Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

Template:Sfd-current Please put new listings under today's date at the top of the section.

June 23

Template:US-camp-stub

Only one article currently links to it. It seems likely this template might be used to extend the morass from Wikipedia:Schools. --Tabor 22:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Refer to WP:SFD. Joe D (t) 22:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, moving nomination to WP:SFD. --Tabor 23:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Li-isotopes

Same as below. Made redundant, just missed it in the last list.--metta, The Sunborn 19:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Several isotope templates

I created these templates for the isotopes and am the only one who ever edited them. They are now redundant with the new system being put in place for the same purpose. The list as follows:

--metta, The Sunborn 17:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

speedy delete -- Netoholic @ 18:46, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Speedy deleting. Good? - Omegatron 19:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Constantvandalisminprogress

(and the redirect Template:CVIP, and the associated Category:Vandalism in Progress) Pointless. If the page needs to be protected from vandalism there's template:vprotected; if the page isn't protected there's no point to placing a notice like this, since the vandals can vandalize it as easily as they vandalize the rest of the article. It is also needlessly self-referential: Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages already exists, hidden away from the average reader, to list pages that need careful watching for vandalism. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete since adequate provision exists as described above and this risks making martyrs of pages.-Splash 17:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Artportal

Redundant with {{portalpar}} which accepts one parameter and is thus much more versatile. Do we really want a separate portal template for each portal? --MarSch 11:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I doubt the creator or users, including myself, were aware of portalpar's existence. --sparkit (talk) 14:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- someone (maybe I) linked to it on portal talk, which they should have checked. --MarSch 14:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:N, Template:Y, Template:No and Template:Yes

~~More templates to add a cutish picture to a vote; see below for the discussion about Template:Support and others. R adiant _>|< 08:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn. Note that I've merged the first two onto the latter two. R adiant _>|< 13:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - as I mentioned in the vote below, they are used in articles, not votes (look at the "What links here" for each ([1], [2], [3], [4]). If people start using them in votes, then I'll change my mind. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Terrible for votes, but wonderful for things like comparison tables. --W(t) 10:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Keep but don't dare use them for voting. smoddy 10:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Template:No and Template:Yes, but please don't use them for your opinions in any of the Wikipedia surveys (and for anyone considering such action, look at the strong opinions against Template:Support and Template:Oppose expressed below and consider the possibility that your vote might disappear if someone blanks the template—not that I am advocating such action). On the other hand, the almost unused redirects Template:N, and Template:Y should be deleted in my opinion. BlankVerse ∅ 11:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, for the reason cited above. —Lifeisunfair 12:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Radiant — I appreciate the diligence with which you round up potentially inappropriate templates, but can you please make a greater effort to understand their intended applications before proposing their deletion? Why would you assume that these templates were for use in voting, without even bothering to check? And why haven't you struck that claim? —Lifeisunfair 12:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In this case, I nominated them because BrokenSegue and ALoan mentioned in the discusion on Template:Oppose that they were quite similar. These four aren't much in use at the moment, I noticed as much - but they could have been subst'ed, and being not much in use is hardly a reason for keeping. And I hadn't struck that claim yet because it's been all of four hours since I made it. HTH. Radiant_>|< 13:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Thank you for your reply and for striking the erroneous claim. I inquired because you removed the tfd tags after the templates' intended application was pointed out (and almost two hours had elapsed since then). I would appreciate if you would also strike your mistaken description of Template:Spoiler-about, as I requested more than a day ago. Thanks again! :-) —Lifeisunfair 15:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These templates add no value. Why does a simple yes or no not suffice in a table. Even if you want the picture, there is still no need for a template. Thus substitute and delete --MarSch 13:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I just reviewed all the pages that curretly use these templates. All seem to be sensible, and similer future uses should be supported. Use in votes, which is not currently being done, would be another matter. DES 15:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Omegatron 15:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Their use for voting should not be discussed here, but at VP, as Dragons flight proposed below. — Sebastian (talk) 16:58, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Keep, as long as they're not used for voting. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete If you don't want to use them in votes, where do you want to use them? --Neigel von Teighen 23:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This article is an example of its usage elsewhere, British_referendum_on_the_European_Constitution Falphin 23:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, the template is used occasionally and it doesn't harm anything to keep it. Falphin 23:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 22

Template:Transwiki

This template is unused, since it is redundant with {{move to Wiktionary}}, {{move to Wikisource}}, etc. It was only used on a few old pages specifying other projects, so I've cleaned out the category (Category:Wikipedia articles to be transwikied) using the specific templates. This is unnecessary and creates more work. --Dmcdevit 21:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I should say the category should go along with it. --Dmcdevit 18:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
del, superseded --MarSch 13:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, what about articles that are in other languages. While it is rare it still could be used. Falphin 22:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Those use the {{notenglish}} tag, and go to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. They shouldn't use the Transwiki tag. --Dmcdevit 06:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:TOCembed

This produces a horrible-looking TOC on the left-hand side of the page. All pages ought to follow the same format, but this ruins the look of about 4 articles. Dunc|☺ 16:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless somebody can come up with a better format. The left-floating box isn't nice. Joe D (t) 16:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Section convinces me that thsi is a good ides in some cases. When the TOC is long, the default format introduces a lot of undesireable whitespace. Short TOCs, Wide TODs and Long but not Wide TOCs should not be handled in the same way. DES 17:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What part of this long discussion page are you referring to? — Sebastian (talk) 17:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  - Sorry. I was refering specifically to the "Right floating TOC" section found here. DES 17:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, unless a viable alternative is offered. I used this template to diffuse an Anon user who was starting to crossover to a vandal. He raised the valid point that the brief intro to the article, followed by a lengthy ToC, pushed needed mention of criticisms "below the fold" of the front page. It ain't pretty, but it works.--ghost 17:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The intelligent design article is quite a mess as I view it. Section 1 (ID in summary) is squeezed in a narrow right margin with a "Creationism" template sitting on top of it, making it impossible for me to read it.--Nabla 04:34, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Delete, pointless. R adiant _>|< 08:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, because it has its uses, though Template:TOCright is usually the preferred template for floating TOCs. Looking at intelligent design, I think it is not appropriate in that case simply because of the right floating box next to it. In previous discussion it has been suggested that TOCs only float when other boxes are not floating at the same place in the document. It also sounds like the conflict on that article has more to do with developing a good summary than TOC placement. —Mike (creator of both templates) 08:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I tried Template:TOCright, and it works well. Therefore, I remove my objections for deleteing Template:TOCembed. However, if this is done, please update the TOC instruction pages, as I never saw a reference to TOCright, and I looked.--ghost 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

del, file a feature request instead --MarSch 13:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler-about

I understand the need of Template:Spoiler-other below, but this one claims that "the article contains spoilers about its subject" and is therefore redundant with the more vanilla Template:Spoiler. R adiant _>|< 08:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Radiant. This template is redundant. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Provisional delete, Template:Spoiler-about and Template:Spoiler-other are redundant with each other. We don't need two templates to describe what spoilers it contains. At the moment I think Spoiler-other is more useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to reassess the template. I personally favor retaining both {{Spoiler-about}} and {{Spoiler-other}}, but if we were to keep only one, it should be {{Spoiler-about}}. It contains less information (rendering it less useful in situations to which {{Spoiler-other}} applies), but the information that it does contain is applicable. Conversely, {{Spoiler-other}} contains additional information that renders it inapplicable to any situation in which the spoiler warning doesn't pertain to the article's title (as demonstrated below). —Lifeisunfair 12:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete not necessary. Redirect back to template:spoiler. Dunc|☺ 09:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. You appear to have misunderstood the nature of the template, because it does not claim that "the article contains spoilers about its subject" (unless someone decides to utilize it in this manner, which isn't its intended application). The "subject" to which I refer in my example is that of the spoiler, not the title of the article. This is potentially useful in two types of situation that I've observed.

1. An article or section can contain spoilers pertaining to a topic that while not unrelated, is not explicitly contained within the title. For example, an actor's/director's/producer's article (or a section thereof) might mention key plot details of one or more theatrical/television productions. The message might read:

Spoiler warning: This article or section contains plot/ending details of "Movie X" and "Movie Y."

2. A particular section can contain spoilers for a specific area of the article's subject, such as a television season. (This is especially significant when a current television series is further along in some countries than in others.) The message might read:

Spoiler warning: This article or section contains plot/ending details of season 3.

And once again, the spoiler warning page has encouraged the creation of custom spoiler warnings for almost a year. If you disagree with this guideline, you should propose its abolishment (as opposed to the abolishment of templates created in accordance with said guideline). And of course, in authoring this template and {{Spoiler-other}}, I seek to reduce or eliminate the need for further custom spoiler templates. —Lifeisunfair 09:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, in that case it's redundant with the more generic Template:Spoiler-about. I wholeheartedly agree with reducing the need for custom spoiler templates, and like I said I find spoiler-about very useful, but I can't see this one as anything else than redundant. As a side point, WP:SW claims you should design your own If these general purpose templates are not suitable for the particular article you are working on. And what we're debating here is precisely that issue - whether or not the general templates are suitable. R adiant _>|< 10:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I obviously disagree with your assessment. The {{Spoiler-other}} template (which I assume you meant to reference above) is far less generic than {{Spoiler-about}}, because the former specifies that the article contains spoilers pertaining to its title. Applying {{Spoiler-other}} to the two examples cited above, you'll see that it's entirely inappropriate:

Spoiler warning: In addition to George Lucas, this article contains plot/ending details of THX 1138 and American Graffiti.

The article doesn't contain spoilers about George Lucas.

Spoiler warning: In addition to The X-Files, this article contains plot/ending details of season 3.

Season 3 is part of the series, not an additional entity.

Do you see how the templates have disparate applications? —Lifeisunfair 10:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep, unless somebody's changed the template, it doesn't say that it contains spoilers about its subject, but rather has a parameter where you can put what the spoiler is. I can definitely see this being useful in some places. For example, in an article about a director, I may want to talk about one of his movies. This template would allow me to specify which movie I'm going to discuss, while at the same time making it clear that I'm not going to "spoil" something about the director himself (okay, not a good example, but I'm sure you get my point). This template allows people to be more specific, and is definitely not redundant. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You described my intended application perfectly. With no offense intended toward anyone, it's only fair to analyze a template's basic structure before proposing its deletion. With an accurate understanding of {{Spoiler-about}}, Radiant might still have nominated it for deletion, but wouldn't have misled others into believing that it was set up in a totally different format than it actually is. (I would appreciate if you'd strike your original description, Radiant.) —Lifeisunfair 12:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason to not clearup this confusion and merge the lot of them into a single template This article contains plot details or ending details about //fill in the blank//? People are likely to use the wrong template if there are three or more. {{sofixit}}. R adiant _>|< 11:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason to have separate templates: they serve different purposes. There isn't always a need to specify the nature of a spoiler, but sometimes there is. Why are you so eager to lump these situations together? I believe that the spoiler template selection instructions (which are linked from the three spoiler templates in question) are clear, but you're welcome to improve them. We shouldn't weaken the encyclopedia's content simply to make things marginally easier for a few people. —Lifeisunfair 12:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep If we had to retain only one of the three spoiler templates, it should probably be this one, or a slight modification of this one (to make the argument optional). However i think that retaining all three (Template:Spoiler, Template:Spoiler-other, and Template:Spoiler-about) is the better course -- they are useful in different circumstances. Spoiler is good for the most common case, when the spoiler is about the subject of the article and no other info is needed. Spoiler-about is useful when the spoiler is about something other than (or not exactly the same as) the article subject or when it is about multiple subjects. Spoiler-other is useful when the spoiler deals with both the article subject and another subject. By they way, the use of one or another of these templates ought to repace any more specific custom spoiler warning, such as the spoiler-whedon or any specialized ones for other fictional universes. DES 14:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! You did a much better job of summarizing the templates' intended applications than I've been able to. —Lifeisunfair 14:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete - We only need one simple spoiler notice. Why make things complicated? -- Netoholic @ 16:13, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion? Is this vote based upon your opinion (implied elsewhere) that we shouldn't even be wasting our "effort" on spoiler warnings? —Lifeisunfair 16:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Cburnett 22:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: as useful as, or more useful than, Template:Spoiler-other. -Sean Curtin 23:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep as per Template:Spoiler-other discussion. - Sikon 08:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Persuaded by the above explanation. Conditional that they're not used when the spoiler is describing the same subject as the page name. Joe D (t) 13:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep, fulfills a need and is better than spoiler-other --MarSch 13:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment This debate has now caused a revert war on Wikipedia:Spoiler warning which I urge people intersted in it to visit. Discussion relevant to this debate is now also being conducted on that page's talk page. DES 15:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think both of these provide useful things that the existing template does not.-Splash 17:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Lifeisunfair. Nickptar 00:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:BJAODN

Support: Articles are voted into BJAODN by vfd, not "candidates for BJAODN"You (Talk) 01:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, if a speedy is BJAODN-worthy, just add it in yourself. We don't need another layer of bureaucracy for this. BJAODN is informal enough to just let people put stuff in themselves. Besides, BJAODN shouldn't be seen as a place where articles are moved, it's more of an archive of deleted content. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep: This is merely another version of CSD similar to the {{nonsense}} tag. The "BJAODN" notice is a nonbinding recommendation to place it in BJAODN before speedily deleting.24.54.208.177 01:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As one of the people who handle CSD, the less templates adding to the category, the better. Only {{nonsense}} and {{deleteagain}} are useful as extra templates, since they are very common; the rest can get {{deletebecause}}. --cesarb 01:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Instruction creep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep per anon. Who says you need to act on it? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense. R adiant _>|< 10:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Extreme Delete. If the article meets the speedy delete criteria, but is funny enough to also copy to WP:BJAODN, then the person should go ahead and copy it, rather than being lazy and leaving the task to someone else. BlankVerse ∅ 13:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, BJAODN it yourself if you must. --W(t) 01:19, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC) (vote restored after I deleted it myself by accident) --W(t)

Delete: A good proportion of WP editors don't find BJAODN remotely funny or worthwhile and if tidying up CSD wouldn't bother moving it to BJAODN. If somebody finds BJAODN a worthwhile project it's up them to work on it. Joe D (t) 13:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 21

Template:notdeletebecause

Nonsense. --W(t) 23:24, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

That's the point. Besides, if you guys delete this template, would you mind copying the exact wording and pasting it in all spaces where the template currently appears? Thanks. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You can go ahead and do that using subst:, since the only other place this seems to appear is your userpage. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy & delete, or subst it depending on what the creator prefers. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as it degrades into nonsense. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Subst: and delete, and if Rickyrab wants it as a subpage, then also userfy it. BlankVerse ∅ 13:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Utter nonsense --michael180 14:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Heavy-handed failure to be funny. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
del unusable --MarSch 13:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Copied template content to BJAODN. - Sikon 13:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler-other

Please, just one {{Spoiler}} template to rule them all. -- Netoholic @ 20:58, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Keep, obviously. Did you continue reading the Whedon-spoiler discussion after casting your vote? The {{Spoiler}} template doesn't allow users to warn readers that an article contains spoilers pertaining to a subject other than the titular one. Furthermore, the spoiler warning page (linked to from the {{Spoiler}} template) has contained the following instruction since July 7, 2004: "If this general purpose template is not suitable for the particular article you are working on, feel free to custom-design your own warning, but please link back to this page." —Lifeisunfair 21:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia already has a Content disclaimer, and we're already doing readers a favor giving a "heads-up" that a page has spoilers. I doubt seriously that anyone reading a page with spoilers expects the spoilers to relate only to the page title. Look, if you want to re-write Template:Spoiler, then please propose a wording which covers your concerns, but I think the current text of it is sufficient. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
  - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it also is an Internet site. As such, it's our responsibility to maintain the level of etiquette to which Internet users are accustomed. I strongly disagree with your assessment of spoiler warning interpretation; lacking notice to the contrary, I would expect a spoiler warning to apply strictly to the article's titular subject. And as I mentioned earlier, the spoiler warning page has encouraged the creation of custom spoiler warnings for almost a year. If you disagree with this guideline, I suggest that you propose a wording that covers your concerns. —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - I am not saying we should abandon spoiler warnings. I am saying that we only need one, generic warning to do that task. We don't need anything more complex than the existing warning notice. -- Netoholic @ 17:34, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
      - I disagree. The situation is not infrequently more complex than the basic Template:spoiler deals well with. I agreee that endless specailized spoilers are a mistake, but we now have three templates that between them seem to handle all the reasonable cases. Surely there must be clear usage instructions at each that describe how to use them, and when to use one of the others instead. Surely there eill ocasional be confusion, but that applies to so much of wikipedia. What is so horrid to you about havign these threee templates -- not an endless number, but three instead of only one? Where is it written in stoen that one, and that one the most basic possible, is all we "need". DES 17:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I just read through the Whedon-spoiler discussion referenced, and I have to agree, this one looks potentially useful. --JohnDBuell | Talk 22:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Based on the discussion below, this looks suitably flexible and useful. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep Where an article includes spoilers for things not obvious from its title, this is a highly desireable way to let people know about it. Indeed, if you must have only one template, use only this one, so modified that if the "other" parameter is left blank, it reverts to something like the current "spoiler" template. DES 22:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Great, so propose this change on Template talk:Spoiler. I don't really care, so long as we only have one spoiler template, because Wikipedia's "responsibilities" with regards to spoiler warnings just isn't worth the effort. -- Netoholic @ 00:16, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
  - I am fine with two templates, and the work to convert the existing uses of the existing spoiler template is, i suspect, non-trivial. if you think it is so vital that there be only one template, propose the change yourself, and do the work of conversion. No one else here seems to think that having two templates is so horrid. It would be a good idea if each template's documentation referenced the other, and explained how and when to use it, and if this template survives this process I might well do that. DES 00:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Both templates (and another that I created, which I assume will be nominated for deletion soon) link to the spoiler warning page, which provides the type of instructions that you describe. The third template — {{Spoiler-about}} — is an expanded version of {{Spoiler}} (particularly useful in an article or section that contains spoilers on a single topic that isn't clear from the title). If any template were to replace (rather than supplement) the current {{Spoiler}} template, it should be that one. (While its additional information usually isn't needed, it never is inappropriate, and could be rendered optional by a more knowledgeable template author than I.) But would this be worth the effort? Perhaps, but a trio of templates (two of which actively discourage the creation of further templates) seems entirely manageable to me. —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Assuming that each serves a unique purpose, what harm results from having more than one spoiler template? No one is asking you to expend any "effort." —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I'm not sure I'm big on having spoiler tags, but if we're going to have those this is a logical extension. --W(t) 01:20, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
Keep. Provides context that Template:Spoiler is incapable of handling. -Sean Curtin 04:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Sean's reasoning. The regular spoiler template can't handle it if the argument for the other subject isn't used. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this one obviates the need for specific spoilers such as tolkien-spoiler and buffy-spoiler. R adiant _>|< 10:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep, I didn't even know this template existed when I was talking about the whedon-spoiler template, or else I would've referred to it :$. The same points that were brought up in the discussion for whedon-spoiler apply here. This template is a version that will work for many different spoilers rather than only whedon productions, and also allows people to be much more specific. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that this was actually created in response to the debate over the whedon-spoiler template; at any rate it is clear from the history that it was creatd after that debate had started. DES 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I created the template directly in response to the {{whedon-spoiler}} discussion (based upon another user's suggestion). —Lifeisunfair 14:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete - {{Spoiler}} and {{Spoiler-about}} are all we need. - Omegatron 18:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per Whedon-spoiler discussion. Shem^(talk) 18:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. A useful template. - Sikon 08:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
del, unused and I see no use for this template that spoiler-about cannot handle --MarSch 13:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your latter point is a valid opinion, but the template is unused because it was created less than two days ago (and proposed for deletion within hours). Also, Netoholic (the deletion proponent) has removed its description (and that of {{spoiler-about}}) from the spoiler warning explanation page. —Lifeisunfair 14:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am aware that this template is very young, but thanks for pointing it out. --MarSch 14:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep since it will help avoid the creation of spoiler-everyfilm. -Splash 17:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, but it needs to be slightly reworked. The PAGENAME function should be replaced by a simple user input -- a spoiler warning that said "In addition to Hermoine Granger ..." or "In addition to Horses of Middle-earth" would just look silly. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 06:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and replace uses with SPOILER-ABOUT

Template:wikitravelbyname

Duplicate of Template:wikitravelpar (though the TFD'd is older) except wikitravelpar follows the format of the other templates of similar name: Template:wikisourcepar, Template:wiktionarypar, Template:wikiquotepar. Cburnett 16:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. (Comment: I don't think there's any debate. See talk pages.) --Quuxplusone 17:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep this one, as it follows the convention for a link to an external project. I'd support deleting template:wikitravel and template:wikitravelpar, as they are links to external sites masquerading as Wikimedia Foundation sister projects link boxes. Gentgeen 17:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hm, that's interesting, I was under the impression that WikiTravel was a sister project, but in fact it is not. In that case we should probably remove such things as the 'transwiki to wikitravel' process, et al. Also, keep per Gentgeen, and delete the other two. R adiant _>|< 19:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- The other two are now text links again, an anon had turned them into boxes early this morning. Joe D (t) 19:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - And wikitravelbyname has been removed from use in favor of wikitravelpar... Cburnett 20:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, delete. (Gentgeen's and Radiant's objections were to the former content of the template, but the reason it's listed here is because it's a duplicate of an existing, better-named template.)
- And I'm too lazy to find who made this vote. :) Cburnett 06:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
del historical fork --MarSch 13:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:BeingVandalized

Joke template, unfortunately not good enough for BJAODN. Delete. --cesarb 01:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary for its creation reads "(A little bit of silliness for the (too-serious) Wikipedia.)". Delete. R adiant _>|< 11:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just about as grotesque as it gets? Phils 13:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, joke template. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, though I disagree on the hilarity, so I copied it to BJAODN. --MikeJ9919 19:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since I doubt vandals would have the courtesy to use it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above.-Splash 21:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

June 20

Template:PD-IndiaGov

This is not true. See User talk:DuKot#India images and [5]. --SPUI (talk) 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Factually incorrect disclaimer. Dragons flight 22:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Concur with the above. Misleading. pamri 17:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) [6]
Delete. Their gov'nt holds copyright. Shem^(talk) 18:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It is incorrect, and there is already a correct PD tag for India in place. David Newton 22:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Support and Template:Object and Template:Oppose

This cannot be a good idea. Voting on every other topic as a proxy for consensus is bad enough, without adding a liberal sprinkling of dinky "+" and "-" images all over the shop. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added a third critter. Are there any more? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about N, Y, Yes and No? They aren't the exact same thing and aren't in widespread use, but I bring them up because they are similar. This link is Broken 02:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good spot - if they were being used on voting pages, then yes; however, they seem to be being used in articles, which is another matter althogether (although query whether they are actully needed, and whether a simply "Yes" and "No" would do). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Support, er..., Keep. Maybe it is dumb but this is becoming standard operating procedure on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates (see their voting instructions) after being imported from Commons:Featured picture candidates. TFD is not the place to be setting guidelines for this kind of user behavior. If you want to move to exclude tokens like this from voting, I would suggest bringing it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) instead. Dragons flight 22:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- It's useful on Commons because it's a multilingual project, and a picture is needed for those who don't speak English. That's not an issue here, and the instruction creep and new, extra layer of transclusion at FPC and RFA are significant drawbacks. --Cryptic (talk) 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm happy to have a discussion about whether this could be a problem (and I certainly admit the possiblity on technical grounds), but I do not believe it is an appropriate discussion to be having at TFD. Dragons flight 22:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hundreds of little images on every page with voting seems like an unnecessary draw on our resources. Hopefully nobody will contaminate VfD with this—the page will never load again. The representation that Feature Picture Candidates has "adopted" this change is a bit misleading—the change was made a few hours ago, and apparently unilaterally in the absence of Talk page discussion. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Fair point. Dragons flight 22:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - Aren't the bullets an image? Alphax ^τεχ 17:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Yep - see [7] for an example. But this is on the part of the browser, not the server. Duh. I'll shut up now and vote. Alphax ^τεχ 17:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep It really clearly demonstrates a consensus - it's much easier to see the most color in a section rather than the most "support"/"oppose" words (obviously in the final tally each one would have to be counted not just estimated by the color). Silversmith had a good idea in shortening the template to only {{s}} and {{o}}, which would make voting eaiser than ever before. --Fir0002 22:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete:
1. Further encourages places like VFD to degrade into simple polls. VFD, TFD, etc. should be places for discussion
2. To ensure fast load times and a clean page, there should not be images littered all over the page.
3. Unnecessary load. If we don't use images, as I suggested, then typing {{support}} is not that much faster than typing '''support'''...well at least not enough to justify having a template for it. Besides, it's much more logical to use the syntax for bolding. Note that '''Keep''' is shorter than {{support}}, but either way, saving a few characters to type something so simple is hardly worth making a seperate template for it.
4. If half the people use the template, but the other half doesn't, I can definitely see this leading to people accidentally scanning over the votes as they count the little +'s and -'s to judge consensus. Unless everybody uses these templates, it will lead to a lack of uniformity on voting pages. But that's a relatively tiny problem- if I liked the idea of this template, this would make little difference to my opinion.
5. There will have to be two seperate templates- one for use on places like VFD and one for use on RFA. While I suppose saying "support" on VFD could be interpreted as a delete vote, it's definitely ambiguous enough to cause some confusion. Another minor problem- I'm voting delete mainly because of the first three points I made. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 22:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I rather liked the templates initially, but sufficient reason has been stated to delete them. Phoenix2 22:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Detonate This link is Broken 22:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete them all. Voting is evil (what am I doing here?). Besides, what Frazzydee said. — mark ✎ 23:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Discussion at Village Pump. Given that this is primarily a question of user behavior vs. server load, I have posted this question to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Voting templates. In so doing I have asked that people refrain from voting on this issue to allow a more general discussion on whether voting templates represent unacceptable user behavior. TFD is after all not a setting for creating new policy governing how users should behave. Dragons flight 23:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- On the contrary, this is where template deletion discussions are held. Publicizing this discussion at the VP is all well and good, but it seems like you're trying to stifle/invalidate the discussion going on here with this request. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Please assume good faith. I do not believe that policy should ever be created on *fD pages as the very format stifles discussion. There is nothing in the charter of TFD that says we are empowered to decide how people delineate votes, when voting is necessary, but that is what is defacto happening here. Presumably this will be the discussion everyone points to with respect to future voting templates even if the template was kept in User space or used with subst:. Basically, I feel that process matters more than just having people be confronted with a vote and saying keep or delete. Maybe my opinions in this regard are unusual, but I try to convey them honestly (for example I provided a direct link from VP to here and placed a notice here so people could in principle join the generalized discussion that I hoped for). Sorry if my methods have offended you. Dragons flight 00:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - No offense taken, and please understand that I was assuming good faith – I didn't mean to imply anything, just to describe what I saw. I don't quite get your reference to "policy" – this is simply a discussion regarding a few templates. If you want to vote with images, just don't use a template to do it. As others have pointed out, this is a Bad Idea™ for many different reasons. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - The only way in which "the very format stifles discussion" is where people keep trying to turn the discussions into straight up/down support/oppose keep/delete votes using exactly such tools as these. Delete. Uncle G 08:39, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
Delete: Excess complication and load for the negligible improvement they bring. Joe D (t) 23:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, using templates for voting stifles discussion, which is the primary purpose of voting in the first place. JYolkowski // talk 23:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for the same reasons against the colorful boxes on VfD and other *fD places. --cesarb 23:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete for most of the reasons given above. Vegaswikian 23:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As cesarb says, there's precedent for eliminating the use of silly colored things in discussions (on VfD, at least). For these to be useful, everyone would have to use them, and I personally would not. Also, server load, transclusion, blah blah blah. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Draws on resources too much. -Lommer | ^talk 00:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Kill, kill, kill. Mark ¹ 00:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, really serves no purpose except to distract and use resources. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:06, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
Keep these templates. They are really useful, I love the way commons:Featured_picture_candidates looks. — Sverdrup 02:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Do you also like the fact that there's very little discussion at all on that page? Do you like the fact that several of the people who have adopted these templates have also taken to giving no rationales whatever? Uncle G 08:39, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  - Do you expect me to say I do? I think these are useful at featured pictures candidates, where they are just as silly as the boldface Support I see there (and I got used to do that, and now everyone does that). I can see why people object to these templates' specific uses but not their existence; there are so many places in Wikipedia where we can use this (effecively!) that we can't be sure to cover here. — Sverdrup 18:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. I quite like them, but if it is a strain on WP, and if pages will load much slower, or not at all, then delete. --Silversmith Hewwo 03:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even without the TFD template, those pictures make things look silly in a text-only browser such as Links. --Carnildo 03:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. pmam21^talk_articles 03:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Something we can do without. Enochlau 04:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What I can't understand is why the template has to be deleted just because some people don't want to use it. I never wanted to take over the voting process and establish the template as the absolute process for voting. If people want to use this style they should have the option. The loading time of the page will only be mariginally influenced, (the icon being less than 1 kb) and most browsers would cache this. Should we now have a limit on the number of photos which can be posted on the FPC page to save bandwidth? Or should we limit our comments to save bandwidth? NO.
  - Many people already are customising there votes by modifying their signature (see Merovingian, Denni, B. Ramerth, ✏ Sverdrup to name a few) and cramping someone's freedom of expression (IMO) is very unwiki. I can't see a problem of having an extra two templates if some people want to use them, its not like they take up gigabytes of Wiki's server. I intend to make them into the short {{s}} and {{o}} forms to really make them a time saver. And why shouldn't there be a time saver? To say that it will force people to be briefer in their comments is ridiculous. --Fir0002 06:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't just not want to use them- I don't want to see them. They're slightly less irritating than they would be if they blinked, but not much. Mark¹ 07:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - Well it's not like you vote on FPC anyway. --Fir0002 08:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        It is and I do. Mark ¹ 04:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        Even so, it is a bit selfish don't you think? --Fir0002 06:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    - None of those signatures are being customized with the use of templates (and neither is mine). AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 11:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - Why is a template a problem? --Fir0002 06:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it doesn't confer benefits. Some of the points raised here are quite interesting... but it's a matter of aesthetics. It's ugly, and we all want to concentrate on the pictures being offered and the comments being made. But really, counting oppose and support words, when they're in bold, really isn't that hard - and also there's no neutral icon too. Enochlau 23:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There is actually, although I haven't brought it across from the commons because of all this argument erupted. --Fir0002 06:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Extreme delete. R adiant _>|< 07:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Will draw too much of the server's resources that will cause pages to load slower. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If that is the case than why is it being used on the much larger Commons FPC? --Fir0002 10:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Because Commons is used by people with different languages that may not overlap, so it makes sense to have a language-independent symbol. We don't need it on :en. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - It's ironic hearing arguments about them being an eyesore, when the biggest eyesore on WP is the signatures people customize. It is also annoying to anyone who only reads diffs, and has been complained about a lot. But lovers of their fancy signatures wouldn't be happy if their "freedom" to use them was taken away. Including myself. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Exactly. --Fir0002 12:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
      - Oh, I'd set up the software to take away the "fancy" sigs away too - a plain link to the user page and talk page should be enough for anyone: see: -- ALoan (Talk) 12:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - And in response to ALoan, English WP is the largest of all, and we have a lot of people read it and contribute to it whose english is very poor. So although it obviously isn't as necessary as on Commons, I don't think it's a valid point for deleting them. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        Hmm - if someone can't understand enough English to be able to use "support" and "object", do we really want them voting on FAC, FPC, VFD, etc? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        
        And you dont need a graphic to accomodate the different languages. A simple '+' or '-' would suffice. --Fir0002 12:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        Good idea. If it was simply a matter of {{subst:support}} being used to add '''+ Support''', I would not care at all (but why do it? it is more characters to type, FCOL). But adding in {{support}} with the dinky image is wrong on many counts. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        And another point - The commons is using this template to accomodate language barriers. Right? Well if someone who can't speak english can understand that the words "support" and "oppose" (used in the templates {{s}} and {{o}}) than they should be able to just write the word "support" or "oppose". --Fir0002 22:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose their use! I've looked at their use at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and elsewhere and find them thoroughly annoying. Furthermore, they distract from any comments that editors have made, which should be the more important point. They should all be Extreme deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 12:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well I find your customized siganture very, annoying, but I don't go complaining about it (upto now). Who are the editors and why should their vote be more important than a "common" wikipedian?? --Fir0002 10:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Crush by elephant! (See, I can vote with pictures too) the wub "?/!" 13:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And why should't you be able to? --Fir0002 22:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I like the idea, but it can't work (for reasons stated above). violet/riga (t) 14:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Annoying. Let's keep the wiki simple. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- More resource hungry, more time to download a page. Sure, it's prettier, but that's hardly a positive when we're all so used to the masses of text here anyway and gotten along just fine until now. Everything just says no. - Longhair | Talk 17:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If bandwidth is such an issue, than why run such as nominating poll at all 365 days a year? The actual image thumbnails on every image that is being voting on, would be more than the combined download time of all the icons used to vote for it. --Fir0002 22:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Pretty but completely unnecessary. Maybe recommend people use colored votes if you want to make them more visible, but even this is not necessary. - Omegatron 18:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Only some people would use, so appearence is misleading as well as distracting. -R. S. Shaw 19:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- To reiterate, so are customized signatures. --Fir0002 22:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep although merge object and oppose. Two is enough. They are nice, and not obligatory. I always said that colors are an important tools help increase the 'processing speed' of reading (i.e. save our time) - for example, it is slightly faster to count green/red instead of reading 'object', 'support', 'comment', etc. The increase in page size or processign speed is insignificant in the era of such fast computer capabilities growth. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We could implement a recommendation or policy to make vote text in colors instead, as I showed above.

The increase in bandwidth and server resource use is highly significant with an image-containing template which would appear on many pages many times from a server run entirely from donations. Templates like this have caused all kinds of debate already because of their server load. - Omegatron 20:14, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- - I seem to remember that not too long ago Wiki ran a fund raiser to the amount of $20,000 for their servers. You can't tell me with that much to spend that wiki is being run a pair of 486's. --Fir0002 22:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - $75,000, as I recall, and it was raised well before the fundraiser concluded. Like so many other projects, however, the limiting factor on performance is not how much money you can throw at it, but how much developer time. --Cryptic (talk) 23:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - Surely not for server load, that would depend mainly on the equipment. --Fir0002 06:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
        Yes, for server load. Load depends on the equipment and the efficiency of the code. The code is bogged down by templates. Besides, these three are unnecessary and distracting. - Omegatron 17:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There are already more pressures than I like away from consensus building. We keep introducing elements that increase the appearance of democracy at the expense of consensus. These are way too reminiscent of marks on ballot papers. The various tallies are worrying enough. This is a step too far.—Theo (Talk) 19:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- So you are against democracy?--Fir0002 22:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Wikipedia is not a democracy. It works on building consensus, not raw vote-tallying. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
Delete -- Umm... I dont hate it. It looks cool and okei. But for the sake of server load this should be removed as it can simply be done with '''Oppose'''|'''Delete'''. Err..server load..? Yeah server load... users are encourged to substitue bable template (though i dont do it) to their user pages for the sake of reducing load! So I say delete -- Oblivious 21:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- People! can't you guys see that it is being used universally on the commons FPC? A much larger page, and as I mentioned further up the page - if people can understand the words "support" and "oppose" enought to be able to type in the write template, than they can just as easily type the words in so the templates do not play any part in overcoming the language barrier! Its there - as it should be here - because people want to express their vote in that style. Why oppress it? --Fir0002 22:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - 1) You have an odd definition of the word universally. 2) I don't care what they're/you're doing at Commons. 3) It's not oppression. If you really feel like it, and no one else cares, you can still use images in your comments. Just don't use this template. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - What do you mean and "odd" definition of the word 'universally'? Have you even had a look at the FPC on the Commons? Perhaps 1 in every 50 votes doesn't use the template (see this this and this to name a few.) And the Commons is part of the Wiki project - and if it works OK for them, it can certainly be used here without an ill effects. --Fir0002 06:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - At FPC I count about 10 people using it (infrequently), and quickly scanned about 30 that don't. Hardly "universally" accepted. violet/riga (t) 23:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - To be fair, there were only about nine hours - from 13:02 Jun 20 to 21:51 Jun 20 UTC - between the instructions on FPC changed to use {{Support/Oppose}} and the tfd template was applied. In that time frame, the only support or oppose votes I see on FPC that did not use the template is Guettarda's here (at 13:04) and Longhair's here (which another editor later changed to use the template). In contast, all of the other six editors voting during that window used the templates, and three more began even after the tfd notice started wreaking havoc with the formatting. --Cryptic (talk) 00:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Crush by llama! OK so they're cute, but, um, no. Commons:Featured picture candidates makes me shudder. Oh at first glance it's all pretty with clicky things and colours and drop-shadows and whatnot that would make the overfriendliness team at Microsoft.com proud, but there are hardly any *reasons* given for the votes! It's already bad enough that some people (here and there) give little to no reason with their vote, but being able to copy-n-paste such a tag will further encourage mindless voting. I doubt server drag would be much of an issue; however it is more troublesome for the end user. Now which is longer?

<a href="/wiki/Image:Symbol_support_vote.png" class="image" title=""><img src="/media/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/15px-Symbol_support_vote.png" alt="" longdesc="/wiki/Image:Symbol_support_vote.png" />
<li>

Yes, that's the basic HTML this page shoved me for each type. 222 characters instead of just 4. Multiply that over the course of a clogged SchoolWatch Vfd and it'll take forever to download (in comparison to the pure tagging) regardless of how good your connection is. I can see the reasons for using it, but I would never want to see an asthetic "improvement" made at the cost of supplying reasoning. We're Wikipedia, not Encarta, we value functionality over clicky things. Crush, I say! Crush! *does best impression of ticked-off llama sound* *fails miserably* bah, I knew I should have gone with the donkey instead... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- The commons is a different voting process - there they don't use the thumbnail discription or put in reasons for their opposal as a rule. As for the copy and paste - that is simply ridiculous! How can the text '''support''' be harder to copy than the text {{support}} ? So there is no "cost of supplying reason". It is just as easy for someone to leave a reason without the template as it is with the template. I fail to rationale behind that argument. --Fir0002 06:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -Sean Curtin 04:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Look at the above vote - no rationale and no template. --Fir0002 06:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - And there's nothing wrong with that! Why say again what loads of others have already said? violet/riga (t) 07:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - What?! Have you been reading what is being said at all? People are saying that if the templates are introduced than the voting process will have more of these no-reason-votes. --Fir0002 08:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
      - And what's wrong with that? violet/riga (t) 12:21, 22 Jun 2005 UTC)
      - The FPC page should have a certain amount of reason behind each vote. --Fir0002 22:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
        Fir0002 dude, Why dont you give up? I mean majority of people are saying Delete with reasons good enough to delete it. As a regular voter in FP you should know, better than anyone else, majority is taken into consideration in descision making. --Oblivious 13:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        There is no way I'm going to "just give up". The only have decent objection to this template is that of server load. And to tiny extra templates aren't likely to make much difference since such an overwhelming amount of people say that they hate them and will not use them. Although I can't see the justice behind comments like "they look ugly" coming from users who use ridiculous signature styles. I know there isn't a chance now that these templates will survive, but I just can't see why a user should be unable to use this simple, small template. I drew a case study from the FPC page on the Commons, showing that the page loads up as fast as the FPC on en.wikipedia, and there was no problems with server load. But people just conveniently ignored the point. People are saying that the template would discourage reasons behind votes, just because instead of typing '''support''' you will be typing {{Support}} and therefore it will somehow prevent you from typing anything after it. I mean where is the logic behind that!? I just can't believe they way this template is being treated. --Fir0002 22:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Some faulty reasoning has been thrown around. For example, people should always provide a rationale and these templates shouldn't change anything about how they act. Also, this is a multilingual project just like the commons. The number of non-native English wikipedians is significant. Still, I don't see how these are useful for scanning unless everyone uses them. And unless subst: is used they will strain servers and using subst: doesn't exactly make voting any easier. It's a nice idea, but I don't think it would work. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- What would not work? These templates are being taken so seriously that everyone has to be against it or accept some kind of impending dominance of silly icons -- it's a wiki, people! Templates are used when people like it, because they think it's a good idea. I can't understand how anyone just wants to delete these templates, when what they want is really to frown upon their use in their favorite Wikipedia insitution. What if, for example, this template was kept alive, was sporadically used on all votings but only was left in heavy use in say, personal elections. (I don't know if we have any of those left in wiki-form.) The point here is that it's not sensible to ban this EnWiki-wide just because "it won't work". Have some faith in the free wiki. — Sverdrup 10:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support They make the page eaiser to read at a glance by looking at the colors. --michael180 14:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are enough knee-jerk voters already; why make it easier for them? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- How is it easier for them with a template? --Fir0002 22:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not needed here. Alphax ^τεχ 17:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedians can read fine without the server resources. Shem^(talk) 18:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, because they encourage people to take one side or the other without any consideration that they might want to be neutral or just want to add a comment. Angela . 20:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Angela's is an excellent point, I'd encourage other editors to note it. Shem^(talk) 20:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This point can be overcome with the addition of a "neutral" template. There already is an image Neutral Vote, so creating a tempate would be simple. --Fir0002 22:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - more overcomplication by people who think "votes" around here are actually votes. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep all. These are useful in many contexts. A deletion solely based on whether they are needed here is illogical. The decision about use for voting is a different issue – it must not be decided by a vote for or against a particular template. (I actually sympathize with Mel Etitis' and Angela's concern about sheep votes, but whether they actually aggravate the problem is questionable. The templates may even make it easier to spot (and fight, e.g. discount) such votes. I believe that making things intentionally hard often creates more problems than it solves. Such questions should be discussed in a different place, as Dragons flight said.) — Sebastian (talk) 02:32, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Delete, on wikipedia, even votes shouldn't be just about numbers. --W(t) 02:39, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
~~Why is this a reason against a template for a checkmark that can be used in hundreds of other places? — Sebastian (talk) 04:07, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)~~
It encourages scanning of the page for the majority opinion instead of reading the comments. If there's something other than voicing support or opposition to things on infrastructure pages you want to use the checkmark for it's still there as an image, in that case there's no need to have a boldface "support" attached to it. --W(t) 04:13, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Sorry, I just realized that this vote is not about the "Y" and "N" templates. — Sebastian (talk) 04:29, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Ooh, hadn't seen those, those are excellent, all for keeping those. --W(t) 04:32, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
How can you be against the support and oppose templates and be all for the y and n templates?! What's the difference? --Fir0002 06:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The support/oppose templates can only realisticly be used in voting. The y and n templates are wonderful for use in comparison tables and such. --W(t) 06:24, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Sorry, Fir0002, but I don't like them. I am also worried about server load, although I do not know the technical details about small redundant images and hundreds (thousands?) of template requests per page load. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cfru

Fork of Template:Cfr with an extra parameter used for 'umbrella' nominations. Not actually in use. R adiant _>|< 09:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Kbdank71 16:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is useful for umbrella nominations, but it's not advertised on WP:CFD. Not many people actually knows they should use this template for such nominations. — Instantnood 15:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Why should they? (meta:instruction creep - it's a complication of process that serves no real need). R adiant _>|< 10:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Question: What's an "[[Wikipedia:umbrella nomination"? — Sebastian (talk) 02:52, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
- I'd say Sebastian has just proven my point that this is confusing :).
- It refers to nominating several related cats at the same time. Radiant_>|< 08:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks! I entered it in Wikipedia:Glossary#umbrella_nomination. — Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
keep, it gives people the opportunity to save other people some time searching for the nomination. No harm done if not always used, thus no instruction creep. --MarSch 13:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Exploding animals

Redundant with Category:Exploding animals, and it has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetical. R adiant _>|< 09:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Keep and rename. Should be Template:Exploding animals, since birds and toads aren't mammals. --MarkSweep 14:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done, but I'm voting delete. This template is redundant. Gemberling 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I would have voted delete for almost any other template like this, but the topic of exploding animals is so absurd and unusual, it warrants having a template to give it that much extra attention. It has been a benefit to me in the past, and I'm sure that it would be a benefit to other readers. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per Frazzydee. --Randy Johnston 23:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep quite a good template, unusual and interesting. Good to display: a category doesn't display the different articles on the exploding animal pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep...it's just too hilarious. --MikeJ9919 07:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. "Human interest" to its extreme. Shem^(talk) 09:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - kaboom! Alphax ^τεχ 12:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep; it doesn't take up much room (unlike some other templates I've seen) and it's both funny and informative. A2Kafir 13:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Although it is really funny, we only need the category. (The only advantage of the template is the thumbnail of the exploding whale, which is hard to see anyway.) Wikiacc (talk) 18:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It nice to see a little levity in the Wikipedia that is also informative and not an immediate candidate for BJAODN. BlankVerse ∅ 18:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it certainly is useful to list the anim,als that can explode, maybe spontaneouisly, which is potentially useful--Sstabeler 18:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. That's what categories are for. --Conti|✉ 22:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep for easy navigation. What's next deleting templates that interlink Sherlock Holmes novels or amino acids? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep — it's really interesting to browse through all such articles.—Pt_(T) 17:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The reasons keepers give are reasons to spice up category display in general, not a reason to duplicate categories with templates. (If it were structured like #Template:Slashdot I'd vote "keep".) — Sebastian (talk) 02:46, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
delete (is only stupid)--MartinS 10:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete AN 12:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and do not categorify. This is amusing rubbish: any animal can be made to explode with application of appropriate tools, so this would either have to be on every animal article or be a cateogory with every animal in...which is already done!-Splash 17:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

pure nonsense (just to be polite) - delete -Wittkowsky 21:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Definitely keep. Lighten up and live a little. It's a great way to navigate this small set of whimsical yet true articles. THIS is the sort of thing why Wikipedia will always be better than other online encyclopedias. --Un focused 21:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but make a little less obtrusive (unless that is caused by the TfD tag). - Omegatron 21:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, harmless fun. - Mustafaa 23:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Current-now-aniv & Template:Current-now

Added to two articles which deal with events taking place on June 19. Little apparent purpose.--Pharos 05:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete both. Can't these poorly worded, confusingly named messes be speedy deleted? BlankVerse ∅ 06:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I'd like to hear from the creator about his/her intentions, since these have only existed for 7 hours. How are you guys searching for these things that you are so frequently pulling in just created templates? Dragons flight 06:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, don't make template forks. As to Dragon's question - if they're used or linked to some place we frequent, we just happen to run into them. At least that's what I do. Radiant_>|< 07:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
That wouldn't seem to explain a case like {{Guideline1}} where my understanding was that it hadn't yet been used on any pages. Am I mistaken about that? Dragons flight 07:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- It was in Category:Wikipedia guidelines at a time when I was cleaning that up. R adiant _>|< 09:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
del fork of {{current}} --MarSch 13:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per MarSch.-Splash 17:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

June 19

Template:Anarchism2

Used on only one page. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:34, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Keep. Being used on only a single page is not a TFD criterion. With complex nav boxes it makes sense to used transclusion to avoid cluttering the edit space. Or perhaps you also want to remove all the factboxs associated with planets, such as {{Planet Infobox/Earth}} used on Earth. Dragons flight 06:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) Delete. Being used on a single page is still not a TFD criterion, but Radiant is correct that this is a fork apparently created by an aggressive edit warrior who has already had several POV page forks of Anarchism VfDed [8] [9] [10]. Based on the VfDs, I would support speedy. Dragons flight 07:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's a fork of Template:Anarchism. R adiant _>|< 07:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork template. By the way, it was me who asked for this template be put on TfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist). It was created together with the POV forks deleted on that VfD. And the only article this template is currently at is a suspected recreation of another deleted article (but I cannot find the original). --cesarb 11:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a duplicate. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
del fork --MarSch 13:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Slashdot

Since it has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetical, and since the Category:Slashdot already exists, delete this. R adiant _>|< 12:35, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This makes navigating easier for the user, whom is most likely interested in the topic anyway --Hoovernj 04:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Not only can this be done better with categories, it should be done by prose in the slashdot article. Joe D (t) 12:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are 18 articles in Category:Slashdot and it's subcategory, and it makes sense to highlight the most important. As for describing them in the Slashdot article itself, what about the nine other places in article space where it is used as a navigational aid? Dragons flight 19:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Unless it changed in the last few minutes, then it doesn't look alphabetical, and navigation templates are naturally less all encompassing than categories. Could do with a little cleanup though. Dragons flight 13:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Most people who will be looking at one of the Slashdot articles will probably want to look at some of the other articles. This navigation box makes that convenient. BlankVerse ∅ 13:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful navigation box. --cesarb 16:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What is the point of having categories if there are going to be templates everywhere? - SimonP 17:30, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Convinced by Joe D's argument Mark Lewis 18:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep now that it's been reworked. violet/riga (t) 19:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep useful navigation box. Nickptar 20:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Convenient aid.--Fangz 17:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, i use these all the time, and i never use categories. "omg 32 kb of wasted space" - dumb. SECProto 20:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- I believe this is useful (though a category exists for slashdot) --Oblivious 01:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep useful navigational aid. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Useful, and isn't hurting anyone. LeoDV 10:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notorious site, with subcultures, Geek concentration and your spiritual synthesis, it's one of the most Internet culture representative in these days. --Mateusc 17:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep why delete it? it does it's job, and does it well.
Keep Now that it's been reworked. I really wish we could present categories in such a nice structured way some day. Until then, keep. — Sebastian (talk) 02:59, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Template:Guideline1

Fork of Template:Guideline. Maybe we should consider speedy'ing template forks. R adiant _>|< 09:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why are you proposing this for deletion, Radiant, and what do you mean by fork? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

What I meant is that it's a duplicate of an existing template. Creating two divergent templates for a single purpose is potentially confusing. R adiant _>|< 09:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

How could it be confusing? There are many templates with different versions. Who would it confuse, and what might they be confused by? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

It would be confusing to see guidelines classified with two different templates. It implies that there are different kinds, or levels, of guidelines, and doesn't clarify in any way where the distinction lies. R adiant _>|< 10:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

The only difference at the moment is that one is beige and the other is yellow, which I doubt will cause much confusion, and I've elsewhere explained to you that I'm going to reword the second one to improve the English, because the writing on the current template isn't very good. The important thing is to explain that the page is a guideline, not policy, and I won't be changing that core issue. Why on earth would the existence of this template matter to you so much that you nominate it for deletion within an hour of its creation? I'd be grateful if you would explain that, so I can understand what this is about. It's looking as though you've appointed yourself the template police. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Multiple forks of the same content are problematic if the content/purpose of the "original" changes and the forks are not updated appropriately. You then have the possibility of multiple "official" looking templates that give differing information on the same subject. --TheParanoidOne 10:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Template police" might be a bit hard, but TFD is quite deletionist with respect to template forking. See, for example, Whedon-spoiler below. It has distinctive content and is used on dozens of pages and yet this community wants to delete it. Dragons flight 10:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

And keep, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Obviously, if the wording of the existing needs attention, that template should be edited. Another template with 'better' wording is rediculous. -- Ec5618 10:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy. As a developmental version it would do better (meaning avoid objections) by being placed in user space until SlimVirgin knows how she wants to change the templates in general use or how it will distinguish itself. Dragons flight 10:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy and calm down. One of the deletion criteria is "Templates should not be redundant". If the original template needs work, just work on it. Sarg 11:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Comment. I just want to note for the record that I'd only just created the thing, in order to see whether I could work out how to change the color without screwing up the first one. I went to make myself something to eat, and returned to see it nominated for deletion! And not a word to me, which signals a distinct absence of the collaborative spirit. That's all I'm going to say because this isn't worth expending energy on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Just an idea: Maybe we could agree on some convention to avoid such misunderstandings. Userfy probably isn't always an option as the change of namespace brings about some complications. Maybe just naming them "temporary_..." might help. — Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
del, tests belong in your userspace and that goes double for test forks --MarSch 12:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete since it was a test and the wording is verbatim. -Splash 17:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

June 18

Template:Eric42TestPages

A user just "messing around". The template is only found one of the user's subpages. it should be subst:'d and then deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 11:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Subst: and then Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 11:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Subst & speedy delete. Test pages qualify. —Lifeisunfair 12:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy until we hear from Eric42 (talk · contribs). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Move the templates to his userspace, and delete the redirects. Notify the man that he can use his userpages as templates as much as he likes. — Sverdrup 23:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy.-Splash 17:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Hurricaneivanlatestadvisory

The name is self explanitory. It's an advisory from SAT SEP 11 2004. Presumably at one time the text was transcluded into an article on Hurricane Ivan, but a Wikipedia and Google site-search didn't find anything. User:Poccil who created the page quit editing in February. BlankVerse ∅ 11:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 11:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No longer useful. —Lifeisunfair 12:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per previous. --Feydey 13:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:ChattFM

A template for adding Category:Chattanooga FM stations to articles. Used on exactly one article. It should be subst:'d and deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 09:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

~~Subst: and delete~~ BlankVerse ∅ 09:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep the now completed version (with the assumption that User:Radiojon will be writing LOTS of articles to "fix" all of those red links in the template). BlankVerse ∅ 12:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Subst & delete. Obviously unnecessary. —Lifeisunfair 12:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely do not delete!. For the impatient, I have created the template that this was intended to be. –radiojon 06:50, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Keep. Intended as a navigational template across a large number of pages that Radiojon is also apparently working on producing. Since it uses radio station frequencies (a very sensible organization), it is functionally distinct from the Category despite containing all the same elements. All in all, a useful navigational template, or at least it will be useful when the articles are created. Dragons flight 07:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, what makes this template "obviously unnecessary"? Phoenix2 23:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep for now. I hope that bug 491: category piping will soon get fixed, which will make such double work unnecessary. — Sebastian (talk) 03:14, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
I think the names of those radio stations should be used instead of their frequencies. --MarSch 12:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Categorify since there is no 'linear series' to them - one does not follow or precede another, but they do have an overarching thing in common. -Splash 17:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

June 17

Template:Msh

An unused template for adding a non-existing category (Maps of South Holland) to an article. BlankVerse ∅ 05:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 05:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Serves no purpose. —Lifeisunfair 12:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Phoenix2 03:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ship table and associated sub-tables

This ship infobox is a cute piece of engineering. Through the use of templates, meta-templates, and sub-templates, it is able to show only those parts of the infobox that are appropriate for the ship in question. For example, if "range" is an inapplicable parameter for describing the ship, the "range" infobox entry won't be there. Unfortunately, the infobox is also an abomination on the face of the Earth. By moving content out of article space and into templates such as Template:Ship displacement box Pyro class ammunition ship, it makes it much harder to change the infobox. Adding information is also harder: I tried adding information to the infobox for USS Nitro (AE-2), but could only produce redlinks such as Template:Ship speed box 16 knots. It also runs afoul of some of the problems mentioned at Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates. --Carnildo 21:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I corrected the faults with templates that were raised on my user page almost a month ago. Carnildo complained that some of the templates I used were not for boilerplate information shared between articles, but for content from a single article. In a number of cases that charge was true. I therefore altered the articles in question and deleted the templates concerned. All of the templates associated with that ship table template are now either currently referenced in multiple articles as boilerplate text, or potentially will be when articles for the rest of the ship class concerned are written. There is a full set of instructions on how to use the templates at the Wikiproject for ships. I had them in prototype form for over a month before deploying them precisely so that concerns over what rows should be in the table could be addressed. The problems in avoiding the use of meta-templates are a concern, but I would say that they are not a big enough concern to delete all the tables.

In summary, the templates are used for boilerplate text that is shared between articles. The templates for the table markup itself are an attempt to bring uniformity, flexibility and ease of maintenance to the arena of ship tables. The templates for the content are meant to be shared between multiple members of the same class of warship, reducing maintenance for those articles and increasing content richness. David Newton 02:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep - I will admit that editing the information in for this templete is at times develishly hard to do, if it isn't outright impossible; however, the ship table is by far the most asthetically pleasing table I have seen, and it does present a wealth of usefull material related to the ships. Deleting this templete and its associated templetes would be a very bad move. Besides, I don't see that you have presented any alternatives to this so-called "...abomination on the face of the Earth"; If you are going to demand it be deleted you should also propose an alternative to the current version. TomStar81 03:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- How about a more traditional infobox, similar to Template:Battlebox and Template:Tank, or if you want something complex, how about a system similar to the infobox template set Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports uses? --Carnildo 03:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I could have made the markup and syntax more simple and retained the functionality I would have done. One thing that does seem to confuse some people is the name of the variables. That may well need looking at to improve the functionality. The complicated bit with this table is the optional rows. I'm trying to get a way of doing it that both allows specification of optional rows and keeps the rows in the same order for consistency. With this set of templates we're bumping right up against the limits of the functionality of the Wikipedia templates system. If the extended template syntax could be implemented, allowing optional rows to be specified for templates, then it would make things a good deal easier. David Newton 12:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ouch!. Subst, delete, and restart from scratch. Try to avoid meta-templates, obfuscative subtemplating, and templates masquerading as article text. Three strikes, you're out. R adiant _>|< 09:25, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Which rows are optional? --MarSch 12:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The optional rows for the table are as follows:

Purchased
Commissioned
Decommissioned
In service
Out of service
Captured
Struck
Reinstated
Homeport
Range
Endurance
Test depth
Capacity
Time to activate
Sensors
Electronic warfare and decoys (with a variable EW)
Armament
Armour
Aircraft

David Newton 19:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Move-To-Memory-Alpha

It says that some articles "do not belong in the Wikipedia" and that their "proper location" is in another Wiki instead. Memory Alpha does not use the GFDL, so I don't believe articles can be moved to it. - Brian Kendig 19:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-GFDL wiki. Dragons flight 04:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. non-SisterProject. BlankVerse ∅ 05:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but use on talk pages. I like templates that that make people realize that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — mark ✎ 09:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 09:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, having seen a similar template on Gorn [11] (and promptly deleting it) it's hideous and distracting. Memory Alpha deserves no special attention. Cburnett 07:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-SisterProject. K1Bond007 07:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-SisterProject which is non-GFDL.-Splash 17:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Fuzzy actor

This template was meant to be a link to voices.fuzzy.com much like the IMDB template links to imdb.com. Fuzzy.com is a database of voice actor credits, but it's notoriously unreliable; anyone can submit new credits to be visible immediately, but no one can delete wrong information, and it's not maintained. As a result it's got (for example) six voice credits for George Bush. I don't trust the information in this database, and I don't think it should be linked from Wikipedia. - Brian Kendig 18:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. For all the reasons listed by Brian Kendig. BlankVerse ∅ 05:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I created it, was unware of the reliability. Still think we need a standarized template for voice actors, if voicechasers.com is anymore reliable, or any other db. <>Who ?¿? 03:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. For all the reasons listed by Brian Kendig --MarSch 12:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator's reasoning and creator's agreement. -Splash 16:59, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ditto the above. —Lifeisunfair 17:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Recycling

Half red-links, and at least one thing on it is a redirect to Recycling. First get your series of articles, then you can have your article series box. Snowspinner 15:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Encourages further development and no real harm. Dragons flight 16:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, erroneous argument for deletion. --SPUI (talk) 18:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Just because some of the links are red does not necessarily mean you should get rid of the entire template. You can just remove those links. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Categorify, this is not a good series box as it has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetical. R adiant _>|< 09:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and replace with a category. - SimonP 00:26, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Categorify as per Radiant%21. — Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Categorify since there is no "linear series" nature to the article other than alphabetical. Ironically, categorification is probably a good analogy for template recycling. -Splash 16:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Personal

Template:Personal Our policy against personal attacks applies to all of Wikipedia, not just to a few talk pages with this template. →Raul654 01:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

In light of this objection, User:Lifeisunfair proposed a change, and I implemented it. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. →Raul654 01:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Note: This template is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Personal attacks on controversial pages. --cesarb 01:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - considering I have only just created it and we are still discussing it on WP:BP, WP:AN and WP:NPA, I'm a bit suprised that this is up for deletion. I could move it to a subpage of WP:NPA for the time being, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Further: We don't currently have a blocking rule that immediately blocks personal attacks, nor should we. People must get a warning. However, on certain controversial articles, such as Jihad, there are editors who create sock puppets and edit anonymously - all done on purpose. They target these articles and therefore I feel that a specific warning message (this template) should be added to the article, noting that we won't accept personal attacks in the article. This would be the warning that editors are given, and will mean that they have no excuse for making personal attacks - excuses like "But you never warned me!". - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think it could help to calm down some of the more volatile talk pages. On the Islam-related ones recently, there has been some really unpleasant stuff, more so than usual. Anything that might help is welcome, in my view. Admins could be advised to use it sparingly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or userfy if the proposal goes nowhere. This link is Broken 03:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but revise to something along the lines of this. —Lifeisunfair 03:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Done. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The person posting the template has no right to threaten someone with being blocked. People know the policy and administrators know when to block. Superm401 | Talk 03:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. However, this is part of the policy change. We could make it clear in the Wikipedia:No personal attack policy that only admins can place this on the article's talk page when a clear majority of admins agree that this is the only way of proceding forward with discussion. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Explicit reminder, especially to newcomers, to cool their jets when they head straight to topics that interest/obsess them particularly. --Calton | Talk 04:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Though I would like to see the template in a smaller form. -- Ec5618 11:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- The template was in a smaller form until Ta bu shi da yu addressed Raul654's criticism by implementing my proposed modifications. —Lifeisunfair 13:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't really see the point of it, but at any rate it should be reworded as it's far too long. It has been decided that this message shall serve as irrefutable notification is too bureaucratese. Radiant_>|< 12:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- It's only fair to point out that I'm responsible for the sentence in question, which is among the additions that I proposed (and Ta bu shi da yu promptly implemented) in response to this discussion. The previous version was significantly shorter, but it generated the complaint of ambiguity on which Raul654 based his deletion proposal. —Lifeisunfair 13:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- While I didn't actually make that up, I agree with that sentence you quote because this is the purpose of this template: to give fair warning to all anonymous editors and sock puppets (!) that they will be blocked for personal attacks. Ever tried to warn suspected sock puppets? They always say they aren't sock puppets, even if they are. With a global warning on the contentious talk page, no warning needs to be given to them explicitly. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but copy-edit. There are too many Talk pages on the Wikipedia that need this reminder to be civil. Many of the articles where there is a dispute over the title of the article, for example. BlankVerse ∅ 12:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, this is a policy decision, so it really shouldn't be handled here at TFD. User:Ta bu shi da yu should create a Wikipedia policy proposal for using the template, or find some other Wikipedia forum for discussing the use of the template and then should see if there is any consensus for its use. BlankVerse ∅ 11:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete because it still suggests personal attacks are more acceptable some places than others. Support the underlying move towards blocking for personal attacks, however. Snowspinner 15:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- With all due respect to Snowspinner, I disagree. This template doesn't do anything of the sort, especially with the bolded warning on the bottom. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is a "symptom" template, not a "disease" template. :) When would it be appropriate to use this template instead of one of the more focused Template:POV, Template:TitleDisputed, or just a simple comment "No personal attacks, please"? Ditto Snowspinner's and Superm401's comments too: this template feels like a weapon. And if only admins can use it... can't admins protect pages and/or archive or delete insults anyway? --Quuxplusone 17:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, I'm afraid that NPOV and TitleDisputed templates would not be sufficient. Neither of those talk about personal attacks, and neither of those give a specific warning that you could be blocked on site for making personal attacks. As for using it as a weapon: that is something that the policy changes will address and prevent. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I can't see any harm, and if it reminds just one User not to engage in personal attacks, it will have come out on the credit side. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It wastes a lot of space on the page, and I don't think it's going to deter anyone from personal attacks. And I don't like the language it uses. Maybe it's not difficult for me to write neutrally about this topic? What does "irrefutable notification" mean? Does it give carte blanche for an administrator to block any user whose tone he doesn't like? What's the difference in how an article is handled when it does or doesn't have this template on it? Don't the statements in this template apply to EVERY article? If personal attacks are "prohibited throughout the Wikipedia site," then why post a warning like this in the first place? - Brian Kendig 18:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Did you read Ta bu shi da yu's remarks? This template is for use in conjunction with a newly proposed policy (which has not yet taken effect). In my opinion, this deletion vote is premature. —Lifeisunfair 01:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It hardly wastes any space on the top of the page, so can't agree with that argument. As for whether it is not difficult to write neutrally about a particular topic: well, all I can say is that the Personal template is not going to be used on those articles! However, if you are implying that it is easy to write neutrally about any topic, I would love to see you editing Jihad, because that page sure as heck needs all the help it can get! I'd like to note, for the record, that I wish I didn't have to create this template and that we could all just get along, but after being on Wikipedia for quite some time now and having viewed some tinderbox articles, I know that is just not the case. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I'll change my vote to Keep, now that the vague language has been excised. I believe the template has become more clear about its purpose: to remind users they should always be civil, but to specifically tell them that they'll be blocked if they prolong personal conflicts on a talk page which bears this template. I just finished some edits to bring it more in line with this purpose. - Brian Kendig 04:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but clarify policy. -- nyenyec ☎ 01:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete a very bad idea Grue 09:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Modify. I don't know how, but I also think it seems a little like personal attacks are more allowed on some pages than others. It is a good idea though, reminding some wikipedians about the Rule of No Personal Attacks. // Mathew 10:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, though this should be hard-limited to admins, or it'll finish up all over the place in 'revenge templating' wars. I don't think there is too much of a problem with it not being intended for article pages since these can be reverted with fewer implications than talk pages, and we already have the various disputed, npov etc tags.-Splash 16:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:(disambiguation)

This is a near-duplicate of the existing and widely used Template:disambig. I don't know why it was created. I've removed all references to it. Quuxplusone 01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This template is intended to be a near duplicate. It excludes the instruction to go and fix the linking article. Josh Parris ✉ 02:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And why should it? Superm401 | Talk 03:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

See fish and fish (disambiguation). Intentional linking to (disambiguation) pages does happen - such as Hex (Discworld) linking to bug (disambiguation). Josh Parris ✉ 04:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Quuxplusone 01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep It excludes the instruction to go and fix the linking article. It's intended to go on Topic (disambiguation) pages, where Topic includes a link to Topic (disambiguation). No-one's ever going to accidentally link to those pages. Josh Parris ✉ 01:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. →Raul654 01:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redundant, silly name. JYolkowski // talk 01:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unnecessary with Template:disambig. Superm401 | Talk 03:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, don't make template forks. R adiant _>|< 12:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Merge I like the picture and the wording of this. Why not merge it with Template:disambig. --michael180 14:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: see Template talk:disambig. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge Could this template be merged with Template:disambig so that there ais a paramete that controls whethr or not to include the request to fix links? Otherwis many people won't ralize tht both templates exist, adn mys use the wrong one. DES 21:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge The picture and text box make it more noticable. Tastywheat 09:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, yes, don't make template forks, but I like this one better than {{disambig}}. Phoenix2 03:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Rename: The distinction between wanted and unwanted disambiguation pages is important. Ideally, this should be clear from the template's name. Proposed name: "disambig_intentional". "Don't make template forks" is all very nice, but since templates don't allow default values (correct me if I'm wrong) we would have to add a parameter to several thousand existing implementations of Template:disambig. — Sebastian (talk) 03:49, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Delete. Template fork. I also think this one is better than {{disambig}} but that should be discussed elsewhere.--Nabla 04:28, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Question for all "Delete" or "Merge" voters: What exactly do you mean? (A) Change the remaining template so that it distinguishes between wanted and unwanted redirect pages - or (B) Do not distinguish between both cases. — Sebastian (talk) 06:48, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
- I'd go for (B). The instruction to fix it is harmless, and it's always possible that new errors will be introduced in the future. R adiant _>|< 11:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- (B). Keep whichever template name is more popular (currently being used more) and make it look like the smaller one with the picture. In any case I'd like to see that one be the new standard template for disambiguation. - Tastywheat 22:47, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

merge, one purpose, one template, but the new version is much better. The (A) case hardly deserves mention. Just comment a link that is supposed to point to a disambiguation page. Also it doesn't say you must change the link, only that you might want to fix it.--MarSch 12:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge the styling into the existing template, but if that's not really the question at hand, otherwise delete - existing template does just fine. -Splash 16:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I believe there is a slight difference which should be noted on eaches talk page. The one on vfd is best for specific places and topics while the other is best for less specific subjects, IMHO. I've seen both templates used however I won't object to a merge. Falphin 22:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:WiktionaryWord

This is an exact duplicate of the existing and widely used Template:wiktionarypar. I don't know why it was created. I've removed all references to it. Quuxplusone 01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it was created because there's no documentation pointing to Template:wiktionarypar? Fix the problem, not the solution!

Both are fixed now. --Quuxplusone 01:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Quuxplusone 01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No reason for duplicate. Superm401 | Talk 03:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris ✉ 04:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or perhaps redirect. I understand why someone might want to call this template WiktionaryWord. Does anyone know what the "par" in Wiktionarypar is meant to indicate? It's not really what I would have thought of when looking for a template like this. Dragons flight 04:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- parameter. I agree the nomenclature sucks somewhat but unfortunately this problem got lost in the noise over meta-templates. --Phil | Talk 14:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, don't make template forks. R adiant _>|< 12:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: redundant. --Phil | Talk 14:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redundant template fork.-Splash 16:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Holding Cell

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

{{DirectionUndecided}} (6d, 3k)
{{Undecided}} (6d, 3k)
Template:DirectionUndecidedSection (6d, 3k)
Template:Discussion moved to (3d, 1k)
Template:Car fuel (9d, 0k)
Template:Fuel_Name (9d, 0k)
Template:Fuel_name (9d, 0k)
Template:esolangs (6d, 3k)
Template:Crap
Template:Copyrightproblem
Template:Crank
Template:Googletest

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 fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

Template:Caribbean (merge/redir to Template:West Indies
Template:stylehowto (obsolete, split into 'style' and 'howto')
- have added notice to split on this template --MarSch 13:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Template:Whedon-spoiler: For most articles, the template can be replaced with the following:
- {{spoiler-about|some or all of the [[Whedonverse]] productions ([[Buffy the Vampire Slayer|Buffy]], [[Angel (TV series)|Angel]], [[Fray]], etc.)}}

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.

None at present

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

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.

Listings

Template:Sfd-current Please put new listings under today's date at the top of the section.

June 23

Template:US-camp-stub

Only one article currently links to it. It seems likely this template might be used to extend the morass from Wikipedia:Schools. --Tabor 22:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Refer to WP:SFD. Joe D (t) 22:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, moving nomination to WP:SFD. --Tabor 23:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Li-isotopes

Same as below. Made redundant, just missed it in the last list.--metta, The Sunborn 19:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Several isotope templates

I created these templates for the isotopes and am the only one who ever edited them. They are now redundant with the new system being put in place for the same purpose. The list as follows:

--metta, The Sunborn 17:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

speedy delete -- Netoholic @ 18:46, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Speedy deleting. Good? - Omegatron 19:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Constantvandalisminprogress

(and the redirect Template:CVIP, and the associated Category:Vandalism in Progress) Pointless. If the page needs to be protected from vandalism there's template:vprotected; if the page isn't protected there's no point to placing a notice like this, since the vandals can vandalize it as easily as they vandalize the rest of the article. It is also needlessly self-referential: Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages already exists, hidden away from the average reader, to list pages that need careful watching for vandalism. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete since adequate provision exists as described above and this risks making martyrs of pages.-Splash 17:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Artportal

Redundant with {{portalpar}} which accepts one parameter and is thus much more versatile. Do we really want a separate portal template for each portal? --MarSch 11:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I doubt the creator or users, including myself, were aware of portalpar's existence. --sparkit (talk) 14:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- someone (maybe I) linked to it on portal talk, which they should have checked. --MarSch 14:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:N, Template:Y, Template:No and Template:Yes

~~More templates to add a cutish picture to a vote; see below for the discussion about Template:Support and others. R adiant _>|< 08:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn. Note that I've merged the first two onto the latter two. R adiant _>|< 13:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - as I mentioned in the vote below, they are used in articles, not votes (look at the "What links here" for each ([12], [13], [14], [15]). If people start using them in votes, then I'll change my mind. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Terrible for votes, but wonderful for things like comparison tables. --W(t) 10:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Keep but don't dare use them for voting. smoddy 10:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Template:No and Template:Yes, but please don't use them for your opinions in any of the Wikipedia surveys (and for anyone considering such action, look at the strong opinions against Template:Support and Template:Oppose expressed below and consider the possibility that your vote might disappear if someone blanks the template—not that I am advocating such action). On the other hand, the almost unused redirects Template:N, and Template:Y should be deleted in my opinion. BlankVerse ∅ 11:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, for the reason cited above. —Lifeisunfair 12:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Radiant — I appreciate the diligence with which you round up potentially inappropriate templates, but can you please make a greater effort to understand their intended applications before proposing their deletion? Why would you assume that these templates were for use in voting, without even bothering to check? And why haven't you struck that claim? —Lifeisunfair 12:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In this case, I nominated them because BrokenSegue and ALoan mentioned in the discusion on Template:Oppose that they were quite similar. These four aren't much in use at the moment, I noticed as much - but they could have been subst'ed, and being not much in use is hardly a reason for keeping. And I hadn't struck that claim yet because it's been all of four hours since I made it. HTH. Radiant_>|< 13:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Thank you for your reply and for striking the erroneous claim. I inquired because you removed the tfd tags after the templates' intended application was pointed out (and almost two hours had elapsed since then). I would appreciate if you would also strike your mistaken description of Template:Spoiler-about, as I requested more than a day ago. Thanks again! :-) —Lifeisunfair 15:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These templates add no value. Why does a simple yes or no not suffice in a table. Even if you want the picture, there is still no need for a template. Thus substitute and delete --MarSch 13:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I just reviewed all the pages that curretly use these templates. All seem to be sensible, and similer future uses should be supported. Use in votes, which is not currently being done, would be another matter. DES 15:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Omegatron 15:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Their use for voting should not be discussed here, but at VP, as Dragons flight proposed below. — Sebastian (talk) 16:58, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Keep, as long as they're not used for voting. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete If you don't want to use them in votes, where do you want to use them? --Neigel von Teighen 23:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This article is an example of its usage elsewhere, British_referendum_on_the_European_Constitution Falphin 23:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, the template is used occasionally and it doesn't harm anything to keep it. Falphin 23:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 22

Template:Transwiki

This template is unused, since it is redundant with {{move to Wiktionary}}, {{move to Wikisource}}, etc. It was only used on a few old pages specifying other projects, so I've cleaned out the category (Category:Wikipedia articles to be transwikied) using the specific templates. This is unnecessary and creates more work. --Dmcdevit 21:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I should say the category should go along with it. --Dmcdevit 18:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
del, superseded --MarSch 13:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, what about articles that are in other languages. While it is rare it still could be used. Falphin 22:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Those use the {{notenglish}} tag, and go to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. They shouldn't use the Transwiki tag. --Dmcdevit 06:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:TOCembed

This produces a horrible-looking TOC on the left-hand side of the page. All pages ought to follow the same format, but this ruins the look of about 4 articles. Dunc|☺ 16:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless somebody can come up with a better format. The left-floating box isn't nice. Joe D (t) 16:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Section convinces me that thsi is a good ides in some cases. When the TOC is long, the default format introduces a lot of undesireable whitespace. Short TOCs, Wide TODs and Long but not Wide TOCs should not be handled in the same way. DES 17:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What part of this long discussion page are you referring to? — Sebastian (talk) 17:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  - Sorry. I was refering specifically to the "Right floating TOC" section found here. DES 17:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, unless a viable alternative is offered. I used this template to diffuse an Anon user who was starting to crossover to a vandal. He raised the valid point that the brief intro to the article, followed by a lengthy ToC, pushed needed mention of criticisms "below the fold" of the front page. It ain't pretty, but it works.--ghost 17:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The intelligent design article is quite a mess as I view it. Section 1 (ID in summary) is squeezed in a narrow right margin with a "Creationism" template sitting on top of it, making it impossible for me to read it.--Nabla 04:34, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Delete, pointless. R adiant _>|< 08:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, because it has its uses, though Template:TOCright is usually the preferred template for floating TOCs. Looking at intelligent design, I think it is not appropriate in that case simply because of the right floating box next to it. In previous discussion it has been suggested that TOCs only float when other boxes are not floating at the same place in the document. It also sounds like the conflict on that article has more to do with developing a good summary than TOC placement. —Mike (creator of both templates) 08:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I tried Template:TOCright, and it works well. Therefore, I remove my objections for deleteing Template:TOCembed. However, if this is done, please update the TOC instruction pages, as I never saw a reference to TOCright, and I looked.--ghost 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

del, file a feature request instead --MarSch 13:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler-about

I understand the need of Template:Spoiler-other below, but this one claims that "the article contains spoilers about its subject" and is therefore redundant with the more vanilla Template:Spoiler. R adiant _>|< 08:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Radiant. This template is redundant. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Provisional delete, Template:Spoiler-about and Template:Spoiler-other are redundant with each other. We don't need two templates to describe what spoilers it contains. At the moment I think Spoiler-other is more useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to reassess the template. I personally favor retaining both {{Spoiler-about}} and {{Spoiler-other}}, but if we were to keep only one, it should be {{Spoiler-about}}. It contains less information (rendering it less useful in situations to which {{Spoiler-other}} applies), but the information that it does contain is applicable. Conversely, {{Spoiler-other}} contains additional information that renders it inapplicable to any situation in which the spoiler warning doesn't pertain to the article's title (as demonstrated below). —Lifeisunfair 12:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete not necessary. Redirect back to template:spoiler. Dunc|☺ 09:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. You appear to have misunderstood the nature of the template, because it does not claim that "the article contains spoilers about its subject" (unless someone decides to utilize it in this manner, which isn't its intended application). The "subject" to which I refer in my example is that of the spoiler, not the title of the article. This is potentially useful in two types of situation that I've observed.