references" is not policy, only semi-policy, anyway. --SPUI (talk) 09:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is useful for readers. It should be used as it is used on billion, where it conveys useful information. I agree with SPUI that its use on Date is questionable as it doesn't give a concise point of information. It should not refer you to another page. Thryduulf 10:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't about Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Our reusers are not called 'Wikipedia'. --mav 04:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. --Jiang 06:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - concur with Mav and Jiang. →Raul654 06:21, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • ANNIHILATE! —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 07:27, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wrong way of going about it. I'm not going to visit billion to find out what Wikipedia's conventions on using the word are. If there's unclarity, then explain what you mean every single time you use the word. This is the only feasible way of doing it; we can't demand that readers plow through our MoS to find out. Articles should be as self-explanatory as possible in these matters. JRM · Talk 13:37, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
    Update: but also see the vote below. I'm wavering on this point. JRM · Talk 14:13, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Dpark 21:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; fixed -- I've addressed all objections in an overhaul of this template. It no longer refers to Wikipedia, and its documentation specifically forbids linking across namespaces. Additionally, I've visited the 3 pages where it was used. I rephrased its parameter text on Billion and Natural number, and removed it from Date. — Xiong熊talk* 14:52, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
    • Still got that big, flashy and ugly look to it. I also replaced {{SITENAME}} with 'in this encyclopedia' since mirrors that do not use MediaWiki would not be able to deal with that in the intended manor. --mav 16:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 05:47, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Template:Selfref, template:sr

People seem to think that just because they do it with a template, it's OK to litter the article namespace with wikipedia references. (This is currently linked from articles like VFD, CFD, Variable, sandbox, etc) This was nominated before by netoholic and voted to keep (3-2), but 5 votes is, um, trivial. Self references pollute the database, and we should be purging them, not encouraging them. →Raul654 02:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, the main reason to avoid self-references is to make it easier for mirrors (as well as for good style, but this would ideally appear either at the top of an article (with the disambig and other notes) or somewhere else where it's not intrusive. This makes it easier for the mirrors, as they simply blank this one template. "Avoid self-references" is not policy, only semi-policy, anyway. --SPUI (talk) 09:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • And all the other 'one templates' that are also self references that you constantly promote? Your logic would only work if there were just 'one template' to deal with. There are not and that is an undue burden on our reusers. --mav 04:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the template, although I'm not sure it should be used in all the places it currently is being. Thryduulf 10:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. For crying out loud, there has to be some way of recording in an article that the subject of the article is relevant to Wikipedia itself. Take ISBN for example: at the top of the article you have:
    For information about using ISBNs on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:ISBN.
    which is informative and unobtrusive. How else should anyone find out about the ISBN feature in Wikipedia? --Phil | Talk 13:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Visit the help page. Links to the Wikipedia namespace will likely not work on mirrors and if they do, then those mirrors are not called Wikipedia. --mav 04:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 18:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Our reusers are not called 'Wikipedia'. --mav 04:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. --Jiang 06:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Seriously, what is that supposed to mean? Avoid self-references is a guideline, not policy. --SPUI (talk) 07:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) comment refactored by User:Matt Crypto.
  • ANNIHILATE! —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 07:28, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a way to help avoid self-references. --iMb~Meow 08:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE. There is no need for this. All you need to do is replace any use of the term "Wikipedia" (in links or in text) with {{SITENAME}}, which automatically replaces that variable with the sitename, which in this case is Wikipedia and will vary for third party sites hosting the content. Problem solved. --brian0918&#153; 08:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    AskFactMasterism is definitely not what is wanted. --iMb~Meow 09:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. — this complements the "no self references" policy for the same goal -- to make life easier for reusers. — Matt Crypto 13:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to talk. The usages I've seen were all useful to contributors, not readers. Nobody is going to look up capitalization to know how Wikipedia does it—if they do, they should be prepared to use the talk page. That said, I'm beginning to think we need a reader version of the MoS. What we have now is prescriptive; we need something descriptive to readers in areas where there might be surprise (capitalization isn't it, but people might like to know why titles are used the way they are used, for example). This reader-oriented MoS can be written as a reference to a collection of articles; it needn't mention "Wikipedia" at all. JRM · Talk 14:12, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 19:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As said above: mirrors simply blank this one template.--Patrick 12:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would only hold water if there were just one of these types of templates. Why should mirrors have to go to that trouble to seek out and blank so many templates? What about mirrors that use an HTML version of our database? Templates don't exist as special pages then - their content is just part of each page they are displayed on. --mav 16:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sr can be changed into selfref, though that is not needed, because if a mirror blanks selfref, sr is also blanked. Perhaps other templates such as stub messages can make use of selfref, so that they are blanked automatically also. Are there mirrors that use an HTML version? Doesn't that mean that they have an edit link, link to the Community portal, etc., even if these do not work?--Patrick 22:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The wrong solution to the wrong problem. — Xiong熊talk* 13:51, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  • move to talkGeni 13:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a good way to avoid further self references. -- User:Docu
  • Delete, move helpful links and reference to Talk pages.-- Netoholic @ 05:49, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Keep. It serves a useful purpose. -Willmcw 05:16, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This template was previously nominated, and was kept. Therefore, this template should be given some extra time before a final decision is made. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is appropriate in some instances. Remove it from inappropriate instances and there is no problem. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Also note that it is "avoid self references", not "not a single solitary god damn self reference or the whole world will end and mav will weep salty tears". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Dante Alighieri notes, the template is fine and has valid uses. Whether or not it is used inappropriately is a different matter. Personally I don't see why we need to pander too much to mirrors, and, like others have said, they can simnply avoid the template. — Asbestos | Talk 21:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It got me from ISBN to Wikipedia:ISBN as cross-references are supposed to do. Mirrors copy Wikipedia at their own risk anyway (as far as content goes); this is just one more. (Furthermore, if there is a ever a bot-enforceable policy against self-reference, as some want, this will make it practical.) Septentrionalis 17:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - SoM 22:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

Template:Footer Movies M. Night Shyamalan

No need for a template that serves the same purpose as Category:M. Night Shyamalan films - the chronological order is not particularly important but is available at M. Night Shyamalan anyway. violet/riga (t) 18:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree with the rationale presented by the nominator. Phils 10:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Although I personally don't like this template, I don't see that it violates anything at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Also see template:Kubrick and template:Alfred Hitchcock's films (there may be more). Even without the category, I would expect a reader interested in a particular director's films to follow the link to the director (where I would expect to find a list of his/her films). Perhaps template:infobox_movie should be expanded to include links to the next/previous films by the same director. -- Rick Block 15:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 25

Template:News-trade

The TFD tag was placed on this template by User:Calicocat but no entry for it placed on this page. It appears to me that this template is redundant with Template:Journalism (see also WP:CFD#Category:News_trade_or_Category:Journalism) and the two should probably be merged, but I am neutral otherwise. Kelly Martin 19:34, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I placed the tag and was editing my comments on it, they appear below Calicocat 20:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Calicocat 20:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) on Template: news-trade:

  • Template is pushing a POV: This template establishes a false impression that an inveted concept, "news trade," is a valid, sound top level heading for inclusion on many or all articles dealing with the subject of Journalism, and perhaps in other articles. This template offers a link to an article, news trade, itself a totally disputed stub. In other words, I'm concerned this template might establish the dubious concept of "news trade" as a credible category within the universe of Journalism articles and perhaps others dealing with economics, etc.
  • Redundant: Template:news-trade is redundant with both the category Journalism and an existing template in use, Template:Journalism.
  • Corrective Measures Taken: As a corrective measure, I have edited some of the useful links contained in Template:news-trade into Template:journalism since some valid items in the former were not contained in the latter. Nothing was removed from Template: Journalism. (I have some issues with Template: Journalism, but those can be cooperatively worked on at Template: Journalism's talk page.
  • Further discussion: Issues with the article news trade are being addressed on its talk pages and I have suggested that conversations regarding Template:news-trade and category: news trade be addressed there as well so as to consolidate the issues with "news trade" as article, category and template into one location. Calicocat 20:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the reasons above are somewhat disingenous, as the discussion continues on the topical pages. But here's the basics: The profession of Journalism is separate from the business of the News Trade. Its that simple. One doesnt think of a daytrader who specializes in pharmaceudical stocks as part of the "medical profession." Likewise the blonde ditz on the celebrity news show is not a journalist. There is of course some overlap, but this is elementary: Set J may have members {A, P, Q, X, D) while set N has {A, P, D, R, T, Z, F}, this doesnt mean that somehow J=N! Thre are enough relevant links for each separate (slightly overlapping) category to justify a split. Finally, I dont see anything controversial about it except that by Calicocat's edits to homogenize the two into one, he has made the distinctions apparently moot to any superficial judgement. Apparently he thinks that anything in the very broad news trade qualifies as "journalism", and in failing to note this distinction, of course he thinks its unnecessary or even POV. With all due respect, SV|t|add 01:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Template:Journalism is far better. Contact me when you need it to be depopulated. Alphax τεχ 00:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see little or no difference between the template for "journalism" and the template for "news trade." "Journalism" is already a category. At least in the United States, "news trade" is not a common phrase. As best as I can tell, SV appears to reaching for a reason to link journalism with infotainment. That is insufficient reason for a template. Journalism is already part of the "mass media" category. If he wants some intermediary linkage, a "news industry" category would be more appropriate. -User:Maureen
  • Delete The term in common usage for what SV calls, "News Trade" is "News Industry." I've started a stub at News industry, however, in reading his news trade stub, it seems the larger universe here is Media economics, so I started another stub there. SV is also getting into the universe of media ethics, I've opened a Media ethics stub. I think SV is taking an admixture of things based on some of his points of view, in and of itself, fine and what is now called the article news trade might become an excellent editorial or blog entry on the journalism blogs. While I might agree with him on some points, I think having a whole template based on a stub article and placing that all over "Journalism Town" was an error. With the execption of the link to the News trade article, the template was highly duplicative with Template: Journalism. I think SV had good intentions, but was just jumping the gun on the template roll out. Whereas Template: Journalism is established and working well lets stick with that and work more on developing the artciles which interst us. In future, lets try to have more discussions on new templates before rolling them out and plugging them into many articles. I can see where "template vandalism" could be an issue. I do not think that was SV's intent at all in this. Calicocat 19:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you voting twice? -SV|t 00:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd interpret the first 'vote' to be a comment since it doesn't contain the words "delete" or "keep." No matter, I just won't count the first one anyways. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Template:Pieces-solocello-composer

As a result of a VfD listing which I have just closed, the articles List of solo cello pieces by composer: J etc have been merged into List of solo cello pieces. This navigation template is now redundant and has been orphaned. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Somebody went to an awful lot of work creating these pages, but then didn't bother to list Brahms, Bach, Prokoffiev, Franck, Chopin, Debussy, Beethoven, and a few other such minor composers of cello works. —Wahoofive (Talk) 15:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 22

Template:Circus-stub

Not cleared through WP:WSS first. It has only two articles, and since there are only about a hundred total articles in Category:Circuses and all its subcategories, most of which would be better off in a different stub category even if they were stubs, there's no significant potential for growth. (It was also originally categorizing into Category:Stub. Eagh.) —Korath (Talk) 19:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Useless. Master Thief Garrett 03:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Trivial template, no need to delete it, useful for anyone who wants to improve any reated articles. Klonimus 05:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 07:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - useless to stub-sorters and editors alike. Grutness|hello? 07:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I ran into several circus stubs today that I was wishing for a stub article, but this template needs to go through the paperwork. Linuxbeak 22:57, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

April 19

Template:Train-stub

Duplicate of Template:Rail-stub but without the category. slambo 13:27, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) Now a redirect to Template:Rail-stub slambo 20:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

April 16

Template:POV Fork

Question usefulness for this template, seem to be an opinion based, or could lead to, use with no explanation of what its placement is for, poss redundant with other templates. Also question on the basis that its creator has only had 19 edits prior to creation of template, of which several were edits claming POV, as well as the proposal for the SamuraiClinton RFA. Smells a bit sockish. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) WITHDRAWN

  • I created this template because POV Fork is a very common reason for articles to be listed on WP:VFD. I consider User:Boothy443's actions to be harassment. He had previously claimed that a legitimate WP:RFA nomination was "vandalism" because he personally disagreed with it, and engaged in personal attacks against me on his Talk page (calling me a "moron" and a "spade"). This nomination ought not be taken seriously because it is the product of personal animosity. As for the claims of sockpuppethood, they are too ludicrous for words. I have edited here for quite some times, and as I have stated to several different users, I chose to register so that I would not be treated as a second-class Wikicitizen. (My original choice for a userid was User:AllWikipediansAreEqualButSomeAreMoreEqualThanOthers, but this was rejected as too long.) LevelCheck 03:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is this necessary? If an article is a POV fork, then deal with it. Nominate it for deletion, or merge it back where it should be (or apply the appropriate merge tags so someone else can do it, or start a substantive discussion on the Talk page). If necessary add the appropriate 'disputed' tags. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Template:merge or delete. Pwqn 14:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Template:merge or Template:VfD serve just fine. CDC (talk) 00:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Superfluous. Forks should simply be marked for speedy and listed on CSD. Although it isn't in the deletion policy, article forks are classed along with vandalism and are A Very Bad Thing. Listing them on VfD would be granting them more respect than they deserve. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 12

Template:PD-MNGov

(Hope this is the right area to put this in.) Created this template on very mistaken assumptions and am now asking for it to be deleted. Schissel : bowl listen 04:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

You've come to the right place :) Looks like a speedy delete to me. Grutness|hello? 12:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You should retag the affected images at some point as well. If not PD, what's the license on these? grendel|khan 20:27, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I'll inform the poster(s?) in the next couple of days that I was mistaken about the copyright condition of the image and whether they can verify fair use, otherwise remove the image - perhaps in favor of another. Schissel : bowl listen 03:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

{{PD-CAGov}} will need to go too... Alphax τεχ 07:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually I think California has released all its stuff to the public domain. --SPUI (talk) 21:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The link-to list has decreased but is not yet down to zero. *groan* (Should just retag myself where possible, I guess. Especially since there's a whole category whose existence may be predicated on the mistake I made. May not, also, if the person who created it knows something about MN law no one here so far does, but...) Schissel : bowl listen 14:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have contacted the State of Minnesota regarding copyright issues in regards to their site content. I will post what I find as well as fix the articles in question. Dennis Fernkes 00:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Appreciated. At least one of the affected images was set up by someone who hasn't been on Wikipedia in two months from their contr. page (this would be User:JTilly) and perhaps should just be deleted at that... Schissel : bowl listen 10:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't receive a response from whomever I tried to contact through the State of Minnesota website. But I did talk to someone who controls the portal that the State uses. They told me that there should be no problem using these photos. I also found this statement somewhere in the vastness of the state government website:
"State agency authored documents are in the public domain.
Copyright and access restrictions apply."
However, I can't find a suitable tag for this in the current list. I have always found the issue of copyright to be confusing. Therefore, based on what the statement says, I ask someone to tag both JesseVentura.jpg and TimPawlenty.jpg with an appropriate tag. Dennis Fernkes 21:55, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Oy. To understate, this could be a whole lot clearer. And thanks for going to all that trouble (and sorry about the delay in my response.) Just wondering what an appropriate tag would be in this case now. Should the category be maintained after all this and all... It's good my head is good at spinning, so to say. Schissel : bowl listen 15:28, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Hasid-stub

See related discussions and vote for Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Sefer-stub above.
  • Delete: Do we really need this stub if we have the Judaism-related stub of Template:Judaism-stub already? (And remember, we also have the "Jewish history" stub of Template:JewHist-stub, the "Hebrew Bible" stub of Template:HeBible-stub, and of course the "Israel" stub of Template:Israel-stub.) There are NOT enough articles to warrent a new Jewish-articles stub at this time I would think, this will only clutter the field and further splinter the Judaism- and Jewish history- stubs sections. It thus needs to be put on hold for now. It also does not seem to be working from a technical point. See Satmar (Hasidic dynasty). IZAK 07:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary. Grue 07:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Judaism stubs are a big mess already - a look at the caveats and provisos at the top of Category:Israel-related stubs will tell you that. This one hasn't been approved by WP:WSS and just further complicates and already complicated set of stub categories. Grutness|hello? 12:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Grutness, I take great exception to your critique. The "Judaism" stubs are not "a big mess". There are four of them for good reasons: One for the 3,300+ year-old religion of Judaism; one specifically for Hebrew Bible primary texts; one relating to the modern State of Israel; and one for the vast subject of Jewish history.IZAK 06:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • From a stub-sorter's viewpoint, they take more working out as to what goes where than any other group of stub categories. They don't follow the usual clear cut distinctions that other, more well thought-out stub categories do. They're messy to use from that point of view. The convolutions of these categories are the main reason there isn't a separate Israel-geo-stub (although controversy about the borders was another consideration). Anyway, there aren't four. There's {{Judaism-stub}}, {{JewHist-stub}}, {{Israel-stub}}, {{Sefer-stub}}, {{HeBible-stub}}, and {{Hasid-stub}} - that's six messily tangled categories. Grutness|hello? 00:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Grutness: Well at least I agree with you about one thing, that they need to be controlled, that is why I have proposed this {{Hasid-stub}} and as of 18 April {{Sefer-stub}} (see [2]) for deletion. But the other four make sense I do believe, considering that they deal with a three-and-half-thousand-year/s-old subject! IZAK 09:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Sounds fine to me - the proliferation and overlap of stub categories is the main problem here. There seemed to be no clear delineation between {{Hasid-stub}}, {{Sefer-stub}} and subjects which would be covered by one of the other stubs. I'd say 99% of the confusion would be reduced by removing these two stubs, (or replacing one of the existing ones with Sefer-stub - see note below). Grutness|hello? 11:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Judaism-stub and JewHist-stub are enough. Jayjg (talk) 14:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hyperstubsorting. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this should go, so should Template:Sefer-stub. E=MC^2 T@lk 23:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Judaism is such a small religion in terms of adherents (both today and in the past), and while it is quite important historically, this particular branch is a drop in a drop in an ocean.02:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I for one think there are a number of articles that center around that subject, and that the stub itself has been put to good usage so far. SF2K1 02:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It can be useful for people familiar with the distinctions, who will hopefully be expanding the articles anyway. Danny 15:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Question: Did this stub pass the stub creation process? — Xiong熊talk 18:58, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
There is no formal stub creation process. Asking at WP:WSS is highly recommended (to make discussions like this unlikely), but not obligatory. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And it wasn't even mentioned there. To answer Danny - it may be useful for the editors who know the difference, but it's not the editors who put stubs in separate categories. I doubt if more than a small handful of the stub sorters would know the differences. Grutness|hello? 02:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep My original reasons for creating the stub was that I realized there were at least 15 Hasidic stub articles. This is not a lot and does not seem to be a good reason. Yet recently users have been writing stubs about Hasidic dynasties. There are over 200 Hasidic dynasty articles that are yet to be written. When it comes the time when there will be so many articles on one subject than the stub will be very usefull. In the mean time we should keep it though, Hasidic articles are written quickly and always start as stubs, not full fledged articles. On the sorting issue. It may be a little annoying for sorting yet I think that the stub template is needed a bit now and will come in very handy on the future. ChanochGruenman 13:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Chanoch, while your heart is in the right place, you absolutely CANNOT say that because down the line there are "200 articles that are yet to be written", that it is therefore a "justification" for creating stubs now , which makes no sense at all. If we indeed one day in the future had that many articles we can begin to think about it. I can tell you now, that I have been the one who entered most of the Judaism/Hebrew Bible/Israel articles into the two largest "Jewish" categories of Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel and Zionism as well as their sub and sub-sub categories, and I can tell you that on those huge subjects there are about 3,500 articles in total including all stubs. So at this point to start splintering and dividing up a field of relatively few articles will not be of help (as you can see how poor old Grutness is so confused already), and it will surely only confuse a very confusing subject. Unless you do not agree that Hasidism is part of Judaism??? So for now, let's keep Hasidic-stub subjects as part of Judaism-stub or Jewish history-stub subjects, please. IZAK 10:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. In an attempt to mollify some of the feathers that may have been ruffled by my earlier comments, may I try to explain. The general procedure with stub category creation is to first assay the need for a category based on one of two ideas: (1) there are a large number of extant generic stubs which would qualify for a specific category, or (2) there are too many stubs for an existing category to be viable, and therefore consider reducing it by making a natural subcategory for it. In general, WP:WSS uses rule of thumb figures of between 60 and 100 existing stubs as a minimum for a new category, and - except in special circumstances - is unlikely to split a category with under about 800 stubs. At all times, attempts are made to have the nw category fit in with the existing scheme, rather than cutting across two or more extant categories. Currently neither Judaism-stub nor JewHist-stub is on more than 200 articles, and, as Chanoch said, there are currently only some 15 stubs which would benefit from the new template. I think it highly unlikely the template would have been agreed to had it been proposed at WP:WSS. Furthermore, it does create confusion, by cutting across two current stub categories (many articles on Hasidic Judaism also deal with matters linked to Jewish history or Judaism in general - lets face it, the Hasidic/Rabbinical schism - if that's the right terminology for it - was a major event in both Judaism and Jewish history). Having sefer-stub suddenly appear caused enough confusion, without this one appearing as well. As to sefer-stub, I'd be quite happy to see it replace HeBible-stub, which it largely duplicates. Grutness|hello? 11:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Grutness: There would be a huge problem with having the "Sefer-stub" replace the "HeBible-stub" because the Hebrew word Sefer simply means "book" and so it could also be used to include non-religious and non-Biblical books and it would therefore NOT make any sense to combine the "Hebrew Bible-stub" under the "Sefer-stub", as its present creators have a very narrow Orthodox Judaism view of the word sefer. IZAK 06:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Hm. I was thrown off by the wording of the template which seemed to imply it could only be religion-related texts (specifically Judaism-related texts). Would it be better to combine the two into one new template simply for Jewish religious texts? If not, and it is for books in general, then it compounds problems by tanging itself up with book-stub and I would recomment deleting it. Grutness|hello? 06:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It may be an idea because we do have Category:Jewish texts that is quite all-inclusive which does have many stub articles of course. Simutaneously, many of them do legitimately fit into the Template:Judaism-stub as well. Whereas the Hebrew Bible-stub also functions as an acceptable demarcation between (1)Judaism's one and only Hebrew Bible -- and -- (2) Christianity's name for it of the Old Testament because of its (Christianity's) New Testament. It's a bit of a minefield, I must admit. IZAK 09:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • ...which also brings up the problem of whether an article on an Old Testament character (say, Shem) gets Christianity-stub or HeBible-stub - but that's just adding more confusions. Grutness|hello? 10:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No the case you mention (of Shem) is not confusing, because it is a fact of reality that Judaism and Christianity are ENTIRELY different religions, Judaism came first, it is Christianity that adoped some of Judaism's texts and not the other way around (so there will be some similarities because of that), and as long as a link, or category, or stub is working in good faith recognizing the differences between the seperate faiths, then two (i.e. one Judaism-related and one Christianity-related) different Wikipedia links/categories/stubs will always reflect truth and therefore will always be valid. IZAK 07:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Topic too narrow to be distinguished from existing stubs DDerby 06:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 9

Template:Czechia-geo-stub/Template:Czech-geo-stub

The former was marked {{db|replaced by the better Template:Czech-geo-stub}}. Not a speedy candidate, especially when it's not an orphan. One should be a redirect to the other; no opinion on which to which, though. —Korath (Talk) 16:09, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Starky 16:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It was, by the way, Starky who applied the speedy message, and has in the last hour been going on a "Czechia"-purging rampage, his first edits ever. —Korath (Talk) 17:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have not been going through a "Czechia-purging rampage", I was just replacing instances the old template with the newer shorter-named template, which doesn't gratuitously use the neologism "Czechia" for the Czech Republic. Starky 17:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Czechia-geo-stub. "Czechia" is a dubious neologism that should be avoided. NoPuzzleStranger 19:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm adding Template:Czech-geo-stub at this point, at least until this mess is straightened out. At the very least, it's a cut and paste move. —Korath (Talk) 19:19, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops - without knowing about this debate, I've just redirected the (incorrect) Czech-geo-stub to CZechia-geo-stub. There was quite a bit of debate about the naming of this stub before its creation, and it was decided that Czechia was a far more acceptable name for it than Czech. Delete Czech-geo-stub, keep Czechia-geo-stub, as per WP:WSS. Grutness|hello? 22:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. For me (as a Czech user) is Czechia quite acceptable - also our government officially encourages people to use it. Miaow Miaow 23:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you take a look at Category:Geography stubs, you'll see that no other geo-stub category uses the adjective form of a country name, they all use the noun form. So if we are to remain consistent, we have to call this Czechia-geo-stub or Czech-Republic-geo-stub, and the former is much less cumbersome. — Ливай | ☺ 00:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ливай. When stumbling on pages that need a stub-tag, this is much easier to do if stub-tags are predictable in form. The stub-tag itself doesn't have to be in brilliant prose or use 100% correct terminology, as we can let it display any message we like. / Tupsharru 11:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Those last two comments are obviously bogus. Either we want to be correct, then it has to be Czech-Republic-geo-stub, or we consider that too cumbersome and divert in some way from the correct form, in which case the most appropriate alternative is to use the adjective, not some controversial and obscure word that is not found in any respectable English dictionary. What kind of argument is it to say we have to use a noun because we use nouns in all other cases, but we don't have to use the standard name even though we use the standard name in all other cases? And how is "Czechia" predictable? How would anyone predict a word which is used in only 0.2% of all references to the country in Google News? "We can let it display any message we like" - well then, why not Czech-geo-stub? NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both as long as both add the same stub category and people avoid replacing one with the other, there is no harm having two of them. -- User:Docu
  • Keep. And let's finally have the decency to call countries what their governments ask us to call them. As for NoPuzzleStranger's fascinating comment about a "dubious neologism", could he please explain what makes a neologism dubious? As a professional linguist I find that beyond my understanding of how languages work. When a new entity appears, such as a new country, it needs a name, and a neologism is normal and proper. "Czechia" is a neat one, and is no more lumpish than "Slovakia". --Doric Loon 12:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The only official name of the country is Czech Republic. It's dubious because it's controversial even in the Czech Republic itself, and it's virtually never used in English. We don't popularize neologisms here, we follow existing common usage. Whether's it's "neat" is therefore irrelevant. NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, if you are voting here, you should also make your opinion heard on the talk page of the Czech Republic article - a vote is going on there about possibly renaming that article Czechia.
  • Keep. Same reason as Doric Loon. Every other country in Europe has a free-standing name, why not Czechia? Besides, the official name is Česká republika, which only translates to Czech Republic (Okay this justification is entirely contrived, but I've seen worse around these debates). --Bastique 20:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, I don't know about that - there's hardly been a rush to change the name of articles about La République Française from France to French Republic... Grutness|hello? 09:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment As a compromise, couldn't we just use something like CS-geo-stub or CR-geo-stub, like in NI-geo-stub, BiH-geo-stub....?Lectonar 08:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Or Cz-geo-stub... yes, that would work (though there would still be a problem with category names). Grutness|hello? 07:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please ignore any statements made on this topic by NoPuzzleStranger. He is trying to declare his personal ignorance a rule. Czechia is not a neologism, but a normal word and all relevant English language experts have confirmed that it is the only correct version in the English language. The word has been used since the Middle Ages (it is even written in the St. Vit Cathedral in Prague) as what is called by experts the territorial designation for the Czech territory, and an abrreviated name for the Lands of the Bohemian crown/Czech Republik etc. (just like France, Germany, Slovakia, Poland etc.). It is derived from the Latin Czechia (hence the CZ and CH), just like Moravia or Bohemia. Is is nowadays used in some English encyclopaedias (those with better information), on maps, in the offficial UN country list, by Czech authorities, e.g. in the US government analyses of Czechoslovakia of 1987 (-as a proof) and by all those who have basic information in this field. The English "Czechia" is also prescribed by all Czech regulations and norms regarding geographical names. The word is not really disputed in Czechia itself (the article we have here as a link in Czech Republic is just the author's personal opinion), there are only some people who are used to the older names that were relevant in the 1980s – namely Czechoslovakia and Czech (Socialist) Republic (as a constituent republic of Czechoslovakia – hence the "republic"!). Nevertheless the Czech equivalent exists since the Middle Ages as well, it is in the Dictionary of the Czech language (1978) etc and is used in TV news , newspapers, taught in schools etc.. Even if we admitted that the name was disputed in Czechia itself, the problem in Czech is completely different from other languages – the problem is that in Czech the word for Czechia (Česko) is very similar to the word for Bohemia and at the same time identical with "Czecho-". (which sounds like an "unfinished" Czechoslovakia), but that has nothing to do with English or other languages. In sum, there is absolutely no reason for not using Czechiat, it is even ridiculous and an error not to use it (which is unfortunately the case in most English-language media). Juro 23:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please also note that User:Starky, who has voted on this and is outspoken on topics related to Czechia/Czech Republic, seems very likely to be a sockpuppet of NoPuzzleStranger. Grutness|hello? 06:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: The two listed templates now both redirect to {{Cz-geo-stub}}. Grutness|hello? 04:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Basketball Coaches

Revised to simple succession box. MisfitToys 20:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

April 7

Template:2005Calendar through Template:2024Calendar

Also, Template:AprilCalendar2004 and Template:AprilCalendar2005, and Template:AprilCalendar2004Source through Template:AprilCalendar2025Source, and the same for every other month.

  • Deprecated by generic calender templates for both months and years (dependent on the weekday of january 1st and leapness of the year). Well-intended, but unfortunately needless clutter. Radiant_* 11:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - needless meta-templates. Have the alternate calendars been created yet, for comparison? -- Netoholic @ 15:02, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
    • Note, Template:AprilCalendar2005 is still being in use. And they aren't necessarily meta-templates, at least for the ones I created from 2006 to 2025. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If a template includes a call to another template, it is a meta-template. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
        • The templates created from January 2006 to December 2025 aren't meta-templates. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Netoholic, please really take a look. Template:MayCalendar2006Source is not a meta-template in any way. It's actual template. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Templates for "Leap year starting on tuesday" or "30-day month starting on friday" (with parametrization for which month and year it is) have the advantage of being reusable for each and every year in the Gregorian calendar, obviating the need for hundreds of templates for each individual month and year therein. Radiant_* 09:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, but, there's so much parameter passing for those templates. And people are lazy. Without these templates, any page using a calendar to display the current month must change using the "Leap year starting on Tuesday" or whatever templates. What happens if I want to display only one month and have it change every month? I can't use {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} anymore. I would have to manually update and figure out which template to use every month. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Template:New TFD

(and redirect at Template:TFDNotice)

TFD does not make use of this template. It's not common practice to make sections for "keep", "delete" votes. -- Netoholic @ 07:52, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

  • Nor should it be. Whenever someone "helpfully" refactors a vfd like this, it stops being a discussion and starts turning into a shouting match. There's no reason to suspect things would be any different here. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 07:59, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like this (the basic idea, at least). It organises the reasons for and against (and their accompanying votes — but as has been stressed continually, it shouldn't be, and in theory it's not, about the votes) into clear sections. These discussions can turn into shouting matches anyway; I'm not sure why this would accelerate the process. Unlike the Tally Box, it doesn't focus on votes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Korath. Like the Tally Box Pox. Radiant_* 09:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same ambiguity issues here as with tally boxes. -Sean Curtin 22:29, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is often helpful to see the votes seperated, especially when people don't bold their votes. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Korath. BlankVerse ∅ 01:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tally boxes are not encouraged in VfD (from what people have told me) and the format above was taken from places like RfC. Zscout370 02:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If the point of this template was to redefine the way TFD works - great. I dont see this page as being active enough to warrant such a redesign - yet. Archive for later -SV|t 02:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

Template:Manga

Category scheme in a box. Very pretty, but it doesn't even have any content specifically related to any given article that it's put on. Snowspinner 05:04, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete
  • It does not follow the policy for navigational templates because it is more like a combination of TOC templates for the following: List of manga, Mangaka, and Manga. Secondly, the links for List of manga and List of Manga-ka are in alphabetical order, thus making it redundant to categories. Zzyzx11 06:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's big, awkward, redundant, and not useful. (It was worse when it was vertical.) I agree with mako's albumbox-ish proposal, though. -℘yrop (talk) 07:10, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Large and hideous; convert to category. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 01:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've never bothered to click on any of the links, and i doubt many other will. Right now this template is just a deposite of links, no real content. If you were to expand this template, it will take up more space than the contents on many wiki entries on manga/anime. DELETE after there's something better as an replacement. LG-犬夜叉 23:38, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Useless. Ashibaka (tock) 00:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Blatant category. Convert and delete - David Gerard 00:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Either a category or a TOC. Delete. -Sean Curtin 22:33, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this template is larger than many articles. - SimonP 17:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep
  • This template has been around for a while. It used to be a vertical box that occupied a sidebar position, like this. I modified the box to be horizontal a few months back, envisioning placement at the bottom of the page, as suggested on Template_talk:Manga. However the change would require going through every page referencing this template and moving the tag to the bottom, so I did not go through with the change, instead leaving the template on the talk page for comment. User:Minghong decided to implement it yesterday. This is an arduous task, as he has discovered (read the talk if you haven't already). I suspect the user who posted this to vfd viewed a yet unfixed page, which would indeed be aesthetically jarring. However, at the bottom of the page, where it belongs, it serves a navigational purpose. Keep. - mako 06:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Other
  • I don't know... It might be sufficient to link to the various lists in this template on the articles that use this template, but it is a convenient method of navigation if you want to find another manga series. Josh 05:41, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I prefer to use "List of XXX" to do this kind of thing, i.e. List of manga. This navigation bar, while being improved, is just quite large in size. And many manga are also anime and/or game. So in order to make it complete, we need to create "anime" and "game" navbar as well? The article will be overloaded... P.S. Oh yes, I'm the one who make the change from vertical to horizontal. --minghong 07:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I would rather see it a bit smaller than having it removed altogether. Philip Nilsson 22:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, an infobox would be much better. As the articles are now it can take up to 10 seconds to find a single piece of information if it is not written in a standard way in the first paragraph. I do suggest that we keep it until we have something to replace it with though.
  • I don't understand why the design of this box was changed from that vertical version to an horizontal one. To me, it looks pretty bad the way it is now, while it looked just fine the way it used to be. That's why I vote for it to be reverted to the vertical-oriented style.--Kaonashi 07:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I liked it better when it was vertical, too. It certainly took up less space. —Korath (Talk) 02:26, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Refactor -- This clearly fulfills the role of a category more than of a template. I certainly don't support its inclusion on every such page. On the other hand, I think it's well done. It does something I don't think a standard category page does well. Horizontal box is "clean" -- formats properly in extremely narrow window. I say, keep it for now, and figure out how to upgrade a category page to that standard; then replace. Major project; kick it off this page and look at it in a month or two. — Xiong (talk) 10:04, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Holding Cell

Move templates here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should remove them from pages so that they can be deleted.

Template:Sejm Marshals

  • Is this really to be deleted? It has no {TfD] tag, and a large number of pages link to it. Noel (talk) 20:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, so whoever moved it to the holding cell needs a spanking. I've put the discussion on the template talk page. (The Divide has been done already) — MikeX (talk) 20:51, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the "divide" in effect created other templates, this one is no longer needed. orphan and delete it.--Jiang 06:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • actually, the divide has not been done already. it needs to be done. --Jiang 02:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To convert to category

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories get put here until the conversion is completed.

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion moved to the template's Talk page, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

On hold for technical reasons

This is a temporary subsection needed because of a bug in the Wikipedia software; fully orphaned templates which cannot be deleted because of the bug are collected here.

Disputed (deprecated)

This subsection is deprecated. If the outcome of a proposal for deletion does not result in a clear concensus, the debate may continue on the template's Talk page -- not here.

Template:Deletebecauseoncommons

(and redirect at Template:dbc)

Summary: 2 Delete, 1 Keep ~ Courtland 8 March

(Logged at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/Archive/Feb05)

We already have two templates which handle both aspects of this one. Template:NowCommons documents that the image is at Commons, and Template:ifd marks those images which are up for deletion. Compare here where I replaced use of this template with the appropriate ones. There is no special reason to combine these two ideas into a single template. -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

  • Keep - it should be encouraged to upload files to commons under the same name, to avoid having to change the articles. And there's no reason {{NowCommons}} shouldn't be like this one (which I created not knowing of NowCommons's existence, if it existed at the time). --SPUI (talk) 22:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, but we already have templates to handle this. This one is redundant with those established ones. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
    • Why should we encourage people to keep the same name? A lot of images here are titled in CamelCase; and there's no reason not to fix it when the opportunity arises. I always replace bad names with good when pushing to the Commons. dbenbenn | talk 14:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't care - I just wanted to mention that there's a category associated with these which ought to go away too if the template does. Noel (talk) 05:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Replace it with {{NowCommons}} <br/> {{ifd}} or redirect to NowCommons. Alphax τεχ 01:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have several images I've uploaded to en, and now reuploaded to Commons. I want to delete the en versions so the Commons versions show through, but I hate having that {{ifd}} on there. It's just temporary, but there's no reason that viewers should see that notice. (I also find it a bit silly that even when I am the creator and uploader of the en image, then upload to Commons, I still can't request speedy deletion even though no images in articles will be broken.) Adding {{NowCommons}} doesn't help much because unless someone knows what Commons is, it doesn't really explain. If I were a random visitor and clicked on an image to get the larger one, I would not understand why this apparently good image was up for deletion, and even a casual editor might not understand. If I can't get my images deleted speedily, I would at least like the deletion notice to clearly explain that it is because there is now a redundant copy and there is no problem with the image per se. User:SPUI saw me struggling and was kind enough to point this out to me. This is not just a combination of those two templates, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that this is not a problem for images which are uploaded under different names to Commons; in that case, the other templates work fine. A casual viewer to the article would see the new Commons image if he followed the link and would be unaware of the old local version which was up for deletion. Anyone who came to the old image would have come specifically seeking that image, and the {{NowCommons}} and {{ifd}} would be more than sufficient. But in the event that you actually think the original name is perfectly adequate and want to move to Commons, while the image is in IFD the article viewers will see the deletion notice, and I don't think the two-template combination is adequate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redundant, so delete or redirect BrokenSegue 21:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Listings to log

Templates with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=13621240"