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
Line 144: Line 144:
*'''Keep''' I am not seeing the problem with this - it seems to be a perfectly logical extension of the Babel box. Turning it into a non-language template would be the non-standard implementation. Leave as is. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 11:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I am not seeing the problem with this - it seems to be a perfectly logical extension of the Babel box. Turning it into a non-language template would be the non-standard implementation. Leave as is. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 11:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' np with it [[User:Larix|Larix]] 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' np with it [[User:Larix|Larix]] 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - It doesn't need to be sneering superiority. Create a new template that talks about being a professional in the subject of the English language - as in an English [[linguistics|linguist]] or [[philology|philologist]]. En-5 is the wrong place for this. - [[User:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


====[[Template:Mozilla]]====
====[[Template:Mozilla]]====

Revision as of 15:01, 5 January 2006


Help is needed to orphan the holding cell. This can be done by non-admins!

Help is needed to orphan the holding cell. This can be done by non-admins!

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

January 5

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

The result of the debate was speedied --Doc ask? 12:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User userbox purge

This needs to go. It's bordering on being deliberately disruptive in order to make a point; it's a not-very-well disguised attack on certain administrators, and it's an unacceptable waste of template space. As opposed to making light of the situation, users should perhaps strive to be helping create some order out of the chaos that, ultimately, these things caused at the very beginning. Rob Church Talk 12:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore the deliberately disruptive part is deleting the item before it has been listed on TfD. Chaos is not caused by templates - chaos is caused by irrational deletionists. Please restore this template until it can be properly reviewed here on TfD. Now. --Dschor 12:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedy deleted it under the criteria that the template was receation of content already deleted. You can check the deletion log for the full details, and the similar templates were deleted a few days earlier at the TFD's I started. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 12:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now been restored, since the deletion was disputed. That is, I believe, the ah..."proper process", isn't it? So now we can discuss it. Rob Church Talk 12:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as disruption we have division problems in this community right now - we don't need gloating userboxes rubbing salt in wounds. Besides which - implicitly comparing an admin to Stalin is an offensive personal attack. --Doc ask? 12:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now it has been deleted again - it is getting much harder to assume good faith when the template listed here has been speedy deleted twice in a matter of moments. How is a rational TfD discussion supposed to occur when the template is repeatedly deleted? Please Speedy Restore until this nomination can at least be commented upon. What is the purpose of TfD if there is nothing left to Delete??? --Dschor 12:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been speedied as disruption and a personal attack - damaging to this project. It should not have been recreated (and indeed varients of it have been at different places). If anyone had/has a problem with the original speedy (which was not mine), then WP:DR is open to them. --Doc ask? 12:32, 5 January 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:User allow fairuse

I don't think this needs a massive amount of explanation. Suffice it to say, that this template may be used to convey the opinion that our users don't like US copyright law. Sorry, but you can't vote that away, otherwise I'd have shot George W. Bush under WP:IAR back in 2003. Rob Church Talk 12:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whoever created and whoever uses this template needs to have the difference between the law and Wikipedia policy explained to them. [[Sam Korn]] 12:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just another attempt at censorship in the user space. This template has not hurt anybody - leave it be. --Dschor 12:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Fair use provision in the US copyright law does not (and will not) specifically target the use of copyrighted image within a particularly defined (in the law) namespace in a particularly defined website. The statement "it's the law" in Template talk:User allow fairuse immutable version implies such a misleading statement, that, the action of which, is explicitly and/or specifically prohibited and/or targeted by law. Keep until relevant discussions in WP:FU and Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes have reached a consensus regarding the issue. -- Carlsmith 13:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily as disruption. --Pjacobi 13:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Measurement

Template:Measurement
Delete — This is an unfinished template that does not seem to be currently in use. The material covered is dealt with well elsewhere and I see no need for this table. Srleffler 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

Template:Cemetery and Template:Cemetery

No idea what this is about. One editor thinks it might be a game. I think it's merely a mistake and propose deletion. -- Longhair 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created the template for cemetery entries. What is your reason for wanting to delete it? It is used for the same reason as all templates, to create a standardized format for all entries in this category

I am still not sure what you are referring to. Which rule has been broken? Is it not useful? Is it not encylopedic? I use it to ensure that each cemetery I add has the same format when I transclude the template. Should I move it to my namespace? If I do then it defeats the purpose of standardization. Or have a stored my template in the wrong namespace? I am new to templates so be patient with me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • You can still transclude a template from your userspace, yes. However, the problem here is that it's not really a template- it's fine for a standardised format for cemetery articles, but the problem is that the way trancslusion works will produce just what the template says unless you include optional parameters (which is difficult and confusing). I'd suggest moving the template into your userspace, then dragging it into the empty edit box and filinf it out when making a new article.--Sean|Black 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't the purpose of templates. The logical alternative to such over-templating is to establish a page on a single, important cemetery and use that page as a "template" for future cemetery pages. - Cuivienen 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User soup nazi and Template:User-grammar nazi

Whatever your view on userboxes, these should go. 1) Not funny. 2) Comparisons to Nazis are always in poor taste. 3) We will have users who suffered, directly or indirectly, under Hitler. 4) Godwin's law. 5) And least important - there are some issues surrounding the use of the Swastika in some European countries. --Doc ask? 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hm. None of those reasons sound very convincing. We don't censor Wikipedia articles, so why should we censor Wikipedia userpages? As long as it's someone identifying himself as a soup nazi or a grammar nazi, rather than accusing anyone else of being such, it's not likely to offend, since both terms are heavily ingrained in the popular culture (though the swastika in "user soup nazi" is a bit unexpected; I'd have expected an image of a bowl of soup or something). Not being funny and not being in good taste are matters of taste, and not really grounds for deletion, even though I agree; nor do Godwin's Law or censorship laws in various European countries make any difference in this matter. And if the "I hate GWB" templates are appropriate, I don't see how this one, which doesn't even express an opinion (it's not like it says "the Holocaust wasn't real" or "I <3 Hitler" on it or anything), could be considered unacceptably inappropriate.
As for people who have suffered due to Hitler: although I think for the most part these terms are used just for shock value and humor (although they can sometimes be offensive when applied to other people rather than to oneself, e.g. calling someone a "grammar nazi" for correcting your spelling), not really anything attempted to offend anyone, if anything, I'd say that such jokes as "soup nazi" trivialize naziism, they don't trivialize the Holocaust. Mocking Hitler and demeaning and degrading the term "nazi" with silly, amusing phrases "soup nazi" and "grammar nazi" is not mocking or attacking victims of nazis, but mocking nazis themselves. The needless suffering it's caused and continues to cause is bad, but the concept of naziism itself, really, isolated from its historical context, isn't scary so much as incredibly silly. If racism and religious bigotry wasn't so dangerous, destructive, and widespread in modern society, I'd almost consider racists and bigots adorable. Like crazy people on the subway. -Silence 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't censor wikipedia, because censorship damages content. We should remove sources of offence where to do so is content-neutral (else why not have an erect penis on the Mainpage). If people want to self-describe by comparison to mass-murderers, they are free to do so. The question is whether there should be a general template to facilitate this. --Doc ask? 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the problem is that it's not self-describing by comparison to mass-murderers, it's using a term that very vaguely alludes to a mass murderer. Is even mentioning a term that is related to someone hateful off-limits, even when the actual template is certainly not supportive of that individual or his movement, and is in fact a parody of it? I think it's a tad excessive to say that we can't even use the word "nazi" in any template on Wikipedia, no matter what the context, intent, or meaning is. And if that's not what you're saying, then read Soup Nazi and grammar nazi, as they're references, respectively, to a very popular Seinfeld episode and to a very common colloquial term for people who are overly concerned with grammar, certainly not the direct references to Hitler you seem to think they are. My recommendation: keep both templates, and replace the swastika on the "Soup Nazi" with a more topic-appropriate image (like a bowl of soup or a clipped version of Image:Sein soup nazi.jpg) so it fits the joke properly. -Silence 01:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official policy on userboxes, but there is on WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with which you might like to refamilliarise yourself! --Doc ask? 11:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith.
People keep claiming that 'Soup Nazi' is common cultural reference. Well, it is not one I have ever heard - and so all I saw was some poor-taste comparision between soup and Nazism. I wonder that voters may be guitly of US-popular-culture imperialism. In most of the world, when people see the word Nazi, they do not think about US sitcoms. --Doc ask? 14:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Soup Nazi is worse than U.S.-pop-culture imperialism, it is New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism. However, given that it is instantly identifiable to hundreds of millions of English speakers I think it qualifies as a common knowledge joke. Everyone who does not understand the reference (even if that means most other English speakers) can simply click on the link in the userbox to read about it. — Eoghanacht talk 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 'New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism' = 'common knowledge'. I suddenly feel like an ignorant foreigner. --Doc ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep - Stop the deletionism. Delete only the templates that are actually useless and stop wasting space on this page and the time of Wikipedia users. - Cuivienen 14:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only templates that are 'actually useless' - OK, what 'use' are these to the goals of wikipedia? --Doc ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User en-5

Arrogant, non standard, horrible. The en-4 -> en-N should be adequate. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps there should be a lever 5 to the other languasges as well. Also, perhaps this user is a better English speaker that most other people, perhaps a professor in the English language for example. →AzaToth 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changing all other language templates just to accomodate this one userbox is a bit much IMO - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mozilla

(previous nomination)

Redundant to {{logo}}, used on about ten images. That Mozilla explicitly says "go ahead and use this" is irrelevant; we don't allow "by-permission" images, and they're in fact speedyable. Their license explicitly disallows commercial exploitation (see their faq), making all images with this tag speedyable for that reason also. On top of this, they don't allow derivatives of any kind, further cementing the case that this is an unfree image. The only way images currently tagged with this template can be used on Wikipedia is under a fair use claim. —Cryptic (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's different because everyone and their cousin knows (or should know) that there's no harm in displaying the Mozilla logos in this context. —David Levy 17:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, using images we have been given permission to use doesn't carry any legal risk either, but because such images are unfree (does not allow commercial re-distribition) it has been dictated from the foundation level that such images are not to be used anymore (or at least used under the fair use doctrine instead). I don't see how this should somehow not apply here. --Sherool (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are intended for use on user pages. If they were to be added to related articles, that would qualify as fair use. What's the problem? —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are intended for use in the user namespace. As Kelly and Tony have reminded us in recent days, this is not part of the encyclopedia proper. —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advertising

Unused and unuseful. — Dan | talk 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FormerGA

"This article has been delisted as a good article". Given the unofficiality of WP:GA, there seems hardly any point to list and categorize articles that were at one point considered "good" and no longer considered so, or were considered "not quite good enough but still decent" or whatever. Delete. Radiant_>|< 10:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions

On request from a third party, I have also moved the discussion (which is already quite sizable) there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - This template is redundant with Template:Campaignbox War of the Spanish Succession which lists more battles. Roy Al Blue 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Template:Coin

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is redundant with Template:Infobox Coin, which is superior. In addition, this template is no longer in use. Markkawika 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AutoCAD related articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — I believe this should be converted to a category or just deleted. I suspect "See also" and in-line links mean even a cateogory is redundent, and so I favor delete. Please note if you favor convert vs plain delete. If concensus is for convert, I'll work on creating the appropriate category. DragonHawk 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this. Simply put [[Category:AutoCAD related articles]] inside the template. —gorgan_almighty 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We do not have, need, or IMO want, a template for every category. The category system already does what this template does, automatically. Categories don't require separate maintenance or human intervention for updates, nor do they add the server load templates do. Why does AutoCAD need a special template just for it's related articles? This isn't an article series; it's just some related articles. That's what links and categories are for. Is there a benefit we get from this template?

Template:User against scientology

Template:User against scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template seems needlessly uncivil to me. It adds nothing to community or, if it does add to community, probably not the type that will help build an encyclopedia. I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs... but, let us not use templates to attack others views. gren グレン 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ditto. This place is supposed to encourage NPOV, no? MARussellPESE 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No value in building encyclopedia, potential for vote-stacking abuse. --- Charles Stewart 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - User space should be a place where wikipedians can describe themselves as they see fit. This userbox can serve that purpose. It is not harmful, and given the recent conflagration over userboxes, I would prefer to leave the user space alone. This userbox could tell editors a great deal about the motivations of an editor, and certainly falls within the freedom of expression that the user space is intended for. --Dschor 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending a more compelte userbox policy. I belive that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. This user box is divisive (as are all userboxes indicating a user's disapproval for some other thing) and mainly exists for linkspamming (I'm sure its presence on Wikipedia increases the pagerank of the external site linked within it). It should be shot dead now. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, slash and burn external link - I've removed the external link and made it go to Operation Clambake instead - Scientology is a scary group of people: See Office of Special Affairs, Suppressive Person or Xenu articles. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Userboxes CAN be POV, that's what they are for, for user's to express opinions. That's why we have pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Jew, Muslim, so on user boxes. It might be wise to tone it down a notch, but POV is not valid grounds to delete a user box. -- Jbamb 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My grounds was civil. It needlessly (and directly) annoys scientologists. Whereas if a pro-lifer dislikes someone because of a pro-choice userbox it's the pro-lifer being offended by the other's ideology passively. When you use this tag it actively offends needlessly. WP:CIVIL#Why_is_it_bad.3F describes why this is not appropriate pretty well... and, this basically amounts to an attack template. gren グレン 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all userboxes that express negative views or that attack others or their beliefs. If you want to put it on your user page, write it yourself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want it on your user page, don't add it. This nomination is an attempt to censor the views expressed on user pages, and is a misuse of the deletion process. We are all entitled to our opinions, at least in user space. --Dschor 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not, though. Don't you get it? This is an encyclopedia. A user page is fine for telling people about yourself or expressing yourself a little. It shouldn't be the main focus of your attention, and it certainly shouldn't be used to attack religions you disagree with in a cute boilerplate box. Wikipedia has no rule guaranteeing freedom of expression. Rhobite 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there' no hope if we continue with cheap shots like that. --Doc ask? 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jbamb.
  • Keep until we have a policy on userboxes. I don't want to see every single objectionable userbox individually nominated on TfD, nor do I want to see them unilaterally speedied as was recently done. Picking a few boxes and nominating them "to establish a precedent" is also a lousy solution. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userboxes reflect opinions. If there are people here who are against scientology, let them feel free to say it. DaGizza Chat 13:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-encyclopedic userboxes. As for not having "attack boxes", I don't see how this is any different than the anti-women's choice userbox (*cough cough* "pro-life", whatever). --Cyde Weys votetalk 13:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment someone may be pro-life because they consider abortion to be a form of murder. It does not neccessitate they are against women having a choice because the former (i.e murder) trumps the latter (women's right to choose) in importance such that the latter wouldn't even come into consideration. Pepsidrinka 20:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sam Fisher

Template:Sam Fisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template was only used on Sam Fisher, I've subst:'ed it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County

(and Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County/city seal)

I don't see any special reason we need this sub- and meta-templated fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. Can we orphan and speedy? -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City NH

As above... fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuisine

Giant, unnecessary template; no linkage or series involved; choice of links is subjective. --Neutralitytalk 05:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

Template:Green Parties

Template:Green Parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Smiley

It's Template:Sad (TFD discussion) all over again, with all its friends, all rolled up into one evil template via a {{switch}}. What's so terribly difficult about the image syntax that we need to use a two-level-deep template? They don't even need to be resized. —Cryptic (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User GWB

I pretty much believe this should be speedied for personal attack but apparently not all agree. Whatever the case, this user box signifies the problem many are having -- it's bomb throwing partisanship, makes light of vandalism, and if there's a template out there making it okay to "hate" someone or something on Wikipedia just what the heck are we doing here. --Wgfinley 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not sure you can honestly call yourself libertarian and propose templates for deletion on the grounds of their content at the same time . In any case, the template is not really harming anyone, and partisanship is perfectly acceptable on user pages. Finally, as the template does not actually encourage vandalism I don't see how it 'makes light' of it. - Cuivienen 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unlike other political templates I've seen this one actually relates to wikipedia - albiet in an off-hand sort of way. Heck, I'd put both that and a bill clinton version on my page just because I dislike seeing the useless, probably partially-politically-motivated vandalism . That's just my opinion though . I do agree it is a bit combative though... WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; nothing wrong with it. Wgfinley attempted to get it speedy deleted as nonsense and then as an attack page, reverting the removal of the tags several times. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep!!. Are we going to be censoring political humor now? Jesus Christ! --Cjmarsicano 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People have "support" GWB templates, too. No reason to delete either. Dave (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change the wording. I think this is what the templates need is a slight word change. Maybe it should just read "This user does not wish to revert vandalism at GWB." Zach (Smack Back) 06:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and either change wording per Zach or move to Template:User hates GWB or something similar, without a redirect. Content is harmless, but the title's misleading. —Cryptic (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote the "Support GWB" Template in response to this one. To be honest, it's not the hate that bothers me as much as the implicit endorsement of vandalism on Wikipedia. I believe the other template that jokes about "Reverting his edits to the Constitution" makes the same point, doesn't endorse vandalism, and (most important of all) is funnier. However, I'm not going to vote on this one, as the users of this userbox should make the final call. Palm_Dogg 08:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Statements like these are not really my style (though I don't support GWB either) but I also think banning them would be a totally unacceptable kind of censorship. Regardless of political colour, it's really a treasure when political leaders can be freely critized. Larix 08:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree that censorship of any kind is totaly unnaceptable. But, on Wikipedia, our opinions on political or social issues almost never matter, and usually just serve to polarize us- I don't think it's fair to characterise this as a censorship issue.--Sean|Black 09:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep for both templates for GWB and against GWB. The truth is exactly the opposite sean - userboxes serve to build community and better community gets people to stay with the project and build a better encyclopedia. - I support all user boxes.--God_of War 09:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This shouldn't be an ideological debate over the relative merits of userboxes in general. This particular template is not even a statement of opinion: it's an ad hominem attack that is potentially in violation of our policy on personal attacks (that, of course, is up for debate since the subject isn't technically a Wikipedian, but I digress). And I say this as someone who does not have any particular love for the president or his policies. – Seancdaug 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree with God of War in that userboxes help to build community, but I have to disagree with God of War inasmuch as this one has the potential to build only animosity. As for the argument that getting rid of the template is censorship, I would have to disagree—nobody's saying people can't say they hate GWB or hate removing vandalism from the GWB article. I don't care if people want to spew vitriol on their personal pages, but this template makes doing so a part of the WP namespace rather than a perceived protected right to expression. Additionally, the name User-GWB is an especially poor choice of name for this template. Tomertalk 09:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this is silly. It's just a bit of fun - I only created it in response to hearing loads of people say it themselves. --Celestianpower háblame 11:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or BJAODN (if possible) It seems to be a confession of vandalism to me, or can be used that way. Some of us may hate the guy, but it doesn't give the right to vandalise his article; in short, there are no exceptions. I can understand the political side of the humour, but the faux (I assume that was the original intention) vandalism confession. --JB Adder | Talk 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vandalism to GWB's biography and distaste for the president himself are two very notable aspects of Wikipedia and its members. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:47, Jan. 2, 2006
  • Delete. I don't like having to revert vandalism on his article, either, but to put it like the template does seems too much like implicit approval of vandalism. And yes, I see the humour — but it's not funny. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as fuddle said. --Doc ask? 12:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - but change "hate" (an overly strong word) to "can't stand". Userboxes are only for User pages and user pages are free to be POV. By deleting this box it is effectively a denial of free speech, which goes against everything anyone stands for. WP:NPOV does not come into it because the userbox system is not for the encyclopedia. Deano (Talk) 12:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 12:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already given - JVG 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As far as I am aware no Wikipedia policy forbids voicing opinions on userpages. Reword 'hate' to 'dislikes' or 'can't stand'. And there is certainly enough dislike to warent a template providing it does not phrase that he is wrong. Ian13ID:540053 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and f*ck Dubya! - Darwinek 16:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Even though I can't vote yet, I'm a republican at heart, hence my vote. --ViolinGirl♪ 20:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I think this userbox makes it clear that the GWB article is carefully policed for vandalism, even by those who don't like him. Kafziel 03:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Template:User_GWB2 expresses opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, not to George W. Bush in general, and, as such, shouldn't even be called "GWB2." - Cuivienen 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Template:Iff

Not used. Adrian Buehlmann 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — The template is a violation of WP:NPA by characterising what the subject of the RFC (which is linked in white) as Stalinist and comparing the said user to Stalin himself. Not only that is a personal attack by comparing her to Stalin, it is also triviaizing the acts Stalin did while leader of the Soviet Union. Millions of people died under his leadership while all the admin did was to delete userboxes. Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal attack. Possibly speedy, but I've had enough of being bold today. [[Sam Korn]] 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it offends so many people (like everything nowadays seems to). Just for the record, i didnt create this userbox, it was already located on several other people's userpages and on the page it links to. I just moved it to a page for easier access, as people were already using it... - UK Bourbons3Talk | Contrib's 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I go ahead and speedy it? Zach (Smack Back) 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could read you would know that I already said that i didnt create it, and that it wasnt used once, i have seen atleast 3 other users with the box on their userpage UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bourbons3 is correct on that one. By just seeing who has the image Image:Stalin3.jpg, you can see that the template is at other places. However, forks have been created of this template. I wish to ask permission to include those forks into this TFD debate. Zach (Smack Back) 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is one i know of which says "I survived" instead of "I participated" UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the I survived one, I will TFD that one separately. There was a fork of this one, same text and everything, so I deicded to speedy that one under the same grounds: gross violation of NPA and WP:CIVIL and its only purpose was to attack a user. Zach (Smack Back) 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a lot of variations of it by now - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are, and I will try to find everyone that I can. Zach (Smack Back) 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Everyone is allowed free speech. Even if this is an attack people need to have the right to speak out against administrators.--God of War 08:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- NPA , divisive and uncalled for. 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I opposed User:Kelly Martin's actions in her pre-emptive deletion of Userboxes, but this is divisive and inflammatory in the current climate. As is the original prototype spoof "Userbox" which appears to have been created by User:El C supporting the "purge" (and derivatives thereof such as Template:User survived, now gone). A question to User:Sam Korn: will you also be removing all instances of El C's template, even when not transcluded, because that is equally inflammatory? --Cactus.man ✍ 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not an attack, it is a creative way to provide a link to an RfC, where concerned wikipedians can voice their opinions on the matter. If this userbox is deleted, wikipedia has lost all perspective. --Dschor 13:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this reminds me an aweful lot of the time someone was going around signing his name [[communist|Howard Dean]], wasn't terribly funny then...--64.12.116.6 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - {{User purge}} was much better, but it was deleted and protected against recreation by Martin-supporting admins before even bringing it to TfD.
This is just an example, so people can see what it actually was:
File:Stalin3.jpg This user actively participated in rebellion against the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again.
I was actually banned for even having this on my user page, so beware if you're under the misunderstanding that you actually have any right to free speech on your user page. -_- Template:Bigspace --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User purge

This was a fork from the above template that I had deleted under the same reasons, but recreated out of "due process." Listing so that the due process can take place. Zach (Smack Back) 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cjmarsicano/g2K6up

Same as the first template, another fork. However, this is occured at a user page for transclusion. While TFD might not be the scope of this page, I want to keep the discussion of this template at one page. My vote of delete and it's reasoning as the same as the first one: this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by comparing the acts the admin did with acts that took place under the leadership of Soviet Premier Stalin. Zach (Smack Back) 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hawaiianmusic

Template:Hawaiianmusic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used, no obvious advantages over the current {{MDmusic}} in use at Music of Hawaii. Circeus 19:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as creator of both, can I authorize a speedy here? Not sure of the current rules for templates. {{MDmusic}} is preferred, and I am gradually switching all the states to use it. Hawaii is done, so this template can be safely deleted. Tuf-Kat 21:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:*-court

Template:Burger-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Chase-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Ellsworth-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Fuller-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Hughes-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Jaycourt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Marshall-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rehnquist-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rutledge-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Stone-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taft-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taney-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Vinson-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Waite-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Warren-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:White-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Templates do not appear to be used any more. DLJessup (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If author thinks it should be deleted, then its outcome is obvious. Little or no use now, so no need to keep - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (tho I'm sad to see those beauties go, and I'm goin' to keep a copy in my user space for personal reference). BDAbramson T 04:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DecencyWikiProject-Member

A template which was created for that notorious "WikiProject:Wikipedians for decency". --Victim of signature fascism 17:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angel-screenshot

Template:Angel-screenshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — A bad idea resurfaces. All the specialized {{tv-screenshot}} templates were deleted a while back because they gave the false impression that all screenshots of the program in question were "fair use". -- Carnildo 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Help Wikiboxes

This is a call to arms and totally lacks NPOV. Practically unused at present but ought not to be allowed, whatever one feels about the great Userbox debate of New Years' Eve. David | Talk 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Template:Infobox Iranian President

Optional parameters in Template:Infobox President now make this fork unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netoholic - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn2, Template:Styles2, Template:Styles3

Seems to have been created for use in beating other editors over the head with in edit wars... Dan100 (Talk) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. 100% necessary. For months a bitter edit war waged over the use of styles in articles. A compromise solution was agreed after a long debate which stopped an edit war that was waging over hundreds of royalty articles. Wikipedia policy used to be to start articles on popes with His Holiness Pope . . . . monarch articles with Her Majesty Queen . . . etc. The consensus, agreed by 92%, was no longer to use styles in that form, but to confine the style into a special style box somewhere in the text. The solution is now part of the Manual of Style. Every so often a handful of users try to restart the edit war. Other times a new user joins and edits large number of articles to add in styles. These templates are used to inform users as to what Wikipedia policy is and how and when Wikipedia uses or doesn't use styles in biographical articles. They have had to be used on many occasions and have in every occasion stopped wholescale edit wars erupting on the issue again. If Dan had bothered to check his facts and asked any of the people who need regularly to use them about them he would have been told all of this and this ridiculous nomination of a set of widely used, much needed templates would not have taken place. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I was typing the above, another user changed 16 articles to add in styles. All 16 had to be changed back (he didn't just add in a styles contrary to policy, but managed to even get the style wrong). One of the above templates had to be used to inform the user that WP does not use styles at the start of articles. That is the third time that template had had to be used in 4 hours. That is why the templates are needed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has just had to be used again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we still need these. Deb 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another 100% keep, per FearÉIREANN. Standarzing styles across the encyclopedia are essential if Wikipedia is to emerge as a reputable and usable sourcebook. 172 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - there is always some new user, who is unfamiliar with our style manual and wants to use the style of his choice. These templates are a good way of informing these users of our conventions and preserve a sense of consistency which emerged after close scrutiny of all alternatives. It is extremely unlikely that unfamiliar users will know better. These templates may also prevent revert wars over style - if all parties are informed of the standard Wikipedia style, a revert war over style is unlikely to emerge. Izehar 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - What do you mean?! These are the products of a very long project to find an acceptable use on Wikipedia. A consensus has now been reached; we need to keep enforcing it. --Matjlav(talk) 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These were created precisely to avoid head-beating edit wars. Mark1 19:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtdirl. Hopefully to be used as last resort. Herostratus 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Jtdirl. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The style templates promote consistency and accuracy. Styles shouldn't be used in titles or all throughout the articles... They should be kept to the side. - Charles 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If I had been given some of these sorts of messages way back in the beginning of my editing here, I would have been grateful for the help rather than feeling like I was beat over the head. Anything that can be done to make helping new users more efficient improves the quality of help that can be given per unit time, and that seems good for the project. If wording changes are needed to make them more kind, please do so, but I'm not seeing the need for deletion. Sometimes more than one statement IS necessary. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - style usages can be changed, by consensus, over time. Defining changes in usages as a priori vandalism is un-wiki. Nandesuka 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- they have been used several times as a warning mechanism. Astrotrain 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very empathetic to the frustration of the style-enforcers, but I feel that when humans write other humans on user talk pages it's better to stay in practice of leaving a brief personal note. (I've elaborated on this here). One can still link to the relevant style guide, but it leaves more opportunity to commend any other positive edits, and have the exchange seem less like an authoritarian "beating". I will say that these might be nice templates to put as a heads-up at the top of royalty article talk pages—even cooler if there were a MediaWiki feature to bring up relevant style guides when people clicked "edit this page". Note that I agree completely with the standard and the need to enforce it (am trying a similar initiative on post-nominals here). Metaeducation 21:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's always someone who can put these templates to good use. It saves the relevant pages being incorrectly edited UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Consistency across the encyclopaedia is a good thing, but this is NOT the way to do it, and just bites the newbies. The language used in the latter two is not helpful at all and will scare off new editors and antagonise experienced editors. I agree wholeheartedly with Metaeducation - leave a note with a link to the relevant style guide. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having seen some of this edit war that would not die, these are clearly still needed.  ALKIVAR™ 14:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn3

As above, plus what it suggests to be "vandalism" is not. Dan100 (Talk) 17:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mess2

What it pretends to be spam isn't, and what it suggests is vandalism, isn't. Dan100 (Talk) 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikisource-addition

Delete — This TfD also includes Template:Wikisource-addition-1, Template:Wikisource-addition-2, Template:Wikisource-addition-3, Template:Wikisource-addition-4, Template:Wikisource-addition-5. Ive listed it for deletion because the author wants to keep it in main article space, does not care about appearances, and does not believe usage guidelines are needed. Also it says there is a source, but does not say where the source is located (online somewhere? Vatican library?), only that one exists (which is self-evident). An example usage can be seen at Apostolicae Curae. See also discussion found here. --Stbalbach 16:31, 31 December 2005

  • The only purpose of these appears to be to mis-use Wikipedia as an equivalent of Wikipedia:Requested articles for Wikisource. Wikisource already has a requested texts mechanism: Wikisource:Requested texts. A dangling interwiki link is one thing, but an outright request that Wikipedia readers hunt for unnamed "source documents related to X" and then add them to Wikisource is quite another. This is not the way to encourage more people to contribute to Wikisource. Delete. Uncle G 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and the nominator completely misses the point of template deletion. A template should only be deleted if it serves no purpose or is redundant, if it's not used, or if it is bad beyond the point of fixing. The nominator makes no such claims; the closest he comes is his statement that I believe it should be used on the main article rather than the article talk page--which is hardly a reason for deleting it. If he thinks it should be on the talk pages, then he is by all means welcome to take it off the article page and move it on the talk page, and I wouldn't fight him over it unless and until a reasonable consensus has been reached as to the proper location. Everything else he names (it's ugly, it needs an explanation, etc.) can all easily be changed by anyone who wants to. Kurt Weber 04:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not particularly useful, as it actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's not our job to search out original sources; do that on Wikisource and link to it when you find one. Adam Bishop 05:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite or delete. Pressure should not be placed on Wikipedians to also work on other wiki projects. The template should be rewritten to identify content on Wikipedia that should instead be placed on Wikisource. If such a template already exists then this one should be deleted. —gorgan_almighty 11:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-LOC

Image copyright tag, provided misleading information about the copyright of images sourced from the Library of Congress. Numerous images in the LOC are not in the public domain. Template needs to be rewritten or deleted and images tagged within the exiting tag set up.--nixie 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nixie says, this tag will encourage people to assume that everything from the LoC is public domain. In actual fact, a careful reading of the image description there and information about the photo collection the image comes from is needed to make that determination. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite. - This template was strongly needed here. Same situation as with other USGov templates, not all images there all in PD, but this is already stated in template and btw. not all images from any USGov site all in PD, so this nomination is like nominating for deletion cat. "Jewish Americans" and not nominating other "ethnic Americans" categories. Look for example at Template:PD-USGov-State, this is confusing, because people assume that all images on state.gov site are in PD. In fact many photos from state.gov are not in PD. And let me give you two nice examples of photos from LOC.
    • 1.) Walker Evans. Floyd Burroughs' Farm, from Hale and Perry Counties and Vicinity, Alabama, 1935-1936. from [2] is PD (Office of War Information).
    • 2.) Photographer unknown (National Photo Company). President Calvin Coolidge Facing Press Photographers, 1924. from the same page probably isn't PD (National Photo Company Collection).
    • Point is that uploader of photos to Wikipedia should always find out copyright information. - Darwinek 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears as though that the copyright page does not mention the term "public domain" -- in fact, it seems to hold items that they don't even own! That means there are less PD items than we think. I'd say create an unknown use tag ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) so we can determine what images SHOULD be tagged -- a fair use tag or another PD tag (since the LOC is not going to mean PD). This could be done with a move, so keep and rewrite. This is a tag where just saying "it could be copyrighted, but if it doesn't say so, it's PD" isn't legally correct. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tag is misleading and needs to be rewritten. LoC copyright policy states that they do not generally own rights in their collections and that it is the researcher's obligation to determine copyright status. In consideration of this policy, there is no right to assume that material taken from their site is PD unless it is marked as such and a template should reflect that.--Dakota ~ ε 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it should only be marked PD if it says its PD. Of course, what I basically was trying to say was that just because it was from the LOC does NOT mean it is immediate PD, and your point agrees with this. Saying its all PD is wrong -- for all we know, some are fair use and should be tagged as fair use, some might be for uses that Wikipedia does not accept, and if it IS PD, it is PD because of, say, being pre-1923, which would be tagged with {{PD-US}} anyway. My last point still stands -- that assuming PD if no copyright given is wrong -- but because it will generally always have copyright and SAY if it is PD. All of this can still apply to the vote I gave earlier. In other words, just assume that all images from the LOC are copyrighted unless it says it's PD. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the LOC site you basically haven't written by photos, that they are in PD. Vast majority of that photos are in PD, but there is written only f.ex. "Farm Security Administration", so basically it is in PD. This is exactly the same situation as with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), related tag Template:PD-USGov-NARA reflects it very good. And btw., when some PD photo is on the LOC site, they don't write down "PD", but when there is some copyrighted photo, they claim it (see for example here). That is their policy. - Darwinek 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to a less misleading name, of course. The LOC has a huge collection of images (I've uploaded hundreds myself), and there needs to be a category for them. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-31 15:58
  • Unsure -- This may be appropriate for indicating the SOURCE of an image, but it is entirely inappropriate for making any sort of assumptions regarding the copyright status. If kept, this tag should ALWAYS be accompanied by some other tag that explicitly indicates copyright status. older≠wiser 16:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Darwinek (thanks for the notice by the way!) and add ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) per Wcquidditch. The point that the tag as used now does not guarantee PD because taking images from the LOC does not guarantee PD, is well taken (and the fact that it says it's not clear argues that it should not be a PD- prefix tag), and something I missed. But that is no reason to delete this tag. Denoting that something came from the LOC, whether known or unknown, seems goodness to me. It's a big source. Images currently tagged this way thus all currently need work/investigation/review, so this tag, at this time, lets you know which images need review. (I put as much as I can in the provenance, but did every other uploader?) For ones that are unverified, chamge to the new tag (using the wording of this one) that WCQidditch suggests but leave this one for the ones that are known good. (I better be off to do some retagging!) To nixie, if you think the template needs rewriting as one outcome, why put it up on TfD? ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just used it a couple of days ago. The templates we have right now aren't precise enough, and using this one saves time. Primetime 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading. The vast majority of works from the Library of Congress are not in the public domain. --Carnildo 03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not even a reasonable assumption that a random image from the LOC is PD. An image's copyright status should be investigated before it's uploaded anyway. "Known good" images should be tagged properly as PD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and alternative proposal. People thoughtlessly uploading images from the LOC website is a major source of unintentional copyright violation. Some images there are PD, but very many are copyrighted. The Library of Congress is rarely an original source of images, and images from their website should normally just be treated like any other images, and be attributed to their original source. There is one distinctive aspect of copyrights and the Library of Congress, though, that is important: they are rather good librarians, and so often document when the copyright on a post-1922 image has not been renewed. They have also sometimes made arrangements with photographers that have allowed their photographs to become public domain much sooner than otherwise would have happened. As the LOC can be a good source on the murky copyright status of post-1922 images, I propose the following template (Template:PD-US-LOC) instead for images it is appropriate for.--Pharos 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
United States Federal Government
This image was first published in the United States in 1923 or later, but is considered public domain by the Library of Congress because its copyright has not been renewed or has been formally released, or for another reason.

Template:User KO v. O'Reilly

Delete — The user box serves no purpose to me other than to cause future problems. Before I even TFD'ed the template, vandalism along the lines of "O Rly, Ya Rly." And, while not a sufficient reason for deletion, the icons of these templates have fair use images, a no-no. But overall, it will just cause problems, and I agree that the userboxes have jumped the shark and now it is the time maybe we should say "no mas." Zach (Smack Back) 09:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

The "vandalism" was to remove the fair use images :P --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SPUI. I still do not think the images are a reason for template deletion, but I think we got carried away on these boxes. Zach (Smack Back) 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

Template:MLB Athletics franchise

Template:MLB Athletics franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Vw

Redundant with the {{test}} series. Firebug 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Styles4, Template:Rn4, and Template:Lang4

Threatens to block people for a nonblockable offense. Firebug 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosblock

A violation of WP:BP. No evidence this has ever actually been used. Firebug 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • BTW, someone should go over Category:User warning templates. Do we need 142 separate warnings?! Firebug 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been used for MoS vandalism and will continue to be used. And yes those people who deal with vandalism know from experience we do need specific warnings dealing with specific issues. In fact there are many issues that are not covered by warnings which crop up all the time and for which users have been, and will continue to, creating templates as the need arises. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. I note that Jtdirl refers to "MoS vandalism" but that the word "vandalism" does not appear anywhere on {{Mosblock}}. android79 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. It appears as if Jtdirl wants to keep this around so he can use it in ways in which he would be violating Wikipedia policies himself, by definition. Aumakua 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If Jdtirl routinely blocks, or even threatens to block, editors for violating the Manual of Style, he needs to read it himself, noting especially: "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." Thus the existance of this template is evidence for a far worse problem than failure to adhere to the MoS, and every use of it, past or future, is a violation of a much more important principle. The sooner it gets deleted, the better. Aumakua 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or, maybe keep it, so we can see which admins violate Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Unlike WP:MoS, admins are bound to follow that when they use their mop and bucket. -- SCZenz 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. It seems that these kinds of blocks are not for violating the manual of style per se, but rather are about ignoring requests to stop editing editing that way. I am uncertain if the request should bear enough weight to ever justify blocking, but in any case should generally lead to a discussion of some sort. We don't want people editwarring over decided matters like the MoS, but we also don't want to create an environment where making mistakes with grammar/style standards leads to a block. Discussion should usually sort that out, and hopefully everyone will follow the MoS afterwards. Willfully and knowingly violating the MoS after having it brought up, especially for users who have enough grammar skills in English that it's clear they're just being difficult, should perhaps leave the door open to further pressure. --Improv 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no question. It's a violation of policy, simple as that. BTW Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism defines vandalism; no other "vandalism" is blockable. Dan100 (Talk) 09:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per Jtdirl. If Wikipedia is not going to enforce content policies, it has no reason for being at all. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. 172 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, deliberately disregarding content policies following repeated warnings is clear vandalism. If Wikipedia is to be sucessful as a project conforming to its goal of writing a reliable encyclopedia, we must tighten our mechanisms for enforcing content policies. 172 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Posting edits which do not conform to the Manual of Style is not vandalism, no matter how much some people would prefer to rigidly enforce their personal aesthetic preference. Warnings which threaten to block users for vandalism for making edits which are not vandalism are therefore egregiously inappropriate. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You cannot be blocked for violating guidelines. You may however be taken to an RFC or an RFAr over it. The probable effect for enforcing a guideline is by consensus reversion; then the 3RR would serve its purpose and not this template. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Nom and because violating the MoS is not vandalism. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Musicbrainz album, Template:Musicbrainz track, Template:Musicbrainz artist

These templates give preferential treatment to Musicbrainz. If they are kept, we should at least lose the images - it's basically an ad. Rhobite 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm a little embarrassed to have nominated these templates for deletion given the strong response. I think my real problem is with the images. Nobody else (IMDB, etc) gets images - why are we endorsing Musicbrainz? Anyway I'm withdrawing the nomination. Sorry. Rhobite 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDB image was removed with little to no discussion The Last.fm template includes an image. I address why I think these are useful in my comments below. Be sure to follow the Beatles link to see my example. — Mperry 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, external links to musicbrainz are abundant. Remove the image if you must, though I personally don't think it's a problem. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 3

Not used. Variant of Template:Web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dangh

Fork of {{afd}}. (Though I do agree with the creator's sentiments as expressed in the edit history. Down with Monobook-specific formatting and evil javascript tricks! Torches and pitchforks and all that!) —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-small

Despite the name, it isn't any smaller than {{tfd}}; it's just a forked version of it, with different wording and an extra enclosing box. Only ever used on one template, where I've replaced it with the canonical tfd. —Cryptic (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redundant and unnecessary. Kenj0418 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIX {{tfd}} first, then delete this one. I have seen at least one place where this template was better, tfd made the page quite ugly.. Perhaps someone cleverer-er than me could fix it (but without using the dreaded {{if}}?)? Until then it's not redundant, although it IS a fork and therefore should be opposed... ++Lar 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed it on Template:Middle-earth portal; the absolute positioning via css there was what prevented the normal tfd from being put into the box without fuss. Position:absolute is Quite Rare, and this was the first template I've seen that needed an additional <div> stuck around the tfd template. (I'm not sure why position:absolute is permitted in css anyway; I've only seen it used for vandalism and for the evil hack that is {{click}}, which would be better done as an additional image tag.) Was this the template you were thinking of, or was it used on another that I'm not aware of? —Cryptic (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it was, thanks for remembering, Cryptic! So what's the upshot, is {{tfd}} fixed (that is, was that <div> already there or did you add it), or is it more of a "watch out for very weird cases and fix them rather than the template"? Putting some remarks into bracketed by {{tfd}}<noinclude> might be the way to go. (or put them in the instructions here?... I'm thinking this one can now be deleted in any case... ++Lar 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fork. Possibly speedy per a similar discussion several months ago. Radiant_>|< 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's also misleading, as the reall "small version of {{tfd}}" is {{tfd-inline}}, which is much smaller than this one (when used, of course!) By the way, it's just funny how it looks:

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

The template
‹ Templates for discussion ›
has been
proposed for deletion

Template:Magic-please-dont-expose

Unused, and we don't remove information from the encyclopedia just to help someone sell it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either redirect to Template:Magic-spoiler or delete. If the creator is so concerned about the secret of a commercial magic trick getting out, then he might as well remove that information from the page. --JB Adder | Talk 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's a copyright violation it should be reported as such, otherwise it's redundant with generic spoiler templates. Pleas to readers by means of templates seem silly to me anyway. --IByte 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all reasons above and several below (forthcoming) -- Krash 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is an attempt at compromise. Yes, please do take a look at my contributions where you will find several tricks explained in full (better than most of the magic material currently on WP). I can contribute a whole lot more, and so could others, if they felt the WP community was respecting them. My hope is that if certain classes of tricks can be declared off limits for exposure, then maybe we can get magicians to contribute and have better quality magic information on WP. Kleg 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read Talk:Out of This World (card trick), and I am having trouble finding the "overwhelming consensus" which Finlay McWalter speaks of. Could I trouble someone to tell me how I can tell which posts count towards finding a consensus and which ones don't? Also, is "refactoring" of discussions allowed here, like is done on Ward's Wiki? It might make sense for a bunch of the exposure related stuff to go on the Talk:Exposure (magic) page (where I looked for it) rather than being scattered around on the talk pages of random tricks. Kleg 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think refactoring of talk page discussion is generally thought to be a good idea. Summarization of points made, yes, but changing people's words and removing them? No, typically I think you present a summary and then, if consensus is reached it's accurate, archive the old page. (but I'm a newbie so I may be misreading, do your own research). I just read through Talk:Out of This World (card trick), as well as the article itself and I have this comment: I am not an IBM member, not a professional magician by any stretch of the imagination, but I do happen to know a few tricks, including this one (at least a trick that delivers the same effect). Without going into how it actually is done (if you want to know how it's done, teach me one I don't know (in person) and I'll show you), the way I know to present it isn't the way given in the article, not by a long shot (I'm not talking patter, I mean the mechanics and fundamental principle are totally different). I think the way the article is now, presenting a magic specific spoiler and asking people not to read it if they don't want to know, is sufficient, assuming that the information can be sourced... Under WP:V if a particular article section can't be shown to have a publicly verifiable source, or is a copyvio (or a contract violation, I think) deletion of that section can be argued for by those editing it. I guess I'm not seeing how this template helps at all, what it asks people to do seems unencyclopedic (from the perspective of a reader of the encyclopedia, readers come to get information, and shouldn't be asked not to share it). So I favour deletion, as I (sort of) said above. ++Lar 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per everything above. Template:DaGizza/Sg 05:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anti-encyclopedic. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw it in half, no wait that would create 2 templates... Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:50, Jan. 2, 2006

Template:Off-topic

Looks like a one-off created for one specific dispute. Redundant with {(sofixit}}? -- Netoholic @ 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Keep. Has the potential to be usefull, but is overly specific. Also, that yellow burns my brain.--Sean|Black 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I've de-uglified it, and it may be useful if given a chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like it better after recent edits changing colour and modifying wording. It's true that it's currently only on one article, but that doesn't mean if wouldn't be useful for other articles (if other Wikipedians were aware of its existence). I don't see how Template:sofixit could be used as a substitute for this one. AnnH (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (Changed from "something between weak keep and keep" at 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Yes I created it in a specific situation and have not used it on other articles, but I don't think that the problem of off-topic additions to articles (or incongruency of title/topic and content) is restricted to this dispute. As I found that no template like this existed, I created it. It's free for all to use. Improvements are of course welcome. Str1977 12:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: If a section is off-topic, shouldn't it just be deleted or moved instead of tagged? Aren't articles SUPPOSED to stay on topic? -- Jbamb 13:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes, depending on the writing style and how the off-topic material flows into the on-topic material, it may be difficult for someone not entirely familiar with the subject to excise it. BTW: this is the same question people ask whenever the {{POV}} or {{Disputed}} templates come up for deletion. =) (Except with "Why not remove the POV portion?" and "Why not remove the factually inaccurate portion?"). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you there. If you are familiar enough with a subject to determine when something is off-topic, you are familiar enough to remove it. It's different than fixing POV or factual errors. If a user really can't determine whether a section is off-topic or not, they should just leave it alone entirely. Kafziel 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jbamb. If a section of an article is off topic, it should be fixed, not tagged. Other tags, like {{cleanup}}, automatically list their articles on a special page dedicated to cleanup requests. This tag doesn't have a page like that; it only serves to highlight the section, when the user should be fixing the problem instead. Delete. Kafziel 13:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, obviously if something strays from the topic, it should be removed, but sometimes that isn't possible — edit wars and all that! On Jbamb's line of argument, deviations in neutrality and accuracy should be corrected rather than tagged, yet we have tags for them. (The problem is that a person who introduces POV, inaccuracies, or rambling, may not agree with your verdict, and may revert your efforts to clean up. And, of course, you may be wrong in thinking that it's POV, inaccurate or irrelevant.) The POV and accuracy tags are useful for warning readers and for directing them to the talk page, where they might join in the discussion and might make helpful coments bringing about consensus. I don't think the value of this particular tag lies in warning the reader not to be misled by the statements in the article. I do, however, think that it's useful in encouraging readers (who may not be regular editors) to help where there's a dispute. I was looking up Wikipedia for about nine months before it ever occurred to me to click on "discussion". On that basis, I'm changing my vote above to a clearer "keep". AnnH (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine looking up an article in Encyclopaedia Britannica and seeing a caveat that says, "The information in this section may or may not have anything to do with what you are looking for." What kind of confidence would that inspire in the information? It hurts the whole article. The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out. Besides - if I'm reading an article about cats and come across a sentence about MP3 players or maple syrup, it won't lead me to any incorrect conclusions about cats. That's the difference between this and the POV tag. So just be bold! That's what talk pages are for. Make a note of what you took out, and why, on the talk page. If someone reverts you, then you have your answer. Kafziel 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if someone starts talking about maple syrup in a cat article, that should be edited out right away. I see this template being more useful when there is some dispute as to whether or not a particular section is on or off topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenj0418 (talk • contribs) 17:17, December 30, 2005 (UTC)
Well it wouldn't inspire great confidence in Encyclopedia Britannica either if we looked up something and saw a caveat that said, "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed"! I think we're all agreed that if something clearly doesn't belong in the article, it should be removed. But that's not taking into account the possibility of opposition. AnnH (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the innacuracies tag hurts articles as well, but it's a necessary evil and this one isn't. Allow me to quote myself from my last entry: "The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out." Be bold! Either take the initiative to fix the article yourself, or leave it alone. So what if someone disagrees with your change? The info is still in the page history and they can change it back. That can be dealt with on the talk page without putting a tag on the article. Kafziel 16:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful for folks like me who prefer to warn page editors of a problem rather than going in and deleting big chunks of content. Kappa 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should also have a category page that lists all such possibly off-topic pages. Kenj0418 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'd actually find much more use for this on talk pages. On articles themselves, I'd prefer something more reminiscent of {{split}} to either this or massive deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's true it should be obvious to any reader, and in any case anyone noticing it will be free to fix it. Utterly useless. Anyone putting it on a page certainly deserves to get awarded Template:sofixit. Palmiro | Talk 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems potentially useful, like any other maintenence template. Not everything can be immediately fixed by the user who sees it. -- SCZenz 02:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I look at a lot of articles on Wikipedia out of curiosity (right now I have 10 open tabs pointing to Wiki articles that I haven't gotten back to yet). Many articles that I look at obviously need work, and when I can do the work, I do it. But sometimes, while I am perfectly able to recognize a problem, I don't have the time, or the expertise, or perhaps the audacity, to barge in and 'take it over' from the people who have been working on it before I saw it. In that case, adding a template (with a short explanation) to the article or its talk page would be a reminder to me (on my contribution page) to do the work later or a gentle nudge to others that the article needs work. This template is in that category, and does no harm when used on a talk page. Plus, there are a lot of grey areas where one person should not unilaterally decide to delete "off topic" material without discussing it with others who put it there, e.g. on an article about cats, is cat food off topic? Cat behavior, caring for cats, taking cats traveling, cat shows, cats in the movies? I would not be so quick to use an axe on someone else's contribution, but I wouldn't hesitate to drop this template onto the talk page. Aumakua 11:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: but it's not a talk page template, it's an article template to point people to the talk page. There's no reason to use it instead of either fixing the problem or raising it in a normal way on the talk page. Possible divergence from the topic is not something that users need a big template message warning them about, unlike NPOV problems for example where the templates both categorise the articles into a category other editors can use to look for problems that need fixing, and warn users that the information may not be reliable where this may not be apparent. This isn't the same sort of issue at all. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute rejection. As with Netoholic , and as per other delete AND stronger. This template is deisigned to diminuish clarity. off-topic ain't the problem, the problem is that of even entering any topic meaningfully. The creation of this template is designed towards e negative result. I can point to many failures to even link to the related but more-topical-elsewhere. I tell you there aren't even links, and I have shown the creator odf this causes the situation, repeatedly. The creator of this is trying to reduce WP from exactly that un-linkage situation, even further. The use of off-topic can be very negative and destructive,so, I will repeat myself -this template must be deleted . I have proof of this activity, as used precisely against me, by its creator. This is not wehere WP needs to go , but rather follow my inclusive template, expressed at [[Vatican Bank}}/talk.EffK 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep has an obvious use, and plenty of people who would use it if needed. Its not spam, offensive or orphaned. No reason to delete - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. It is obvious from the edit summary of the dispute that the creator intended it as a {{cleanup}} off chute not as a means of justifying the off-topic nature. I believe it should re rewritten to appear more like the {{cleanup}} template and less like the {{disputed}} template. —gorgan_almighty 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NPOV-date

(also Template:POV-section-date)

Fork of existing template. Only new purpose seems to create a category structure for POV disputes by date (see Quickly). I don't think we need that. -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Objective

Unused, and redundant with other dispute templates. -- Netoholic @ 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lucidinformationsystems

Unused. —Cryptic (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various icon image templates

(namely Template:MacOS-icon, Template:Windows-icon, Template:Gnome-icon, Template:Kde-icon, Template:X-icon, Template:Oss-icon, Template:Free-icon, Template:Nix-icon, Template:Linux-icon, Template:FreeBSD-icon)
We don't use templates merely to insert an image at a given size. Further, the only place any of these are used are in Comparison of image viewers, Comparison of accounting software and Comparison of bitmap graphics editors, where their use is purely decorative and thus runs afoul of WP:FUC (at least for MacOs-icon and Windows-icon), and in Template:OS-icon-key, listed below. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template:OS-icon-key

Unused, and we don't use fair-use icons for things like this anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If equal g

It's deprecated, so let's kill it. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divizia A

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divizia A: "It is unused. It was copied from Romanian Wikipedia (including fonts). There's another similar template, Ro Divizia A, in use. Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)" --Idont Havaname 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Infoboxes

Other

  • See Primefac's note above. Just keep using the existing templates. They will be converted for you during the merge process, whenever it happens (these merges sometimes take a while, as you can see above). When the conversion is done, the merged template will support the features that you need. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's helpful. Is there a change that could be usefully made to the display text in {{being deleted}}? Or maybe the assumption is that no one reads beyond the first line anyway. Thincat (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

  • None currently

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

Listings

January 5

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

The result of the debate was speedied --Doc ask? 12:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User userbox purge

This needs to go. It's bordering on being deliberately disruptive in order to make a point; it's a not-very-well disguised attack on certain administrators, and it's an unacceptable waste of template space. As opposed to making light of the situation, users should perhaps strive to be helping create some order out of the chaos that, ultimately, these things caused at the very beginning. Rob Church Talk 12:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore the deliberately disruptive part is deleting the item before it has been listed on TfD. Chaos is not caused by templates - chaos is caused by irrational deletionists. Please restore this template until it can be properly reviewed here on TfD. Now. --Dschor 12:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedy deleted it under the criteria that the template was receation of content already deleted. You can check the deletion log for the full details, and the similar templates were deleted a few days earlier at the TFD's I started. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 12:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now been restored, since the deletion was disputed. That is, I believe, the ah..."proper process", isn't it? So now we can discuss it. Rob Church Talk 12:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as disruption we have division problems in this community right now - we don't need gloating userboxes rubbing salt in wounds. Besides which - implicitly comparing an admin to Stalin is an offensive personal attack. --Doc ask? 12:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now it has been deleted again - it is getting much harder to assume good faith when the template listed here has been speedy deleted twice in a matter of moments. How is a rational TfD discussion supposed to occur when the template is repeatedly deleted? Please Speedy Restore until this nomination can at least be commented upon. What is the purpose of TfD if there is nothing left to Delete??? --Dschor 12:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been speedied as disruption and a personal attack - damaging to this project. It should not have been recreated (and indeed varients of it have been at different places). If anyone had/has a problem with the original speedy (which was not mine), then WP:DR is open to them. --Doc ask? 12:32, 5 January 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:User allow fairuse

I don't think this needs a massive amount of explanation. Suffice it to say, that this template may be used to convey the opinion that our users don't like US copyright law. Sorry, but you can't vote that away, otherwise I'd have shot George W. Bush under WP:IAR back in 2003. Rob Church Talk 12:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whoever created and whoever uses this template needs to have the difference between the law and Wikipedia policy explained to them. [[Sam Korn]] 12:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just another attempt at censorship in the user space. This template has not hurt anybody - leave it be. --Dschor 12:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Fair use provision in the US copyright law does not (and will not) specifically target the use of copyrighted image within a particularly defined (in the law) namespace in a particularly defined website. The statement "it's the law" in Template talk:User allow fairuse immutable version implies such a misleading statement, that, the action of which, is explicitly and/or specifically prohibited and/or targeted by law. Keep until relevant discussions in WP:FU and Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes have reached a consensus regarding the issue. -- Carlsmith 13:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily as disruption. --Pjacobi 13:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Measurement

Template:Measurement
Delete — This is an unfinished template that does not seem to be currently in use. The material covered is dealt with well elsewhere and I see no need for this table. Srleffler 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

Template:Cemetery and Template:Cemetery

No idea what this is about. One editor thinks it might be a game. I think it's merely a mistake and propose deletion. -- Longhair 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created the template for cemetery entries. What is your reason for wanting to delete it? It is used for the same reason as all templates, to create a standardized format for all entries in this category

I am still not sure what you are referring to. Which rule has been broken? Is it not useful? Is it not encylopedic? I use it to ensure that each cemetery I add has the same format when I transclude the template. Should I move it to my namespace? If I do then it defeats the purpose of standardization. Or have a stored my template in the wrong namespace? I am new to templates so be patient with me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • You can still transclude a template from your userspace, yes. However, the problem here is that it's not really a template- it's fine for a standardised format for cemetery articles, but the problem is that the way trancslusion works will produce just what the template says unless you include optional parameters (which is difficult and confusing). I'd suggest moving the template into your userspace, then dragging it into the empty edit box and filinf it out when making a new article.--Sean|Black 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't the purpose of templates. The logical alternative to such over-templating is to establish a page on a single, important cemetery and use that page as a "template" for future cemetery pages. - Cuivienen 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User soup nazi and Template:User-grammar nazi

Whatever your view on userboxes, these should go. 1) Not funny. 2) Comparisons to Nazis are always in poor taste. 3) We will have users who suffered, directly or indirectly, under Hitler. 4) Godwin's law. 5) And least important - there are some issues surrounding the use of the Swastika in some European countries. --Doc ask? 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hm. None of those reasons sound very convincing. We don't censor Wikipedia articles, so why should we censor Wikipedia userpages? As long as it's someone identifying himself as a soup nazi or a grammar nazi, rather than accusing anyone else of being such, it's not likely to offend, since both terms are heavily ingrained in the popular culture (though the swastika in "user soup nazi" is a bit unexpected; I'd have expected an image of a bowl of soup or something). Not being funny and not being in good taste are matters of taste, and not really grounds for deletion, even though I agree; nor do Godwin's Law or censorship laws in various European countries make any difference in this matter. And if the "I hate GWB" templates are appropriate, I don't see how this one, which doesn't even express an opinion (it's not like it says "the Holocaust wasn't real" or "I <3 Hitler" on it or anything), could be considered unacceptably inappropriate.
As for people who have suffered due to Hitler: although I think for the most part these terms are used just for shock value and humor (although they can sometimes be offensive when applied to other people rather than to oneself, e.g. calling someone a "grammar nazi" for correcting your spelling), not really anything attempted to offend anyone, if anything, I'd say that such jokes as "soup nazi" trivialize naziism, they don't trivialize the Holocaust. Mocking Hitler and demeaning and degrading the term "nazi" with silly, amusing phrases "soup nazi" and "grammar nazi" is not mocking or attacking victims of nazis, but mocking nazis themselves. The needless suffering it's caused and continues to cause is bad, but the concept of naziism itself, really, isolated from its historical context, isn't scary so much as incredibly silly. If racism and religious bigotry wasn't so dangerous, destructive, and widespread in modern society, I'd almost consider racists and bigots adorable. Like crazy people on the subway. -Silence 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't censor wikipedia, because censorship damages content. We should remove sources of offence where to do so is content-neutral (else why not have an erect penis on the Mainpage). If people want to self-describe by comparison to mass-murderers, they are free to do so. The question is whether there should be a general template to facilitate this. --Doc ask? 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the problem is that it's not self-describing by comparison to mass-murderers, it's using a term that very vaguely alludes to a mass murderer. Is even mentioning a term that is related to someone hateful off-limits, even when the actual template is certainly not supportive of that individual or his movement, and is in fact a parody of it? I think it's a tad excessive to say that we can't even use the word "nazi" in any template on Wikipedia, no matter what the context, intent, or meaning is. And if that's not what you're saying, then read Soup Nazi and grammar nazi, as they're references, respectively, to a very popular Seinfeld episode and to a very common colloquial term for people who are overly concerned with grammar, certainly not the direct references to Hitler you seem to think they are. My recommendation: keep both templates, and replace the swastika on the "Soup Nazi" with a more topic-appropriate image (like a bowl of soup or a clipped version of Image:Sein soup nazi.jpg) so it fits the joke properly. -Silence 01:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official policy on userboxes, but there is on WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with which you might like to refamilliarise yourself! --Doc ask? 11:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith.
People keep claiming that 'Soup Nazi' is common cultural reference. Well, it is not one I have ever heard - and so all I saw was some poor-taste comparision between soup and Nazism. I wonder that voters may be guitly of US-popular-culture imperialism. In most of the world, when people see the word Nazi, they do not think about US sitcoms. --Doc ask? 14:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Soup Nazi is worse than U.S.-pop-culture imperialism, it is New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism. However, given that it is instantly identifiable to hundreds of millions of English speakers I think it qualifies as a common knowledge joke. Everyone who does not understand the reference (even if that means most other English speakers) can simply click on the link in the userbox to read about it. — Eoghanacht talk 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 'New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism' = 'common knowledge'. I suddenly feel like an ignorant foreigner. --Doc ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep - Stop the deletionism. Delete only the templates that are actually useless and stop wasting space on this page and the time of Wikipedia users. - Cuivienen 14:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only templates that are 'actually useless' - OK, what 'use' are these to the goals of wikipedia? --Doc ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User en-5

Arrogant, non standard, horrible. The en-4 -> en-N should be adequate. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps there should be a lever 5 to the other languasges as well. Also, perhaps this user is a better English speaker that most other people, perhaps a professor in the English language for example. →AzaToth 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changing all other language templates just to accomodate this one userbox is a bit much IMO - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mozilla

(previous nomination)

Redundant to {{logo}}, used on about ten images. That Mozilla explicitly says "go ahead and use this" is irrelevant; we don't allow "by-permission" images, and they're in fact speedyable. Their license explicitly disallows commercial exploitation (see their faq), making all images with this tag speedyable for that reason also. On top of this, they don't allow derivatives of any kind, further cementing the case that this is an unfree image. The only way images currently tagged with this template can be used on Wikipedia is under a fair use claim. —Cryptic (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's different because everyone and their cousin knows (or should know) that there's no harm in displaying the Mozilla logos in this context. —David Levy 17:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, using images we have been given permission to use doesn't carry any legal risk either, but because such images are unfree (does not allow commercial re-distribition) it has been dictated from the foundation level that such images are not to be used anymore (or at least used under the fair use doctrine instead). I don't see how this should somehow not apply here. --Sherool (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are intended for use on user pages. If they were to be added to related articles, that would qualify as fair use. What's the problem? —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are intended for use in the user namespace. As Kelly and Tony have reminded us in recent days, this is not part of the encyclopedia proper. —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advertising

Unused and unuseful. — Dan | talk 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FormerGA

"This article has been delisted as a good article". Given the unofficiality of WP:GA, there seems hardly any point to list and categorize articles that were at one point considered "good" and no longer considered so, or were considered "not quite good enough but still decent" or whatever. Delete. Radiant_>|< 10:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions

On request from a third party, I have also moved the discussion (which is already quite sizable) there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - This template is redundant with Template:Campaignbox War of the Spanish Succession which lists more battles. Roy Al Blue 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Template:Coin

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is redundant with Template:Infobox Coin, which is superior. In addition, this template is no longer in use. Markkawika 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AutoCAD related articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — I believe this should be converted to a category or just deleted. I suspect "See also" and in-line links mean even a cateogory is redundent, and so I favor delete. Please note if you favor convert vs plain delete. If concensus is for convert, I'll work on creating the appropriate category. DragonHawk 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this. Simply put [[Category:AutoCAD related articles]] inside the template. —gorgan_almighty 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We do not have, need, or IMO want, a template for every category. The category system already does what this template does, automatically. Categories don't require separate maintenance or human intervention for updates, nor do they add the server load templates do. Why does AutoCAD need a special template just for it's related articles? This isn't an article series; it's just some related articles. That's what links and categories are for. Is there a benefit we get from this template?

Template:User against scientology

Template:User against scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template seems needlessly uncivil to me. It adds nothing to community or, if it does add to community, probably not the type that will help build an encyclopedia. I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs... but, let us not use templates to attack others views. gren グレン 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ditto. This place is supposed to encourage NPOV, no? MARussellPESE 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No value in building encyclopedia, potential for vote-stacking abuse. --- Charles Stewart 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - User space should be a place where wikipedians can describe themselves as they see fit. This userbox can serve that purpose. It is not harmful, and given the recent conflagration over userboxes, I would prefer to leave the user space alone. This userbox could tell editors a great deal about the motivations of an editor, and certainly falls within the freedom of expression that the user space is intended for. --Dschor 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending a more compelte userbox policy. I belive that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. This user box is divisive (as are all userboxes indicating a user's disapproval for some other thing) and mainly exists for linkspamming (I'm sure its presence on Wikipedia increases the pagerank of the external site linked within it). It should be shot dead now. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, slash and burn external link - I've removed the external link and made it go to Operation Clambake instead - Scientology is a scary group of people: See Office of Special Affairs, Suppressive Person or Xenu articles. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Userboxes CAN be POV, that's what they are for, for user's to express opinions. That's why we have pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Jew, Muslim, so on user boxes. It might be wise to tone it down a notch, but POV is not valid grounds to delete a user box. -- Jbamb 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My grounds was civil. It needlessly (and directly) annoys scientologists. Whereas if a pro-lifer dislikes someone because of a pro-choice userbox it's the pro-lifer being offended by the other's ideology passively. When you use this tag it actively offends needlessly. WP:CIVIL#Why_is_it_bad.3F describes why this is not appropriate pretty well... and, this basically amounts to an attack template. gren グレン 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all userboxes that express negative views or that attack others or their beliefs. If you want to put it on your user page, write it yourself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want it on your user page, don't add it. This nomination is an attempt to censor the views expressed on user pages, and is a misuse of the deletion process. We are all entitled to our opinions, at least in user space. --Dschor 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not, though. Don't you get it? This is an encyclopedia. A user page is fine for telling people about yourself or expressing yourself a little. It shouldn't be the main focus of your attention, and it certainly shouldn't be used to attack religions you disagree with in a cute boilerplate box. Wikipedia has no rule guaranteeing freedom of expression. Rhobite 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there' no hope if we continue with cheap shots like that. --Doc ask? 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jbamb.
  • Keep until we have a policy on userboxes. I don't want to see every single objectionable userbox individually nominated on TfD, nor do I want to see them unilaterally speedied as was recently done. Picking a few boxes and nominating them "to establish a precedent" is also a lousy solution. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userboxes reflect opinions. If there are people here who are against scientology, let them feel free to say it. DaGizza Chat 13:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-encyclopedic userboxes. As for not having "attack boxes", I don't see how this is any different than the anti-women's choice userbox (*cough cough* "pro-life", whatever). --Cyde Weys votetalk 13:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment someone may be pro-life because they consider abortion to be a form of murder. It does not neccessitate they are against women having a choice because the former (i.e murder) trumps the latter (women's right to choose) in importance such that the latter wouldn't even come into consideration. Pepsidrinka 20:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sam Fisher

Template:Sam Fisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template was only used on Sam Fisher, I've subst:'ed it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County

(and Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County/city seal)

I don't see any special reason we need this sub- and meta-templated fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. Can we orphan and speedy? -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City NH

As above... fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuisine

Giant, unnecessary template; no linkage or series involved; choice of links is subjective. --Neutralitytalk 05:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

Template:Green Parties

Template:Green Parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Smiley

It's Template:Sad (TFD discussion) all over again, with all its friends, all rolled up into one evil template via a {{switch}}. What's so terribly difficult about the image syntax that we need to use a two-level-deep template? They don't even need to be resized. —Cryptic (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User GWB

I pretty much believe this should be speedied for personal attack but apparently not all agree. Whatever the case, this user box signifies the problem many are having -- it's bomb throwing partisanship, makes light of vandalism, and if there's a template out there making it okay to "hate" someone or something on Wikipedia just what the heck are we doing here. --Wgfinley 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not sure you can honestly call yourself libertarian and propose templates for deletion on the grounds of their content at the same time . In any case, the template is not really harming anyone, and partisanship is perfectly acceptable on user pages. Finally, as the template does not actually encourage vandalism I don't see how it 'makes light' of it. - Cuivienen 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unlike other political templates I've seen this one actually relates to wikipedia - albiet in an off-hand sort of way. Heck, I'd put both that and a bill clinton version on my page just because I dislike seeing the useless, probably partially-politically-motivated vandalism . That's just my opinion though . I do agree it is a bit combative though... WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; nothing wrong with it. Wgfinley attempted to get it speedy deleted as nonsense and then as an attack page, reverting the removal of the tags several times. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep!!. Are we going to be censoring political humor now? Jesus Christ! --Cjmarsicano 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People have "support" GWB templates, too. No reason to delete either. Dave (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change the wording. I think this is what the templates need is a slight word change. Maybe it should just read "This user does not wish to revert vandalism at GWB." Zach (Smack Back) 06:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and either change wording per Zach or move to Template:User hates GWB or something similar, without a redirect. Content is harmless, but the title's misleading. —Cryptic (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote the "Support GWB" Template in response to this one. To be honest, it's not the hate that bothers me as much as the implicit endorsement of vandalism on Wikipedia. I believe the other template that jokes about "Reverting his edits to the Constitution" makes the same point, doesn't endorse vandalism, and (most important of all) is funnier. However, I'm not going to vote on this one, as the users of this userbox should make the final call. Palm_Dogg 08:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Statements like these are not really my style (though I don't support GWB either) but I also think banning them would be a totally unacceptable kind of censorship. Regardless of political colour, it's really a treasure when political leaders can be freely critized. Larix 08:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree that censorship of any kind is totaly unnaceptable. But, on Wikipedia, our opinions on political or social issues almost never matter, and usually just serve to polarize us- I don't think it's fair to characterise this as a censorship issue.--Sean|Black 09:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep for both templates for GWB and against GWB. The truth is exactly the opposite sean - userboxes serve to build community and better community gets people to stay with the project and build a better encyclopedia. - I support all user boxes.--God_of War 09:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This shouldn't be an ideological debate over the relative merits of userboxes in general. This particular template is not even a statement of opinion: it's an ad hominem attack that is potentially in violation of our policy on personal attacks (that, of course, is up for debate since the subject isn't technically a Wikipedian, but I digress). And I say this as someone who does not have any particular love for the president or his policies. – Seancdaug 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree with God of War in that userboxes help to build community, but I have to disagree with God of War inasmuch as this one has the potential to build only animosity. As for the argument that getting rid of the template is censorship, I would have to disagree—nobody's saying people can't say they hate GWB or hate removing vandalism from the GWB article. I don't care if people want to spew vitriol on their personal pages, but this template makes doing so a part of the WP namespace rather than a perceived protected right to expression. Additionally, the name User-GWB is an especially poor choice of name for this template. Tomertalk 09:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this is silly. It's just a bit of fun - I only created it in response to hearing loads of people say it themselves. --Celestianpower háblame 11:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or BJAODN (if possible) It seems to be a confession of vandalism to me, or can be used that way. Some of us may hate the guy, but it doesn't give the right to vandalise his article; in short, there are no exceptions. I can understand the political side of the humour, but the faux (I assume that was the original intention) vandalism confession. --JB Adder | Talk 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vandalism to GWB's biography and distaste for the president himself are two very notable aspects of Wikipedia and its members. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:47, Jan. 2, 2006
  • Delete. I don't like having to revert vandalism on his article, either, but to put it like the template does seems too much like implicit approval of vandalism. And yes, I see the humour — but it's not funny. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as fuddle said. --Doc ask? 12:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - but change "hate" (an overly strong word) to "can't stand". Userboxes are only for User pages and user pages are free to be POV. By deleting this box it is effectively a denial of free speech, which goes against everything anyone stands for. WP:NPOV does not come into it because the userbox system is not for the encyclopedia. Deano (Talk) 12:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 12:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already given - JVG 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As far as I am aware no Wikipedia policy forbids voicing opinions on userpages. Reword 'hate' to 'dislikes' or 'can't stand'. And there is certainly enough dislike to warent a template providing it does not phrase that he is wrong. Ian13ID:540053 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and f*ck Dubya! - Darwinek 16:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Even though I can't vote yet, I'm a republican at heart, hence my vote. --ViolinGirl♪ 20:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I think this userbox makes it clear that the GWB article is carefully policed for vandalism, even by those who don't like him. Kafziel 03:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Template:User_GWB2 expresses opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, not to George W. Bush in general, and, as such, shouldn't even be called "GWB2." - Cuivienen 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Template:Iff

Not used. Adrian Buehlmann 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — The template is a violation of WP:NPA by characterising what the subject of the RFC (which is linked in white) as Stalinist and comparing the said user to Stalin himself. Not only that is a personal attack by comparing her to Stalin, it is also triviaizing the acts Stalin did while leader of the Soviet Union. Millions of people died under his leadership while all the admin did was to delete userboxes. Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal attack. Possibly speedy, but I've had enough of being bold today. [[Sam Korn]] 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it offends so many people (like everything nowadays seems to). Just for the record, i didnt create this userbox, it was already located on several other people's userpages and on the page it links to. I just moved it to a page for easier access, as people were already using it... - UK Bourbons3Talk | Contrib's 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I go ahead and speedy it? Zach (Smack Back) 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could read you would know that I already said that i didnt create it, and that it wasnt used once, i have seen atleast 3 other users with the box on their userpage UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bourbons3 is correct on that one. By just seeing who has the image Image:Stalin3.jpg, you can see that the template is at other places. However, forks have been created of this template. I wish to ask permission to include those forks into this TFD debate. Zach (Smack Back) 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is one i know of which says "I survived" instead of "I participated" UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the I survived one, I will TFD that one separately. There was a fork of this one, same text and everything, so I deicded to speedy that one under the same grounds: gross violation of NPA and WP:CIVIL and its only purpose was to attack a user. Zach (Smack Back) 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a lot of variations of it by now - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are, and I will try to find everyone that I can. Zach (Smack Back) 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Everyone is allowed free speech. Even if this is an attack people need to have the right to speak out against administrators.--God of War 08:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- NPA , divisive and uncalled for. 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I opposed User:Kelly Martin's actions in her pre-emptive deletion of Userboxes, but this is divisive and inflammatory in the current climate. As is the original prototype spoof "Userbox" which appears to have been created by User:El C supporting the "purge" (and derivatives thereof such as Template:User survived, now gone). A question to User:Sam Korn: will you also be removing all instances of El C's template, even when not transcluded, because that is equally inflammatory? --Cactus.man ✍ 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not an attack, it is a creative way to provide a link to an RfC, where concerned wikipedians can voice their opinions on the matter. If this userbox is deleted, wikipedia has lost all perspective. --Dschor 13:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this reminds me an aweful lot of the time someone was going around signing his name [[communist|Howard Dean]], wasn't terribly funny then...--64.12.116.6 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - {{User purge}} was much better, but it was deleted and protected against recreation by Martin-supporting admins before even bringing it to TfD.
This is just an example, so people can see what it actually was:
File:Stalin3.jpg This user actively participated in rebellion against the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again.
I was actually banned for even having this on my user page, so beware if you're under the misunderstanding that you actually have any right to free speech on your user page. -_- Template:Bigspace --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User purge

This was a fork from the above template that I had deleted under the same reasons, but recreated out of "due process." Listing so that the due process can take place. Zach (Smack Back) 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cjmarsicano/g2K6up

Same as the first template, another fork. However, this is occured at a user page for transclusion. While TFD might not be the scope of this page, I want to keep the discussion of this template at one page. My vote of delete and it's reasoning as the same as the first one: this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by comparing the acts the admin did with acts that took place under the leadership of Soviet Premier Stalin. Zach (Smack Back) 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hawaiianmusic

Template:Hawaiianmusic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used, no obvious advantages over the current {{MDmusic}} in use at Music of Hawaii. Circeus 19:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as creator of both, can I authorize a speedy here? Not sure of the current rules for templates. {{MDmusic}} is preferred, and I am gradually switching all the states to use it. Hawaii is done, so this template can be safely deleted. Tuf-Kat 21:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:*-court

Template:Burger-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Chase-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Ellsworth-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Fuller-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Hughes-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Jaycourt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Marshall-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rehnquist-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rutledge-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Stone-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taft-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taney-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Vinson-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Waite-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Warren-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:White-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Templates do not appear to be used any more. DLJessup (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If author thinks it should be deleted, then its outcome is obvious. Little or no use now, so no need to keep - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (tho I'm sad to see those beauties go, and I'm goin' to keep a copy in my user space for personal reference). BDAbramson T 04:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DecencyWikiProject-Member

A template which was created for that notorious "WikiProject:Wikipedians for decency". --Victim of signature fascism 17:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angel-screenshot

Template:Angel-screenshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — A bad idea resurfaces. All the specialized {{tv-screenshot}} templates were deleted a while back because they gave the false impression that all screenshots of the program in question were "fair use". -- Carnildo 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Help Wikiboxes

This is a call to arms and totally lacks NPOV. Practically unused at present but ought not to be allowed, whatever one feels about the great Userbox debate of New Years' Eve. David | Talk 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Template:Infobox Iranian President

Optional parameters in Template:Infobox President now make this fork unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netoholic - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn2, Template:Styles2, Template:Styles3

Seems to have been created for use in beating other editors over the head with in edit wars... Dan100 (Talk) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. 100% necessary. For months a bitter edit war waged over the use of styles in articles. A compromise solution was agreed after a long debate which stopped an edit war that was waging over hundreds of royalty articles. Wikipedia policy used to be to start articles on popes with His Holiness Pope . . . . monarch articles with Her Majesty Queen . . . etc. The consensus, agreed by 92%, was no longer to use styles in that form, but to confine the style into a special style box somewhere in the text. The solution is now part of the Manual of Style. Every so often a handful of users try to restart the edit war. Other times a new user joins and edits large number of articles to add in styles. These templates are used to inform users as to what Wikipedia policy is and how and when Wikipedia uses or doesn't use styles in biographical articles. They have had to be used on many occasions and have in every occasion stopped wholescale edit wars erupting on the issue again. If Dan had bothered to check his facts and asked any of the people who need regularly to use them about them he would have been told all of this and this ridiculous nomination of a set of widely used, much needed templates would not have taken place. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I was typing the above, another user changed 16 articles to add in styles. All 16 had to be changed back (he didn't just add in a styles contrary to policy, but managed to even get the style wrong). One of the above templates had to be used to inform the user that WP does not use styles at the start of articles. That is the third time that template had had to be used in 4 hours. That is why the templates are needed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has just had to be used again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we still need these. Deb 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another 100% keep, per FearÉIREANN. Standarzing styles across the encyclopedia are essential if Wikipedia is to emerge as a reputable and usable sourcebook. 172 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - there is always some new user, who is unfamiliar with our style manual and wants to use the style of his choice. These templates are a good way of informing these users of our conventions and preserve a sense of consistency which emerged after close scrutiny of all alternatives. It is extremely unlikely that unfamiliar users will know better. These templates may also prevent revert wars over style - if all parties are informed of the standard Wikipedia style, a revert war over style is unlikely to emerge. Izehar 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - What do you mean?! These are the products of a very long project to find an acceptable use on Wikipedia. A consensus has now been reached; we need to keep enforcing it. --Matjlav(talk) 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These were created precisely to avoid head-beating edit wars. Mark1 19:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtdirl. Hopefully to be used as last resort. Herostratus 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Jtdirl. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The style templates promote consistency and accuracy. Styles shouldn't be used in titles or all throughout the articles... They should be kept to the side. - Charles 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If I had been given some of these sorts of messages way back in the beginning of my editing here, I would have been grateful for the help rather than feeling like I was beat over the head. Anything that can be done to make helping new users more efficient improves the quality of help that can be given per unit time, and that seems good for the project. If wording changes are needed to make them more kind, please do so, but I'm not seeing the need for deletion. Sometimes more than one statement IS necessary. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - style usages can be changed, by consensus, over time. Defining changes in usages as a priori vandalism is un-wiki. Nandesuka 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- they have been used several times as a warning mechanism. Astrotrain 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very empathetic to the frustration of the style-enforcers, but I feel that when humans write other humans on user talk pages it's better to stay in practice of leaving a brief personal note. (I've elaborated on this here). One can still link to the relevant style guide, but it leaves more opportunity to commend any other positive edits, and have the exchange seem less like an authoritarian "beating". I will say that these might be nice templates to put as a heads-up at the top of royalty article talk pages—even cooler if there were a MediaWiki feature to bring up relevant style guides when people clicked "edit this page". Note that I agree completely with the standard and the need to enforce it (am trying a similar initiative on post-nominals here). Metaeducation 21:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's always someone who can put these templates to good use. It saves the relevant pages being incorrectly edited UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Consistency across the encyclopaedia is a good thing, but this is NOT the way to do it, and just bites the newbies. The language used in the latter two is not helpful at all and will scare off new editors and antagonise experienced editors. I agree wholeheartedly with Metaeducation - leave a note with a link to the relevant style guide. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having seen some of this edit war that would not die, these are clearly still needed.  ALKIVAR™ 14:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn3

As above, plus what it suggests to be "vandalism" is not. Dan100 (Talk) 17:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mess2

What it pretends to be spam isn't, and what it suggests is vandalism, isn't. Dan100 (Talk) 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikisource-addition

Delete — This TfD also includes Template:Wikisource-addition-1, Template:Wikisource-addition-2, Template:Wikisource-addition-3, Template:Wikisource-addition-4, Template:Wikisource-addition-5. Ive listed it for deletion because the author wants to keep it in main article space, does not care about appearances, and does not believe usage guidelines are needed. Also it says there is a source, but does not say where the source is located (online somewhere? Vatican library?), only that one exists (which is self-evident). An example usage can be seen at Apostolicae Curae. See also discussion found here. --Stbalbach 16:31, 31 December 2005

  • The only purpose of these appears to be to mis-use Wikipedia as an equivalent of Wikipedia:Requested articles for Wikisource. Wikisource already has a requested texts mechanism: Wikisource:Requested texts. A dangling interwiki link is one thing, but an outright request that Wikipedia readers hunt for unnamed "source documents related to X" and then add them to Wikisource is quite another. This is not the way to encourage more people to contribute to Wikisource. Delete. Uncle G 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and the nominator completely misses the point of template deletion. A template should only be deleted if it serves no purpose or is redundant, if it's not used, or if it is bad beyond the point of fixing. The nominator makes no such claims; the closest he comes is his statement that I believe it should be used on the main article rather than the article talk page--which is hardly a reason for deleting it. If he thinks it should be on the talk pages, then he is by all means welcome to take it off the article page and move it on the talk page, and I wouldn't fight him over it unless and until a reasonable consensus has been reached as to the proper location. Everything else he names (it's ugly, it needs an explanation, etc.) can all easily be changed by anyone who wants to. Kurt Weber 04:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not particularly useful, as it actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's not our job to search out original sources; do that on Wikisource and link to it when you find one. Adam Bishop 05:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite or delete. Pressure should not be placed on Wikipedians to also work on other wiki projects. The template should be rewritten to identify content on Wikipedia that should instead be placed on Wikisource. If such a template already exists then this one should be deleted. —gorgan_almighty 11:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-LOC

Image copyright tag, provided misleading information about the copyright of images sourced from the Library of Congress. Numerous images in the LOC are not in the public domain. Template needs to be rewritten or deleted and images tagged within the exiting tag set up.--nixie 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nixie says, this tag will encourage people to assume that everything from the LoC is public domain. In actual fact, a careful reading of the image description there and information about the photo collection the image comes from is needed to make that determination. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite. - This template was strongly needed here. Same situation as with other USGov templates, not all images there all in PD, but this is already stated in template and btw. not all images from any USGov site all in PD, so this nomination is like nominating for deletion cat. "Jewish Americans" and not nominating other "ethnic Americans" categories. Look for example at Template:PD-USGov-State, this is confusing, because people assume that all images on state.gov site are in PD. In fact many photos from state.gov are not in PD. And let me give you two nice examples of photos from LOC.
    • 1.) Walker Evans. Floyd Burroughs' Farm, from Hale and Perry Counties and Vicinity, Alabama, 1935-1936. from [4] is PD (Office of War Information).
    • 2.) Photographer unknown (National Photo Company). President Calvin Coolidge Facing Press Photographers, 1924. from the same page probably isn't PD (National Photo Company Collection).
    • Point is that uploader of photos to Wikipedia should always find out copyright information. - Darwinek 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears as though that the copyright page does not mention the term "public domain" -- in fact, it seems to hold items that they don't even own! That means there are less PD items than we think. I'd say create an unknown use tag ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) so we can determine what images SHOULD be tagged -- a fair use tag or another PD tag (since the LOC is not going to mean PD). This could be done with a move, so keep and rewrite. This is a tag where just saying "it could be copyrighted, but if it doesn't say so, it's PD" isn't legally correct. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tag is misleading and needs to be rewritten. LoC copyright policy states that they do not generally own rights in their collections and that it is the researcher's obligation to determine copyright status. In consideration of this policy, there is no right to assume that material taken from their site is PD unless it is marked as such and a template should reflect that.--Dakota ~ ε 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it should only be marked PD if it says its PD. Of course, what I basically was trying to say was that just because it was from the LOC does NOT mean it is immediate PD, and your point agrees with this. Saying its all PD is wrong -- for all we know, some are fair use and should be tagged as fair use, some might be for uses that Wikipedia does not accept, and if it IS PD, it is PD because of, say, being pre-1923, which would be tagged with {{PD-US}} anyway. My last point still stands -- that assuming PD if no copyright given is wrong -- but because it will generally always have copyright and SAY if it is PD. All of this can still apply to the vote I gave earlier. In other words, just assume that all images from the LOC are copyrighted unless it says it's PD. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the LOC site you basically haven't written by photos, that they are in PD. Vast majority of that photos are in PD, but there is written only f.ex. "Farm Security Administration", so basically it is in PD. This is exactly the same situation as with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), related tag Template:PD-USGov-NARA reflects it very good. And btw., when some PD photo is on the LOC site, they don't write down "PD", but when there is some copyrighted photo, they claim it (see for example here). That is their policy. - Darwinek 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to a less misleading name, of course. The LOC has a huge collection of images (I've uploaded hundreds myself), and there needs to be a category for them. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-31 15:58
  • Unsure -- This may be appropriate for indicating the SOURCE of an image, but it is entirely inappropriate for making any sort of assumptions regarding the copyright status. If kept, this tag should ALWAYS be accompanied by some other tag that explicitly indicates copyright status. older≠wiser 16:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Darwinek (thanks for the notice by the way!) and add ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) per Wcquidditch. The point that the tag as used now does not guarantee PD because taking images from the LOC does not guarantee PD, is well taken (and the fact that it says it's not clear argues that it should not be a PD- prefix tag), and something I missed. But that is no reason to delete this tag. Denoting that something came from the LOC, whether known or unknown, seems goodness to me. It's a big source. Images currently tagged this way thus all currently need work/investigation/review, so this tag, at this time, lets you know which images need review. (I put as much as I can in the provenance, but did every other uploader?) For ones that are unverified, chamge to the new tag (using the wording of this one) that WCQidditch suggests but leave this one for the ones that are known good. (I better be off to do some retagging!) To nixie, if you think the template needs rewriting as one outcome, why put it up on TfD? ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just used it a couple of days ago. The templates we have right now aren't precise enough, and using this one saves time. Primetime 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading. The vast majority of works from the Library of Congress are not in the public domain. --Carnildo 03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not even a reasonable assumption that a random image from the LOC is PD. An image's copyright status should be investigated before it's uploaded anyway. "Known good" images should be tagged properly as PD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and alternative proposal. People thoughtlessly uploading images from the LOC website is a major source of unintentional copyright violation. Some images there are PD, but very many are copyrighted. The Library of Congress is rarely an original source of images, and images from their website should normally just be treated like any other images, and be attributed to their original source. There is one distinctive aspect of copyrights and the Library of Congress, though, that is important: they are rather good librarians, and so often document when the copyright on a post-1922 image has not been renewed. They have also sometimes made arrangements with photographers that have allowed their photographs to become public domain much sooner than otherwise would have happened. As the LOC can be a good source on the murky copyright status of post-1922 images, I propose the following template (Template:PD-US-LOC) instead for images it is appropriate for.--Pharos 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
United States Federal Government
This image was first published in the United States in 1923 or later, but is considered public domain by the Library of Congress because its copyright has not been renewed or has been formally released, or for another reason.

Template:User KO v. O'Reilly

Delete — The user box serves no purpose to me other than to cause future problems. Before I even TFD'ed the template, vandalism along the lines of "O Rly, Ya Rly." And, while not a sufficient reason for deletion, the icons of these templates have fair use images, a no-no. But overall, it will just cause problems, and I agree that the userboxes have jumped the shark and now it is the time maybe we should say "no mas." Zach (Smack Back) 09:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

The "vandalism" was to remove the fair use images :P --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SPUI. I still do not think the images are a reason for template deletion, but I think we got carried away on these boxes. Zach (Smack Back) 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

Template:MLB Athletics franchise

Template:MLB Athletics franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Vw

Redundant with the {{test}} series. Firebug 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Styles4, Template:Rn4, and Template:Lang4

Threatens to block people for a nonblockable offense. Firebug 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosblock

A violation of WP:BP. No evidence this has ever actually been used. Firebug 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • BTW, someone should go over Category:User warning templates. Do we need 142 separate warnings?! Firebug 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been used for MoS vandalism and will continue to be used. And yes those people who deal with vandalism know from experience we do need specific warnings dealing with specific issues. In fact there are many issues that are not covered by warnings which crop up all the time and for which users have been, and will continue to, creating templates as the need arises. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. I note that Jtdirl refers to "MoS vandalism" but that the word "vandalism" does not appear anywhere on {{Mosblock}}. android79 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. It appears as if Jtdirl wants to keep this around so he can use it in ways in which he would be violating Wikipedia policies himself, by definition. Aumakua 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If Jdtirl routinely blocks, or even threatens to block, editors for violating the Manual of Style, he needs to read it himself, noting especially: "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." Thus the existance of this template is evidence for a far worse problem than failure to adhere to the MoS, and every use of it, past or future, is a violation of a much more important principle. The sooner it gets deleted, the better. Aumakua 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or, maybe keep it, so we can see which admins violate Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Unlike WP:MoS, admins are bound to follow that when they use their mop and bucket. -- SCZenz 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. It seems that these kinds of blocks are not for violating the manual of style per se, but rather are about ignoring requests to stop editing editing that way. I am uncertain if the request should bear enough weight to ever justify blocking, but in any case should generally lead to a discussion of some sort. We don't want people editwarring over decided matters like the MoS, but we also don't want to create an environment where making mistakes with grammar/style standards leads to a block. Discussion should usually sort that out, and hopefully everyone will follow the MoS afterwards. Willfully and knowingly violating the MoS after having it brought up, especially for users who have enough grammar skills in English that it's clear they're just being difficult, should perhaps leave the door open to further pressure. --Improv 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no question. It's a violation of policy, simple as that. BTW Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism defines vandalism; no other "vandalism" is blockable. Dan100 (Talk) 09:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per Jtdirl. If Wikipedia is not going to enforce content policies, it has no reason for being at all. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. 172 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, deliberately disregarding content policies following repeated warnings is clear vandalism. If Wikipedia is to be sucessful as a project conforming to its goal of writing a reliable encyclopedia, we must tighten our mechanisms for enforcing content policies. 172 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Posting edits which do not conform to the Manual of Style is not vandalism, no matter how much some people would prefer to rigidly enforce their personal aesthetic preference. Warnings which threaten to block users for vandalism for making edits which are not vandalism are therefore egregiously inappropriate. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You cannot be blocked for violating guidelines. You may however be taken to an RFC or an RFAr over it. The probable effect for enforcing a guideline is by consensus reversion; then the 3RR would serve its purpose and not this template. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Nom and because violating the MoS is not vandalism. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Musicbrainz album, Template:Musicbrainz track, Template:Musicbrainz artist

These templates give preferential treatment to Musicbrainz. If they are kept, we should at least lose the images - it's basically an ad. Rhobite 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm a little embarrassed to have nominated these templates for deletion given the strong response. I think my real problem is with the images. Nobody else (IMDB, etc) gets images - why are we endorsing Musicbrainz? Anyway I'm withdrawing the nomination. Sorry. Rhobite 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDB image was removed with little to no discussion The Last.fm template includes an image. I address why I think these are useful in my comments below. Be sure to follow the Beatles link to see my example. — Mperry 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, external links to musicbrainz are abundant. Remove the image if you must, though I personally don't think it's a problem. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 3

Not used. Variant of Template:Web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dangh

Fork of {{afd}}. (Though I do agree with the creator's sentiments as expressed in the edit history. Down with Monobook-specific formatting and evil javascript tricks! Torches and pitchforks and all that!) —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-small

Despite the name, it isn't any smaller than {{tfd}}; it's just a forked version of it, with different wording and an extra enclosing box. Only ever used on one template, where I've replaced it with the canonical tfd. —Cryptic (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redundant and unnecessary. Kenj0418 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIX {{tfd}} first, then delete this one. I have seen at least one place where this template was better, tfd made the page quite ugly.. Perhaps someone cleverer-er than me could fix it (but without using the dreaded {{if}}?)? Until then it's not redundant, although it IS a fork and therefore should be opposed... ++Lar 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed it on Template:Middle-earth portal; the absolute positioning via css there was what prevented the normal tfd from being put into the box without fuss. Position:absolute is Quite Rare, and this was the first template I've seen that needed an additional <div> stuck around the tfd template. (I'm not sure why position:absolute is permitted in css anyway; I've only seen it used for vandalism and for the evil hack that is {{click}}, which would be better done as an additional image tag.) Was this the template you were thinking of, or was it used on another that I'm not aware of? —Cryptic (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it was, thanks for remembering, Cryptic! So what's the upshot, is {{tfd}} fixed (that is, was that <div> already there or did you add it), or is it more of a "watch out for very weird cases and fix them rather than the template"? Putting some remarks into bracketed by {{tfd}}<noinclude> might be the way to go. (or put them in the instructions here?... I'm thinking this one can now be deleted in any case... ++Lar 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fork. Possibly speedy per a similar discussion several months ago. Radiant_>|< 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's also misleading, as the reall "small version of {{tfd}}" is {{tfd-inline}}, which is much smaller than this one (when used, of course!) By the way, it's just funny how it looks:

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

The template
‹ Templates for discussion ›
has been
proposed for deletion

Template:Magic-please-dont-expose

Unused, and we don't remove information from the encyclopedia just to help someone sell it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either redirect to Template:Magic-spoiler or delete. If the creator is so concerned about the secret of a commercial magic trick getting out, then he might as well remove that information from the page. --JB Adder | Talk 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's a copyright violation it should be reported as such, otherwise it's redundant with generic spoiler templates. Pleas to readers by means of templates seem silly to me anyway. --IByte 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all reasons above and several below (forthcoming) -- Krash 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is an attempt at compromise. Yes, please do take a look at my contributions where you will find several tricks explained in full (better than most of the magic material currently on WP). I can contribute a whole lot more, and so could others, if they felt the WP community was respecting them. My hope is that if certain classes of tricks can be declared off limits for exposure, then maybe we can get magicians to contribute and have better quality magic information on WP. Kleg 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read Talk:Out of This World (card trick), and I am having trouble finding the "overwhelming consensus" which Finlay McWalter speaks of. Could I trouble someone to tell me how I can tell which posts count towards finding a consensus and which ones don't? Also, is "refactoring" of discussions allowed here, like is done on Ward's Wiki? It might make sense for a bunch of the exposure related stuff to go on the Talk:Exposure (magic) page (where I looked for it) rather than being scattered around on the talk pages of random tricks. Kleg 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think refactoring of talk page discussion is generally thought to be a good idea. Summarization of points made, yes, but changing people's words and removing them? No, typically I think you present a summary and then, if consensus is reached it's accurate, archive the old page. (but I'm a newbie so I may be misreading, do your own research). I just read through Talk:Out of This World (card trick), as well as the article itself and I have this comment: I am not an IBM member, not a professional magician by any stretch of the imagination, but I do happen to know a few tricks, including this one (at least a trick that delivers the same effect). Without going into how it actually is done (if you want to know how it's done, teach me one I don't know (in person) and I'll show you), the way I know to present it isn't the way given in the article, not by a long shot (I'm not talking patter, I mean the mechanics and fundamental principle are totally different). I think the way the article is now, presenting a magic specific spoiler and asking people not to read it if they don't want to know, is sufficient, assuming that the information can be sourced... Under WP:V if a particular article section can't be shown to have a publicly verifiable source, or is a copyvio (or a contract violation, I think) deletion of that section can be argued for by those editing it. I guess I'm not seeing how this template helps at all, what it asks people to do seems unencyclopedic (from the perspective of a reader of the encyclopedia, readers come to get information, and shouldn't be asked not to share it). So I favour deletion, as I (sort of) said above. ++Lar 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per everything above. Template:DaGizza/Sg 05:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anti-encyclopedic. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw it in half, no wait that would create 2 templates... Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:50, Jan. 2, 2006

Template:Off-topic

Looks like a one-off created for one specific dispute. Redundant with {(sofixit}}? -- Netoholic @ 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Keep. Has the potential to be usefull, but is overly specific. Also, that yellow burns my brain.--Sean|Black 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I've de-uglified it, and it may be useful if given a chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like it better after recent edits changing colour and modifying wording. It's true that it's currently only on one article, but that doesn't mean if wouldn't be useful for other articles (if other Wikipedians were aware of its existence). I don't see how Template:sofixit could be used as a substitute for this one. AnnH (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (Changed from "something between weak keep and keep" at 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Yes I created it in a specific situation and have not used it on other articles, but I don't think that the problem of off-topic additions to articles (or incongruency of title/topic and content) is restricted to this dispute. As I found that no template like this existed, I created it. It's free for all to use. Improvements are of course welcome. Str1977 12:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: If a section is off-topic, shouldn't it just be deleted or moved instead of tagged? Aren't articles SUPPOSED to stay on topic? -- Jbamb 13:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes, depending on the writing style and how the off-topic material flows into the on-topic material, it may be difficult for someone not entirely familiar with the subject to excise it. BTW: this is the same question people ask whenever the {{POV}} or {{Disputed}} templates come up for deletion. =) (Except with "Why not remove the POV portion?" and "Why not remove the factually inaccurate portion?"). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you there. If you are familiar enough with a subject to determine when something is off-topic, you are familiar enough to remove it. It's different than fixing POV or factual errors. If a user really can't determine whether a section is off-topic or not, they should just leave it alone entirely. Kafziel 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jbamb. If a section of an article is off topic, it should be fixed, not tagged. Other tags, like {{cleanup}}, automatically list their articles on a special page dedicated to cleanup requests. This tag doesn't have a page like that; it only serves to highlight the section, when the user should be fixing the problem instead. Delete. Kafziel 13:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, obviously if something strays from the topic, it should be removed, but sometimes that isn't possible — edit wars and all that! On Jbamb's line of argument, deviations in neutrality and accuracy should be corrected rather than tagged, yet we have tags for them. (The problem is that a person who introduces POV, inaccuracies, or rambling, may not agree with your verdict, and may revert your efforts to clean up. And, of course, you may be wrong in thinking that it's POV, inaccurate or irrelevant.) The POV and accuracy tags are useful for warning readers and for directing them to the talk page, where they might join in the discussion and might make helpful coments bringing about consensus. I don't think the value of this particular tag lies in warning the reader not to be misled by the statements in the article. I do, however, think that it's useful in encouraging readers (who may not be regular editors) to help where there's a dispute. I was looking up Wikipedia for about nine months before it ever occurred to me to click on "discussion". On that basis, I'm changing my vote above to a clearer "keep". AnnH (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine looking up an article in Encyclopaedia Britannica and seeing a caveat that says, "The information in this section may or may not have anything to do with what you are looking for." What kind of confidence would that inspire in the information? It hurts the whole article. The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out. Besides - if I'm reading an article about cats and come across a sentence about MP3 players or maple syrup, it won't lead me to any incorrect conclusions about cats. That's the difference between this and the POV tag. So just be bold! That's what talk pages are for. Make a note of what you took out, and why, on the talk page. If someone reverts you, then you have your answer. Kafziel 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if someone starts talking about maple syrup in a cat article, that should be edited out right away. I see this template being more useful when there is some dispute as to whether or not a particular section is on or off topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenj0418 (talk • contribs) 17:17, December 30, 2005 (UTC)
Well it wouldn't inspire great confidence in Encyclopedia Britannica either if we looked up something and saw a caveat that said, "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed"! I think we're all agreed that if something clearly doesn't belong in the article, it should be removed. But that's not taking into account the possibility of opposition. AnnH (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the innacuracies tag hurts articles as well, but it's a necessary evil and this one isn't. Allow me to quote myself from my last entry: "The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out." Be bold! Either take the initiative to fix the article yourself, or leave it alone. So what if someone disagrees with your change? The info is still in the page history and they can change it back. That can be dealt with on the talk page without putting a tag on the article. Kafziel 16:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful for folks like me who prefer to warn page editors of a problem rather than going in and deleting big chunks of content. Kappa 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should also have a category page that lists all such possibly off-topic pages. Kenj0418 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'd actually find much more use for this on talk pages. On articles themselves, I'd prefer something more reminiscent of {{split}} to either this or massive deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's true it should be obvious to any reader, and in any case anyone noticing it will be free to fix it. Utterly useless. Anyone putting it on a page certainly deserves to get awarded Template:sofixit. Palmiro | Talk 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems potentially useful, like any other maintenence template. Not everything can be immediately fixed by the user who sees it. -- SCZenz 02:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I look at a lot of articles on Wikipedia out of curiosity (right now I have 10 open tabs pointing to Wiki articles that I haven't gotten back to yet). Many articles that I look at obviously need work, and when I can do the work, I do it. But sometimes, while I am perfectly able to recognize a problem, I don't have the time, or the expertise, or perhaps the audacity, to barge in and 'take it over' from the people who have been working on it before I saw it. In that case, adding a template (with a short explanation) to the article or its talk page would be a reminder to me (on my contribution page) to do the work later or a gentle nudge to others that the article needs work. This template is in that category, and does no harm when used on a talk page. Plus, there are a lot of grey areas where one person should not unilaterally decide to delete "off topic" material without discussing it with others who put it there, e.g. on an article about cats, is cat food off topic? Cat behavior, caring for cats, taking cats traveling, cat shows, cats in the movies? I would not be so quick to use an axe on someone else's contribution, but I wouldn't hesitate to drop this template onto the talk page. Aumakua 11:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: but it's not a talk page template, it's an article template to point people to the talk page. There's no reason to use it instead of either fixing the problem or raising it in a normal way on the talk page. Possible divergence from the topic is not something that users need a big template message warning them about, unlike NPOV problems for example where the templates both categorise the articles into a category other editors can use to look for problems that need fixing, and warn users that the information may not be reliable where this may not be apparent. This isn't the same sort of issue at all. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute rejection. As with Netoholic , and as per other delete AND stronger. This template is deisigned to diminuish clarity. off-topic ain't the problem, the problem is that of even entering any topic meaningfully. The creation of this template is designed towards e negative result. I can point to many failures to even link to the related but more-topical-elsewhere. I tell you there aren't even links, and I have shown the creator odf this causes the situation, repeatedly. The creator of this is trying to reduce WP from exactly that un-linkage situation, even further. The use of off-topic can be very negative and destructive,so, I will repeat myself -this template must be deleted . I have proof of this activity, as used precisely against me, by its creator. This is not wehere WP needs to go , but rather follow my inclusive template, expressed at [[Vatican Bank}}/talk.EffK 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep has an obvious use, and plenty of people who would use it if needed. Its not spam, offensive or orphaned. No reason to delete - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. It is obvious from the edit summary of the dispute that the creator intended it as a {{cleanup}} off chute not as a means of justifying the off-topic nature. I believe it should re rewritten to appear more like the {{cleanup}} template and less like the {{disputed}} template. —gorgan_almighty 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NPOV-date

(also Template:POV-section-date)

Fork of existing template. Only new purpose seems to create a category structure for POV disputes by date (see Quickly). I don't think we need that. -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Objective

Unused, and redundant with other dispute templates. -- Netoholic @ 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lucidinformationsystems

Unused. —Cryptic (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various icon image templates

(namely Template:MacOS-icon, Template:Windows-icon, Template:Gnome-icon, Template:Kde-icon, Template:X-icon, Template:Oss-icon, Template:Free-icon, Template:Nix-icon, Template:Linux-icon, Template:FreeBSD-icon)
We don't use templates merely to insert an image at a given size. Further, the only place any of these are used are in Comparison of image viewers, Comparison of accounting software and Comparison of bitmap graphics editors, where their use is purely decorative and thus runs afoul of WP:FUC (at least for MacOs-icon and Windows-icon), and in Template:OS-icon-key, listed below. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template:OS-icon-key

Unused, and we don't use fair-use icons for things like this anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If equal g

It's deprecated, so let's kill it. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divizia A

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divizia A: "It is unused. It was copied from Romanian Wikipedia (including fonts). There's another similar template, Ro Divizia A, in use. Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)" --Idont Havaname 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Infoboxes

Other

  • See Primefac's note above. Just keep using the existing templates. They will be converted for you during the merge process, whenever it happens (these merges sometimes take a while, as you can see above). When the conversion is done, the merged template will support the features that you need. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's helpful. Is there a change that could be usefully made to the display text in {{being deleted}}? Or maybe the assumption is that no one reads beyond the first line anyway. Thincat (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

  • None currently

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=33980405"