Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jni (talk | contribs) at 10:23, 15 December 2004 (→[[Template:Ugly math]]: vote:keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Sometimes, we want to delete things in the Template namespace. This is particularly used for article series boxes that are either not noteworthy, are redundant with categories, or which have simply been orphaned. For guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable article series box, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. If you vote to keep a series box, be prepared to explain how it fulfills the criteria set up at this page,

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

Note that, in addition to voting "Keep" or "Delete," a valid vote on this page is "Convert to category." In this case, all pages with the template should be added to an appropriately named category, and the template should be deleted.

To list a template on this page, add it to the list below under the appropriate date. Link to it as [[Template:Insert template here]] instead of as {{Insert template here}}. When listing a template on this page, add {{tfd}} to the top of the template itself. This will add the following text to the template:

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

When adding this message to templates that are in the form of series boxes, the message should be placed inside the box, to make it clear what is being proposed for deletion. When being added to templates which have already been blanked, and are just sitting around as blanks, the message should be added to the template talk page. Again, do not blank templates to list them here - this is just if the template is already blank when you are listing it.

Articles that have been listed for more than one week are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objects to its deletion have been raised. Such templates should be dealt with as soon as possible. Archived discussions are located at /Log.

Votes for deletion (VfD) subpages: copyright problems -- images -- speedy deletions -- redirects -- categories -- templates

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log

Listings

Please put new listings under today's date at the bottom of the page.

November 27

Template:Arb

  • orphaned, limited usefulness. -- Netoholic @ 17:41, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
    • Keep. Convenient shortcut. Vacuum | tcw 16:43, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Mediawiki:Christianity/Template:Christianity

  • misuse of templates when categories system will suffice --Jiang 11:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • keep - Useful as a series box of sorts; better than trying to work through Category:Christianity. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 15:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't see a legitimate reason to keep here. How is it "useful"? There are grounds for deletion, as defined by the guidelines, in that there is no sort of linear order established. If the grouping were logical and coherent (which I dont believe it is), then this should be converted into a footer. What I see here is an abitrary listing of articles related to Christianity. This is what categories are designed for. --Jiang 02:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • It is a better order than the alphabetical of the category - historical bases, scripture, religions. It's the most important 9 articles on Christianity - so I guess it should be converted to a footer, but kept in any case. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 15:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Even though the template is not a linear sequence, it is much easier to navigate than the category. Josh 16:26, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - um, it's not even being used in Christianity. -- Netoholic @ 17:23, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
    • Delete agree with Netoholic. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • keep - a bit of a misuse of template, but informative, and a better layout than a category would afford. --ABQCat 22:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 1

Template:Terrorism

  • bizarre list of terrorist-related articles entirely from the point of view of the US. - Xed 18:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I fail to see any POV here. Grue 19:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - If you dispute certain items, take it to the talk page. This series box is quite well done. -- Netoholic @ 21:14, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
    • Keep, though I suggest if you find some things objectionable you edit to make the article more NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Is your prob with the contents of the article (which do need improving) or with the way they are linked up with the template - in which case how else would you link them? --JK the unwise 10:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep You can edit the template yourself, you know. Ashibaka tlk 13:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep US-centric? I see no POV issue here. The list looks very good to me. Mikeage 13:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Propose an alternative template if deletion is due. __earth 10:30, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Even if it's too US-centric, terrorism is a VERY valid issue. --Doctorcherokee 18:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I removed FBI Most wanted and U.S. State Dept. from the template. Hopefully now it is not as unbalanced. Josh 19:54, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • Josh - instead of removing them, should we have a category for "formal classifications" or something? If we have articles about other countries' lists, let's link there, if not, that's still not a US-centric problem with the template, but with the content in general. (Comment by Mikeage.)
        • That might work, although I'm not sure that we have articles about other countries' lists, and I do not know enough about the topic to write any. I'm sure most countries do have some sort of list. Also, one thing that I noticed lacking was that there is no list from Interpol [1] or other international organizations. Josh 22:18, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • By the way, if you would like to discuss this further, please use the template's talk page. I have copied this discussion to there. Josh 02:14, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: This has no chronological order and should really be a footer instead. --Jiang 07:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Template:Biology (and redirect at MediaWiki:Biology) - Unused and long-ago replaced with Template:Biology-footer and categories, which are doing a better job than this template. Rather than delete, though, I propose merging histories with the biology-footer, then delete redirects. -- Netoholic @ 22:54, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)


December 2

Template:-

  • Entire text of this is <br clear="all" />, not a very good use for templates. -- Netoholic @ 21:39, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
    • Keep - Actually a valid formatting use. Creates a line break without a blank line in between as wikisyntax does. Shorter, and easier, than the HTML. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 15:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - I made this template, because it seems more intuitive and easier to remember that writing the whole thing out. If someone wanted to enter the {{pic}} tag or the some other tag, but it was messing up the formatting, it's useful to be able to type {{-}} in front of it. See the template's talk page for more. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:49, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you created this on 28 Sep, and right now it's only being used in 8 articles. It's not listed anywhere helpful so that people know it's existence and Wikipedia:Extended image syntax does a much better treatment on image placement. While it is "nifty", it is just not something people will use. I'd be too worried that someone would change it it to use it in my article, and anyone that later comes to edit would see {{-}} and not know intuitively what it is or is doing. Template messages are for presenting text in a consistent format, not for kludging HTML code. -- Netoholic @ 18:01, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
    • I understand your hesitation Netoholic, but it is kind of useful. Keep --fvw* 07:32, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

December 3

Template:SwissEFTA

Template:La Francophonie

Template:Jazz

Template:Jazz top

Template:Ilcomment

Template:HonoursUK

Template:Holidays

Template:Gnunote

Template:Fylke

Template:Communitypage

Template:Behavior

Template:Land-grant university

  • should be a category instead of a space-hogging template. older≠wiser 19:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. Convert to Category:Land-grant universities. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 21:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree with the vote to convert to a category. The template is ugly and unwieldly. Steve Casburn 02:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • In it's shortened form (as of Dec 3, 21:35 UTC), it saves space at the bottom of each of the university pages. I still think the material is more suited to a category or list page, but have less objection to it now than I did. --ABQCat 21:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. There is a list page (sort of), see Land-grant university but no form of navigation for the university pages. I chose a template because it requires few clicks to go to another page and, now, it's size is nothing to lambast at. I propose those that vote to delete go through and change from the template to a category. That seems fair to me. :) Cburnett 21:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I would gladly do that. Delete. RADICALBENDER★ 22:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • And change all the pages that use it. Do that and I'll go for deleting the template. Cburnett 23:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Done and done. Template should be orphaned now. RADICALBENDER★ 17:17, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • A monstrosity. Nobody would ever need/want to use that as a navigational template or series box. Delete with haste. Just noticed it and was coming here to nominate it for deletion myself. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 23:22, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Makes a good category that serves a useful purpose, but the template is bloated and I think its utility would be limited. --Chan-Ho Suh 00:13, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Terminate with extreme prejudice! (in other words, Delete) Ugly, ugly, ugly!! No template that crowded should have any place in Wikipedia. Dale Arnett 02:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Just curious here for my future reference, but does using big words and phrases like "extreme prejudice" mean your vote is worth more? Cburnett

December 4

Template:R from alternate language and/or alternate spelling

  • more deserving of "monstrosity". --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ]] 01:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Useless with both Template:R from alternate language and Template:R from alternate spelling. delete. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 06:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, but can we combine all thes "R from xxx" templates into one concise one? -- Netoholic @ 07:02, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
      • Maybe something like Template:R to English title? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 07:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree that this one template should be deleted (as there are more specific versions at R from alt lang and R from alt spell), but I think the disambiguation of different redirects is useful; I would strongly oppose any such move. — OwenBlacker 20:38, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
        • I think what Netoholic means is to produce a parameterised template, something like {{R because|reason=alternate language|category=alternate languages}}. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 09:29, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
          • A parameterised "R because" template would make it more diffcult to export to other formats while ignoring some redirects. For example, having separate "R from alternate spelling" and "R from misspelling" templates makes it possible to create a Tomeraider version of Wikipedia that includes redirects from alternative spellings, but excludes redirects from misspellings. —23:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 5

Template:Keydrive internals key

  • a mistake intended for caption cleverness on keydrive but made redundant even before it was used. Oops! -- John Fader 01:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


December 7

Template:AustFairdealing

  • Wikipedia is under U.S. federal law, not Australian law. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 03:02, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC) (Vote re-started at 01:29, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC))
    • Comment: This template was deleted by User:Neutrality without abiding the one week time period on TFD. After restoration, the vote has been re-started and will run for one week. -- Netoholic @ 01:29, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
  • True, but this could be a helpful guideline for Australian reusers. It should note that it is only a guideline and that WP is under U.S./Florida law. Guanaco 01:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow, I forgot about this template! Guys, we need to delete it. My understanding of my own countries fair dealing laws was incorrect. I do have a comment for Neutrality, however. Let's say for instance this was actually correct and we mirrored Wikipedia in Australia (as many seem to do) then the database would no longer be under U.S. federal law, but be under Australian law. So, the argument is invalid, even though I agree the template needs to be removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:HSR

Convert to category and delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 01:15, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. - I agree with point Fishal makes. It is a quick and easy way to navigate between the different characters. Hoekenheef 20:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I agree with the above comment. Now there are more keep votes than delete votes.
  • Keep, but Rename -- I don't mind the use of the template tools to help better organize a category, but "HSR" is an abbreviation that may cause conflict in the future. I would suggest moving the template to Template:HomestarChar or something that's relatively simple but unique. --Alexwcovington 23:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Fishal - it is a very handy way of navigating through the Homestar Runner characters. --[[User:Mr. Strong Bad|Mr. Strong Bad/wp talk | hrwiki talk]] 04:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 8

Template:Stubble

It seems to be Template:Stub rewritten in Yoda-speak. It also seems redundant and unnecessary. —No-One Jones 06:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete ... and slap User:Stevertigo upside the head for creating it. -- Netoholic @ 08:11, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
  • Move to BJAON and delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 21:47, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete and BJAODN. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 00:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 9

Template:Ugly math

I don't see the point of slapping this hideous orange box on top of articles that the reader can already tell are full of difficult and abstract math, and the link to a less complex article which it provides could just as easily be handled with an ordinary cross-reference. —No-One Jones 00:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • delete with extreme prejudice - as NOJ said, and POV too. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 00:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but it does raise the issue that math articles need a good explanation. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently POV. If an article is too highbrow, don't tag it -- list it on a relevant Wikiproject (math, crypto, etc.) talk page and/or fix it yourself. CryptoDerk 02:39, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep IF reworded. Although I agree it needs rewording, the issue is quite common, people who write technically at times dont explain well. Maybe a more general "this is technically poorly explained and needs to be rewritten" instead? FT2 21:47, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and reword as necessary. Linking to a different article is very helpful if the reader will have no chance of understanding the current article. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ]] 21:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, preferably with some rewording --TexasDex 22:18, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • What? Even if it would be reworded, its title is still POV. The fact that the article is full of cryptic formulas doesn't mean that the math involved is "ugly". The whole concept of that template must be changed and it would be better if we just delete this one. Grue 07:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely hilarious. Delete. —Ashley Y 15:43, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stating an article needs cleanup is a point of view, as is stating it's not NPOV. These are not valid reasons for deleting those templates. Pure lumps of mathematics are not good encyclopedia copy; check the two articles it's listed on. That kind of stuff needs a honking big orange box. I'd be willing to agree to removing the formula at the top even though I think it adds a certain charm. --fvw* 17:38, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
  • Keep, but reword. I think categorization is good, so why not categorize the "cleanup" messages? Nevertheless, it certainly needs some cleanup itself — when I first saw it I thought it was vandalism! --Pt 23:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I swear, Eequor acts so randomly sometimes. -- Netoholic @ 03:11, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
  • keep with super, extreme prejudice I can't begin to count the number of >$100 texts that are poorly written mathematically and I'm talking graduate level texts here. To think wikipedia can't suffer the same fate is putting on rose-colored glasses. I don't agree with the method this template gets the point across, but that can easily be solved by rewriting it. Once again I find wikipedians are quick to delete something that just takes a bit of time to improve. Has nothing to do with highbrow, abstract, or difficult math, just poor authorship. So keep and reword. If this gets deleted I'm putting Template:Attention & Template:Cleanup up for vfd because they are no different than Template:Ugly math in terms of functionality. This template just points out the mathemematics need attention and not the whole article. Cburnett 18:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason for deleting a proper cleanup template. jni 10:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Gallipoli battles and Template:Sinai and Palestine Campaign battles

Footer templates replaced by Template:Campaignbox Gallipoli and Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine respectively. Geoff/Gsl 22:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Absolutely oppose the Gallipoli one. Don't know about the other. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • What possible use do you have for it? It's been replaced and is no longer used. If it makes it any clearer, I created these a while back but since then the standard for describing campaign chronology has changed so they are obsolete. Geoff/Gsl 23:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Gsl... Please split this into two distinct sections, so we can vote on these separately.
    • They are both the same thing. They have both been replaced for the same reason. They are both obsolete for the same reason. You can't possibly have any reason for keeping one and not the other. This was just meant to be a housekeeping request. Should I have just taken this straight to an adminstrator rather than put it up for voting? Geoff/Gsl 01:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, delete. Gsl has it. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 23:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 12

Template:Seecat

Merge with Template:Categoryredirect, per Template talk:Seecat. -- Beland 09:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:Merge :Category:Nobel laureates

Unused. Thue | talk 11:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Seems to have outlived its use is some project circa November 16. delete. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 04:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 13

Template:D

Holding Cell

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (Admin or otherwise) should remove them from pages so that they can be deleted. If you've cleared a page, note it here.

Remove Entirely

Convert to category

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=8454637"