Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/April 2005

September 2004

Template:Liberalism related I suspect this is around because it's a distant cousin of Template:Liberalism. Since it only has one link, it's really no more useful than a category, and it's only on a few articles anyway. --Twinxor 05:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I made this template, but agree with deletion. --Gangulf 10:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- delete, useless--Jia ng 22:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Deleted: 3-0 consensus, including original template author. • Benc • 21:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Template:Influential western philosophers - The very definition of "tailor made for categories," this box is an oversized mess. Snowspinner 17:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- delete misuse of templates. --Jia ng 20:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is in a chronological order and cannot be replaced by a category. What's a "mess" about it? Gzornenplatz 20:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  - The box is oversized to the point of no longer actually carrying useful information. Snowspinner 20:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  - It can easily be replaced by a list of western philosophers. Listing is rather arbitary --Jia ng 00:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete; replace with category and an article with chronology and explanation. ✏ Sverdrup 11:30, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Exactly what Sverdrup said, --[[User:Sunborn|metta, The Sunborn ☸]] 15:20, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with category - it's a natural category, per the policy - David Gerard 18:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. More useful than a category or list, even if less exhaustive and fair. Ideas for abridging the template were discussed at the Talk page, and I offered more than one suggestion - I don't see why it's necessary to put up a vote when a simple look at the suggestions and their implementation would quickly solve the 'problem'. But then this is Wikipedia... -- Simonides 13:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Convert to a list. It is really getting oversized, and it is too arbitrary for a category (flammable), but it is still useful sometimes. --Oop 14:20, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and convert to a list. Oversized and arbitrary indeed. --Edcolins 10:51, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's doing the job of a category or a list. You can't actually find anything in this huge mess. --ZeroOne 17:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:Googletest This is a silly template (it pits two searches together on http://googlefight.com ) and is not in use. --Twinxor 00:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's useful for comparing relative usage of two words. If you know a less silly website that does the same thing, you're welcome to change the template. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 00:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - I disagree. This seems like a rather rare situation – it's not in use anywhere and it's hard to think of a realistic case where Google hits would be a meaningful source. Furthermore, as implemented it does not seem to be much quicker than just entering the terms yourself at googlefight.com. --Twinxor 06:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Clearly it isn't for the benefit of the person adding it, but for subsequent editors. It isn't in use because it's new, and it may not be well-known that there is a template implementing this feature. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 22:05, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. People can go to the website if they want to do that. Snowspinner 01:00, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  - People can also go to http://www.google.com/ if they want to search for a particular phrase, yet Template:Google exists. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 22:05, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Completely pointless object and violation of any policy I know of on the subject. (Other bad templates still don't make this a good template.) Delete - David Gerard 23:32, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Why would I put a template on a page simply for giving me a link? I'd rather go and manually type it in to googlefight. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It should not be used in the article namespace. If created to be used in Wikipedia:, then keep. Else delete. ✏ Sverdrup 15:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I use GoogleFight all the time to make important points about the relative importance of words and spellings. I didn't know this template existed and now that I do, I plan to use it instead of particular links to Googlefight. I agree it is of no use in the article namespace, but it is invaluable in the Talk namespace and perhaps the Wikipedia namespace. For example, I used Googlefight links extensively on Talk:Kiev. Nohat 02:01, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Eequor can move the concept to their user space (as a subpage?) if its needed for personal use. -- Netoholic @ 21:05, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

October 2004

Template:Test6 - doesn't fit into the trend established in previous test messages, and borders on nonsense. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:55, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
- Delete and BJAODN. • Benc • 03:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep because it... because... because I say so! --Node 10:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- BJAODN, with contextual explanation of the other /Template:Test\d/ messages. Note the D in BJAODN. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 15:58, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
- BJAODL. →Raul654 05:04, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Template:VfD entry - a template created (by me) prior to the latest restructuring of VfD, which turned out to be unusable because parameters don't work with subst. — Gwalla | Talk 23:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Pity. Delete. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 15:45, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Template:Keep - blanked by originator. RickK 06:47, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 15:45, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
- Since this seems like a newbie test, probably can be speedy-ed. -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Template:IsMnCOTW - trolling. RickK 06:01, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. How is this trolling? Absent context, it looks like a perfectly good template to me. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 15:45, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
- Comment: I see that this could be construed as a troll, but please provide evidence that it is one, rather than just a pet project that hasn't taken off yet. --Twinxor 23:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Micronation Collaboration of the Week. RickK 00:15, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
    - ... I don't quite understand why you're listing this separately here. I mean, yes, it should be deleted, even if only because it's going to be an orphanless template after the main deletion goes through -- but won't that deletion just take place from VfD proper, along with the rest of the MCotW entries? --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 05:37, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
      - No, the VfD listing is only for the article and not for the accompanying template. Rick K 19:07, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
    - Indeed. Delete. --Twinxor 07:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:Definition of - originally thought to be used for in-line definitions, but not very flexible. Better served by just creating the links manually as needed. -- Netoholic @ 16:20, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
As creator of template, no argument. —siro χ o 20:40, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Template:Google - Maybe this is just a pet-peeve of mine, but "Search Google for <name>" is not in my mind a legitimate "External Link" to be included in an article, and that seems to be primarily what this template it for. Why don't I think it is legitimate OR a good idea? Because 1. the results are NOT often useful or anything we'd necessarily want to send people off to (Google bomb, anyone?) by default (External Links should only be for "approved" sites relating to the topic), 2. it privileges one search engine over many others for no real good reason (not that I don't use Google for everything either, but as a matter of principle it's a little silly), 3. if somebody wanted to search for the topic in google, they certainly could have done that already if they could have searched for it in Wikipedia (i.e. it is pointless, useless, redundant). A legitimate external link might be for the page creator to use google, find a decent link, and then put it into the article. Just pointing to Google is a cop-out, and one which can easily lead to Wikipedia willingly pointing people to completely false information. Okay, got that off my chest, willing to hear what others think about it. Examples of pages with this are of course available here. My gripes here do NOT necessarily apply to Google Category/Directory/Group links, which are often good external links. I also see that some people use this as a functional category for Talk disputes, VfD, etc. I don't have a problem with that, clearly, but only with it being used in articles, but I'd like to see if I could reach some sort of consensus before I murderously go purging Google searchs from Exteral Links. --Fastfission 15:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree; delete. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 03:55, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be deleted. People can search Google for themselves. [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 04:20, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. --Oop 23:05, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - templates used just to create simple external links are quite poor. With all of these hitting the bin, I think we're close to being able to set this as policy. -- Netoholic @ 18:43, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Template:Sex is flat-out ridiculous. There are those to whom a display of anything beyond the face and wrists is immodest and offensive; are we going to put this message on any article that contains an image with such a display? —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support deletion.--[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, delete. -- Netoholic @ 00:57, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
- Delete. →Raul654 00:58, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Gzornenplatz 01:02, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Cantus 01:08, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Surely this is useful. There's a warning on Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, for example, but it seems like it would be better to have it standardized. Yes, it would be hard to determine what merits the warning and what doesn't, but that's not an excuse to not try, IMO. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 01:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  - Applauds --Cantus 01:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, DELETE, DELETE. Is Cantus John Ashcroft in disguise? Or, now that I think of it, why not simply drape all images of vaginas, penis, and clitorises in Wiki with a burkah -- they'll still be there, but they will be shielded from innocent or offended eyes. Maybe we could bring in an Mullah or two to give us expert guideance on these sensitive matters....Hayford Peirce 02:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - (That's uncalled-for, Hayford.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:08, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  - But this is not a forum to share your favorite sex pictures :) --Cantus 02:10, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Strong delete. I've given arguments against such templates before so i'll summarize them here: It will cause useless revert wars, and its not our responsibility to warn people about the content. Its a bad direction for Wikipedia to head. —siro χ o 06:51, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice.--Eloquence *
- Delete. Endless arguability gives birth to senseless edit/flame wars. --Oop 23:09, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. If images in an article would not be shown on daytime TV so as not to shock younger viewers, then this article requires a warning. Do any of the votes have children, by any chance? JFW | T@lk 16:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This cannot shock younger viewers unless their parents hit them when they ask waht it is. Wikipedia should not endorse bad parenting.--Jirate 17:44, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
- delete. users should use wikipedia at own risk. this is alreay covered in the general disclaimers --Jia ng 09:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:Inuse30, Template:Inuse60, Template:Inuse90, Template:Inuse120 - Looking to deprecate these in favor of Template:Inusefor (used as {{inusefor|time (message)}}, as shown on Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance. New template is more extensible, and I've rarely seen these Inusexx templates used anywhere. -- Netoholic @ 05:38, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
If these do end up being deleted, there are also some leftover redirects, like MediaWiki:Inuse30, which can go as well. Check each template's "What links here". -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
- Delete. Obsoleted by superior new template. —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as above --Phil | Talk 10:39, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as above --Alphax (talk) 15:50, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Template:Working - i dont see the point of this. Every article is work in progress. --Jiang 22:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- And we have Template:Inuse and template:Inusefor anyway. Delete. —No-One Jones ^(m) 23:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: particularly pointless since it practically incites edit conflicts. --Phil | Talk 10:38, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete --Alphax (talk) 15:55, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, pointless. Appears to have been created to discourage speedy deletion of the creator's stubs. --Michael Snow 03:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:AyB - nonsense. RickK 23:03, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- It's patent nonsense. Speedily delete it. →Raul654 23:04, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)