Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jag123 (talk | contribs)
5,113 edits
Feb 19th - Phys-stub
Jag123 (talk | contribs)
5,113 edits
Line 293: Line 293:
**Renaming for categories are done at [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion]]. I didn't know templates, or specifically stub categories, are dealt with different procedures. Thank you for telling. — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 11:52, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
**Renaming for categories are done at [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion]]. I didn't know templates, or specifically stub categories, are dealt with different procedures. Thank you for telling. — [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 11:52, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. --[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas ]] | [[User_talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 08:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. --[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas ]] | [[User_talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 08:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Agree with Grutness. --[[User:Jag123|jag123]] 17:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

=== February 19 ===
=== February 19 ===
==== [[Template:Phys-stub]] ====
==== [[Template:Phys-stub]] ====

Revision as of 17:39, 19 February 2005

This page is in need of admin attention to resolve old requests. Please remove this notice once this has been done.

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

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

  • is not helpful or noteworthy;
  • is redundant with categories, lists, or other mechanisms;
  • or is simply unused.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Archived discussions are located at /Log/Deleted and /Log/Not deleted.


Listings

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



February 2

Template:Darwin

Classic template overkill. Why should Natural selection link to Darwin, Australia?--Pharos 15:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete the template. Instead, there should be a category for "Topics related to Evolution" Johntex 22:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 00:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but edit. The genealogy stuff should be removed and probably put into a separate Darwin genealogy template (which could end up being huge). I would also edit out the links to evolution (it's duplicated in the Evolution template), plus natural selection and sexual selection. BlankVerse 12:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Add anything appropriate that isn't already in the Charles Darwin article into the "See also" section (and to any other appropriate articles) and then delete BlankVerse 05:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Convert to Category, and create a separate page for the organized genealogy information (I'm not sure a template is needed or best for that). But I wish this had been discussed on Talk:Charles Darwin beforehand. --Fastfission 16:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I put a notice on the template talk page on Jan. 26 and figured whoever was following the template would see it. If a similar situation arises again, I'll surely spread the notice more widely. There is already quite a comprehensive page for the Darwin -- Wedgwood family. I think the other stuff should just be mentioned on the Charles Darwin page, and elsewhere as appropriate.--Pharos 09:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Convert to list Both templates and categories are bad ways to handle this. If anything, this can be a topic list. -- Netoholic @ 17:23, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
  • Delete thoroughly. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 20:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep -- What's wrong with this? These are very important navigational aids. Create a catagory too if you wish, but this is very nice on those pages. See Jesus or Strong Bad. Both have bars linking to related pages and probably both have catagories (or should). The bar is nice and adds content. I see no reason to delete something useful. -SocratesJedi | Talk 16:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I dislike this because it makes all the articles it is attached to look like they are second in importance to this 'great man', particularly the biographical articles which are of people important in their own right, not just because of their connection to Darwin. Also it looks a bit tacky. --Mr impossible 12:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - SimonP 23:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a job for categories. Fredrik | talk 18:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete possible convert to list or categories. --Jiang 22:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


February 8

Template:Cities of são paulo

Maaan but this is a big template. Can you say "Category"? Probably with accompany "List of..." article because of the (200!) red links on the template Grutness|hello? 04:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Now

A template that just displays the current time. Barely any usage on Wikipedia. Delete. Andros 1337 03:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. What's wrong with ~~~~~? I would be willing to change my vote if some explains why this is useful. – flamurai (t) 04:35, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • ~~~~~ gives the time when an edit is saved. Template:Now gives the time whan a page is loaded. Compare: "The current date and time is 20 October 2024 T 20:59 UTC." with "23:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)". Not the same thing at all. (Yes, I know there is a mess caused by the tfd box.) --Henrygb 23:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) I did not quite say that right, but the pointed is that ~~~~~ gets translated into a particular time and date while Template:Now will change in the future. --Henrygb 00:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not useful as a template, but it would be useful to have some way other than the five tildes to see what day it is, say. Not as silly as you think - it's necessary for the various deletion pages to know what day it is, and UTC changes in the middle of the day here, and at odd times of the day or night for many other people. I think I'll suggest something of the sort on the Village Pump, in fact... oh, but this template gets a weak delete - it may be that this is the method by which the problem is solved. Simply put the template at the top of the various tfd/cfd/vfd pages. Grutness|hello? 05:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it could have some use. Grue 06:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I was going to say 'oh, we can just use the CURRENTTIME, CURRENTMONTHNAME, etc. template, but then I found myself in a situation where I really wanted to use this template. Can be a real handy time-saver. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 11

Template:IKantWrite

Mostly red links, organized semi-randomly. While they could be ordered chronologically, this would be better served by a "preceded by/followed by" box, and, really, what this topic wants is an article on the works of Immanuel Kant that can make clear their relations, as what you really want is to divide it into aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and politics, and then to have the works there highlighting the major critical works and the more minor essays, and explaining which ones are restatements of which, which ones follow which, etc. In either case, the way to do this is manifestly not this template. Snowspinner 13:48, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree entirely. Good title, though... Grutness|hello? 02:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 13

Template:Timeline CGI in movies

This was an attempt to produce an illustrative timeline for Timeline of CGI in movies. However, that article has evolved into a different format - a table with illustrations, so this timeline is no longer useful. Please delete. Paranoid 20:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Was originally listed on VFD, but seems like nothing happened. I'm listing it here as was suggested on the VfD page. As page history displays, User:Paranoid both created the first version and added the VfD tag. Probably wasn't aware of how to delete a template. Delete. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 10:31 Z Delete. Unused. – flamurai (t) 19:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Delete unused redirect

Title misleading about reasons to delete redirects. Being "unused" (ie no inbound links) is generally NOT a reason to delete a redirect. Redirs are for common misspellings and alternate phrasings and capitalizations. Currently has been applied to a bunch of redirs created by moves that probably shouldn't be deleted because if one person used that phrasing, there are probably others. Template:Redirects with no target would be valid, but after the recent collaboration to get rid of them, probably wouldn't be used often enuf to justify the template. Niteowlneils 17:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: unused but meaningful redirects are helpful so this template should not be used. It also disrupts redirects. --Henrygb 18:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, though possibly renamed or reworded. I created and used it in response to User talk:SPUI#Adminship -- Suggestion. It only disrupts redirects that are not being used, and that would not be idly typed. They only existed because of earlier naming conventions, and right now simply make it harder to move the articles when the naming conventions change. By the way, I just added {{tfd}} to the template; if I didn't have this page already on my watchlist I wouldn't have known about the proposed deletion. --SPUI (talk) 18:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry I forgot to tag it. I strenuously disagree with Cecropia's belief they should be deleted--if someone thot the article belonged at that title, another might, and leaving redirects at the alternate titles prevents accidental article duplication. Given that, so few redirs should be deleted that it seems like they can be handled using {deletebecause}. IMHO, most, if not all of the redirs currently using this template need to have their double/tripleness fixed, not deleted. Niteowlneils 20:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • This does use {{db}}; I simply made a template to make personal use of that one easier. I really don't see anyone typing in 125th Street (New York Subway); it would be either 125th Street or 125th Street Station, both of which would give the proper articles if search is up, and both of which are way to ambiguous for anything else. More likely is that someone would realize that there are so many different ways to name them and would instead type in New York City Subway or one of its redirects and go from there. --SPUI (talk) 12:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The subway redirects are short term usages created while hashing out style. Sometimes we simply need to do housekeeping to keep the number of useless redirects in the database from muddying the question of why these redirects were created in the first place, and why they should be eliminated. The deleted subway redirects:
    • Have nothing pointing to them, so won't break any redirect chains
    • Are extremely unlikely to be typed, as they're awkward
    • Are not being removed "politically"--i.e., to further a political point-of-viw
  • IOW, if those who know why the redirects were created in the first place, and know why they are obsolete don't do it, it will never be done. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK. So someone adds 14th Street-Union Square IRT Lexington Avenue Line station. A natural place to move/merge it might be 14th Street (New York City Subway) (the word "station" is often not used in articles for similar topics in other cities [eg Tung Chung (MTR)]). Under your plan, that doesn't exist so it goes there. Leaving the redir points them to 14th Street (New York City Subway station). Redirs are cheap--why delete potentially useful ones? Niteowlneils 19:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Because they're a pain in the ass to deal with when moving pages. Why do we not have an option to automatically eliminate double redirects? By the way, the word 'station' is added because a few names in station names also describe other aspects of the subway, like Brooklyn Bridge (over which two BMT tracks used to run). --SPUI (talk) 19:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirs created by moves have no effect on page moves unless they've been editted, which you only caused by adding speedy tags. Niteowlneils 19:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirs created by moves don't change when you move again. Create User:Niteowlneils/movetest. Move it somewhere, and then move that one. If I'm not on crack, User:Niteowlneils/movetest will have to be edited to fix the double redir. --SPUI (talk) 21:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, double redirs require manual correction. I thot you were referring to moving back over the redir. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Niteowlneils 21:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and the redirect Template:Dur. We only need Template:Deletebecause if one needs to provide reasons for a speedy deletion. As a side note, none of these subway redirects is a speedy delete, and should have gone to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. -- Netoholic @ 18:53, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on the reason listed in the template, those redirects wouldn't be speediable because of the subjective standard "is not useful". Anything that uses this template should go to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. – flamurai (t) 19:05, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm probably not going to fix Category:New York City Subway stations that share a name, at least not for a while. I'm not going to fix these double redirects either; the necessity of fixing them is fairly ridiculous when one considers that it shouldn't be too hard to add an option to automatically fix them. So whoever deletes this needs to fix the double redirects, while I'm off doing something useful. --SPUI (talk) 19:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dbl redirs fixed in 31 minutes, including a cigarette break and unrelated edits. Niteowlneils 20:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's nothing wrong with {{db|it's a pointless redirect.}}. — MikeX (talk) 20:46, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
    That's what this is. --SPUI (talk) 21:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes... that's why there's very little point to this template. Were I given to silliness, I might suggest that this will eventually lead to the creation and use of templates like {{LetterA}} producing 'A'. — MikeX (talk) 05:22, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

February 14

Template:A1 and friends

(A1, A2, A3, A4, E1, E2, E3, E4, I1, I2, I3, I4, O1, O2, O3, O4, U1, U2, U3, U4, and their corresponding MediaWiki: redirects.)

Each of these creates a different diaretic character, but no articles use them, probably since it's easier to just use the clickable characters below the edit box. Goplat 16:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all - you beat me to it. -- Netoholic @ 18:42, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Agreed. – flamurai (t) 19:09, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Since they now appear at the bottom of every page, this seems quite redundant. Niteowlneils 19:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Redundant. jni 13:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Nycsubwaydisambig

Overly specialized; puts disambig msg on top, before the useful info. The world does not revolve around NYC (despite its residents' contrary opinion). Niteowlneils 19:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems that redirs to Template:NYCS disambig, which is included in this nomination. Niteowlneils 21:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Deletebecauseoncommons

(and redirect at Template:dbc)

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

  • Keep - it should be encouraged to upload files to commons under the same name, to avoid having to change the articles. And there's no reason {{NowCommons}} shouldn't be like this one (which I created not knowing of NowCommons's existence, if it existed at the time). --SPUI (talk) 22:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, but we already have templates to handle this. This one is redundant with those established ones. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

February 15

Template:CamNotice

A variation on the now deleted Template:CamTanNotice that exists mostly to make a Wikiproject's internal "standards of quality" sound like some sort of binding policy. Snowspinner 00:56, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • It's also hideously ugly. Delete. — MikeX (talk) 05:17, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP First of all, the complaint is being made by Snowspinner. Second, all templates can be edited, just like an article. Hence, anything offensive can be changed. Third, it is starndard part of projects to disply a notice in the talk page. Nothing unique to this project about project notices in the talk page. Don't like the look, then change it. -- John Gohde 10:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Since when is the nominator a reason to vote keep or delete? Snowspinner 15:29, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe that the obvious answer is patterns of behavior of the nominator. -- John Gohde 14:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 19:54, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
  • delete, inappropriate --Jiang 20:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, maybe it should be reworded to be more similar to the other such Wikiproject talk page notices? (Abstain from vote) --Sketchee 05:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template:February 26

(also the redirect MediaWiki:February 26) Old duplicate of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 26. Goplat 00:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 19:54, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. jni 06:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Netherlands

Unused. It was tagged speedy, but templates aren't candidates, so I'm listing it here. dbenbenn | talk 18:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 19:54, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. jni 13:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:CamRequiredNotice

Yet another CAM box, redundant with CamNotice and CamTanNotice. What on Earth does it mean to be a required part of a project? Snowspinner 18:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 19:54, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
  • Ugly templates must die. Delete. — MikeX (talk) 20:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP First of all, the complaint is being made by Snowspinner. Second, all templates can be edited, just like an article. Hence, anything offensive can be changed. Third, it is starndard part of projects to disply a notice in the talk page. Nothing unique to this project about project notices in the talk page. Don't like the look, then change it. John Gohde 21:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most Cam project notices have been made redundant with the category option. Perhaps John can think of a more generic way of linking articles to the Wikiproject. JFW | T@lk 21:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Project notices exist in order to attract editors to the project. -- John Gohde 22:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 16

Template:Politics of Taiwan

This template should be renamed Template:Politics of the Republic of China. Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate.". — Instantnood 19:39, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

    • By nominating I support renaming. — Instantnood 19:41, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
  • Plase be consequent with the dicussion at the move Politics of China page. (I oppose there).Gangulf 20:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most people would be confused about the term "Republic of China", which is hardly ever used. Use the more common and the only generally understood term, jguk 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "Taiwan" is not an accurate and NPOV title. If one gets confused it just a few clicks to double check at the relevant artices on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 20:00, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is an Wikipedia internal matter and has no effect on the content of articles. I dont see what would be gained by moving this.--Jiang 04:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really. If the title is not renamed I will proposed to remove contents not related to the island or the province of Taiwan, and to add brief contents about politics of Taiwan during Japanese occupation, the Qing era, the Cheng Ch'eng Kung era, and the early colonisation by Dutch and Portuguese, with the politics sections in history of Taiwan as the main articles. — Instantnood 11:20, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

February 17

Template:Hawaiian

This template is not used in any article right now, which would imply that the "Hawaiian NPOV dispute" is either dead or just hitting a dry spot. Either way, it doesn't seem like a template like this is the best way to handle this type of dispute. Szyslak 08:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Rename

Inferior to and redundant with Template:Move. "rename" is just another name for "move". This template is only being used by one user--its creator. Delete the related category too--Jiang 20:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect if only to prevent recreation by someone else caught unawares. Move and Rename are both correct terms. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • Oppose, see comment below. — Instantnood 17:49, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Jiang would you mind showing the evidence that this template is only used by OwenBlacker who created it at 23:33, Jul 5 2004? — Instantnood 17:51, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
    • That's not a argument against redunandacy. Why not redirect and merge the categories? --Jiang 18:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I opposed because of possibly inaccurate information by the nominator. I might cross my vote out if it got settled. — Instantnood 19:16, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
        • crossed out. please provide a legitimate reason for opposing--Jiang 21:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • First it is not anybody's obligation to provide reasons to satisfy your standard of legitimacy. Second please verify your arguments before listing them out.
            To my understanding the two templates are not redundant or overlapping, whatever you call it. The two templates are also not inferior to each other. The rename template serves as an notice that they is such a proposal, and readers can discuss with it at the discussion page, or should at least be aware of the accuracy of the title and the scope of the content of the article. It is not the same as a vote for renaming/moving, like what the move template is functioning as. — Instantnood 22:55, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
            • If it's just a proposal, then the tag should not be necessary. People dont stick up tags every time they post something on the talk page. It just makes the article ugly. If it is to be discussed, then I dont see why we should be circumventing Wikipedia:Requested moves or else that page should not exist at all. I see the difference in procedure, but I dont see the difference in intended result and therefore the necessity to have a different procedure. --Jiang 23:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • With this notice added, readers can be aware of the accuracy of the title, and the scope of the content of the article or category. Whether such article or categories should be put forward to Wikipedia:Requested moves or Wikipedia:Categories for deletion depends on the relevant conventions, and will be subjected to lengthy discussion. In other words the two templates have different functions. — Instantnood 23:36, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
                • If the title is "inaccurate" then why not just go ahead demand that it be moved? If there's something confusing in the content, we add a disambiguation notice or make it obvious in the intro. I really dont see how this is necessary when we dont otherwise tag articles just to discuss something. This template is hideous and certainly isnt inciting lengthy discussion. Putting it on requested moved (for articles) or categories for deltion (for categories) does, however, promote discussion and is much more effective.--Jiang 04:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                  • The proposed new title of many of these articles or categories are vacant, and the renaming could be done by clicking the "move" button on the top of the page. Whether they should be renamed depends on the naming conventions and perhaps the ongoing discussions. I know the title of the two templates look alike, but the two templates do not have the same function at the time being. — Instantnood 11:05, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

Template:Move to Wikipedia

A joke? -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

  • Delete, we should really be able to speedy nonsense like this. I wonder if a patent nonsense claim would be acceptable for junk like this... -Frazzydee|✍ 23:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 18

Template:CompactTOCwithnumbers

(and redirect at MediaWiki:CompactTOCwithnumbers)

Completely redundant with Template:CompactTOC, and badly named. -- Netoholic @ 07:55, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Template:CompactTOCwithnumbers2

(and redirect at MediaWiki:CompactTOCwithnumbers2)

Completely redundant with Template:CompactTOC2, and badly named. -- Netoholic @ 07:55, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Template:Taiwan-stub

(and the category Category:Taiwan-related stubs)

The flag of the Republic of China (ROC) is used in this template, and the articles linked to it can be ROC-related. Taiwan is not an accurate and NPOV terms to refer to the ROC, for neither the island of Taiwan nor the province of Taiwan covers 100% of ROC's territories.
Suggestions: rename as Template:ROC-stub (or Template:Republic of China-stub), or spliting into Template:ROC-stub and Template:Taiwan-stub.
(see also relevant discussions at Wikipedia:Requested moves) — Instantnood 19:20, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

  • By nominating I support renaming as Template:ROC-stub. — Instantnood 19:21, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose The term ROC is not commonly used (at least outside the US). Most people would just find it confusing. Keep with the less-confusing name (and change the flag if you wish!) jguk 19:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • "Taiwan" is not an accurate and NPOV title. And I don't think the wikipedians who have set up the conventions and placed the ROC article at Republic of China (but not Taiwan) are all from the states. — Instantnood 19:26, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Neutral Calling "Taiwan" as a term to be POV is just like calling "Hong Kong" a POV. That template only needs to change the current logo into a logo with Taiwan island. I have been trying to look for a proper sized logo for that replacement. Does the template of China-sub imply all the Chinese people are Lizard? Certainly not. Is every single Chinese are Han and thus the decendence of the Dragon? Nope. Taiwan stub does not have to cover everything that has to be covered in Taiwan island. It only needs to cover Taiwan-realted topics. By your suggestion to enforce the NPOV policy upon Taiwan without pratical ambiguity, we might need to apply the same standard upon the China-stub too.Mababa 20:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Should stubs about Quemoy, Matsu and perhaps Pratas and Taiping be added the tag {{Taiwan-stub}}? — Instantnood 20:49, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
      • I would stand neutral if it split into ROC and Taiwan. Still, please also note that Taiwan is a name more representitive than ROC in all aspect. If we want to confuse people and make readers not able to recognize the political entity based on Taiwan, replacing Taiwan with ROC is the way to go.Mababa 07:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • "Taiwan" fails to represent the entirety of the territories under ROC's control. — Instantnood 11:13, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
  • Suppot. ROC is shorter and more accurate. Neutralitytalk 21:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: That is only three letter shorter and not necessarily more accurate. I remember there are ~20 countries' name could be shortened as ROC.Mababa 07:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Would you mind giving some examples? The only one I could name is Republic of the Congo. — Instantnood 11:14, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
  • strongly oppose. 1) Category:Taiwan-related stubs is a subcategory if Category:Taiwan. Taiwan is by far the more widely known name for the country/province. 2) By referring to it by its official name of "Republic of China", there will be more confusion, since the China People's Republic is also a "Republic of China". Grutness|hello? 23:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Courtland 23:59, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Viriditas | Talk 00:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:China-stub

(and the category Category:China-related stubs)

Currently it covers stubs of both mainland China-related topics and China-related topics. The former deals with articles of mainland China (i.e. People's Republic of China (PRC) excluding Hong Kong and Macao), and the latter deals with things about China in general, such as historical events, calligraphy, etc.

The suggestion is to split the template into two, with the titles Template:China-stub and Template:Mainland China-stub respectively. — Instantnood 20:53, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

  • By nominating I support spliting the template. — Instantnood 20:54, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
    • Out of curiosity, do you plan to update all of the articles that use these templates? --jag123 23:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes. But that will be incredibly time consuming and everybody's help is welcome and necessary. — Instantnood 11:22, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
  • strongly oppose. Current use of this template is for items relating to Mainland China and those relating to the whole of China (both mainland and Taiwan) prior to the latter's secession. Furthermore, Mainland China still claims sovereignty over Taiwan, and as such some articles relating to Mainland China post-1949 also relate to Taiwan. Sorting out exactly which is which is best left to those who are working on Chinese articles, and they will find it far easier to look through one category than two (largely overlapping) categories.
    • The two split categories will be linked to each other. — Instantnood 11:05, Feb 26 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Discuss these desires to split templates/categories in the context of the stub sorting Wikiproject. Courtland 23:58, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
  • oppose this "mainland China" thing only appeared because of the communist rebellion (aka revolution) and the need to distinguish the two Chinas. What do we do about imperial and ancient China? If this gets large enough, then maybe create a stub for Communist China, but otherwise, its awkward to limit Chinese historical topics to "mainland China"--Jiang 04:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: if the idea of this proposal is analogous to the Taiwan-related template, then this proposal should be separating PRC from China, not mainland-China from China. Current proposal separates HK and Macau from China.Mababa 07:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • There will be five, namely China, mainland China, ROC, Hong Kong, and Macao. — Instantnood 12:01, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
    • (to Jiang) I am not proposing a renaming, but spliting. Things related to imperial or ancient China will be kept at Template:China-stub. — Instantnood 11:27, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Viriditas | Talk 08:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- So after this "deletion"... there will still be a template called "Template:China-stub" ? That's not a deletion, it's just splitting off a subcategory. -- Curps 11:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:China-geo-stub

(and the category Category:China geography stubs)

Currently it covers geostubs of both mainland China and territories under the control of the Republic of China (ROC). Hong Kong geostubs are already covered by Template:Hong Kong-geo-stub.

The suggestion is to split the template into two, with the titles Template:Mainland China-geo-stub and Template:ROC-geo-stub (or Template:Republic of China-geo-stub) respectively. — Instantnood 20:56, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

  • By nominating I support spliting the template. — Instantnood 20:57, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • strongly, violently, and vociferously oppose Many of the geography items in this category deal with both the Mainland and Taiwan. Many of the people working on expanding these items into full articles are working on items relating to both the Mainland and Taiwan. instantnood, you seem to fail to realise exactly what the purpose of stub templates is - to place small articles which need expansion into categories where they will be most easily accessible to the editors working in these fields. As such, the current schema works well. And if it ain't broke, why try to "fix it" so that it won't work as well? At the very least, shouldn't you run these suggestions past Wikiproject Stub Sorting? Grutness|hello? 23:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There are currently 201 articles in the category of China geography stubs. Two involves both mainland China and the ROC, 14 are related to the ROC only, and 185 are related to mainland China only. No article is related to Hong Kong or Macao. I don't think readers would recognise Category:China geography stubs covers geostubs related to the ROC, until they read the notice on the of the category, or see category's link at an ROC-related article. — Instantnood 11:50, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Designating a large stub-category for deletion just to draw attention to it's need for splitting ( in your opinion ) is pretty close to vandalism, Insta. Courtland 23:55, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
    • Renaming for categories are done at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. I didn't know templates, or specifically stub categories, are dealt with different procedures. Thank you for telling. — Instantnood 11:52, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Viriditas | Talk 08:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Grutness. --jag123 17:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 19

Template:Phys-stub

Currently a redirect to Template:Physics-stub, which was created since "phys-stub" was ambiguous (physiology? physics? etc). Since this is redundant, all articles have already been changed to use the new template. --jag123 17:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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.

  • Template:Sejm Marshals
    • Is this really to be deleted? It has no {TfD] tag, and a large number of pages link to it. Noel (talk) 20:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • There certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, so whoever moved it to the holding cell needs a spanking. I've put the discussion on the template talk page. (The Divide has been done already) — MikeX (talk) 20:51, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Still used on a few pages. Needs to replaced with Template:military aircraft by decade2.


Need depopulation before removal

  • Template:1, Template:2, Template:3, Template:4, Template:5, Template:6 - These are no longer necessary in MediaWiki 1.4, since it doesn't interpret the {{1}} inside {{{1}}} as a template. Goplat 07:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete all -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
    • Delete all -- Patrick 10:24, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete all --Evice 00:11, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • I went to delete these, and a zillion things use them (well, I only checked 1, 2, and 6, but even 6 has a good number, so I'm sure the rest must too). So, waiting for them to be depopulated. Noel (talk) 17:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Those are false-positives. Those pages/templates haven't been edited since the MediaWiki upgrade, so there is a leftover "link" to these templates. -- Netoholic @ 18:47, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
        • Ah, got it. I wonder if doing a cache flush (with "&action=purge") will update the links table. I wonder if any pages use these templates for other reasons, or are we sure that all the link entries are these false-positives? Noel (talk) 16:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • No, you have to do a "null-edit" to each article (open it, then save without making changes) to refresh the links. I used to have a bot that could do that... :) -- Netoholic @ 17:45, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
          • Right, that bug (and all the related ones - categories have a similar set) is really a PITA. The right fix is that extra links table, though, so until someone tackles adding that we'll have to live with the consequences. I did look idly through part of the lists of linked articles (ignoring templates), and all the handful I found using any of these templates were the results of errors, so I'd guess it is safe to go ahead and delete them. Certainly, anything that is using them for real will blow up, because the TfD notice will screw up the syntax. So, I'd say, let's just be lazy and take the easiest way of all out - just wait a while and see if anyone reports any errors, and if not, zap. There's no urgency to get rid of them, I don't think. Noel (talk) 20:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ready to remove entirely


Convert to category

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=10430943"