Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crypticbot (talk | contribs) at 00:00, 21 April 2006 (Automated addition of {{Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 21}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Debates

April 21, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uruguay infobox

Template:Uruguay infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It was reformated to the infobox country standard and updated. This single use template is no longer needed. MJCdetroit 22:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 12:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family

Template:Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not used except on a userpage →AzaToth 12:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 12:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arrested Development

Template:Arrested Development (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template was previously nominated, but was kept as it was still used. Now unused, as all the pages it links to have now been merged to Characters from Arrested Development. — sjorford (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirects to Template:Infobox Circeus 15:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Conditionals

Template:Infobox Conditionals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant: Duplicates (more-or-less) the content of Template:Infobox, which now contains examples of conditionals. --Marknew 08:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 12:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dino

Template:Dino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-scientifically named template which contains only five words. The template was created and used on four pages, but subsequently was removed from all four pages (by me) because the single sentence inside the template ("This animal is a dinosaur.") was redundant: each article already stated that fact. No further information was given, no discussion was made anywhere before the template was created, and the template now links to nothing. User who created the template is a new editor on WikiPedia and is not familiar with WP processes or the general guidelines used on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs.--Firsfron 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But this template is not just unlikely to be used; it can't be used. A sentence that defines the animal as a dinosaur would quite likely be followed by what type of dinosaur it was, which cannot be added to the template, unless all dinosaurs used with this generic dinosaur template are the same kind of dinosaur. And an editor who wanted to add information on the animal might likely be confused that a sentence was suddenly "missing" in the article, replaced with the ambiguous "template:dino", when s/he goes to edit the article. You can imagine the "fun" an editor might have trying to edit such an article. --Firsfron 21:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

April 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In-progress tvshow

Template:In-progress tvshow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Why do we need this template? It takes away the creditability of a lot of pages that are otherwise fine. If we are going to allow this, we should also have a template for living people articles saying something likes this: "This person has yet to live his/hers life. The article content might change if he/her does something."

Someguy0830, I know you are an active TV topic contributor, would you possibly care to help in cleaning up the by me mentioned situation (below) ? - The DJ 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is, the template serves a function for articles on (as an example) American Idol contestants, who have achieved a degree of notability yet arguably have not yet established this notability. Just as with articles which document current events, the facts influencing the notability of the articles' subjects may change. Therefore, my vote is to Keep after rewording, or else another template should be developed for this function. -- SwissCelt 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure when American Idol became the benchmark for template policy, but this is the second time I've seen it used as an example (and, in fact, the only example I've seen). Either someone's notability is established or it is not. Individual contestants should not have their own articles until they have established notability, at which point that notability should be spelled out for the reader in prose. Simply appearing on television does not automatically mean a person is a celebrity, and there is plenty of precedent for that. In either case, whether they have become notable or not, there's nothing in this tag that can't be written in the body of the article instead.
Since we're using examples, how about this one: General Hospital is a current show. It's been on for such a long time that it was interrupted so news of the Kennedy assassination could get out back in 1963. It will probably be on for another 40 or 50 years. It will always be in progress, and it shouldn't have a tag on it to say so. If for some reason American Idol needs some kind of disclaimer, I would have no problem with that. But to tag the hundreds or thousands of other shows just because of that? No way. Kafziel 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know, New Orleans, Louisiana has existed for nearly 300 years. Yet last fall, it still had Template:Current on it. This template appears to be intended to serve a similar function, to note articles that may be edited more frequently. And anyway, if you feel those articles do not belong on Wikipedia for lack of notability, the WP:AFD process is available to you. -- SwissCelt 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Current relates to a specific and ongoing event, the details of which can be subject to change at any moment. Such a claim is not nearly as applicable in the case of most TV shows. Episodes air, you have slightly more information, old information tends to remain valid. Reality shows like American Idol are no exception. Every episode eliminates some people or something to that effect, article is updated, there's no problem. This template does nothing but state the obvious. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trust me, it lacks credibility. You can not trust all the information in that article, as well as many others. I understand if this is not the case for some TV shows, then ok, they don't have to use this template. But when fandom causes lots of unverifiable information to be added, and to much for anyone to catch all of it and try to source it, a warning of this nature is completely appropriate. If this template does get deleted I plan on just using the actual wikicode into the articles themselves. I understand if it's something like a typical sitcom, or it's The Price is Right, and they wouldn't need such a warning. But to make the claim that this decision is good for all TV show articles is ridiculous. If anything, we should be discussing which articles should use the warning and which ones should not. This is no different from using a warning that says an article is about an in progress event, or might be controversial. Yes, the article says it's a show in progress, but this warning is not to give information about the status of a show, it's a warning about the article itself. -- Ned Scott 23:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bantab-From what I can tell, your saying we remove every single current template and replace it with the future template. But why would we do that? That would mean the current tv shows would say they are taking place in the future. You said this tag is to warn people about future tvshows. What do you mean by that? Because if this tag is on a page, it's a current tv show. People don't put these on tv shows that haven't happened. They put them on ones that are happeningm like they should. And also, why would we merge it with the future tvshow. That's up for deletion also. (Sorry for the long comment)TeckWiz 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What TV show has the potential to change every hour (or minute) of every day? That's the only kind of situation where the current event template is used. Not even American Idol changes that rapidly. Hell, not even Jeopardy changes that rapidly, and it's on every day. Kafziel 17:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if a TV show article is updated frequently due to changing circumstances, the current events tag seems perfectly appropriate to me. The vast majority of TV show articles don't fit that criterion, I think. Tuf-Kat 01:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but limit use and reword accordingly. I think it should only be used for reality shows and other competition where a contestant is eliminated, or something else noteworthy happens, every week. (or every other week, or episode, etc.) --zenohockey 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its similar to the current events template and shows that the article may rapidly change, especially when a new episode airs. -Reuvenk[T][C] 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask you the same thing I asked RayaruB: What TV show has the potential to change every hour (or minute) of every day? That's the only kind of situation where the current event template is used. We don't use the current events tag on subjects that only change once a day or once a week. What show has a new episode more than once a day? Kafziel 20:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative to just "delete" or "keep"

Comment I really think the issue here is not about the template itself, but about which articles should use the template and which should not. All the people who are voting to delete seem to only care about getting the template warning off articles where it is not needed, and the people voting keep seem to know of articles where the warning is appropriate and useful. The "vote count" doesn't seem to be showing any kind of consensus, and I doubt that this is the right way to resolve this issue. I think people have specific examples stuck in their heads and might not be considering different examples.

I have yet to see someone bring up a single article where it was argued to use the template and to not use the template. This leads me to believe that we can satisfy both sides of this dispute.

I would like to make a new proposal for what to do:

We should do two things: 1, re-write the template as others have requested above and 2, establish guidelines via such groups as WikiProjects Television, Anime and manga, and others, for which in-progress TV articles should include the template and which in-progress TV articles should not.

Your alternative is to continue this endless debate with no real points being made. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- Ned Scott 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially support -- This isn't really a pointless debate, since delete votes outnumber keep by a fair amount, but your proposal is good. Personally, I think this template really doesn't apply in the majority of circumstances. Barring special events, most show articles tend to recieve major updates once every week or so. The major information between those times will tend stay the same, even though it may be reorganized or reworded. Pure speculation, such as the template suggests might be there, generally shouldn't be. That is something that really should be removed rather than just telling people it's there. To suggest a specific set, I would say that it's appropriate only for some reality shows (Idol, Survivor, and the like). – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems almost everyone agrees that the template is unacceptable the way it is. Even most of the "keep" votes are contingent on a re-write. I still think it should be deleted completely, because even reality show articles and anime should explain in prose that the show is ongoing. The way I look at it, we're supposed to be working toward making every article featured-status worthy. No article would make it through FAC with this template intact. So this proposal is pretty much a given anyway; either the template will be deleted, or it will be drastically altered and removed from most of the articles it's currently on. I'd prefer to delete it but, yes, this option is certainly plan B. Kafziel 19:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That works in theory, but not in practice. I'd rather not lie to readers in order to make the article look better. That's misleading. The fact that such warnings can be applied to any article gives the ones without the warnings more creditability. When no one disputes an article that many people have worked on, I tend to trust it a bit more. But to just be blind like that, that is misleading to the reader. That is telling the reader this article is something it's not.
When it is an in-progress something, usually there are is a great increase of edits, usually too many to always keep on top of. That's why we have these warnings, because we know the very nature of the edits at that time, and that we can't always be there to watch the article 24/7. -- Ned Scott 22:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a problem on an article, then use the template. If it's not a problem on an article, then don't use it. If there was no problem I doubt most of the keeps here would be defending the template. Pretending there is no problem is not a solution. -- Ned Scott 22:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was all this stuff meant as a reply to me? I don't see how it applies to what I said. I don't want to lie to readers, I don't want to pretend there is no problem. I want to get rid of the template. Kafziel 22:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not lying to readers by deleting this template. The article should already be clear on the fact that a show is still running. One can assume from that context that edits will be more frequent. Also, unless they edit the article on a regular basis, most editors will likely not be caught up in all the edit history, and will just fix things as they see fit. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Lie" is a bit strong, but it's still misleading. You guys seem to think Wikipedia is flawless, and that everyone's going to follow the rules in regards to these articles. You seem to ignore the waves of fanboys and fangirls who flood many TV show articles with tons of crap. TV show articles that do not have this situation should not have this template, but the ones that do SHOULD. I'm sorry if this doesn't fit your little vision that Wikipedia can do no wrong. We owe it to the readers to warn them of articles that lack credibility. If the article does not lack credibility, then DON'T ADD THE TEMPLATE. But there are many articles that do lack credibility, and the do so because of being an in-progress show. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that fanboys can add trivia and crap to any TV series - even those who has already ended. My problem with this template is the use of "in-progress". It is to broad a definition and targets way more articles than necessary. What we need is a template specifically designed to the problem you are describing. I propose the following template {{TVtrivia}}, in which the message should say something like "This TV related article is filled with too much trivia. Please stop adding more and help reducing the amount". --Maitch 09:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ned, if you think I'm not aware of the "fanboy" problem, you might want to take a look at my recent history with Zarbon and the pages related to The Sopranos and The Shield. I've been dealing with that stuff longer than you've been on Wikipedia, so please don't tell me what I think. I know people put stupid stuff on pages. Fix it. If they do it again, fix it again. If they do it again, fix it again. That's Wikipedia. A template isn't going to stop people from adding unencyclopedic content, and in this case it actually encourages it. I spend a great deal of my time on Wikipedia removing fanboy content from movies, television, and music articles, and if I thought this template would help at all I'd be all for it. But it won't. Kafziel 12:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Venezuela infobox

Template:Venezuela infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It was reformated and updated to the Template:Infobox Country standard. It is easier to edit now. Venezuela infobox is a single use template. There is no more need for it. MJCdetroit 16:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Mrsteviec 16:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK stations

Found three infoboxes that supercede this as a better (in my opinion) version these are
Template:Infobox UK medium railway station
Template:Infobox UK minor railway station
and Template:Infobox UK major railway station.
Your thoughts would be appreciated thanks. My thinking is that four solutions are possible:

  • Keep the original, delete the new versions
  • Keep the new ones, delete this one
  • Edit the old to hold a bit more information, in turn deleting new vers.
  • Edit the new one, to get rid of unencyclopaedic info, in turn deleting old vers.

DannyM 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep. The original is more encyclopedic. Are toilets and telephones really needed in an encyclopedia? I've had a good look at these and they contain far too much of What Wikipedia is not. I recommend we redirect them to original template and look to add any additional fields to that. Mrsteviec 16:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay is see the argument for keeping, so despite becoming a hypocrite I think keeping is a good idea if the older version gets some more detail as I believe it's got too little detail, whereas the other one has too much, sorry for contradicting myself! DannyM 11:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the new ones are less encyclopaedic and too cluttered. All the information is sourced from from station info page on the National Rail website to which all the articles link already. There is little point in duplicating effort. Thryduulf 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whichever template that doesn't occupy three-quarters of the page! I agree with the previous comment - no need to duplicate the NR website leaky_caldron 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having thought about it, there is the problem of "too much information". Is the presence of baby-changing facilities or bicycle lockers notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia? Probably not. Besides, all that sort of information is available from the National Rail Station Information pages, which are automatically linked via the {{stn art lnk}} and {{stn art lrnk}} templates, so we don't need to duplicate it. --RFBailey 20:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this debate still open or is it closed? The reason I ask is that someone has changed all of the new templates into redirects to the old one without removing the delete proposal. Either restore the old pages so users can actively debate them, or close the debate and remove the delete proposal. Road Wizard 18:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There is a bit of confusion about which is the "new" template here. The tbree infoboxes (major/medium/minor) were created in October 2005 by User:Sloman. (I had some discussion with Sloman about them at that time). The {{UK stations}} template (which seems to be perceived as the "old" one) only appeared in March 2006, being created by User:Mrsteviec and is an adaptation of the {{London stations}} (which he also created) which has been around since September 2005. As for {{British stations}}, this appears to be an independent attempt by User:Smurrayinchester to adapt the London template, also appearing in March 2006. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, that one can be replaced with whatever we come up with here, regardless. --RFBailey 22:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure who wants to keep what, but the Euston infobox has way too much info. Studd about toilets etc is easily available from the external link. It does not belong here. We can't keep it up to date - its obsessive detail. --Concrete Cowboy 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, keep Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phh:Reader/

Template:Phh:Reader/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another fork, as below. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - other help pages don't work as expected if it's integrated into Template:Phh:Reader(edit talk links history) as explained on the talk page. -- Omniplex 09:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As explained at the talk page, they look identical to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We looked at the right pages at the wrong times, at the moment it's okay again. For the source of this episode in the #if:-crusade see also WP:MV. -- Omniplex 12:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, labeling things a "crusade" is hardly a way to foster discussion. Generally I'd rather use a conditional than fork a template (resulting in two things to watch, two things to synchronize, two things to ... ?, etc). Also, another thing I have an issue with is your choice of naming in these templates; the "/" (forward slash) is very subtle, and given that it's usually pushed up against a "|" (pipe), easy to miss. I've tried to avoid being cruel/mean/evil during this as well, but when you revert war over it it's hard not to introduce the "nuclear option" of TFD. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I perceive it as your "crusade", I could even live with the WP:HIDE solution after adding a default none instead of the obscure {{{1}}}. But you insisted on changing it to {{Qif}} for most Wikipedia header templates. I'm no big fan of named parameters and tried the more minimal {{ifdef}}. My first attempt was wrong, three days ago Paddu published the explanation on Ifdef, I documented it (test cases + caveats), and implemented it as planned in the header templates replacing {{Qif}}.
        Hours later you replaced it by #if: as discussed in the ifdef-Tfd. Trying to solve an ugliness with WP:MV I finally saw that Qif / ifdef / #if: are all unnecessary, and what's really needed is a single point of maintenance {{Shortcut/}} (admittedly not the best name) for a consisted look and feel. So that's what I did using it for {{Phh:Reader/}}. It worked and was simpler than all prior solutions, therefore I used it also for the header templates.
        But now you insisted on if: and sent those two to Tfd. The output of your solution wasn't what we saw until yesterday, the old style is better. For the case "no optional shortcut" in {{Phh:Reader}} you could fix it (unfortunately not for "given shortcut(s)"), but your all in one solution uses {{Qif}} again, essentially two templates squeezed into one. Side by side diff of your {{Phh:Reader}} vs. my {{Phh:Reader/}}, this makes no sense. The big standalone {{shortcut}} and the small optional table cell {{shortcut/}} are different. Like {{Tl}} and {{Tlp}} are different, and no fork. -- Omniplex 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm no big fan of named parameters and tried the more minimal {{ifdef}}
        Then change {{qif}}, don't fork. If I'm on any particular crusade here, it's a crusade against forks when they're unnecessary.
        ...what's really needed is a single point of maintenance {{Shortcut/}} (admittedly not the best name) for a consisted look and feel. So that's what I did using it for {{Phh:Reader/}}. It worked and was simpler than all prior solutions, therefore I used it also for the header templates.
        And now {{Shortcut}} has been updated and works just fine without the unnecessary {{Shortcut/}}. Again, my "crusade" here is against forks. Forks are bad. Forks are evil. Do not fork.
        I also strongly disagree with you that the styling you used was "better". The standard {{shortcut}} looked okay inside a header box as well as by itself on a page, but now there's a padding issue (see WP:BN and, in modern browsers anyways, how the top line of the shortcut box no longer aligns with the top line of the navigation box).
        Again, you just don't get what a fork is, and somehow you think what you've done isn't forking. Whenever you introduce yet another place to update the styling of Wikipedia, that's (IMO) forking unless you have a very good reason. You don't have one that I can tell, especially when you've been shown it can be done without forking. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shortcut/

Template:Shortcut/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unnecessary fork of {{Shortcut}} (note the forward slash in this templates name). Creating forked templates only further complicates things and provides more places to update the style of Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 19, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notadopted

Template:Notadopted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Probably a WP:POINT violation. It was created immediatly after the suggestion of a new template here with the same name, and the creation edit summary refers to one of the members of that discussion. Unused according to What Links Here and Google.SeventyThree(Talk) 23:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. —Whouk (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future tvshow

Template:Future tvshow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A blatant violation of WP:NOT, it was prodded then removed then I incorrectly marked it as db where it was deleted and then restored so now I'm taking it here to be properly brought up for deletion. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No, some articles that use it *might* be a blatant violation of WP:NOT. If they are "What links here?" will be helpful in finding and removing inappropriate speculation. Some regularly scheduled future events are considered worthy inclusion. It's really a matter of looking at each usage of this template, reading the content, and deciding what, if any, fix is needed. Deleting this template, will not fix a single article with a problem. -Rob 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although some of the articles which use this template may be engaged in crystal-balling, the template itself is not. The relevant section of WP:NOT says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I can't vouch for all of the articles which use this template, but I'm sure that there are many individual television episodes which could be described as "almost certain to take place". Whether they are notable is another question, but since the larger issue of whether individual television episodes should have pages is still open, I don't see why an individual episode scheduled to air in two weeks is intrinsically less notable than an individual television episode which aired last month.
Although some pages which use this template may be chronic violators of WP:NOT, that's not the fault of the template. If anything, it's a reason for the template's existence: editors could use it to patrol such pages and make sure that everything in them is factual and appropriately cited.
I also don't see a substantial difference between this template and Template:Future election, Template:Future film or most of the rest of Category:Temporal templates. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a warning to the template article page, hopefully it will cause less misuse of the template. Beyond that just afd the articles in question that are problematic? - The DJ 14:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that articles with this tag have the potential for misuse, and should be eyed carefully and afd'ed if they're crystal-ballish. But I disagree with the suggestion that every article with this tag is by its very nature unencyclopedic; for example, see the relatively well-cited Torchwood, which has been the subject of discussion in mainstream (non-fan) media. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I suggested anywhere that these articles are by no means encyclopedic in essence then I miscommunicated my thoughts :D - The DJ 18:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. :D (tips hat to the DJ) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:N9jig-il-shield

Template:N9jig-il-shield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am the author of this template. Previous discussion consensus was keep 'til we have replacement, "more free" images, and we now do in the commons (see Image:Illinois 1.svg for an example). Also note this should result in automatic deletion of images that use this template... —Rob (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UN-multilingual

A poll at Talk:United Nations Commission on Human Rights showed that most people clearly did not want this, so it's been removed from all articles. As it has no use, I'm nominating it for deletion. Raul654 08:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Move to Wikibooks Cookbook

Template:Move to Wikibooks Cookbook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Don't need to have a separate template for each Wikibook. Should use Template:Move to Wikibooks instead. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. --Domthedude001 21:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? The nom says delete, by default... -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think a lot of the transwiki to wikibooks tags are for recipes, which would make this tag useful. -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I've either used this or thought of doing so before, so it's useful in my opinion. Ardric47 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, comes up often enough to be useful. the wub "?!" 23:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and redirect Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Factual

Template:Factual (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Serves to alert the reader that some things in the article may not be factual, and might be opinions... which seems to me to really be most of wikipedia. Is there another template instead for 'contested facts'? This one is very new.

I have blatantly redirected it as everyone suggested above. 68.39.174.238 02:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, no apparent consensus for renaming Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Google

Template:Google (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template serves no apparent purpose; only redirects to a completely random and meaningless Google search of the string "{{{1}}}" - this template should be deleted. The template actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia's Google articles. Kungming2 00:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 18, 2006

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

The result of the debate was Keep -- Jedi6-(need help?) 03:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otheruses4

Was deleted last year under the name Template:Otherusesabout (see log, which is filed under "not deleted" as it was redirected to otheruses1). Was deleted because it opens with "This article is about..." which is (or at least really should be) a repeat of the first line of the article, and so is redundant. ed g2s • talk 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional delete. I've always wondered why we needed a disambiguation template that began with "This article is about...". I've never liked it. However, I've been using this all along, simply because I never noticed the existence of {{For}}, because it was never mentioned on the list of disambiguation templates until three days ago (when it got added to {{Otheruses templates}}. (And come to think of it, 4 is unlike the rest of the "Otheruses" templates, since it does not point to "other" uses but only one use. And in light of that, articles like Anchorage, Alaska are misusing this template.) Given the sheer number of uses of 4, however, deletion is only useful if they are all replaced with For, or another template for misusages, first. –Unint 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: {{for}} is not a substitute for this, IMO. If there are multiple alternative meanings and therefore the linked page is a disambig, {{for}} basically becomes {{otheruses}}, and the entire question here is basically whether {{otheruses}} should be used in preference to {{otheruses4}}. I agree that {{for}} is preferable when there's only one other page to link to, though, because that doesn't require the reader to read further down to figure out what "other uses" means. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a comment: Otherusesabout had a similar format, but as I said above, 4 can point to a single "other use" - while about could only point to a diambiguation page. Also, I wouldn't say that all the delete votes there are due to concern for duplicating the article's lead sentence. –Unint 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is like a kangaroo court. In "How to list templates for deletion", Step II has been taken, but Steps I and III have been blown off. Should I try to dignify these proceedings by voting now, or are we going to follow the WP:TFD page? If you read the section "What (and what not) to propose for deletion at TfD", the otheruses4 template should not even be proposed for deletion; if it is true that 'Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement', then the opposite should also be true, 'Comments such as "I don't like it," or "I don't find it useful" generally are not enough to nominate for Tfd'. As much as ed g2s might want to delete this template by any means, including quietly abandoning the discussion of this template on its talk page to sneak over here and quietly delete it, we should stick to the process. The bare minimum before any more discussion is: 1) put Tfd on the template 2) put tfdnotice on WP:D and WP:HAT (note that the latter is still "proposed" and not very visible to a lot of people who watch WP:D, which currently governs the use of hatnotes) 3) go read the talk page on the otheruses4 template to see whether a shred of good faith has been evident so far. Chris the speller 18:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per nom. --Domthedude001 21:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, the nom is delete... ed g2s • talk 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though I have used it many times in the past (and I will look into 'correcting' my own edits if I can find them should the consensus be to delete). I think that {{For}} does a fine job without the redundant statement of what the article is about. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently I need to point out once more that the Tfd process is not being followed, and that editors who care about the process should NOT continue to vote for or against this template, but should instead require adherence to the procedure. Leave a comment here, or, better yet, on User talk:ed g2s, as I did. Chris the speller 05:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extend. This proposal is out of order, as no notice was placed on the template and no notice was posted on any relevant talk page that I saw. I've now put up various notices; I would suggest that the voting be extended several more days or restarted entirely. As for the issue itself, strong keep. It's atrocious style to refer to something that hasn't been said yet; using "other uses" to refer to something the reader hasn't yet read is unintuitive and annoying, and completely unnecessary. This is totally independent of the fact that not all articles have good introductions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This comes before the summary, we need to contrast the two articles. We already have one for disambiguation pages that is a generic "other", but when it's just two pages this works well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taylortbb (talk • contribs) 07:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep unless it is thouroghly orphaned and substituted by an equivalent template. About that deleted because it opens with "This article is about" and that should be in the actual article, I think templates are there to avoid re-typing the same think ever and ever. Habbit 11:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is assumed that delete means orphan and delete, or delete in it's current state. ed g2s • talk 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All templates are orphaned before deletion. In this particular case, it's redirection and not actual deletion that's being advocated, so the issue is moot in any case. (XFDs really should change their names, given that they generally consider moves, redirects, transwikis, etc. as well. It leads to a fair bit of confusion, especially if the starter is unclear as to what they want.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, yes, I accidently left off the template, and this has just been bought to my attention. But for those who complained when they noticed a day and a half in and did nothing, is not the wiki process about fixing other peoples mistakes. Instead it is being used as an excuse to ignore the consensus being expressed here. I also agree that the nomination should be extended in light of the mistake. ed g2s • talk 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that contrary to what you suggest, no true consensus was being expressed prior to the correction of the problems with this TfD listing. If you don't put the TfD notice on the template and notify the community on talk pages, you can't argue that you have any kind of "consensus". The fact that the comments made after the notice was properly placed lean more toward "keep" than those made previously is not a coincidence. Different demographics...--Srleffler 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. First of all, this template is not the same as Template:Otherusesabout, and so this TfD discussion should NOT claim that this template has been nominated for deletion before. That's misleading. Second of all, I am strongly in favor of placing the "This article is about" wording at the beginning of the hatnote. It seems counter-intuitive to me to force the reader to continue reading past the hatnote, then return to the hatnote to see if they want a different article instead. The other problem I have with removing "This article is about" is that it gives alternative uses pride of place in an article, when the article subject should have that distinction. Powers 13:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Repetition is bad. --Apoc2400 13:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is it really a big enough deal to have to fix 1500 articles? It looks useful to me. -Jonathan D. Parshall 13:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For the reasons above. Secos5 14:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I rather like the "repetition" (which usually concists of only about 1-5 words anyway) because as a non-native speaker I often look up words where I have no or little idea what their most basic use is, or whether there is more than one at all. Hence that disambiguation tells me right away if I am were I probably want to be, or not. Let's face it, the first paragraph is not exactly perfect everywhere, and why should a reader have to read through it when they might be in the wrong place anyway? Besides, who is going to change the 1500 articles, because obviously that has to be done before the template is to be deleted. -- 15:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful. Generally the intro will go into more detail (e.g. PAGENAME is a YEAR novel, written by AUTHOR. It deals with blah blah blah blah, and was nominated for X awards, winning Y.) than the template (e.g. This article is about the novel. For the film, see PAGENAME (film).). It's useful. Keep it. 82.83.18.17 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is the most useful of the otheruses tags. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This debate is typical of a big problem I am seeing with editing. This really isn't that big of a deal that we need to fix 1500 articles. Our time could be better spent making real contributions to these articles.Estrose 15:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please realize, if the consensus is delete, the template will just be turned into a redirect to another template such as {{for}}. It would require approximately no effort, so this isn't a particularly good objection IMO. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is the alternative to this template? I don't think Template:Otheruses is reasonable because it implies a disambig page that is unnecessary in many cases. Being self-referential is not a problem if authors don't just mirror the first line of the article. I see no convincing argument to delete - gives authors more flexibility. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 16:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing "controversial" about the opening phrase. The "for" template must be read in conjunction with the opening of the article, which is inefficient for the reader, especially if they have landed at a page they weren't looking for. Slowmover 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This template is controversial. {{for}} is not. The only difference is this template's opening sentence. Ergo, it's the opening sentence that's controversial. That people such as you and I happen to like the first sentence, and believe the alternative to be inefficient or otherwise bad, is in fact one-half of the controversy, the other half being the people who don't like the first sentence. Yes? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Templates should only be proposed for deletion (according to WP:TFD) for 1 of 4 reasons:
  1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic); It IS helpful
  2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template; It is NOT redundant to another template
  3. The template is not used; It IS used
  4. The template isn't NPOV; It IS NPOV
The template was proposed for deletion because of a dislike for the first 4 words and some repetition (or condensation) of what is in the article; these are not valid reasons listed in WP:TFD.
  • The template is particularly useful for two articles about people who have similar names AND similar occupations; this usefulness may not be obvious to editors who generally disambiguate objects such as tap (for pouring beer) and tap (for threading holes), where a reader will need only the merest glance to know it is the wrong article. Most readers looking at a tap and die article know that there is also a tap for beer, but many readers looking at an article on one politician will be unaware of the existence of another politician with a similar name. The generally accepted context of identifying a person as a politician in the first sentence may not be enough to define the difference between the two, and a more specific description in the hatnote can help the reader.
  • Some articles are NOT well written, and the opening may not quickly provide enough information to help the reader decide if it is the right article. Some have made the argument that an editor who is helping with navigation and disambiguation should stop and rewrite the article. I reject this notion. The editor may have the skill, time and interest to disambiguate, but perhaps not to rewrite an article. Any contribution to Wikipedia should be welcome. Allowing a reader to get from a poorly-written article to the one that is sought is more important than avoiding "This article is about".
  • For articles about humans, the phrase "other uses" can be offensive, and at a minimum is downright cold. "This article is about" is not offensive. The otheruses template is an unacceptable subtitute on articles about people.
  • Although it would not be hard to find an article that has otheruses4 where another template would be preferred, that situation would be best handled case by case, either by editing the hatnote or by contacting the editor who inserted it. We don't melt down all 7 irons because one or two people use the club to smash windows; we correct the behavior.
  • (I expect to add more reasons when I get more time.)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris the speller (talk • contribs) 02:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this is practically a basic for Wikipedia. It does not repeat the introductory statement, it is even briefer, and for the sake of disambiguation. This keeps filesize down and does no harm. Deleting it would be a horrible mistake.KV 05:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; useful, widely-used, and it's helpful to have variant wordings for disambiguation to meet various situations. MCB 05:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful templates ought not to be deleted. Period. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE The thing does nothing but cause a reader to have to work his way through information before he gets to read the article he came to the page for. It is dispersive to a reader's attention and contributes nothing to an article. It acts as a sort of Wikipedic "self-pat on the back", as in "Look, reader ! We have LOTS of ARTICLES for YOU !"Terryeo 07:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's useful. The repetition is really of no importance, and it is much clearer than {{for}}. I really see no reason to delete it. Maelin 09:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons my Maelin. There is use for this template, and there's no actual problem with the repetition. The use with many articles also is a concern, and so, what is the point of removing a template that's used widely on Wikipedia? --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 10:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - {{for}} is clearer, more concise, and easier to read. --Cornflake pirate 14:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the article is well written. Maybe when WP is perfect, we can go back and get rid of "Otheruses4". Meanwhile, it serves the purpose of reader efficiency Slowmover 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (That said, I just had occasion to use it, and I used {{For}} instead. My vote remains keep because I still don't see any pressing need for conformity, so I don't see why Wikipedians shouldn't use whichever they prefer.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep especially per Sommers' quite lucid explanation. This template is particularly useful when the titles of the articles alone do not fully explain the demarcation between the articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Maelin and Antaeus Feldspar. --Coat of Arms (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Chris the speller, and Sommers, and KV. I find the other disambig templates are inadequate for many situations. "Otheruses4" is the most basic disambig concept and has the most flexibility (even if the 2nd parameter is occasionally repetitious). Slowmover 18:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I really don't see the problem with the with the short summary of the current article's content. The template makes it very clear the difference between the current article and other articles with similar names. joturner 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This template is often useful when the distinction between the two subjects is unclear. An article may have a perfectly good introduction that could almost apply to either article topic. The otheruses4 template provides a clean way to clearly distinguish the topic of the article from the topic of the other article. For an example, see Crown glass (optics) and Crown glass (window). I also echo the comments above about distinguishing books from films, people from other people with the same name and similar backgrounds, and distinguishing articles that cover the same topic area with different scope. --Srleffler 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I will grant that the "this article is about" part is redundant with the intro paragraph, I believe that this is acceptable for two reasons. For one, it boils down the topic of the article into (preferably) a few words, which means that the reader or editor need not go to the trouble of reading through the introduction. Secondly, it grammatically parallels the boilerplate text that reads "For such-and-such, see...".
    ,-~R'lyehRising~-, 21:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per reasons stated: incredibly useful, not bothersome or incredibly redundant. -- Viewdrix 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template summarises the article in a few words, which may not always be compatible with a well-written introduction that maintains a professional level of depth and avoids simplicism. McPhail 23:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an appropriate, useful and well used template. Carl Kenner 23:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant with optional parameters of Template:About. — Apr. 24, '06 [23:09] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    • Actually, the templates appear to be identical at the present time (I added some optional parameters to this too). So really, this TFD is for both, unless you think that an identical template shouldn't be covered under the same TFD automatically? In which case, I think you mean keep. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I would say "speedy redirect" except they handle the 3rd parameter differently (brackets vs. no-brackets). I really don't care which method is used, as long is it can be made more consistent. "Otheruses4" is not a very intuitive title, though. — Apr. 25, '06 [23:59] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Weak Delete per freakofnurture: I just tried this on Switcher and the {{About}} template seems a good replacement. However its a weak delete since we'd have to change 1500 occurrences. Gwernol 01:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, we'd just redirect this. No trouble at all. In fact, once that TFD notice goes away, I'm going to do some behind-the-scenes consolidation to make all these templates work in sync, cutting out the now-useless ones (with the help of an admin, since at least one is protected). Most of these were made before optional parameters existed; using those, we only really need one "other uses" template, not the fourteen-plus (!) we have now. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it doesn't make sense to me to make the reader jump into the article to figure out whether the note is relevant to them. — Laura Scudder ☎ 06:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. It is an awful template. Much better phrasing from other templates. —Pengo 07:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say Keep. I use it a few times myself, mostly when differentiating between two different locations that have similar names. Would a reader know the difference between the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel without living along Chesapeake Bay? Similarly, the Robert Moses State Parkway and Robert Moses Causeway are similar-sounding but are in fact on opposite ends of New York State and would likely be unnoticed by readers who haven't lived in New York. The "about" serves to help a chance reader get his/her bearing without having to dig into the actual article. It's like a road sign. Saying the other use is one thing, but it's sometimes useless unless you know where you are currently located, especially if you are on unfamiliar ground. And it's certainly not worth a full disambiguation page for only two such locations. --WhosAsking 12:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is very useful, and saves time for people expecting to see something else. Ccool2ax 13:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP 17:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WhosAsking --G1076 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all previous keep reasons.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per all previous reasons for keeping it. Huangcjz 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above. PrettyMuchBryce 19:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Chris the Speller's bulleted list there is no reason to delete this template. A cleanup of hatnote templates probably is in order, but that needs to be systematic, discussed and agreed prior to depricating let alone deleting templates that are in widespread use. Thryduulf 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above. --Tisco 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—doesn't hurt anybody, has a valid use, and deletion would cause logistical problems in over a thousand articles. --zenohockey 01:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Jolly useful on occasions. All the reasons for deleting it are "editor-y" reasons, not readers' reasons. It's not valid to complain that the reader has to "wade through it", as this would be equally true with {{for}} – and the hatnote formatting removes the problem anyway. JackyR 03:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this nomination is out of order ..

If this nomination is out of order, then the admins who monitor and maintain the TFD process should remove it right away? If in fact it is not out of order, could those persons who keep harping on the matter just stop complaining and let the process run its course? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now who's complaining and harping? Nobody has complained since the Tfd template was added to otheruses4 and Tfd notices were served on WP:D and WP:HAT. The large number of comments and votes that have showed up since the nominator patched up the holes in the process shows that the patching up was sorely needed. And the nominator's assertion that I (one who opposes the Tfd) should complete the nomination process is as preposterous as having a prosecutor ask the defense lawyer to make points for the prosecution that the prosecutor has forgotten to make. Chris the speller 15:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my voting 'Delete', I am among those who believe that the nomination should have been removed from TFD altogether. As Simetrical notes below, though, the TFD process appears very often to be a train that once set on the tracks will run to the end of the line regardless of the cost or consequences. What both of you are pointing out by your comments is that, in fact, the TFD process lacks an 'interrupt'. Thank you for clarifying that. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You sensed my frustration. Thanks for putting it into words. Yes, it needs an emergency stop cord. Chris the speller 04:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't wikilawyer, Chris. It's unbecoming. Putting something up for community consideration is not the same as attempting a prosecution. Mistakes can be made, and if they are, fix them, don't try to get the process invalidated because of them. It's not going to happen, and you're just going to look bad. Wikipedians are generally not particularly legalistic.

As for the admins who monitor TFD, I would expect that most of them only look at the TFDs from the final day of voting, once that day is over. There wouldn't be much point in their looking at a TFD that they won't usually have to do anything about for several more days. Complaints about procedure and whatnot will likely be considered when this gets closed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. It's no longer possible to use a template at this title, except via a redirect, because a built-in variable of the exact same name exists, performs the exact same task, and can't be broken by user error. Nobody's going to notice the difference, much as one deletes an image because a duplicate with the same name exists on commons... nobody... bats... an... eyelid... — Apr. 19, '06 [02:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Template:TALKSPACE

Template:TALKSPACE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obsoleted →AzaToth 16:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per above. — Apr. 19, '06 [02:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Template:ARTICLESPACE

Template:ARTICLESPACE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obsoleted →AzaToth 16:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Qif

Template:Qif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Qif →AzaToth 16:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HHOF

Template:HHOF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a useless template. It was basically being used as a userbox, on articles about hockey players, to say they're in the hockey hall of fame. We don't need a bunch of boxes on articles telling everything about the person, that's what the article text is for. It makes articles look really bad. Additionally, the image that was used on it, was a fair use violation. I removed the image, and it's even more stupid now. Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 13:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -> keep. Also, remember that MoS, like all other style guidelines, is not strictly enforced. Please read the The Chicago Manual of Style quote on that page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FootnotesSmall

Template:FootnotesSmall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#proposed change to css (.references), and the MoS (WP:MOS#Formatting issues): "Formatting issues such as font size [...] should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases" - the template contains a fixed font size reduction, too easy to apply where "special case" could not be invoked. —Francis Schonken 11:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ifdef

Template:Ifdef (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unnecessary fork of Template:Qif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), also unnecessary with m:ParserFunctions. We don't need multiple "if" type constructs competing for editors attention (or having to have them re-learn new methods with each template they see). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 17, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collab-indian

Template:Collab-indian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is redundant template of the article Wikipedia:Indian wikipedians' notice board/INCOTW/current and needs to repair every week as indian collaboration article changes every week. Shyam (T/C) 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 02:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Luke

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Luke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Same reason as below. The chapter articles do not exist (except for the first 4). Therefore, the template is useless because it forces the user to click on each link in order to find out if the chapter articles exists or not. And due to the editing pattern of one user, it is highly probable that the remaining chapter articles will be redirected in the near future. Andrew c 14:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I'm bothered by Wikipedia:Content forking. All three of the Synoptic Gospels have roughly the same content in roughly the same order. To triplicate it over three sets of articles, that are organised by nothing more than an arbitrary division created in the 16th century, strikes me as completely inappropriate. Clinkophonist 21:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This doesn't appear to be content forking, since the information in question wasn't in an article "deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines." Saying the synoptics all have the same content is kind of odd, and hints a bit at POV, and furthermore, seems beside the point. The Bible and its books, like them or not in their current form, are clearly notable, and a template like this is simply useful to those interested in this topic, and violates no guidelines. I would suggest that the redirects after Chapter 4 be deleted, and the links allowed to remain red until articles are written about them. Nhprman 01:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clinkphonist. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Conditionally, The information in Luke 1-4 should be merged into Gospel of Luke. After the information is merged, Luke 1-4 should redirect to Gospel of Luke just like Luke 5-24. After that has taken place, delete the template. Or... make a page for Luke 5-24... as Nhprman is planning to happen (if you chose this one, do not delete the template). Either way will work, I personally think the first one is better. --Domthedude001 21:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can understand the case to keep these templates. In the future, there may be a day when every single chapter of the NT has its own article (or maybe every single verse). I personally think that it would include a lot of repeated content, and may not be significant in an encyclopedic sense. But this isn't my place to judge future content. I agree with what Clinkphonist is doing in merging the chapter articles with bigger topical articles that cover all gospels. Because the old pages are being redirected to the main page, it ends up breaking this template so it is useless (as my nom suggests). However, there is nothing forcing us to include this template in any article. So the question remains, do we delete a useless template (and maybe risk recreating it if it is ever needed)? Or do we keep it in hopes that one day it may prove useful (and simply not include it until that day)? --Andrew c 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew c, John Reid, et al. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 02:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Matthew

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Matthew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nearly all of the chapter articles have been redirected to other topics or the main article. Therefore, there is no purpose in having a chapter's template when the chapter articles do not exist. It is confusing for the user to have a template that gives the illusion that there are articles on each chapter, when actually the vast majority are just redirects are circular back to the main Gospel of Matthew article. Andrew c 14:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm bothered by Wikipedia:Content forking. All three of the Synoptic Gospels have roughly the same content in roughly the same order. To triplicate it over three sets of articles, that are organised by nothing more than an arbitrary division created in the 16th century, strikes me as completely inappropriate. Clinkophonist 21:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what bothers you about these articles. The synoptics are "roughly" the same, but each version has differences that HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of books have been written about. Are we really going to put ALL scholarship on say Jesus' death into one article, because as time goes on the info that will be put in on each version of his death will make the article far too large and confusing and I'm sure we'll have to split it up again anyway. And by your reasoning, we should delete every Star Trek or South Park or The Simpsons episode article, as the info in the article on Chef for example is already contained in all the articles on each episode, thus commiting the sin of content forking. I'm pretty sure we're keeping the Chef article and each episode article, so we should have each Jesus article as well as each chapter article. Chapter by chapter on the Bible is far more "scholarly" then episode by episode of a TV show! Plus, chapter and verse is no less "arbitrary" then breaking it up by event, and there is disagreement on whether an event mentioned in two books is always the same event. For instance Mark 6 and Luke 4. Are these talking about the same trip to Nazareth? Most think so, but certainly not everyone. Does each event get its' own article or do we overrule some scholars and simply say they are the same. I don't think you're thinking long term here. People are going to be putting info on Jesus and other Biblical figures into Wikipedia long after we're all dead, and I'm sure breaking things up chapter by chapter is coming no matter what. Roy Brumback 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

April 16, 2006

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Marudubshinki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:City Terminal Zone link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Content is just the link City Terminal Zone. No inclusions on What Links Here. The content is shorter than the template name, so I doubt it's being actively subst'd. SeventyThree(Talk) 23:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all Circeus 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete disambiguation templates

These are apparently no longer needed, and there is an excessive proliferation of similar-looking and poorly-documented disambiguation templates in Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates. -- Beland 17:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subnational entity

Template:Subnational entity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete -- This bloated template keeps changing its displayed name, currently "Country subdivisions", as each previous incarnation is disputed. It serves no purpose, its contents are already in the related categories, more complete contents already are listified at List of terms for subnational entities, List of subnational entities, and Matrix of subnational entities. It is almost the entire page at Division (subnational entity), and half the page at many other locations. --William Allen Simpson 17:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all Circeus 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament bracket templates

These templates are part of an earlier cumbersome attempt to generate a tournament bracket. They have been replaced by Template:16TeamBracket, Template:Round16, and some of the other better designed templates listed on Category:Sports templates. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sigma Chi infobox

Template:Sigma Chi infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template is only used or possibly useful in Sigma Chi, where it has been replaced by the standardized Template:Infobox fraternity Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh Dysepsion, here I was thinking this was a place for people to put their opinions as basis for keeping or deleting a template. I mean, far be it from me to think that a standard fraternity info box should, you know, provide some information about the fraternity...you know like...founders, colors, flower, coat of arms, and other important things. Guess I'll get to work on one that is better and nominate it as the new standard, in the mean time I won't post more opinions because Dysepsion doesn't like those. Batman2005 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Batman2005. When you actually try and maintain all fraternity and sorority articles and gaurd them from vandalism/vanity additions and care about the overall integrity of many wiki articles, not just the organization you belong to then feel free to criticize, otherwise keep your sarcasm to yourself. Opinions are what drives deletion pages so try to maintain a sense civility. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until we actually share DNA † Ðy§ep§ion †, you can refrain from telling me what to do, thanks mom. Additionally, I am a frequent contributor to wikipedia, although I should apologize that I don't live my life through wikipedia as you clearly do. I personally don't care about other fraternities, if I did I would have joined on of those, my point is simply that the standard info box should include more information, SIMILIAR, but not exactly to what the Sigma Chi one includes. But that's ok, i'll make one and nominate it for acceptance, i'm sure you'll show up and vote against it though, so whatever. Batman2005 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me? I think you have wikipedia confused with the Sigma Chi website...... Besides this discussion is about the infobox, not about the Sigma Chi entry in general. - The DJ 18:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There already is a Infobox for the exact same category of information. If it needs work, then debate and fix it to be better. The exact point of the infobox is to group consistent sets of information over multiple "related" articles, and not to create new ones for every single article. Note that as a last resort an Infobox can have "optional" arguments for important information that is not relevant to certain other pages. I suggest to Delete, and copy the code to the infobox fraternity talk page so it can be discussed what should and what should not make it into the current Infobox. -The DJ 18:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Joke new messages

Template:Joke new messages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This has no encyclopedic value and is not used on any pages. A template isn't necessary for a new messages spoof. Sango123 (e) 01:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you, the creator say to delete it, go there and slap a {{db|reason}} on it and it'll be deleted. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


April 15, 2006

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by ALoan (talk · contribs). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FPpages

Template:FPpages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Is covered by Template:fpopages. Was created in error by myself; can templates be speedied cos if so this one should be. My mistake - sorry to wast lots of people's time. Batmanand | Talk 23:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fpopages

All functions now carried out by (up-to-date) Template:FPpages. Batmanand | Talk 22:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap just realised that. Ugh this is annoying. OK nomination withdrawn. I will do my due diligence and 1. move all the stuff I have added to fpopages to make it FPpages, into fpopages (if that makes any sense) 2. change all the links and 3. list FPpages for deletion. OK gimme a day or two. Sorry about all this. Batmanand | Talk 23:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC) See above Batmanand | Talk 23:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to {{People of the Three Kingdoms}}. Pagrashtak 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3 kingdoms warlords

Template:3 kingdoms warlords (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, unsubst'd (I googled for word combination). SeventyThree(Talk) 22:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- I've been bold and performed the rd. If anyone objects to this we can always restore the previous version and reopen the TfD. John Reid 17:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redesign it and replace the current one - too cluttered, hard to read. Perhaps the Chinesenames should be added as well? –- kungming·2 (Talk) 05:15, 20 April 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 19:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major Cities of India

Template:Major Cities of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The word "major" is subjective. A separate template: (Template:Metropolitan cities of India) exists with a clearly defined criteria, thus making the major cities template redundant. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (author request). GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-web

Template:Db-web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This seems to be trying to extend A7 beyond real persons, which isn't policy. Rob 07:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Well, I was hoping to debate this suggestion at the template's talk page or at the Village pump (where I have tried to begin the discussion), but I guess this is a good a place as any. I believe that this template is a valid interpretation of A7, because just as bands and clubs represent real people, so too do internet forums and blogs. The only difference is that their communication and activities are online rather than offline. But I'm happy to talk it through further. You'll note that I wrote it up on Village pump (policy), and waited for comments—and didn't just start using the new template immediately. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we don't need this. It kind of short-circuits Wikipedia:Notability (websites), not even mentioned in the template (only hidden under a piped link with the text "importance or significance", not an appropriate piped link as far as I'm concerned), and not intended to be used as criteria for speedy deletion. If A7 applies (which, for instance, might be in the case of a personal website of a non-notable person, with no illuminating info apart from personal info on that person) I don't see the need for a "specific" template. In that case one of the four available CSD A7 templates ({{db-bio}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-group}}) or the the generic {{db|reason}} would better be used, I suppose. --Francis Schonken 07:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One could equally well argue that {{db-band}} is redundant because it could also be substituted by {{db-bio}} or {{db-club}}. And again, {{db-band}} links to WP:MUSIC rather than WP:BIO. (Although I'd be happy to change the target of {{db-web}}'s link, if that's what people would prefer). The point is that these are all common types of vanity articles, and the intent of A7 is to facilitate the removal of the most obvious and egregious attempts to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. The intent of {{db-web}}, like {{db-band}}, is simply to identify a specific, common type of self-promotion—i.e. real persons writing about themselves—so that it can be effectively addressed. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GeorgeStepanek Zzzzz 10:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite to point directly and explicitly to Wikipedia:Notability (websites) and not through a misleading or obscure pipelink. Caution that repeated misuse of this tool (not that I am so alleging at present) may cause me to renominate. Note that this comment should be considered Keep if rewritten, Delete if unimproved. John Reid 10:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, how's this: it is an article about an blog, internet forum or personal / group / corporate website (see ranking) that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject or the website. But please feel free to tweak the wording a little more if you think it can be further improved... GeorgeStepanek\talk 11:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For me it's still delete, Wikipedia:Notability (websites), was not written as criteria for speedy deletion. The (exclusive) use of Alexa for implying non-notability in the template, "(see ranking)", is also contrary to what had been agreed upon in Wikipedia:Notability (websites)... at least this needs more interpretation than just implying something by an Alexa link. Thus, not suitable as "speedy" criterion. Further the two piped links now in the template are still worse than what was there before. Also the template completely neglects possible implications of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) (examples can include, but are not limited to, a company that has the same name as its website and is hit by the this template, irrespective of its notability according to the "companies" guideline) --Francis Schonken 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your comments, Francis. I respect your opinion, but I do feel that the link to Wikipedia:Notability (websites) is as justified as {{db-band}}'s link to Wikipedia:Notability (music). Neither defines the criteria for speedy deletion (that's the purpose of the CSD link), but each provide helpful suggestions for what might be counted important or significant in their respective areas. Likewise, my inclusion of the link to Alexa was intended to be helpful, not prescriptive. As I mentioned on the talk page, I see it's role as one of ruling out articles for deletion, rather than the reverse. The companies issue is one that I am unclear about in my own mind—is a company more than just a group of people?—and I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. GeorgeStepanek\talk 13:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whether "a company [is] more than just a group of people" is irrelevant. Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) is an accepted guideline, and it doesn't fit in a CSD scheme. Whatever your comments at Template talk:Db-web, and your intentions (which by definition are good), the template would create a situation where it overrides an accepted guideline. No good. Don't do.
          Similarly, the implication of the Alexa link, which is contrary to the accepted guideline Wikipedia:Notability (websites), makes the "speedy" procedure of the template override an accepted guideline. Comments and intentions don't remedy that, so still: delete.
          Further, maybe you didn't get what I meant by "the two piped links now in the template are still worse than what was there before.", my objection was to the quality of the pipe (now two links with a bad piping). I consider the quality of these pipes bad, while they obfuscate that they're links to guidelines that mention a lot of criteria that don't fit in a "speedy" scheme. The website notability guideline doesn't even mention a single criterion that fits in a speedy scheme. So, you're still trying to force new guideline content/procedure via template, as also remarked by Rob below. Don't. Bad procedure. --Francis Schonken 09:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do actually agree with most of what you've said. You're correct, Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) is the appropriate guideline for companies—and it's not referenced on the template. And I am beginning to think that it would actually be going beyond the intention of CSD A7's "person or group of people" to try to include companies and corporations. And yes, Wikipedia:Notability (websites) makes no mention of Alexa or any other ranking, so perhaps the inclusion of that link would be misleading, and could be misused. I have removed both of these elements. The wording is now: it is an article about an blog, internet forum or personal / group website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject or the website.
            But I still feel that if {{db-band}} can link to Wikipedia:Notability (music), then {{db-web}} should also be able to link to any guidelines that may be helpful, even if they mention criteria that are not directly applicable to the speedy deletion. All of the A7 templates link to guideline pages, so I don't see why {{db-web}} cannot follow the same pattern. If you're suggestion that these links to notability guideline pages are inappropriate, then we should remove them all—not just the ones on this template. GeorgeStepanek\talk 11:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Still, bad piping, a website's subject might be a company or whatever other topic other than people, using [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|the subject]] is bad piping while it narrows possible topics of websites to the people running the site (who may be perfect nobodies compared to the subject of the website).
              And you're seemingly still not seeing the difference between Notability guidelines that can easily be used in a speedy deletion criteria scheme (e.g. bands) and other notability guidelines that are a bit less suitable to that kind of approach (e.g. companies and websites)
              So, for the proposed template still delete as far as I'm concerned --Francis Schonken 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let's think this through. When we delete an article about an unnotable astronomy club, we do not take into account the fact that astronomy is an obviously notable subject. Which means that you're right: the subject is not relevant. I've changed the link to [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|the author(s)]] to reflect this. The wording is now: it is an article about an blog, internet forum or personal / group website that does not assert the importance or significance of the author(s) / participants or the website. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's not the subject of the website, it's the subject of the article. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Indeed, George appears to be messing this up completely: an article about a website that is run by perfect nobodies (the authors) can not be speedied for that reason. It's about the notability of the topic (the subject) of the wikipedia article. If that topic/subject is a website, then wikipedia:notability (websites) is the applicable guideline. And that guideline is not formatted to be of much use in a speedy process. So, delete the template, it is confusing, and gives a false impression that articles can be speedied for reasons for which they can not be speedied. Use {{db|reason}} if there is a real reason to speedy (and name that reason), that is: if any of the CSD criteria applies. What's wrong with that? --Francis Schonken 10:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think perhaps that you are confusing yourself. It's really quite simple. If an astronomy club is speediable, then an astronomy internet forum with the same degree of notability should also be speediable. They are both groups of people who meet to discuss the same things. The fact that one is online and the other is offline is irrelevant, and is not mentioned in our CSD policy. CSD does not exclude online groups of people. GeorgeStepanek\talk 11:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No. It's not the same thing as the template is currently worded. A forum is a place where the group meets--like writing an article about the soda shop where the astromony club hangs out. Not speediable. A personal website is a publication that talks about a person, like an autobiography published by a vanity press. Not speediable. In any case, TFD is not the place for this discussion. I can certainly understand if the template was created believing that there was a consensus for this, but now that it is clear that there is not, I don't think it's appropriate to try to create an application of CSD here. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I must respectfully disagree. A soda shop exists for other patrons, whereas an internet forum consists of nothing but the discussions between its participants—it is the essence of the meetings between them, as it were.
                          I feel that it is my fault that confusion and disagreement have occurred here, and that had I communicated more clearly then this might have been avoided. Hence my attempts to explain, and my willingness to keep modifying the template's wording until it does make the concept clear to everyone.
                          The point is that I don't want to change CSD policy. I'm happy with it the way it is. I just want to unlock some of its potential, in exactly the same way that {{db-band}} unlocks some of its potential. If we didn't have that template then people would say that a band is more than just a group of people: it's the music, the fans, the whole phenomenon. But a band is just a group of people. And an internet forum is just another group of people. I just hope that I can convey that clearly enough. GeorgeStepanek\talk 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think what's missed in the arguements defending this template, is that you can't make up new *policy* in a new template, or in a TFD discussion. CSD is *policy*. That's important. It refers to real people, not web sites. That's intentional. If anybody wishes to change policy, please seek changes to the WP:CSD page, and try to gain consensus first. Any use of this template is a violation of policy, regardless of this TFD's outcome, and may be summarily removed from any article. A7 has expanded in the past, and may well expand again, but only through consensus, not threw making up a template. --Rob 05:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must respectfully disagree. A7 has been created to expedite the deletion of obvious vanity articles about unremarkable people or groups. The exact wording that was voted on in July 2005 was: "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." This wording does not mention bands or clubs in any way. The existing templates {{db-band}} or {{db-club}} are interpretations of these criteria, and are intended to address the most common types of vanity pages that people create about themselves. I would like the new {{db-web}} template to fulfill exactly the same role, and implementing exactly the same policy. Its exact wording could certainly be changed and improved—just as speedy deletion criteria A7's phrasing has been changed and improved—but I strongly believe that its core purpose and usage falls squarely within the existing policy. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are ommitting history. For a significant amount of time time, A7 was strictly limited to single inviduals. Later, there was discussion and a straw poll to expand it to includes groups of people. There was very large participation in that poll, and a high level of support (well over 75%). So, it passed. Only *after* that expansion (with a changed to WP:CSD page), was {{db-band}} made. If you get the same degree of support for another expansion, then this tag would be appropriate. I can't find the relevant links at the moment, but I can look if requested. I'm not saying we can't expand A7, I'm just saying there is a process, and it must be followed, as we are talking about policy.--Rob 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to Wikipedia:How to create policy and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion there have been no policy changes to CSD since July 2005. All changes since then have been informal. The debate on A7 expansion happened here—and there's no straw poll in that discussion. I was also hoping to garner debate and approval for my suggestion at the Village pump, but I guess that process is happening here now. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, there was a policy change in November 2005. WP:CSD was updated here based on the poll (mentioned in the edit summary). You haven't gained this type of large-scale consensus for another expansion (ample participation in the pole, with a high percentage of support). Only after this change was {{db-band}} made. WP:CSD is a policy page, so changes in it, are policy changes. --Rob 07:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • A small point, but the diff you gave added only "or persons" to the criteria—not bands or clubs. Those were added later. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • And sorry, I was wrong. There was a poll on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). That poll was for the "or persons" addition to the criteria. But I'm not trying to change CSD policy! I just want to provide another tool like {{db-club}} or {{db-band}} that implements existing policy. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • My diff was to illustrate when the change, based on the poll, happened. Of course, there were a few edits after that. During the discussion for the expansion of a7, bands (especially) and clubs were clearly discussed, and an intended target. Web sites were not (as I remember). This is new policy that you propose. But, regardless, why not seek support in the same manner that was use for the last a7 expansion. If consensus is behind you, you'll easily prevail. --Rob 10:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • This version in the history shows that {{db-band}} was implemented and in use well before the wording of the policy was modified to specifically cite clubs and bands. But I don't want to change the wording of A7 in any way! I just feel that a blogger is just as much a "person"—for the purposes of CSD—as a guitarist. And an internet forum is just as much a "group of people" as a debating club. GeorgeStepanek\talk 11:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • But {{db-band}} was done *after* the poll and discussion, which discussed bands specifically. In fact, nn-bands were the *main* reason for the expansion. Again, usage of this tag, would be violation of policy, regardless of the outcome of this TFD, and the tag should be removed immediately, if anybody uses it. --Rob 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It would be very interesting to see a diff or a link to a version that showed what it was that people were actually voting on in November. (Unfortunately the village pump is not archived, but it still should be in the history somewhere—anyone?) I'm presuming that it was "or people" because that was the change that was made at the end of the voting period. In which case that is the policy, and everything else—including {{db-band}}— is merely an interpretation of the policy. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per arguments above. Appears to provide a useful amount of additional information. -- Visviva 07:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, would be very useful to show people posting webby vanity/ads/cruft that just because stuff is on the web it isn't necessarily suitable for WP. However, deletion is a touchy subject and it needs to go through the right process first. If it gets deleted, I would encourage George to stick at it and try to get consensus for it first. Deizio 11:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but ideally adjust to incorporate the consensually accepted CSD A7 wording, with the addition of "a website of or about":
An article about a website of or about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
... where "subject" could mean either the web content or the person(s). IMHO, this would be a valid interpretation of CSD A7: If a person or club is speediable, so should their personal website or forum be. This would include websites or fora of or about {{nn-club}}s, {{nn-band}}s and {{nn-bio}}s, as well as articles about web forums that do not assert notability, because fora are essentially groups of people. It would not, however, cover websites with non-personal content that do not assert notability, e.g websites about Star Trek characters that show up in the background of third-season TNG episodes (to paraphrase WP:DUMB). These would still have to be gotten rid of the usual way. Sandstein 11:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a helpful template, way too likely to be misused. If it's speediable, use an existing speedy template. As far as I can tell, this template doesn't really reduce work in any way unless it's used in cases that are not generally considered speediable. The debate about whether A7 covers these specific instances should be at WP:CSD, not here. There is not currently a consensus that it does, so wait until there is before making a template. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I ask whether you think Tranquility of Lifting (for example) should be speediable? I'm asking because that's exactly the kind of obvious vanity article that this template is intended to address. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My thoughts on what should be policy aren't really relevant. I would support getting rid of A7 entirely, but I wouldn't vote delete on the associated templates. There is currently no consensus that A7 extends to websites about non-notable people. What "should be" policy should be discussed at the policy talk page. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as irrelevant and misleading. Anything tagged with this as a reason has been incorrectly tagged. -Splashtalk 16:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reach consensus on policy elsewhere before deciding for the reasons Rob gave above. (or Delete if no attempt to do that is made) –Tifego(t) 06:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This discussion has moved me firmly into the delete camp. I agree with many arguments made so far. At one time I was willing to entertain a rewrite but now I agree that this will never be acceptable for speedy. John Reid 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not policy; should not be policy. Speedy criteria should not require judgment; this does. That's what AfD is for. Septentrionalis 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have withdrawn the template, and have asked for it to be speedy deleted per author request. I will shortly be taking this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion as per Deizio's advice. Thank you, everyone, for your feedback and for the time you have devoted to this discussion. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DIAR proposal

Template:DIAR proposal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Single-use template that threatens to create yet another category of maybe-policy. This can't be fixed by altering template content. John Reid 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia-specific help

Template:Wikipedia-specific help (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was created by me to help distinguish Wikipedia and help namespace pages with the same name. These pages have now been transfered to templates, merged or renamed - so the template is now no longer used. The accompanying category Category:Wikipedia-specific help should be deleted as well. See the template's talk page for more of an explanation of the (confusing) help system.Gareth Aus 08:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 14, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Delhi infobox

Template:New Delhi infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Has been replaced by Template:India UT capital infobox (see New Delhi). Unused (I googled for word combination, so no subst's). SeventyThree(Talk) 16:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Awayuser

Template:Awayuser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's unnecessary since it's the same as Users on Wikibreak and Users Partially Active Osbus 14:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Spambot and Template:Spambot notalk

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

The result of the debate was delete. Also, as per the discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive6#Continuing spambot attacks, these templates were created in February 2005, and were only used as a temporary way to track the pages protected against a spambot. This procedure is now obsolete and unused due to the current protection and semi-protection policies. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spambot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Spambot notalk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These two templates are redundant with any of several vandalism-related templates listed below, depending on circumstances. A spambot is just a vandal using a tool, and doesn't require a unique template. See also the associated category Protected against spambots.

// Pathoschild (admin / talk) 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

April 13, 2006

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

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dominionism

Template:Dominionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
All the parties listed in this template could be argued are not "dominionist". At least there needs to be proof. At least one of the persons listed (Schaefer) is not a dominionist. It is a relatively minor political philosophy, with very few adherents (even fewer who consider themselves adherents), and doesn't warrant a template. Most importantly, this template is seeking to push a biased POV (where those included who don't claim the title would consider it slander.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: One of the here so-called "dominionist" parties, the ECPM, according to its website has a rather compassionate (or leftist) socio-economic agenda (not the right-wing reactionary ideology expected by the Wikipedia-imposed label "dominionist"); and in its first congress made the resolution that because they are "convinced of the special responsibilities of the government for those who have special needs within the society. Therefore we want to point out the importance of collective rights of minorities, freedom of religion for individuals, communities and organizations, recognizing ethnic diversity within the different European countries", they are therefore resolved to respect "1. Freedom of religion - On the issue of the freedom of religion, the ECPM states that each person should have the possibility to practice his or her religion within the boundaries of peace, justice, human dignity and in line with documents such as the European Convention of human rights.", and they disavow "2. Extremism - History has taught us that the danger and the consequences of all types of extremism are always present which can lead towards violent outbursts and repression. Extremism appears when groups of people feel themselves superior to other groups within the society and are eager to rule over them. ... The ECPM states that we must choose to favour a respectful approach to those who think otherwise, because we want to encounter ethnic-religious diversity in our society as a challenge and benefit, without closing our eyes for societal problems emanating from this diversity." Sounds reasonable to me. So, how are they "dominionist" again? ... Sources?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 09:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dominionism is too minor to merit the attention it has been given. - C mon 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its an attack term, and not a very popular one. Sam Spade 22:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful template. Whether some feel the term Dominionism is perjorative is irrelevant. FeloniousMonk 22:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete it. And I wish "GUÐSÞEGN" would spell God correctly. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- unles the user is going for Old Norse, in which case, never mind -- but use runes! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uuuhhh, Icelandic (very near Old Norse), and that's a bit of a distraction, don't you think?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While term's meaning is controversial and has become an epithet in some cases, the same could be said of communism/fascism/socialism etc. As for adherents, the US Constitution Party outpolled the Greens in the 2004 election, and the Christian Heritage Party outpolled every minor party except the Greens in the last Canadian election. I'd certainly put its impact on the modern Anglosphere political environment ahead of Communitarianism and likely on par with Libertarianism. The Tom 22:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming said parties are "dominionist", which has yet to be proven/defended.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of parties like Socialists, etc.: those parties claim the term. It is part of their names. They think it represents them well. The same could not be said of the parties you labelled "dominionist" in creating the template in question.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-appellation isn't the litmus in our political articles, though. The National Socialist German Workers Party seemed to be under the impression it was socialist, but they were largely alone on that count. Likewise, while Wikipedia refers to certain organizations as "neofascist," most would self-identify as just "nationalist" movements. Dominionism is, as the article describes, "a term used to describe a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism [...] that seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs." These parties and thinkers meet that standard by any fair and NPOV assessment. The Tom 00:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No that is a very poor definition of dominionism and probably needs to be improved. If dominionism is a "trend" then then the political parties listed may be "part of the trend" or have the trend within them if they are a broader party than the trend, but for the most part they should not be labeled "dominionist" parties.--Silverback 23:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This definition is both too general to be useful and too specific not to be discriminatory. Is a Catholic party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just a Catholic party. Is a Hindu party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just a Hindu party. Is an Atheist party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just an Atheist party. Etc. Etc. ALL parties seek to establish specific political policies based on a set of moral beliefs, religious or otherwise. All laws are based on some moral belief. Driving 55 mph was a law based on moral belief. If a person is religious, ALL laws he advocates are "religious" by definition, because everything is filtered through his worldview. If he proposes a 55 mph speed limit, it because he believes that God wants us to value human life, and driving 55 will save more lives than 75. Does this make him a religious fanatic? Does this make him a dominionist? By your definition it does. But, of course, that is absurd. He is not radical in his beliefs. Your definition is flawed. Your list is flawed, and slanderous.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dominionism gets 32 hits in google scholar, many of which are not relevant [1]. By way of comparison, communitarianism gets 8,000 hits [2], libertarianism 6,200 [3], anarchism 11,700 [4], socialism 223,000 [5], etc. A standard google search gives 537 unique hits [6]. Google books gives 35 unique hits, again with some that are not relevant [7]. Thus, far from being on a par with these established idealogies, dominionism does not looks to be a widely accepted term. This raises the very real question of why we, as a serious reference work, are devoting this much attention to an ill-defined neologistic term? At what point do we cross the line from reporting on established concepts and definitions to establishing them ourselves in violation of NOR? And while the interest of certain editors to use any means possible to expose Christian, right-wing thinking may be admirable, if we have to lower our standards to do so the entire reference work suffers. -- JJay 15:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wiki includes articles on a great many subjects that Google far fewer pages than "dominionism." Popularity should not be a deciding factor in determining whether information belongs in Wikipedia. If there is an ongoing debate over "dominionism" -- and it's clear from those Google searchers that there is -- then it belongs in Wiki. As for those who want it removed because it offends some people, I know a great many promoters of false health claims who object to the term "quackery." Should we appease them too by removing the Quackery article from Wikipedia? Askolnick 16:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see a valid case for deletion made here. Guettarda 01:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Care needs to be taken with who is added to the template, because in the case of living people, we'd need excellent sources showing they were widely regarded as associated with dominionism. But that's a question of how to edit the template, not whether to have it. And to include articles related to the concept is very useful. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While The Tom looks to be alone in making a cogent argument for this, I'm not convinced that Dominionism is on a par with the other political ideologies included. -- JJay 01:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Slim. JoshuaZ 03:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is not divisuve, it has a clear and encyclopaedic purpose and it does not appear to embody any bias either in its text or by its existence. This appears to be a valid term with credible academic references in the political science literature. Just zis Guy you know? 09:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Tom and Guy et al. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JeffBurdges 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undecided The template needs some work, I made an attempt to improve it. Dominionism is more in the minds of those who fear it, label others with it, and attempt to track it, that in the minds of those who are labeled with it. People following dominionism templates, should be also be referred to articles on those who study it, and who use the term, not just on those who are being fear mongered about. Unfortunately, only Chip Berlet and the Political Research Associates have articles about them. I've added other figures that don't have articles yet. Those who are serious about this template should flesh those out.--Silverback 22:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and whack with an axe. There is enough contention surrounding well-established philosophical/theological/political categories without spinning more troll-webs. John Reid 02:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many who follow Rushdoony, North and Bahnsen call them "Dominion theologians" — the term is certainly not pejorative. See, e.g., Gentry's "He Shall Have Dominion." The template could use a bit of work (e.g., where is Kuyper?), but it is useful and should be kept. --MonkeeSage 12:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't including Kuyper be a bit anachronistic? He lived a century before the term was coined. If we're going to get anachronistic, then why stop there ... why not include Queen Elizabeth I, and Oliver Cromwell? Surely they meet the definition. Why stop at Protestants? For every Protestant "dominionist" in history, there are at least a dozen Roman Catholic "dominionist" leaders.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on whether you accept the assertion that "Dominionism" is a recent development. Many who adopt the view/title would claim to trace their ideological roots to the Protestant Reformation (or even further back), as they came to expression in Calvin, Bullinger, Knox, and so on, down to the New England colonies. As for people being labeled who reject the title, I think an analogous situation would be where a group holds all/almost all the Marxist distinctives, yet claims they are not Marxist. Since "Marxist" is an established description, and they fit that description, it seems fair to label them as Marxist, and let them clarify in their particular articles. I'm not sure how situations like that are usually handled on WP though. If that approach is unacceptable, perhaps the template could be limited strictly to persons/groups which claim the title. Of course, if the person/group doesn't hold to the distinctives, the point is moot and they don't belong in the template anyhow. --MonkeeSage 09:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with constant monitoring that the template doesn't turn into the POV witchhunt that the article Dominionism began as being. This phenomenon does exist, it just isn't mainstream. As I have said in the past, LaRouchites exist, but not in the same numbers as Republicans or Democrats, and their philosophy is encyclopedic, but with the annotation that it is not a widespread popular movement. Trotskyites exits, but they are not major contributors to liberal/left thought, at least not in the United States in 2006, and this is important to note. We should note that the mere act of giving Dominionism a template doesn't say that it is a huge movement or that it is equivalent in size, scope, or influence to evangelicalism or the Pentecostal movement or something along those lines. Rlquall 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By including people/groups who never used (or never would use) the title, and people/groups who would adamantly and successfully reject (to a fair-minded judge) the title, like ECPM, then it is already POV-pushing. What an encyclopedia this is turning out to be.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see the justification of the article Dominionism. As the existence of the term is verifiable. But this template, brings together a group of articles, some of which don't even mention the term. Some that mention it have no reliable sources. This goes against rational order. First, put all the relevant information in the relevant articles. Put proper reliable sources in each article. Then, if useful, have a template like this. Our readers must be perplexed when they follow a link on this template, and find nothing relevant. --Rob 21:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This kind of tripe is why WP:NOR exists. Tomertalk 10:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:No original research (many of the entries haven't been supported, and none are cited) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (whether of not most of the entries belong on the list is highly disputable, and is a matter that should only be addressed in article text, properly sourced and presenting both sides of the issue, not plain-facedly stated as fact in a nuance-lacking template). Plus it's realllly easy to link to all those pages without a template, and there aren't enough articles on Dominionism to warrant its use. -Silence 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as well as the blatant POV pushing categories associated. It's one thing to mention in an article that someone is accused of dominism (always by the left), but to put a group in a list of "domininst ogranizations, based on a fringe accusation, is so POV that I can't believe it's being proposed. Pollinator 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS policies support. After reviewing the dominionism sources, I find most of them reliable and able to support encyclopedic material. The template and the related category should exist based on verifiable encyclopedic content found in related articles. Wikipedia neutral point of view says that all significant points of view should be represented. Eliminating the dominionism template (and categories) would show a systemic bias against this particular philosophy. FloNight talk 10:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per the comments of SlimVirgin. It's a (fairly) widely used term, see Google (although the first hit today is Wikipedia's entry on the subject). --Plumbago 08:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Credible published sources both online and in print support informative and cohesive use of the term in Wikipedia. Larvatus 09:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
  • keep— Dunc|☺ 18:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough to me. Content/POV issues are of little concern regarding deletion. - RoyBoy 800 18:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. There is enough evidence that the term is actually used. The fact that being labelled as such may be considered as undesirable is not justification (by itself) to merit deletion.--CSTAR 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject to care in listing individuals, as Slim's comment. ..dave souza, talk 20:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Benin infobox

Template:Benin infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It was reformated to Template:Infobox Country form and updated. Single use template, out of date and no longer used. MJCdetroit 16:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete Circeus 01:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SS and Template:SO

Template:SS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:SO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ugh. Souped-up versions of {{support}} and {{oppose}} (see their TFD). Thankfully only the first of these is used, and in only one place, at present - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Please, never again! -- ALoan (Talk) 14:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Souped up" in this sense means that instead of having the picture and saying "support", it has the picture and says "strong support". Ditto for oppose. Recreation of previously deleted content - speedily deleted. Raul654 02:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comune

Template:Comune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm guessing this was someone's attempt to use the Italian version of the template. Obviously, it doesn't work (and I fixed all the articles that were using it), and Template:Infobox Italy town is the template this was intended to be. TimBentley (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYCS Culver templates

Template:NYCS Culver south express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver south local (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver south (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver center express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver center local (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver local (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Templates has been phased out as part of a reworking of the template set regarding the New York City Subway system. Larry V (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep Circeus 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nndb name

Template:Nndb name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Spam generator. Linked to over 250 pages. Suggest all links removed and template deleted. brenneman{L} 01:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In what sense do you mean spam generator? Do you think they plan to have advertising in the future? I have to admit their information doesn't seem to be particularly reliable.--Larrybob 00:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is not the place to decide the quality of NNDB as a source. That may be discussed and, if it's determined that NNDB should no longer be cited as a source in articles then this template should be returned here for deletion. But deleting the template now will not stop users from citing the source. John Reid 02:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

April 12, 2006

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

The result of the debate was Delete Circeus

Template:Beastie Boys Albums

Template:Beastie Boys Albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Butt-ugly, unused, and covered by {{Beastie Boys}}. Circeus 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RuneScapeVertical

Template:RuneScapeVertical (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete-- unused, completely replaced by Template:RuneScape. J.J.Sagnella 13:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Circeus

Template:Coordinates

Template:Coordinates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
delete -- unused, replaced by {{coor dms}} and {{coor title dms}}. --William Allen Simpson 08:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was relisted on correct date (April 18) --William Allen Simpson 04:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otheruses4

Was deleted last year under the name Template:Otherusesabout (see log, which is filed under "not deleted" as it was redirected to otheruses1). Was deleted because it opens with "This article is about..." which is (or at least really should be) a repeat of the first line of the article, and so is redundant. ed g2s • talk 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closing

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Closing

Holding cell

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)


If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

  • None currently

Infoboxes

  • None currently

Other

Meta

  • None currently

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

  • None currently

Debates

April 21, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uruguay infobox

Template:Uruguay infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It was reformated to the infobox country standard and updated. This single use template is no longer needed. MJCdetroit 22:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 12:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family

Template:Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not used except on a userpage →AzaToth 12:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 12:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arrested Development

Template:Arrested Development (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template was previously nominated, but was kept as it was still used. Now unused, as all the pages it links to have now been merged to Characters from Arrested Development. — sjorford (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirects to Template:Infobox Circeus 15:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Conditionals

Template:Infobox Conditionals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant: Duplicates (more-or-less) the content of Template:Infobox, which now contains examples of conditionals. --Marknew 08:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 12:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dino

Template:Dino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-scientifically named template which contains only five words. The template was created and used on four pages, but subsequently was removed from all four pages (by me) because the single sentence inside the template ("This animal is a dinosaur.") was redundant: each article already stated that fact. No further information was given, no discussion was made anywhere before the template was created, and the template now links to nothing. User who created the template is a new editor on WikiPedia and is not familiar with WP processes or the general guidelines used on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs.--Firsfron 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But this template is not just unlikely to be used; it can't be used. A sentence that defines the animal as a dinosaur would quite likely be followed by what type of dinosaur it was, which cannot be added to the template, unless all dinosaurs used with this generic dinosaur template are the same kind of dinosaur. And an editor who wanted to add information on the animal might likely be confused that a sentence was suddenly "missing" in the article, replaced with the ambiguous "template:dino", when s/he goes to edit the article. You can imagine the "fun" an editor might have trying to edit such an article. --Firsfron 21:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

April 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In-progress tvshow

Template:In-progress tvshow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Why do we need this template? It takes away the creditability of a lot of pages that are otherwise fine. If we are going to allow this, we should also have a template for living people articles saying something likes this: "This person has yet to live his/hers life. The article content might change if he/her does something."

Someguy0830, I know you are an active TV topic contributor, would you possibly care to help in cleaning up the by me mentioned situation (below) ? - The DJ 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is, the template serves a function for articles on (as an example) American Idol contestants, who have achieved a degree of notability yet arguably have not yet established this notability. Just as with articles which document current events, the facts influencing the notability of the articles' subjects may change. Therefore, my vote is to Keep after rewording, or else another template should be developed for this function. -- SwissCelt 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure when American Idol became the benchmark for template policy, but this is the second time I've seen it used as an example (and, in fact, the only example I've seen). Either someone's notability is established or it is not. Individual contestants should not have their own articles until they have established notability, at which point that notability should be spelled out for the reader in prose. Simply appearing on television does not automatically mean a person is a celebrity, and there is plenty of precedent for that. In either case, whether they have become notable or not, there's nothing in this tag that can't be written in the body of the article instead.
Since we're using examples, how about this one: General Hospital is a current show. It's been on for such a long time that it was interrupted so news of the Kennedy assassination could get out back in 1963. It will probably be on for another 40 or 50 years. It will always be in progress, and it shouldn't have a tag on it to say so. If for some reason American Idol needs some kind of disclaimer, I would have no problem with that. But to tag the hundreds or thousands of other shows just because of that? No way. Kafziel 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know, New Orleans, Louisiana has existed for nearly 300 years. Yet last fall, it still had Template:Current on it. This template appears to be intended to serve a similar function, to note articles that may be edited more frequently. And anyway, if you feel those articles do not belong on Wikipedia for lack of notability, the WP:AFD process is available to you. -- SwissCelt 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Current relates to a specific and ongoing event, the details of which can be subject to change at any moment. Such a claim is not nearly as applicable in the case of most TV shows. Episodes air, you have slightly more information, old information tends to remain valid. Reality shows like American Idol are no exception. Every episode eliminates some people or something to that effect, article is updated, there's no problem. This template does nothing but state the obvious. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trust me, it lacks credibility. You can not trust all the information in that article, as well as many others. I understand if this is not the case for some TV shows, then ok, they don't have to use this template. But when fandom causes lots of unverifiable information to be added, and to much for anyone to catch all of it and try to source it, a warning of this nature is completely appropriate. If this template does get deleted I plan on just using the actual wikicode into the articles themselves. I understand if it's something like a typical sitcom, or it's The Price is Right, and they wouldn't need such a warning. But to make the claim that this decision is good for all TV show articles is ridiculous. If anything, we should be discussing which articles should use the warning and which ones should not. This is no different from using a warning that says an article is about an in progress event, or might be controversial. Yes, the article says it's a show in progress, but this warning is not to give information about the status of a show, it's a warning about the article itself. -- Ned Scott 23:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bantab-From what I can tell, your saying we remove every single current template and replace it with the future template. But why would we do that? That would mean the current tv shows would say they are taking place in the future. You said this tag is to warn people about future tvshows. What do you mean by that? Because if this tag is on a page, it's a current tv show. People don't put these on tv shows that haven't happened. They put them on ones that are happeningm like they should. And also, why would we merge it with the future tvshow. That's up for deletion also. (Sorry for the long comment)TeckWiz 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What TV show has the potential to change every hour (or minute) of every day? That's the only kind of situation where the current event template is used. Not even American Idol changes that rapidly. Hell, not even Jeopardy changes that rapidly, and it's on every day. Kafziel 17:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if a TV show article is updated frequently due to changing circumstances, the current events tag seems perfectly appropriate to me. The vast majority of TV show articles don't fit that criterion, I think. Tuf-Kat 01:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but limit use and reword accordingly. I think it should only be used for reality shows and other competition where a contestant is eliminated, or something else noteworthy happens, every week. (or every other week, or episode, etc.) --zenohockey 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its similar to the current events template and shows that the article may rapidly change, especially when a new episode airs. -Reuvenk[T][C] 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask you the same thing I asked RayaruB: What TV show has the potential to change every hour (or minute) of every day? That's the only kind of situation where the current event template is used. We don't use the current events tag on subjects that only change once a day or once a week. What show has a new episode more than once a day? Kafziel 20:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative to just "delete" or "keep"

Comment I really think the issue here is not about the template itself, but about which articles should use the template and which should not. All the people who are voting to delete seem to only care about getting the template warning off articles where it is not needed, and the people voting keep seem to know of articles where the warning is appropriate and useful. The "vote count" doesn't seem to be showing any kind of consensus, and I doubt that this is the right way to resolve this issue. I think people have specific examples stuck in their heads and might not be considering different examples.

I have yet to see someone bring up a single article where it was argued to use the template and to not use the template. This leads me to believe that we can satisfy both sides of this dispute.

I would like to make a new proposal for what to do:

We should do two things: 1, re-write the template as others have requested above and 2, establish guidelines via such groups as WikiProjects Television, Anime and manga, and others, for which in-progress TV articles should include the template and which in-progress TV articles should not.

Your alternative is to continue this endless debate with no real points being made. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- Ned Scott 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially support -- This isn't really a pointless debate, since delete votes outnumber keep by a fair amount, but your proposal is good. Personally, I think this template really doesn't apply in the majority of circumstances. Barring special events, most show articles tend to recieve major updates once every week or so. The major information between those times will tend stay the same, even though it may be reorganized or reworded. Pure speculation, such as the template suggests might be there, generally shouldn't be. That is something that really should be removed rather than just telling people it's there. To suggest a specific set, I would say that it's appropriate only for some reality shows (Idol, Survivor, and the like). – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems almost everyone agrees that the template is unacceptable the way it is. Even most of the "keep" votes are contingent on a re-write. I still think it should be deleted completely, because even reality show articles and anime should explain in prose that the show is ongoing. The way I look at it, we're supposed to be working toward making every article featured-status worthy. No article would make it through FAC with this template intact. So this proposal is pretty much a given anyway; either the template will be deleted, or it will be drastically altered and removed from most of the articles it's currently on. I'd prefer to delete it but, yes, this option is certainly plan B. Kafziel 19:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That works in theory, but not in practice. I'd rather not lie to readers in order to make the article look better. That's misleading. The fact that such warnings can be applied to any article gives the ones without the warnings more creditability. When no one disputes an article that many people have worked on, I tend to trust it a bit more. But to just be blind like that, that is misleading to the reader. That is telling the reader this article is something it's not.
When it is an in-progress something, usually there are is a great increase of edits, usually too many to always keep on top of. That's why we have these warnings, because we know the very nature of the edits at that time, and that we can't always be there to watch the article 24/7. -- Ned Scott 22:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a problem on an article, then use the template. If it's not a problem on an article, then don't use it. If there was no problem I doubt most of the keeps here would be defending the template. Pretending there is no problem is not a solution. -- Ned Scott 22:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was all this stuff meant as a reply to me? I don't see how it applies to what I said. I don't want to lie to readers, I don't want to pretend there is no problem. I want to get rid of the template. Kafziel 22:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not lying to readers by deleting this template. The article should already be clear on the fact that a show is still running. One can assume from that context that edits will be more frequent. Also, unless they edit the article on a regular basis, most editors will likely not be caught up in all the edit history, and will just fix things as they see fit. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Lie" is a bit strong, but it's still misleading. You guys seem to think Wikipedia is flawless, and that everyone's going to follow the rules in regards to these articles. You seem to ignore the waves of fanboys and fangirls who flood many TV show articles with tons of crap. TV show articles that do not have this situation should not have this template, but the ones that do SHOULD. I'm sorry if this doesn't fit your little vision that Wikipedia can do no wrong. We owe it to the readers to warn them of articles that lack credibility. If the article does not lack credibility, then DON'T ADD THE TEMPLATE. But there are many articles that do lack credibility, and the do so because of being an in-progress show. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that fanboys can add trivia and crap to any TV series - even those who has already ended. My problem with this template is the use of "in-progress". It is to broad a definition and targets way more articles than necessary. What we need is a template specifically designed to the problem you are describing. I propose the following template {{TVtrivia}}, in which the message should say something like "This TV related article is filled with too much trivia. Please stop adding more and help reducing the amount". --Maitch 09:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ned, if you think I'm not aware of the "fanboy" problem, you might want to take a look at my recent history with Zarbon and the pages related to The Sopranos and The Shield. I've been dealing with that stuff longer than you've been on Wikipedia, so please don't tell me what I think. I know people put stupid stuff on pages. Fix it. If they do it again, fix it again. If they do it again, fix it again. That's Wikipedia. A template isn't going to stop people from adding unencyclopedic content, and in this case it actually encourages it. I spend a great deal of my time on Wikipedia removing fanboy content from movies, television, and music articles, and if I thought this template would help at all I'd be all for it. But it won't. Kafziel 12:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Venezuela infobox

Template:Venezuela infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It was reformated and updated to the Template:Infobox Country standard. It is easier to edit now. Venezuela infobox is a single use template. There is no more need for it. MJCdetroit 16:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Mrsteviec 16:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK stations

Found three infoboxes that supercede this as a better (in my opinion) version these are
Template:Infobox UK medium railway station
Template:Infobox UK minor railway station
and Template:Infobox UK major railway station.
Your thoughts would be appreciated thanks. My thinking is that four solutions are possible:

  • Keep the original, delete the new versions
  • Keep the new ones, delete this one
  • Edit the old to hold a bit more information, in turn deleting new vers.
  • Edit the new one, to get rid of unencyclopaedic info, in turn deleting old vers.

DannyM 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep. The original is more encyclopedic. Are toilets and telephones really needed in an encyclopedia? I've had a good look at these and they contain far too much of What Wikipedia is not. I recommend we redirect them to original template and look to add any additional fields to that. Mrsteviec 16:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay is see the argument for keeping, so despite becoming a hypocrite I think keeping is a good idea if the older version gets some more detail as I believe it's got too little detail, whereas the other one has too much, sorry for contradicting myself! DannyM 11:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the new ones are less encyclopaedic and too cluttered. All the information is sourced from from station info page on the National Rail website to which all the articles link already. There is little point in duplicating effort. Thryduulf 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whichever template that doesn't occupy three-quarters of the page! I agree with the previous comment - no need to duplicate the NR website leaky_caldron 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having thought about it, there is the problem of "too much information". Is the presence of baby-changing facilities or bicycle lockers notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia? Probably not. Besides, all that sort of information is available from the National Rail Station Information pages, which are automatically linked via the {{stn art lnk}} and {{stn art lrnk}} templates, so we don't need to duplicate it. --RFBailey 20:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this debate still open or is it closed? The reason I ask is that someone has changed all of the new templates into redirects to the old one without removing the delete proposal. Either restore the old pages so users can actively debate them, or close the debate and remove the delete proposal. Road Wizard 18:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There is a bit of confusion about which is the "new" template here. The tbree infoboxes (major/medium/minor) were created in October 2005 by User:Sloman. (I had some discussion with Sloman about them at that time). The {{UK stations}} template (which seems to be perceived as the "old" one) only appeared in March 2006, being created by User:Mrsteviec and is an adaptation of the {{London stations}} (which he also created) which has been around since September 2005. As for {{British stations}}, this appears to be an independent attempt by User:Smurrayinchester to adapt the London template, also appearing in March 2006. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, that one can be replaced with whatever we come up with here, regardless. --RFBailey 22:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure who wants to keep what, but the Euston infobox has way too much info. Studd about toilets etc is easily available from the external link. It does not belong here. We can't keep it up to date - its obsessive detail. --Concrete Cowboy 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, keep Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phh:Reader/

Template:Phh:Reader/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another fork, as below. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - other help pages don't work as expected if it's integrated into Template:Phh:Reader(edit talk links history) as explained on the talk page. -- Omniplex 09:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As explained at the talk page, they look identical to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We looked at the right pages at the wrong times, at the moment it's okay again. For the source of this episode in the #if:-crusade see also WP:MV. -- Omniplex 12:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, labeling things a "crusade" is hardly a way to foster discussion. Generally I'd rather use a conditional than fork a template (resulting in two things to watch, two things to synchronize, two things to ... ?, etc). Also, another thing I have an issue with is your choice of naming in these templates; the "/" (forward slash) is very subtle, and given that it's usually pushed up against a "|" (pipe), easy to miss. I've tried to avoid being cruel/mean/evil during this as well, but when you revert war over it it's hard not to introduce the "nuclear option" of TFD. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I perceive it as your "crusade", I could even live with the WP:HIDE solution after adding a default none instead of the obscure {{{1}}}. But you insisted on changing it to {{Qif}} for most Wikipedia header templates. I'm no big fan of named parameters and tried the more minimal {{ifdef}}. My first attempt was wrong, three days ago Paddu published the explanation on Ifdef, I documented it (test cases + caveats), and implemented it as planned in the header templates replacing {{Qif}}.
        Hours later you replaced it by #if: as discussed in the ifdef-Tfd. Trying to solve an ugliness with WP:MV I finally saw that Qif / ifdef / #if: are all unnecessary, and what's really needed is a single point of maintenance {{Shortcut/}} (admittedly not the best name) for a consisted look and feel. So that's what I did using it for {{Phh:Reader/}}. It worked and was simpler than all prior solutions, therefore I used it also for the header templates.
        But now you insisted on if: and sent those two to Tfd. The output of your solution wasn't what we saw until yesterday, the old style is better. For the case "no optional shortcut" in {{Phh:Reader}} you could fix it (unfortunately not for "given shortcut(s)"), but your all in one solution uses {{Qif}} again, essentially two templates squeezed into one. Side by side diff of your {{Phh:Reader}} vs. my {{Phh:Reader/}}, this makes no sense. The big standalone {{shortcut}} and the small optional table cell {{shortcut/}} are different. Like {{Tl}} and {{Tlp}} are different, and no fork. -- Omniplex 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm no big fan of named parameters and tried the more minimal {{ifdef}}
        Then change {{qif}}, don't fork. If I'm on any particular crusade here, it's a crusade against forks when they're unnecessary.
        ...what's really needed is a single point of maintenance {{Shortcut/}} (admittedly not the best name) for a consisted look and feel. So that's what I did using it for {{Phh:Reader/}}. It worked and was simpler than all prior solutions, therefore I used it also for the header templates.
        And now {{Shortcut}} has been updated and works just fine without the unnecessary {{Shortcut/}}. Again, my "crusade" here is against forks. Forks are bad. Forks are evil. Do not fork.
        I also strongly disagree with you that the styling you used was "better". The standard {{shortcut}} looked okay inside a header box as well as by itself on a page, but now there's a padding issue (see WP:BN and, in modern browsers anyways, how the top line of the shortcut box no longer aligns with the top line of the navigation box).
        Again, you just don't get what a fork is, and somehow you think what you've done isn't forking. Whenever you introduce yet another place to update the styling of Wikipedia, that's (IMO) forking unless you have a very good reason. You don't have one that I can tell, especially when you've been shown it can be done without forking. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shortcut/

Template:Shortcut/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unnecessary fork of {{Shortcut}} (note the forward slash in this templates name). Creating forked templates only further complicates things and provides more places to update the style of Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 19, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notadopted

Template:Notadopted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Probably a WP:POINT violation. It was created immediatly after the suggestion of a new template here with the same name, and the creation edit summary refers to one of the members of that discussion. Unused according to What Links Here and Google.SeventyThree(Talk) 23:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. —Whouk (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future tvshow

Template:Future tvshow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A blatant violation of WP:NOT, it was prodded then removed then I incorrectly marked it as db where it was deleted and then restored so now I'm taking it here to be properly brought up for deletion. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No, some articles that use it *might* be a blatant violation of WP:NOT. If they are "What links here?" will be helpful in finding and removing inappropriate speculation. Some regularly scheduled future events are considered worthy inclusion. It's really a matter of looking at each usage of this template, reading the content, and deciding what, if any, fix is needed. Deleting this template, will not fix a single article with a problem. -Rob 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although some of the articles which use this template may be engaged in crystal-balling, the template itself is not. The relevant section of WP:NOT says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I can't vouch for all of the articles which use this template, but I'm sure that there are many individual television episodes which could be described as "almost certain to take place". Whether they are notable is another question, but since the larger issue of whether individual television episodes should have pages is still open, I don't see why an individual episode scheduled to air in two weeks is intrinsically less notable than an individual television episode which aired last month.
Although some pages which use this template may be chronic violators of WP:NOT, that's not the fault of the template. If anything, it's a reason for the template's existence: editors could use it to patrol such pages and make sure that everything in them is factual and appropriately cited.
I also don't see a substantial difference between this template and Template:Future election, Template:Future film or most of the rest of Category:Temporal templates. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a warning to the template article page, hopefully it will cause less misuse of the template. Beyond that just afd the articles in question that are problematic? - The DJ 14:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that articles with this tag have the potential for misuse, and should be eyed carefully and afd'ed if they're crystal-ballish. But I disagree with the suggestion that every article with this tag is by its very nature unencyclopedic; for example, see the relatively well-cited Torchwood, which has been the subject of discussion in mainstream (non-fan) media. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I suggested anywhere that these articles are by no means encyclopedic in essence then I miscommunicated my thoughts :D - The DJ 18:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. :D (tips hat to the DJ) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:N9jig-il-shield

Template:N9jig-il-shield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am the author of this template. Previous discussion consensus was keep 'til we have replacement, "more free" images, and we now do in the commons (see Image:Illinois 1.svg for an example). Also note this should result in automatic deletion of images that use this template... —Rob (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UN-multilingual

A poll at Talk:United Nations Commission on Human Rights showed that most people clearly did not want this, so it's been removed from all articles. As it has no use, I'm nominating it for deletion. Raul654 08:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Move to Wikibooks Cookbook

Template:Move to Wikibooks Cookbook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Don't need to have a separate template for each Wikibook. Should use Template:Move to Wikibooks instead. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. --Domthedude001 21:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? The nom says delete, by default... -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think a lot of the transwiki to wikibooks tags are for recipes, which would make this tag useful. -- stillnotelf is invisible 01:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I've either used this or thought of doing so before, so it's useful in my opinion. Ardric47 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, comes up often enough to be useful. the wub "?!" 23:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and redirect Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Factual

Template:Factual (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Serves to alert the reader that some things in the article may not be factual, and might be opinions... which seems to me to really be most of wikipedia. Is there another template instead for 'contested facts'? This one is very new.

I have blatantly redirected it as everyone suggested above. 68.39.174.238 02:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, no apparent consensus for renaming Circeus 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Google

Template:Google (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template serves no apparent purpose; only redirects to a completely random and meaningless Google search of the string "{{{1}}}" - this template should be deleted. The template actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia's Google articles. Kungming2 00:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 18, 2006

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

The result of the debate was Keep -- Jedi6-(need help?) 03:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otheruses4

Was deleted last year under the name Template:Otherusesabout (see log, which is filed under "not deleted" as it was redirected to otheruses1). Was deleted because it opens with "This article is about..." which is (or at least really should be) a repeat of the first line of the article, and so is redundant. ed g2s • talk 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional delete. I've always wondered why we needed a disambiguation template that began with "This article is about...". I've never liked it. However, I've been using this all along, simply because I never noticed the existence of {{For}}, because it was never mentioned on the list of disambiguation templates until three days ago (when it got added to {{Otheruses templates}}. (And come to think of it, 4 is unlike the rest of the "Otheruses" templates, since it does not point to "other" uses but only one use. And in light of that, articles like Anchorage, Alaska are misusing this template.) Given the sheer number of uses of 4, however, deletion is only useful if they are all replaced with For, or another template for misusages, first. –Unint 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: {{for}} is not a substitute for this, IMO. If there are multiple alternative meanings and therefore the linked page is a disambig, {{for}} basically becomes {{otheruses}}, and the entire question here is basically whether {{otheruses}} should be used in preference to {{otheruses4}}. I agree that {{for}} is preferable when there's only one other page to link to, though, because that doesn't require the reader to read further down to figure out what "other uses" means. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a comment: Otherusesabout had a similar format, but as I said above, 4 can point to a single "other use" - while about could only point to a diambiguation page. Also, I wouldn't say that all the delete votes there are due to concern for duplicating the article's lead sentence. –Unint 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is like a kangaroo court. In "How to list templates for deletion", Step II has been taken, but Steps I and III have been blown off. Should I try to dignify these proceedings by voting now, or are we going to follow the WP:TFD page? If you read the section "What (and what not) to propose for deletion at TfD", the otheruses4 template should not even be proposed for deletion; if it is true that 'Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement', then the opposite should also be true, 'Comments such as "I don't like it," or "I don't find it useful" generally are not enough to nominate for Tfd'. As much as ed g2s might want to delete this template by any means, including quietly abandoning the discussion of this template on its talk page to sneak over here and quietly delete it, we should stick to the process. The bare minimum before any more discussion is: 1) put Tfd on the template 2) put tfdnotice on WP:D and WP:HAT (note that the latter is still "proposed" and not very visible to a lot of people who watch WP:D, which currently governs the use of hatnotes) 3) go read the talk page on the otheruses4 template to see whether a shred of good faith has been evident so far. Chris the speller 18:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per nom. --Domthedude001 21:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, the nom is delete... ed g2s • talk 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though I have used it many times in the past (and I will look into 'correcting' my own edits if I can find them should the consensus be to delete). I think that {{For}} does a fine job without the redundant statement of what the article is about. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently I need to point out once more that the Tfd process is not being followed, and that editors who care about the process should NOT continue to vote for or against this template, but should instead require adherence to the procedure. Leave a comment here, or, better yet, on User talk:ed g2s, as I did. Chris the speller 05:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extend. This proposal is out of order, as no notice was placed on the template and no notice was posted on any relevant talk page that I saw. I've now put up various notices; I would suggest that the voting be extended several more days or restarted entirely. As for the issue itself, strong keep. It's atrocious style to refer to something that hasn't been said yet; using "other uses" to refer to something the reader hasn't yet read is unintuitive and annoying, and completely unnecessary. This is totally independent of the fact that not all articles have good introductions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This comes before the summary, we need to contrast the two articles. We already have one for disambiguation pages that is a generic "other", but when it's just two pages this works well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taylortbb (talk • contribs) 07:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep unless it is thouroghly orphaned and substituted by an equivalent template. About that deleted because it opens with "This article is about" and that should be in the actual article, I think templates are there to avoid re-typing the same think ever and ever. Habbit 11:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is assumed that delete means orphan and delete, or delete in it's current state. ed g2s • talk 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All templates are orphaned before deletion. In this particular case, it's redirection and not actual deletion that's being advocated, so the issue is moot in any case. (XFDs really should change their names, given that they generally consider moves, redirects, transwikis, etc. as well. It leads to a fair bit of confusion, especially if the starter is unclear as to what they want.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, yes, I accidently left off the template, and this has just been bought to my attention. But for those who complained when they noticed a day and a half in and did nothing, is not the wiki process about fixing other peoples mistakes. Instead it is being used as an excuse to ignore the consensus being expressed here. I also agree that the nomination should be extended in light of the mistake. ed g2s • talk 12:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that contrary to what you suggest, no true consensus was being expressed prior to the correction of the problems with this TfD listing. If you don't put the TfD notice on the template and notify the community on talk pages, you can't argue that you have any kind of "consensus". The fact that the comments made after the notice was properly placed lean more toward "keep" than those made previously is not a coincidence. Different demographics...--Srleffler 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. First of all, this template is not the same as Template:Otherusesabout, and so this TfD discussion should NOT claim that this template has been nominated for deletion before. That's misleading. Second of all, I am strongly in favor of placing the "This article is about" wording at the beginning of the hatnote. It seems counter-intuitive to me to force the reader to continue reading past the hatnote, then return to the hatnote to see if they want a different article instead. The other problem I have with removing "This article is about" is that it gives alternative uses pride of place in an article, when the article subject should have that distinction. Powers 13:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Repetition is bad. --Apoc2400 13:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is it really a big enough deal to have to fix 1500 articles? It looks useful to me. -Jonathan D. Parshall 13:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For the reasons above. Secos5 14:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I rather like the "repetition" (which usually concists of only about 1-5 words anyway) because as a non-native speaker I often look up words where I have no or little idea what their most basic use is, or whether there is more than one at all. Hence that disambiguation tells me right away if I am were I probably want to be, or not. Let's face it, the first paragraph is not exactly perfect everywhere, and why should a reader have to read through it when they might be in the wrong place anyway? Besides, who is going to change the 1500 articles, because obviously that has to be done before the template is to be deleted. -- 15:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful. Generally the intro will go into more detail (e.g. PAGENAME is a YEAR novel, written by AUTHOR. It deals with blah blah blah blah, and was nominated for X awards, winning Y.) than the template (e.g. This article is about the novel. For the film, see PAGENAME (film).). It's useful. Keep it. 82.83.18.17 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is the most useful of the otheruses tags. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This debate is typical of a big problem I am seeing with editing. This really isn't that big of a deal that we need to fix 1500 articles. Our time could be better spent making real contributions to these articles.Estrose 15:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please realize, if the consensus is delete, the template will just be turned into a redirect to another template such as {{for}}. It would require approximately no effort, so this isn't a particularly good objection IMO. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is the alternative to this template? I don't think Template:Otheruses is reasonable because it implies a disambig page that is unnecessary in many cases. Being self-referential is not a problem if authors don't just mirror the first line of the article. I see no convincing argument to delete - gives authors more flexibility. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 16:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing "controversial" about the opening phrase. The "for" template must be read in conjunction with the opening of the article, which is inefficient for the reader, especially if they have landed at a page they weren't looking for. Slowmover 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This template is controversial. {{for}} is not. The only difference is this template's opening sentence. Ergo, it's the opening sentence that's controversial. That people such as you and I happen to like the first sentence, and believe the alternative to be inefficient or otherwise bad, is in fact one-half of the controversy, the other half being the people who don't like the first sentence. Yes? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Templates should only be proposed for deletion (according to WP:TFD) for 1 of 4 reasons:
  1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic); It IS helpful
  2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template; It is NOT redundant to another template
  3. The template is not used; It IS used
  4. The template isn't NPOV; It IS NPOV
The template was proposed for deletion because of a dislike for the first 4 words and some repetition (or condensation) of what is in the article; these are not valid reasons listed in WP:TFD.
  • The template is particularly useful for two articles about people who have similar names AND similar occupations; this usefulness may not be obvious to editors who generally disambiguate objects such as tap (for pouring beer) and tap (for threading holes), where a reader will need only the merest glance to know it is the wrong article. Most readers looking at a tap and die article know that there is also a tap for beer, but many readers looking at an article on one politician will be unaware of the existence of another politician with a similar name. The generally accepted context of identifying a person as a politician in the first sentence may not be enough to define the difference between the two, and a more specific description in the hatnote can help the reader.
  • Some articles are NOT well written, and the opening may not quickly provide enough information to help the reader decide if it is the right article. Some have made the argument that an editor who is helping with navigation and disambiguation should stop and rewrite the article. I reject this notion. The editor may have the skill, time and interest to disambiguate, but perhaps not to rewrite an article. Any contribution to Wikipedia should be welcome. Allowing a reader to get from a poorly-written article to the one that is sought is more important than avoiding "This article is about".
  • For articles about humans, the phrase "other uses" can be offensive, and at a minimum is downright cold. "This article is about" is not offensive. The otheruses template is an unacceptable subtitute on articles about people.
  • Although it would not be hard to find an article that has otheruses4 where another template would be preferred, that situation would be best handled case by case, either by editing the hatnote or by contacting the editor who inserted it. We don't melt down all 7 irons because one or two people use the club to smash windows; we correct the behavior.
  • (I expect to add more reasons when I get more time.)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris the speller (talk • contribs) 02:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this is practically a basic for Wikipedia. It does not repeat the introductory statement, it is even briefer, and for the sake of disambiguation. This keeps filesize down and does no harm. Deleting it would be a horrible mistake.KV 05:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; useful, widely-used, and it's helpful to have variant wordings for disambiguation to meet various situations. MCB 05:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful templates ought not to be deleted. Period. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE The thing does nothing but cause a reader to have to work his way through information before he gets to read the article he came to the page for. It is dispersive to a reader's attention and contributes nothing to an article. It acts as a sort of Wikipedic "self-pat on the back", as in "Look, reader ! We have LOTS of ARTICLES for YOU !"Terryeo 07:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's useful. The repetition is really of no importance, and it is much clearer than {{for}}. I really see no reason to delete it. Maelin 09:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons my Maelin. There is use for this template, and there's no actual problem with the repetition. The use with many articles also is a concern, and so, what is the point of removing a template that's used widely on Wikipedia? --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 10:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - {{for}} is clearer, more concise, and easier to read. --Cornflake pirate 14:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the article is well written. Maybe when WP is perfect, we can go back and get rid of "Otheruses4". Meanwhile, it serves the purpose of reader efficiency Slowmover 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (That said, I just had occasion to use it, and I used {{For}} instead. My vote remains keep because I still don't see any pressing need for conformity, so I don't see why Wikipedians shouldn't use whichever they prefer.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep especially per Sommers' quite lucid explanation. This template is particularly useful when the titles of the articles alone do not fully explain the demarcation between the articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Maelin and Antaeus Feldspar. --Coat of Arms (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Chris the speller, and Sommers, and KV. I find the other disambig templates are inadequate for many situations. "Otheruses4" is the most basic disambig concept and has the most flexibility (even if the 2nd parameter is occasionally repetitious). Slowmover 18:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I really don't see the problem with the with the short summary of the current article's content. The template makes it very clear the difference between the current article and other articles with similar names. joturner 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This template is often useful when the distinction between the two subjects is unclear. An article may have a perfectly good introduction that could almost apply to either article topic. The otheruses4 template provides a clean way to clearly distinguish the topic of the article from the topic of the other article. For an example, see Crown glass (optics) and Crown glass (window). I also echo the comments above about distinguishing books from films, people from other people with the same name and similar backgrounds, and distinguishing articles that cover the same topic area with different scope. --Srleffler 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I will grant that the "this article is about" part is redundant with the intro paragraph, I believe that this is acceptable for two reasons. For one, it boils down the topic of the article into (preferably) a few words, which means that the reader or editor need not go to the trouble of reading through the introduction. Secondly, it grammatically parallels the boilerplate text that reads "For such-and-such, see...".
    ,-~R'lyehRising~-, 21:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per reasons stated: incredibly useful, not bothersome or incredibly redundant. -- Viewdrix 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template summarises the article in a few words, which may not always be compatible with a well-written introduction that maintains a professional level of depth and avoids simplicism. McPhail 23:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an appropriate, useful and well used template. Carl Kenner 23:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant with optional parameters of Template:About. — Apr. 24, '06 [23:09] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    • Actually, the templates appear to be identical at the present time (I added some optional parameters to this too). So really, this TFD is for both, unless you think that an identical template shouldn't be covered under the same TFD automatically? In which case, I think you mean keep. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I would say "speedy redirect" except they handle the 3rd parameter differently (brackets vs. no-brackets). I really don't care which method is used, as long is it can be made more consistent. "Otheruses4" is not a very intuitive title, though. — Apr. 25, '06 [23:59] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Weak Delete per freakofnurture: I just tried this on Switcher and the {{About}} template seems a good replacement. However its a weak delete since we'd have to change 1500 occurrences. Gwernol 01:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, we'd just redirect this. No trouble at all. In fact, once that TFD notice goes away, I'm going to do some behind-the-scenes consolidation to make all these templates work in sync, cutting out the now-useless ones (with the help of an admin, since at least one is protected). Most of these were made before optional parameters existed; using those, we only really need one "other uses" template, not the fourteen-plus (!) we have now. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it doesn't make sense to me to make the reader jump into the article to figure out whether the note is relevant to them. — Laura Scudder ☎ 06:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. It is an awful template. Much better phrasing from other templates. —Pengo 07:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say Keep. I use it a few times myself, mostly when differentiating between two different locations that have similar names. Would a reader know the difference between the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel without living along Chesapeake Bay? Similarly, the Robert Moses State Parkway and Robert Moses Causeway are similar-sounding but are in fact on opposite ends of New York State and would likely be unnoticed by readers who haven't lived in New York. The "about" serves to help a chance reader get his/her bearing without having to dig into the actual article. It's like a road sign. Saying the other use is one thing, but it's sometimes useless unless you know where you are currently located, especially if you are on unfamiliar ground. And it's certainly not worth a full disambiguation page for only two such locations. --WhosAsking 12:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is very useful, and saves time for people expecting to see something else. Ccool2ax 13:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP 17:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WhosAsking --G1076 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all previous keep reasons.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per all previous reasons for keeping it. Huangcjz 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above. PrettyMuchBryce 19:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Chris the Speller's bulleted list there is no reason to delete this template. A cleanup of hatnote templates probably is in order, but that needs to be systematic, discussed and agreed prior to depricating let alone deleting templates that are in widespread use. Thryduulf 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above. --Tisco 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—doesn't hurt anybody, has a valid use, and deletion would cause logistical problems in over a thousand articles. --zenohockey 01:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Jolly useful on occasions. All the reasons for deleting it are "editor-y" reasons, not readers' reasons. It's not valid to complain that the reader has to "wade through it", as this would be equally true with {{for}} – and the hatnote formatting removes the problem anyway. JackyR 03:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this nomination is out of order ..

If this nomination is out of order, then the admins who monitor and maintain the TFD process should remove it right away? If in fact it is not out of order, could those persons who keep harping on the matter just stop complaining and let the process run its course? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now who's complaining and harping? Nobody has complained since the Tfd template was added to otheruses4 and Tfd notices were served on WP:D and WP:HAT. The large number of comments and votes that have showed up since the nominator patched up the holes in the process shows that the patching up was sorely needed. And the nominator's assertion that I (one who opposes the Tfd) should complete the nomination process is as preposterous as having a prosecutor ask the defense lawyer to make points for the prosecution that the prosecutor has forgotten to make. Chris the speller 15:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my voting 'Delete', I am among those who believe that the nomination should have been removed from TFD altogether. As Simetrical notes below, though, the TFD process appears very often to be a train that once set on the tracks will run to the end of the line regardless of the cost or consequences. What both of you are pointing out by your comments is that, in fact, the TFD process lacks an 'interrupt'. Thank you for clarifying that. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You sensed my frustration. Thanks for putting it into words. Yes, it needs an emergency stop cord. Chris the speller 04:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't wikilawyer, Chris. It's unbecoming. Putting something up for community consideration is not the same as attempting a prosecution. Mistakes can be made, and if they are, fix them, don't try to get the process invalidated because of them. It's not going to happen, and you're just going to look bad. Wikipedians are generally not particularly legalistic.

As for the admins who monitor TFD, I would expect that most of them only look at the TFDs from the final day of voting, once that day is over. There wouldn't be much point in their looking at a TFD that they won't usually have to do anything about for several more days. Complaints about procedure and whatnot will likely be considered when this gets closed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. It's no longer possible to use a template at this title, except via a redirect, because a built-in variable of the exact same name exists, performs the exact same task, and can't be broken by user error. Nobody's going to notice the difference, much as one deletes an image because a duplicate with the same name exists on commons... nobody... bats... an... eyelid... — Apr. 19, '06 [02:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Template:TALKSPACE

Template:TALKSPACE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obsoleted →AzaToth 16:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per above. — Apr. 19, '06 [02:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Template:ARTICLESPACE

Template:ARTICLESPACE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obsoleted →AzaToth 16:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Qif

Template:Qif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Qif →AzaToth 16:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HHOF

Template:HHOF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a useless template. It was basically being used as a userbox, on articles about hockey players, to say they're in the hockey hall of fame. We don't need a bunch of boxes on articles telling everything about the person, that's what the article text is for. It makes articles look really bad. Additionally, the image that was used on it, was a fair use violation. I removed the image, and it's even more stupid now. Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 13:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -> keep. Also, remember that MoS, like all other style guidelines, is not strictly enforced. Please read the The Chicago Manual of Style quote on that page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FootnotesSmall

Template:FootnotesSmall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#proposed change to css (.references), and the MoS (WP:MOS#Formatting issues): "Formatting issues such as font size [...] should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases" - the template contains a fixed font size reduction, too easy to apply where "special case" could not be invoked. —Francis Schonken 11:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ifdef

Template:Ifdef (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unnecessary fork of Template:Qif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), also unnecessary with m:ParserFunctions. We don't need multiple "if" type constructs competing for editors attention (or having to have them re-learn new methods with each template they see). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 17, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collab-indian

Template:Collab-indian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is redundant template of the article Wikipedia:Indian wikipedians' notice board/INCOTW/current and needs to repair every week as indian collaboration article changes every week. Shyam (T/C) 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 02:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Luke

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Luke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Same reason as below. The chapter articles do not exist (except for the first 4). Therefore, the template is useless because it forces the user to click on each link in order to find out if the chapter articles exists or not. And due to the editing pattern of one user, it is highly probable that the remaining chapter articles will be redirected in the near future. Andrew c 14:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I'm bothered by Wikipedia:Content forking. All three of the Synoptic Gospels have roughly the same content in roughly the same order. To triplicate it over three sets of articles, that are organised by nothing more than an arbitrary division created in the 16th century, strikes me as completely inappropriate. Clinkophonist 21:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This doesn't appear to be content forking, since the information in question wasn't in an article "deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines." Saying the synoptics all have the same content is kind of odd, and hints a bit at POV, and furthermore, seems beside the point. The Bible and its books, like them or not in their current form, are clearly notable, and a template like this is simply useful to those interested in this topic, and violates no guidelines. I would suggest that the redirects after Chapter 4 be deleted, and the links allowed to remain red until articles are written about them. Nhprman 01:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clinkphonist. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Conditionally, The information in Luke 1-4 should be merged into Gospel of Luke. After the information is merged, Luke 1-4 should redirect to Gospel of Luke just like Luke 5-24. After that has taken place, delete the template. Or... make a page for Luke 5-24... as Nhprman is planning to happen (if you chose this one, do not delete the template). Either way will work, I personally think the first one is better. --Domthedude001 21:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can understand the case to keep these templates. In the future, there may be a day when every single chapter of the NT has its own article (or maybe every single verse). I personally think that it would include a lot of repeated content, and may not be significant in an encyclopedic sense. But this isn't my place to judge future content. I agree with what Clinkphonist is doing in merging the chapter articles with bigger topical articles that cover all gospels. Because the old pages are being redirected to the main page, it ends up breaking this template so it is useless (as my nom suggests). However, there is nothing forcing us to include this template in any article. So the question remains, do we delete a useless template (and maybe risk recreating it if it is ever needed)? Or do we keep it in hopes that one day it may prove useful (and simply not include it until that day)? --Andrew c 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew c, John Reid, et al. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 02:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Matthew

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Matthew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nearly all of the chapter articles have been redirected to other topics or the main article. Therefore, there is no purpose in having a chapter's template when the chapter articles do not exist. It is confusing for the user to have a template that gives the illusion that there are articles on each chapter, when actually the vast majority are just redirects are circular back to the main Gospel of Matthew article. Andrew c 14:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm bothered by Wikipedia:Content forking. All three of the Synoptic Gospels have roughly the same content in roughly the same order. To triplicate it over three sets of articles, that are organised by nothing more than an arbitrary division created in the 16th century, strikes me as completely inappropriate. Clinkophonist 21:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what bothers you about these articles. The synoptics are "roughly" the same, but each version has differences that HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of books have been written about. Are we really going to put ALL scholarship on say Jesus' death into one article, because as time goes on the info that will be put in on each version of his death will make the article far too large and confusing and I'm sure we'll have to split it up again anyway. And by your reasoning, we should delete every Star Trek or South Park or The Simpsons episode article, as the info in the article on Chef for example is already contained in all the articles on each episode, thus commiting the sin of content forking. I'm pretty sure we're keeping the Chef article and each episode article, so we should have each Jesus article as well as each chapter article. Chapter by chapter on the Bible is far more "scholarly" then episode by episode of a TV show! Plus, chapter and verse is no less "arbitrary" then breaking it up by event, and there is disagreement on whether an event mentioned in two books is always the same event. For instance Mark 6 and Luke 4. Are these talking about the same trip to Nazareth? Most think so, but certainly not everyone. Does each event get its' own article or do we overrule some scholars and simply say they are the same. I don't think you're thinking long term here. People are going to be putting info on Jesus and other Biblical figures into Wikipedia long after we're all dead, and I'm sure breaking things up chapter by chapter is coming no matter what. Roy Brumback 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

April 16, 2006

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Marudubshinki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:City Terminal Zone link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Content is just the link City Terminal Zone. No inclusions on What Links Here. The content is shorter than the template name, so I doubt it's being actively subst'd. SeventyThree(Talk) 23:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all Circeus 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete disambiguation templates

These are apparently no longer needed, and there is an excessive proliferation of similar-looking and poorly-documented disambiguation templates in Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates. -- Beland 17:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subnational entity

Template:Subnational entity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete -- This bloated template keeps changing its displayed name, currently "Country subdivisions", as each previous incarnation is disputed. It serves no purpose, its contents are already in the related categories, more complete contents already are listified at List of terms for subnational entities, List of subnational entities, and Matrix of subnational entities. It is almost the entire page at Division (subnational entity), and half the page at many other locations. --William Allen Simpson 17:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all Circeus 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament bracket templates

These templates are part of an earlier cumbersome attempt to generate a tournament bracket. They have been replaced by Template:16TeamBracket, Template:Round16, and some of the other better designed templates listed on Category:Sports templates. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sigma Chi infobox

Template:Sigma Chi infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template is only used or possibly useful in Sigma Chi, where it has been replaced by the standardized Template:Infobox fraternity Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh Dysepsion, here I was thinking this was a place for people to put their opinions as basis for keeping or deleting a template. I mean, far be it from me to think that a standard fraternity info box should, you know, provide some information about the fraternity...you know like...founders, colors, flower, coat of arms, and other important things. Guess I'll get to work on one that is better and nominate it as the new standard, in the mean time I won't post more opinions because Dysepsion doesn't like those. Batman2005 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Batman2005. When you actually try and maintain all fraternity and sorority articles and gaurd them from vandalism/vanity additions and care about the overall integrity of many wiki articles, not just the organization you belong to then feel free to criticize, otherwise keep your sarcasm to yourself. Opinions are what drives deletion pages so try to maintain a sense civility. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until we actually share DNA † Ðy§ep§ion †, you can refrain from telling me what to do, thanks mom. Additionally, I am a frequent contributor to wikipedia, although I should apologize that I don't live my life through wikipedia as you clearly do. I personally don't care about other fraternities, if I did I would have joined on of those, my point is simply that the standard info box should include more information, SIMILIAR, but not exactly to what the Sigma Chi one includes. But that's ok, i'll make one and nominate it for acceptance, i'm sure you'll show up and vote against it though, so whatever. Batman2005 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me? I think you have wikipedia confused with the Sigma Chi website...... Besides this discussion is about the infobox, not about the Sigma Chi entry in general. - The DJ 18:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There already is a Infobox for the exact same category of information. If it needs work, then debate and fix it to be better. The exact point of the infobox is to group consistent sets of information over multiple "related" articles, and not to create new ones for every single article. Note that as a last resort an Infobox can have "optional" arguments for important information that is not relevant to certain other pages. I suggest to Delete, and copy the code to the infobox fraternity talk page so it can be discussed what should and what should not make it into the current Infobox. -The DJ 18:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Joke new messages

Template:Joke new messages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This has no encyclopedic value and is not used on any pages. A template isn't necessary for a new messages spoof. Sango123 (e) 01:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you, the creator say to delete it, go there and slap a {{db|reason}} on it and it'll be deleted. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


April 15, 2006

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by ALoan (talk · contribs). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FPpages

Template:FPpages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Is covered by Template:fpopages. Was created in error by myself; can templates be speedied cos if so this one should be. My mistake - sorry to wast lots of people's time. Batmanand | Talk 23:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fpopages

All functions now carried out by (up-to-date) Template:FPpages. Batmanand | Talk 22:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap just realised that. Ugh this is annoying. OK nomination withdrawn. I will do my due diligence and 1. move all the stuff I have added to fpopages to make it FPpages, into fpopages (if that makes any sense) 2. change all the links and 3. list FPpages for deletion. OK gimme a day or two. Sorry about all this. Batmanand | Talk 23:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC) See above Batmanand | Talk 23:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to {{People of the Three Kingdoms}}. Pagrashtak 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3 kingdoms warlords

Template:3 kingdoms warlords (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, unsubst'd (I googled for word combination). SeventyThree(Talk) 22:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- I've been bold and performed the rd. If anyone objects to this we can always restore the previous version and reopen the TfD. John Reid 17:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redesign it and replace the current one - too cluttered, hard to read. Perhaps the Chinesenames should be added as well? –- kungming·2 (Talk) 05:15, 20 April 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 19:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major Cities of India

Template:Major Cities of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The word "major" is subjective. A separate template: (Template:Metropolitan cities of India) exists with a clearly defined criteria, thus making the major cities template redundant. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (author request). GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-web

Template:Db-web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This seems to be trying to extend A7 beyond real persons, which isn't policy. Rob 07:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Well, I was hoping to debate this suggestion at the template's talk page or at the Village pump (where I have tried to begin the discussion), but I guess this is a good a place as any. I believe that this template is a valid interpretation of A7, because just as bands and clubs represent real people, so too do internet forums and blogs. The only difference is that their communication and activities are online rather than offline. But I'm happy to talk it through further. You'll note that I wrote it up on Village pump (policy), and waited for comments—and didn't just start using the new template immediately. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, we don't need this. It kind of short-circuits Wikipedia:Notability (websites), not even mentioned in the template (only hidden under a piped link with the text "importance or significance", not an appropriate piped link as far as I'm concerned), and not intended to be used as criteria for speedy deletion. If A7 applies (which, for instance, might be in the case of a personal website of a non-notable person, with no illuminating info apart from personal info on that person) I don't see the need for a "specific" template. In that case one of the four available CSD A7 templates ({{db-bio}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-group}}) or the the generic {{db|reason}} would better be used, I suppose. --Francis Schonken 07:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One could equally well argue that {{db-band}} is redundant because it could also be substituted by {{db-bio}} or {{db-club}}. And again, {{db-band}} links to WP:MUSIC rather than WP:BIO. (Although I'd be happy to change the target of {{db-web}}'s link, if that's what people would prefer). The point is that these are all common types of vanity articles, and the intent of A7 is to facilitate the removal of the most obvious and egregious attempts to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. The intent of {{db-web}}, like {{db-band}}, is simply to identify a specific, common type of self-promotion—i.e. real persons writing about themselves—so that it can be effectively addressed. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GeorgeStepanek Zzzzz 10:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite to point directly and explicitly to Wikipedia:Notability (websites) and not through a misleading or obscure pipelink. Caution that repeated misuse of this tool (not that I am so alleging at present) may cause me to renominate. Note that this comment should be considered Keep if rewritten, Delete if unimproved. John Reid 10:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, how's this: it is an article about an blog, internet forum or personal / group / corporate website (see ranking) that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject or the website. But please feel free to tweak the wording a little more if you think it can be further improved... GeorgeStepanek\talk 11:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For me it's still delete, Wikipedia:Notability (websites), was not written as criteria for speedy deletion. The (exclusive) use of Alexa for implying non-notability in the template, "(see ranking)", is also contrary to what had been agreed upon in Wikipedia:Notability (websites)... at least this needs more interpretation than just implying something by an Alexa link. Thus, not suitable as "speedy" criterion. Further the two piped links now in the template are still worse than what was there before. Also the template completely neglects possible implications of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) (examples can include, but are not limited to, a company that has the same name as its website and is hit by the this template, irrespective of its notability according to the "companies" guideline) --Francis Schonken 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your comments, Francis. I respect your opinion, but I do feel that the link to Wikipedia:Notability (websites) is as justified as {{db-band}}'s link to Wikipedia:Notability (music). Neither defines the criteria for speedy deletion (that's the purpose of the CSD link), but each provide helpful suggestions for what might be counted important or significant in their respective areas. Likewise, my inclusion of the link to Alexa was intended to be helpful, not prescriptive. As I mentioned on the talk page, I see it's role as one of ruling out articles for deletion, rather than the reverse. The companies issue is one that I am unclear about in my own mind—is a company more than just a group of people?—and I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. GeorgeStepanek\talk 13:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whether "a company [is] more than just a group of people" is irrelevant. Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) is an accepted guideline, and it doesn't fit in a CSD scheme. Whatever your comments at Template talk:Db-web, and your intentions (which by definition are good), the template would create a situation where it overrides an accepted guideline. No good. Don't do.
          Similarly, the implication of the Alexa link, which is contrary to the accepted guideline Wikipedia:Notability (websites), makes the "speedy" procedure of the template override an accepted guideline. Comments and intentions don't remedy that, so still: delete.
          Further, maybe you didn't get what I meant by "the two piped links now in the template are still worse than what was there before.", my objection was to the quality of the pipe (now two links with a bad piping). I consider the quality of these pipes bad, while they obfuscate that they're links to guidelines that mention a lot of criteria that don't fit in a "speedy" scheme. The website notability guideline doesn't even mention a single criterion that fits in a speedy scheme. So, you're still trying to force new guideline content/procedure via template, as also remarked by Rob below. Don't. Bad procedure. --Francis Schonken 09:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do actually agree with most of what you've said. You're correct, Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) is the appropriate guideline for companies—and it's not referenced on the template. And I am beginning to think that it would actually be going beyond the intention of CSD A7's "person or group of people" to try to include companies and corporations. And yes, Wikipedia:Notability (websites) makes no mention of Alexa or any other ranking, so perhaps the inclusion of that link would be misleading, and could be misused. I have removed both of these elements. The wording is now: it is an article about an blog, internet forum or personal / group website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject or the website.
            But I still feel that if {{db-band}} can link to Wikipedia:Notability (music), then {{db-web}} should also be able to link to any guidelines that may be helpful, even if they mention criteria that are not directly applicable to the speedy deletion. All of the A7 templates link to guideline pages, so I don't see why {{db-web}} cannot follow the same pattern. If you're suggestion that these links to notability guideline pages are inappropriate, then we should remove them all—not just the ones on this template. GeorgeStepanek\talk 11:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Still, bad piping, a website's subject might be a company or whatever other topic other than people, using [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|the subject]] is bad piping while it narrows possible topics of websites to the people running the site (who may be perfect nobodies compared to the subject of the website).
              And you're seemingly still not seeing the difference between Notability guidelines that can easily be used in a speedy deletion criteria scheme (e.g. bands) and other notability guidelines that are a bit less suitable to that kind of approach (e.g. companies and websites)
              So, for the proposed template still delete as far as I'm concerned --Francis Schonken 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let's think this through. When we delete an article about an unnotable astronomy club, we do not take into account the fact that astronomy is an obviously notable subject. Which means that you're right: the subject is not relevant. I've changed the link to [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|the author(s)]] to reflect this. The wording is now: it is an article about an blog, internet forum or personal / group website that does not assert the importance or significance of the author(s) / participants or the website. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's not the subject of the website, it's the subject of the article. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Indeed, George appears to be messing this up completely: an article about a website that is run by perfect nobodies (the authors) can not be speedied for that reason. It's about the notability of the topic (the subject) of the wikipedia article. If that topic/subject is a website, then wikipedia:notability (websites) is the applicable guideline. And that guideline is not formatted to be of much use in a speedy process. So, delete the template, it is confusing, and gives a false impression that articles can be speedied for reasons for which they can not be speedied. Use {{db|reason}} if there is a real reason to speedy (and name that reason), that is: if any of the CSD criteria applies. What's wrong with that? --Francis Schonken 10:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think perhaps that you are confusing yourself. It's really quite simple. If an astronomy club is speediable, then an astronomy internet forum with the same degree of notability should also be speediable. They are both groups of people who meet to discuss the same things. The fact that one is online and the other is offline is irrelevant, and is not mentioned in our CSD policy. CSD does not exclude online groups of people. GeorgeStepanek\talk 11:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No. It's not the same thing as the template is currently worded. A forum is a place where the group meets--like writing an article about the soda shop where the astromony club hangs out. Not speediable. A personal website is a publication that talks about a person, like an autobiography published by a vanity press. Not speediable. In any case, TFD is not the place for this discussion. I can certainly understand if the template was created believing that there was a consensus for this, but now that it is clear that there is not, I don't think it's appropriate to try to create an application of CSD here. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I must respectfully disagree. A soda shop exists for other patrons, whereas an internet forum consists of nothing but the discussions between its participants—it is the essence of the meetings between them, as it were.
                          I feel that it is my fault that confusion and disagreement have occurred here, and that had I communicated more clearly then this might have been avoided. Hence my attempts to explain, and my willingness to keep modifying the template's wording until it does make the concept clear to everyone.
                          The point is that I don't want to change CSD policy. I'm happy with it the way it is. I just want to unlock some of its potential, in exactly the same way that {{db-band}} unlocks some of its potential. If we didn't have that template then people would say that a band is more than just a group of people: it's the music, the fans, the whole phenomenon. But a band is just a group of people. And an internet forum is just another group of people. I just hope that I can convey that clearly enough. GeorgeStepanek\talk 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think what's missed in the arguements defending this template, is that you can't make up new *policy* in a new template, or in a TFD discussion. CSD is *policy*. That's important. It refers to real people, not web sites. That's intentional. If anybody wishes to change policy, please seek changes to the WP:CSD page, and try to gain consensus first. Any use of this template is a violation of policy, regardless of this TFD's outcome, and may be summarily removed from any article. A7 has expanded in the past, and may well expand again, but only through consensus, not threw making up a template. --Rob 05:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must respectfully disagree. A7 has been created to expedite the deletion of obvious vanity articles about unremarkable people or groups. The exact wording that was voted on in July 2005 was: "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." This wording does not mention bands or clubs in any way. The existing templates {{db-band}} or {{db-club}} are interpretations of these criteria, and are intended to address the most common types of vanity pages that people create about themselves. I would like the new {{db-web}} template to fulfill exactly the same role, and implementing exactly the same policy. Its exact wording could certainly be changed and improved—just as speedy deletion criteria A7's phrasing has been changed and improved—but I strongly believe that its core purpose and usage falls squarely within the existing policy. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are ommitting history. For a significant amount of time time, A7 was strictly limited to single inviduals. Later, there was discussion and a straw poll to expand it to includes groups of people. There was very large participation in that poll, and a high level of support (well over 75%). So, it passed. Only *after* that expansion (with a changed to WP:CSD page), was {{db-band}} made. If you get the same degree of support for another expansion, then this tag would be appropriate. I can't find the relevant links at the moment, but I can look if requested. I'm not saying we can't expand A7, I'm just saying there is a process, and it must be followed, as we are talking about policy.--Rob 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to Wikipedia:How to create policy and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion there have been no policy changes to CSD since July 2005. All changes since then have been informal. The debate on A7 expansion happened here—and there's no straw poll in that discussion. I was also hoping to garner debate and approval for my suggestion at the Village pump, but I guess that process is happening here now. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, there was a policy change in November 2005. WP:CSD was updated here based on the poll (mentioned in the edit summary). You haven't gained this type of large-scale consensus for another expansion (ample participation in the pole, with a high percentage of support). Only after this change was {{db-band}} made. WP:CSD is a policy page, so changes in it, are policy changes. --Rob 07:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • A small point, but the diff you gave added only "or persons" to the criteria—not bands or clubs. Those were added later. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • And sorry, I was wrong. There was a poll on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). That poll was for the "or persons" addition to the criteria. But I'm not trying to change CSD policy! I just want to provide another tool like {{db-club}} or {{db-band}} that implements existing policy. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • My diff was to illustrate when the change, based on the poll, happened. Of course, there were a few edits after that. During the discussion for the expansion of a7, bands (especially) and clubs were clearly discussed, and an intended target. Web sites were not (as I remember). This is new policy that you propose. But, regardless, why not seek support in the same manner that was use for the last a7 expansion. If consensus is behind you, you'll easily prevail. --Rob 10:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • This version in the history shows that {{db-band}} was implemented and in use well before the wording of the policy was modified to specifically cite clubs and bands. But I don't want to change the wording of A7 in any way! I just feel that a blogger is just as much a "person"—for the purposes of CSD—as a guitarist. And an internet forum is just as much a "group of people" as a debating club. GeorgeStepanek\talk 11:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • But {{db-band}} was done *after* the poll and discussion, which discussed bands specifically. In fact, nn-bands were the *main* reason for the expansion. Again, usage of this tag, would be violation of policy, regardless of the outcome of this TFD, and the tag should be removed immediately, if anybody uses it. --Rob 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It would be very interesting to see a diff or a link to a version that showed what it was that people were actually voting on in November. (Unfortunately the village pump is not archived, but it still should be in the history somewhere—anyone?) I'm presuming that it was "or people" because that was the change that was made at the end of the voting period. In which case that is the policy, and everything else—including {{db-band}}— is merely an interpretation of the policy. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per arguments above. Appears to provide a useful amount of additional information. -- Visviva 07:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, would be very useful to show people posting webby vanity/ads/cruft that just because stuff is on the web it isn't necessarily suitable for WP. However, deletion is a touchy subject and it needs to go through the right process first. If it gets deleted, I would encourage George to stick at it and try to get consensus for it first. Deizio 11:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but ideally adjust to incorporate the consensually accepted CSD A7 wording, with the addition of "a website of or about":
An article about a website of or about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
... where "subject" could mean either the web content or the person(s). IMHO, this would be a valid interpretation of CSD A7: If a person or club is speediable, so should their personal website or forum be. This would include websites or fora of or about {{nn-club}}s, {{nn-band}}s and {{nn-bio}}s, as well as articles about web forums that do not assert notability, because fora are essentially groups of people. It would not, however, cover websites with non-personal content that do not assert notability, e.g websites about Star Trek characters that show up in the background of third-season TNG episodes (to paraphrase WP:DUMB). These would still have to be gotten rid of the usual way. Sandstein 11:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a helpful template, way too likely to be misused. If it's speediable, use an existing speedy template. As far as I can tell, this template doesn't really reduce work in any way unless it's used in cases that are not generally considered speediable. The debate about whether A7 covers these specific instances should be at WP:CSD, not here. There is not currently a consensus that it does, so wait until there is before making a template. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I ask whether you think Tranquility of Lifting (for example) should be speediable? I'm asking because that's exactly the kind of obvious vanity article that this template is intended to address. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My thoughts on what should be policy aren't really relevant. I would support getting rid of A7 entirely, but I wouldn't vote delete on the associated templates. There is currently no consensus that A7 extends to websites about non-notable people. What "should be" policy should be discussed at the policy talk page. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as irrelevant and misleading. Anything tagged with this as a reason has been incorrectly tagged. -Splashtalk 16:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reach consensus on policy elsewhere before deciding for the reasons Rob gave above. (or Delete if no attempt to do that is made) –Tifego(t) 06:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This discussion has moved me firmly into the delete camp. I agree with many arguments made so far. At one time I was willing to entertain a rewrite but now I agree that this will never be acceptable for speedy. John Reid 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not policy; should not be policy. Speedy criteria should not require judgment; this does. That's what AfD is for. Septentrionalis 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have withdrawn the template, and have asked for it to be speedy deleted per author request. I will shortly be taking this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion as per Deizio's advice. Thank you, everyone, for your feedback and for the time you have devoted to this discussion. GeorgeStepanek\talk 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DIAR proposal

Template:DIAR proposal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Single-use template that threatens to create yet another category of maybe-policy. This can't be fixed by altering template content. John Reid 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia-specific help

Template:Wikipedia-specific help (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was created by me to help distinguish Wikipedia and help namespace pages with the same name. These pages have now been transfered to templates, merged or renamed - so the template is now no longer used. The accompanying category Category:Wikipedia-specific help should be deleted as well. See the template's talk page for more of an explanation of the (confusing) help system.Gareth Aus 08:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 14, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Delhi infobox

Template:New Delhi infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Has been replaced by Template:India UT capital infobox (see New Delhi). Unused (I googled for word combination, so no subst's). SeventyThree(Talk) 16:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Awayuser

Template:Awayuser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's unnecessary since it's the same as Users on Wikibreak and Users Partially Active Osbus 14:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Spambot and Template:Spambot notalk

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

The result of the debate was delete. Also, as per the discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive6#Continuing spambot attacks, these templates were created in February 2005, and were only used as a temporary way to track the pages protected against a spambot. This procedure is now obsolete and unused due to the current protection and semi-protection policies. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spambot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Spambot notalk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These two templates are redundant with any of several vandalism-related templates listed below, depending on circumstances. A spambot is just a vandal using a tool, and doesn't require a unique template. See also the associated category Protected against spambots.

// Pathoschild (admin / talk) 01:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

April 13, 2006

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

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dominionism

Template:Dominionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
All the parties listed in this template could be argued are not "dominionist". At least there needs to be proof. At least one of the persons listed (Schaefer) is not a dominionist. It is a relatively minor political philosophy, with very few adherents (even fewer who consider themselves adherents), and doesn't warrant a template. Most importantly, this template is seeking to push a biased POV (where those included who don't claim the title would consider it slander.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: One of the here so-called "dominionist" parties, the ECPM, according to its website has a rather compassionate (or leftist) socio-economic agenda (not the right-wing reactionary ideology expected by the Wikipedia-imposed label "dominionist"); and in its first congress made the resolution that because they are "convinced of the special responsibilities of the government for those who have special needs within the society. Therefore we want to point out the importance of collective rights of minorities, freedom of religion for individuals, communities and organizations, recognizing ethnic diversity within the different European countries", they are therefore resolved to respect "1. Freedom of religion - On the issue of the freedom of religion, the ECPM states that each person should have the possibility to practice his or her religion within the boundaries of peace, justice, human dignity and in line with documents such as the European Convention of human rights.", and they disavow "2. Extremism - History has taught us that the danger and the consequences of all types of extremism are always present which can lead towards violent outbursts and repression. Extremism appears when groups of people feel themselves superior to other groups within the society and are eager to rule over them. ... The ECPM states that we must choose to favour a respectful approach to those who think otherwise, because we want to encounter ethnic-religious diversity in our society as a challenge and benefit, without closing our eyes for societal problems emanating from this diversity." Sounds reasonable to me. So, how are they "dominionist" again? ... Sources?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 09:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dominionism is too minor to merit the attention it has been given. - C mon 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its an attack term, and not a very popular one. Sam Spade 22:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful template. Whether some feel the term Dominionism is perjorative is irrelevant. FeloniousMonk 22:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete it. And I wish "GUÐSÞEGN" would spell God correctly. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- unles the user is going for Old Norse, in which case, never mind -- but use runes! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uuuhhh, Icelandic (very near Old Norse), and that's a bit of a distraction, don't you think?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While term's meaning is controversial and has become an epithet in some cases, the same could be said of communism/fascism/socialism etc. As for adherents, the US Constitution Party outpolled the Greens in the 2004 election, and the Christian Heritage Party outpolled every minor party except the Greens in the last Canadian election. I'd certainly put its impact on the modern Anglosphere political environment ahead of Communitarianism and likely on par with Libertarianism. The Tom 22:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming said parties are "dominionist", which has yet to be proven/defended.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of parties like Socialists, etc.: those parties claim the term. It is part of their names. They think it represents them well. The same could not be said of the parties you labelled "dominionist" in creating the template in question.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-appellation isn't the litmus in our political articles, though. The National Socialist German Workers Party seemed to be under the impression it was socialist, but they were largely alone on that count. Likewise, while Wikipedia refers to certain organizations as "neofascist," most would self-identify as just "nationalist" movements. Dominionism is, as the article describes, "a term used to describe a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism [...] that seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs." These parties and thinkers meet that standard by any fair and NPOV assessment. The Tom 00:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No that is a very poor definition of dominionism and probably needs to be improved. If dominionism is a "trend" then then the political parties listed may be "part of the trend" or have the trend within them if they are a broader party than the trend, but for the most part they should not be labeled "dominionist" parties.--Silverback 23:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This definition is both too general to be useful and too specific not to be discriminatory. Is a Catholic party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just a Catholic party. Is a Hindu party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just a Hindu party. Is an Atheist party that "seeks to establish specific political policies based on religious beliefs" not a dominionist party? Or isn't it just an Atheist party. Etc. Etc. ALL parties seek to establish specific political policies based on a set of moral beliefs, religious or otherwise. All laws are based on some moral belief. Driving 55 mph was a law based on moral belief. If a person is religious, ALL laws he advocates are "religious" by definition, because everything is filtered through his worldview. If he proposes a 55 mph speed limit, it because he believes that God wants us to value human life, and driving 55 will save more lives than 75. Does this make him a religious fanatic? Does this make him a dominionist? By your definition it does. But, of course, that is absurd. He is not radical in his beliefs. Your definition is flawed. Your list is flawed, and slanderous.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 04:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dominionism gets 32 hits in google scholar, many of which are not relevant [8]. By way of comparison, communitarianism gets 8,000 hits [9], libertarianism 6,200 [10], anarchism 11,700 [11], socialism 223,000 [12], etc. A standard google search gives 537 unique hits [13]. Google books gives 35 unique hits, again with some that are not relevant [14]. Thus, far from being on a par with these established idealogies, dominionism does not looks to be a widely accepted term. This raises the very real question of why we, as a serious reference work, are devoting this much attention to an ill-defined neologistic term? At what point do we cross the line from reporting on established concepts and definitions to establishing them ourselves in violation of NOR? And while the interest of certain editors to use any means possible to expose Christian, right-wing thinking may be admirable, if we have to lower our standards to do so the entire reference work suffers. -- JJay 15:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wiki includes articles on a great many subjects that Google far fewer pages than "dominionism." Popularity should not be a deciding factor in determining whether information belongs in Wikipedia. If there is an ongoing debate over "dominionism" -- and it's clear from those Google searchers that there is -- then it belongs in Wiki. As for those who want it removed because it offends some people, I know a great many promoters of false health claims who object to the term "quackery." Should we appease them too by removing the Quackery article from Wikipedia? Askolnick 16:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see a valid case for deletion made here. Guettarda 01:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Care needs to be taken with who is added to the template, because in the case of living people, we'd need excellent sources showing they were widely regarded as associated with dominionism. But that's a question of how to edit the template, not whether to have it. And to include articles related to the concept is very useful. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While The Tom looks to be alone in making a cogent argument for this, I'm not convinced that Dominionism is on a par with the other political ideologies included. -- JJay 01:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Slim. JoshuaZ 03:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is not divisuve, it has a clear and encyclopaedic purpose and it does not appear to embody any bias either in its text or by its existence. This appears to be a valid term with credible academic references in the political science literature. Just zis Guy you know? 09:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Tom and Guy et al. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JeffBurdges 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • undecided The template needs some work, I made an attempt to improve it. Dominionism is more in the minds of those who fear it, label others with it, and attempt to track it, that in the minds of those who are labeled with it. People following dominionism templates, should be also be referred to articles on those who study it, and who use the term, not just on those who are being fear mongered about. Unfortunately, only Chip Berlet and the Political Research Associates have articles about them. I've added other figures that don't have articles yet. Those who are serious about this template should flesh those out.--Silverback 22:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and whack with an axe. There is enough contention surrounding well-established philosophical/theological/political categories without spinning more troll-webs. John Reid 02:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many who follow Rushdoony, North and Bahnsen call them "Dominion theologians" — the term is certainly not pejorative. See, e.g., Gentry's "He Shall Have Dominion." The template could use a bit of work (e.g., where is Kuyper?), but it is useful and should be kept. --MonkeeSage 12:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't including Kuyper be a bit anachronistic? He lived a century before the term was coined. If we're going to get anachronistic, then why stop there ... why not include Queen Elizabeth I, and Oliver Cromwell? Surely they meet the definition. Why stop at Protestants? For every Protestant "dominionist" in history, there are at least a dozen Roman Catholic "dominionist" leaders.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on whether you accept the assertion that "Dominionism" is a recent development. Many who adopt the view/title would claim to trace their ideological roots to the Protestant Reformation (or even further back), as they came to expression in Calvin, Bullinger, Knox, and so on, down to the New England colonies. As for people being labeled who reject the title, I think an analogous situation would be where a group holds all/almost all the Marxist distinctives, yet claims they are not Marxist. Since "Marxist" is an established description, and they fit that description, it seems fair to label them as Marxist, and let them clarify in their particular articles. I'm not sure how situations like that are usually handled on WP though. If that approach is unacceptable, perhaps the template could be limited strictly to persons/groups which claim the title. Of course, if the person/group doesn't hold to the distinctives, the point is moot and they don't belong in the template anyhow. --MonkeeSage 09:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with constant monitoring that the template doesn't turn into the POV witchhunt that the article Dominionism began as being. This phenomenon does exist, it just isn't mainstream. As I have said in the past, LaRouchites exist, but not in the same numbers as Republicans or Democrats, and their philosophy is encyclopedic, but with the annotation that it is not a widespread popular movement. Trotskyites exits, but they are not major contributors to liberal/left thought, at least not in the United States in 2006, and this is important to note. We should note that the mere act of giving Dominionism a template doesn't say that it is a huge movement or that it is equivalent in size, scope, or influence to evangelicalism or the Pentecostal movement or something along those lines. Rlquall 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By including people/groups who never used (or never would use) the title, and people/groups who would adamantly and successfully reject (to a fair-minded judge) the title, like ECPM, then it is already POV-pushing. What an encyclopedia this is turning out to be.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see the justification of the article Dominionism. As the existence of the term is verifiable. But this template, brings together a group of articles, some of which don't even mention the term. Some that mention it have no reliable sources. This goes against rational order. First, put all the relevant information in the relevant articles. Put proper reliable sources in each article. Then, if useful, have a template like this. Our readers must be perplexed when they follow a link on this template, and find nothing relevant. --Rob 21:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This kind of tripe is why WP:NOR exists. Tomertalk 10:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:No original research (many of the entries haven't been supported, and none are cited) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (whether of not most of the entries belong on the list is highly disputable, and is a matter that should only be addressed in article text, properly sourced and presenting both sides of the issue, not plain-facedly stated as fact in a nuance-lacking template). Plus it's realllly easy to link to all those pages without a template, and there aren't enough articles on Dominionism to warrant its use. -Silence 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as well as the blatant POV pushing categories associated. It's one thing to mention in an article that someone is accused of dominism (always by the left), but to put a group in a list of "domininst ogranizations, based on a fringe accusation, is so POV that I can't believe it's being proposed. Pollinator 00:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS policies support. After reviewing the dominionism sources, I find most of them reliable and able to support encyclopedic material. The template and the related category should exist based on verifiable encyclopedic content found in related articles. Wikipedia neutral point of view says that all significant points of view should be represented. Eliminating the dominionism template (and categories) would show a systemic bias against this particular philosophy. FloNight talk 10:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per the comments of SlimVirgin. It's a (fairly) widely used term, see Google (although the first hit today is Wikipedia's entry on the subject). --Plumbago 08:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Credible published sources both online and in print support informative and cohesive use of the term in Wikipedia. Larvatus 09:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
  • keep— Dunc|☺ 18:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough to me. Content/POV issues are of little concern regarding deletion. - RoyBoy 800 18:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. There is enough evidence that the term is actually used. The fact that being labelled as such may be considered as undesirable is not justification (by itself) to merit deletion.--CSTAR 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject to care in listing individuals, as Slim's comment. ..dave souza, talk 20:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Benin infobox

Template:Benin infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It was reformated to Template:Infobox Country form and updated. Single use template, out of date and no longer used. MJCdetroit 16:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete Circeus 01:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SS and Template:SO

Template:SS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:SO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ugh. Souped-up versions of {{support}} and {{oppose}} (see their TFD). Thankfully only the first of these is used, and in only one place, at present - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Please, never again! -- ALoan (Talk) 14:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Souped up" in this sense means that instead of having the picture and saying "support", it has the picture and says "strong support". Ditto for oppose. Recreation of previously deleted content - speedily deleted. Raul654 02:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comune

Template:Comune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm guessing this was someone's attempt to use the Italian version of the template. Obviously, it doesn't work (and I fixed all the articles that were using it), and Template:Infobox Italy town is the template this was intended to be. TimBentley (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYCS Culver templates

Template:NYCS Culver south express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver south local (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver south (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver center express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver center local (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:NYCS Culver local (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Templates has been phased out as part of a reworking of the template set regarding the New York City Subway system. Larry V (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep Circeus 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nndb name

Template:Nndb name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Spam generator. Linked to over 250 pages. Suggest all links removed and template deleted. brenneman{L} 01:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In what sense do you mean spam generator? Do you think they plan to have advertising in the future? I have to admit their information doesn't seem to be particularly reliable.--Larrybob 00:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is not the place to decide the quality of NNDB as a source. That may be discussed and, if it's determined that NNDB should no longer be cited as a source in articles then this template should be returned here for deletion. But deleting the template now will not stop users from citing the source. John Reid 02:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

April 12, 2006

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

The result of the debate was Delete Circeus

Template:Beastie Boys Albums

Template:Beastie Boys Albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Butt-ugly, unused, and covered by {{Beastie Boys}}. Circeus 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Pagrashtak 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RuneScapeVertical

Template:RuneScapeVertical (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete-- unused, completely replaced by Template:RuneScape. J.J.Sagnella 13:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Circeus

Template:Coordinates

Template:Coordinates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
delete -- unused, replaced by {{coor dms}} and {{coor title dms}}. --William Allen Simpson 08:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was relisted on correct date (April 18) --William Allen Simpson 04:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otheruses4

Was deleted last year under the name Template:Otherusesabout (see log, which is filed under "not deleted" as it was redirected to otheruses1). Was deleted because it opens with "This article is about..." which is (or at least really should be) a repeat of the first line of the article, and so is redundant. ed g2s • talk 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closing

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Closing

Holding cell

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)


If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

  • None currently

Infoboxes

  • None currently

Other

Meta

  • None currently

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

  • None currently
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=49366932"