Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rmhermen (talk | contribs) at 06:15, 29 March 2005 (→[[:Template:CompactTOC5]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

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

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

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


Terms

Templates are somewhat of a Wikibackwater and template editors employ certain unusual terms:

  • A Template is a piece of reusable text in the "Template" namespace.
  • A tfd is a template proposed for deletion, or the proposal for deletion itself. This is analagous to a vfd for an ordinary main namespace article.
  • A blank template is one that contains no text; that is, Somebody has deleted its content. However, the template still exists; it is merely blank, or empty of content.
  • TheTemplate (for example) is instanced or included in other templates or articles when, in their sources, the wiki markup {{TheTemplate}} appears. Conventional wikilinks of the form [[Template:TheTemplate]] are generally unused, but never constitute an instance of TheTemplate.
  • An orphan is a template which is never instanced (outside of any debate about itself, or on its own Talk page).
  • "Orphaning" is the process of removing all instances of a given template -- that is, its wiki markup is removed wherever it appears.
  • Fully orphaned is a rhetorical intensifier of orphaned, with no semantic value. Links to a template from this page or any Talk page are usually not removed during orphaning.
  • A deleted template no longer exists. All references to it, including instances (as do references to any non-existent page), become redlinks. Note that only orphaned templates should ever be deleted.

Process (stages)

Templates proposed for deletion go through a multistage process. This process is reflected in the following main sections on this page:

  • Discussion
  • Holding cell
  • Deletions to log

Each stage is explained under this section. Please don't list any templates under this section.

Discussion (stage)

Subsections are organized:

  • By date
    • By template-proposed-for-deletion name

{{tfd}} (substage)

To propose that a template be deleted, insert the text {{tfd}} to the top of the template. This adds the following message:

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

The message should be placed inside the box when adding it to series box templates, to make clear what is being proposed for deletion.

Do not blank templates to list them here; but if the template is already blank, then don't add {{tfd}} to the already-blank template; add it to the blank template's Talk page instead.

Templates should not be orphaned prior to listing.

New listing (substage)

Templates newly proposed for deletion should be put under today's date at the bottom of the "Discussion" section.

A suggested format for new listings is available with the template Template:New TFD. This will insert a new subsection with predefined areas for discussion and voting on the proposed deletion. Usage:

{{subst:New TFD|TemplateProposedForDeletion|InitialComment}}

Discussion and vote (substage)

The following votes are permissible; add under the appropriate section: "Keep", "Delete", or "Other".

  • Keep.
  • Delete.
  • If you are not voting "Delete" or "Keep", add your comment under the template's "Other" subsection. "Convert to category" is an example of another vote. A template for which consensus prevails to "Convert to category" will be deleted and all pages which reference the template will be added to an appropriately-named category.
  • If you comment at all, please give a reason how the template under consideration either does or does not meet Wikipedia standards, as referenced at the top of this page. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement.

Outcome (substage)

Seven days after a template has been listed on this page, an outcome of the discussion-and-vote stage may have been reached.

  • If a consensus has been reached in favor of deletion, the template is eligible for deletion. Also, if the proposal has been made without objection, the template is eligible for deletion. Action: Remove to "To orphan".
  • If a consensus has been reached that the template be kept, the process is over. There is much of this sort of work to be done in the depths of the Wikimachinery; let's expend our efforts wisely. Action: Remove template from this page entirely. Remove {{tfd}} tag from template's main page.
  • If a consensus has been reached in favor of "conversion to a category", the template will be deleted and all pages which reference the template will be added to an appropriately-named category. Action: Remove to "convert to category".
  • It is also possible that no concensus has been reached. Action: Remove template from this page entirely. Copy the entire discussion to template's Talk page. Remove {{tfd}} tag from template's main page. ("Disputed" subsection deprecated.) Absent concensus, the disputed template is kept.

In any case, template subsections are removed from the Discussions section, by date, when they are 7 days old.

Holding cell (stage)

Depending on the outcome of the discussion and voting period, templates are removed from Discussions to an appropriate subsection of the Holding cell. Once here, specific maintenance tasks must be performed. Unless otherwise noted, any member can do this necessary work.

  • To orphan: Templates in this section must be orphaned. This entails examination of the "What links here" page for the template, visiting each listed page, and editing it to remove the soon-to-be-deleted template. When this is complete, the template should be moved to "Ready to delete".
  • To convert to category: The content of such templates must be "poured out" into a category and all pages which reference it altered. This requires an understanding of both templates and Wikipedia categories. When this is complete, the template should be moved to "Ready to delete".
  • Ready to delete: Templates in this subsection await the attention of an admin, who will perform the actual deletion. Note that only fully orphaned templates belong here.
  • On hold for technical reasons: This is a temporary subsection needed because of a bug in the Wikipedia software; if it is discovered that a fully orphaned template cannot be deleted, it is temporarily placed here.

Deletions to log (stage)

An admin who performs an actual template deletion may move the deleted template to the Deletions to log section.

Archived discussions are logged per the instructions at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log, and are located at /Log/Deleted and /Log/Not deleted.

This is the final point in this process. (Whew!)

Reintroduction

If a template survives a proposal for deletion, please do not reintroduce it for a period of one month, unless it has been substantially edited in the interval (and probably not then). We have enough work to do and must move on, avoiding dead-end controversy. Template:01


Discussion

Add new proposals for template deletion at the bottom of this section.


March 11

Template:Picneed

This misguided template was created in conjunction with Category:Articles that need pictures. Created by User:SamuraiClinton, a user who is creating a significant amount of cleanup work for other editors. We already have Wikipedia:Requested pictures, which makes this template/category combo redundant. Rhobite 02:36, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I see nothing wrong with having 2 alternate templates for the same request. I also like this template too.
    • According to the History, the entry above ("Keep. I see nothing wrong...") was added by User:SamuraiClinton. Courtland 03:14, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  • Entirely redundant, given {{reqimage}}. Delete. Uncle G 10:49, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

This template has been redirected to reqimg; so don't vote anymore. Problem has been solved. --GoofyGuy 23:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • That solved nothing. reqimg is as bad as picneed. It has something or other in it that is broken (the {{{1}}} doesn't do whatever it is supposed to do). The template as is is too chatty and self-refernential. If there is any appropriate use, it belongs on the talk page not cluttering up the article with meta-instructions to editors. Delete both. older≠wiser 02:33, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree; reqimg is unnecessary. I add tfd to that template and start new thread for its deletion. — Xiong (talk) 03:58, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
  • Keep, and redirect to {{reqimage}}. . -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant and poorly named. BlankVerse ∅ 11:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A short update to last month's hotly contended debate about China-geo-stub and Taiwan-geo-stub. After considerable discussion here, at cfd, and at WP:WSS, the following compromise was reached on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting as regards the geo-stub categories relating to the two entities referred to as China. The former China-geo-stub template has been kept, but considerably altered to reflect its new destination category, and a new template Template:Taiwan-geo-stub has been created.

China-related and Taiwan-related stubs are still to be dealt with. Grutness|hello? 07:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • Don't move - quite clearly no adjustment is required unless we wish to take a stance against China's recent non-secession act - which as we are NPOV, we don't, jguk 13:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Erm... don't move what? If you mean the geo-stubs, it's too late - that's all been dealt with. If you mean the non-geographic items, politics are just part of the problem. The histories of the two, erm, places are so intertwined that it's often difficult to work out which is the better reference category. Another problem is that removing the geo-stubs from Taiwan-stub has left the category nearly empty. As far as the politics is concerned, personally I'd prefer no move, too, but the use of the word "Taiwan" upsets and/or unnerves some people. For the time being, as-is/where-is seems to be good, but nsooner or later someone is bound to start kicking up a fuss. Grutness|hello? 01:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The decision - which you agreed to - was the wording that was there before. In other words, it WAS solved - there is no need for your temporary screwing with the template. It has been reverted, I'm glad to say (and not by me). Edit wars on templates are not a good thing - they can seriously stuff up the categories the templates lead to. Please do not change this again. Grutness|hello? 06:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) (to clarify, this comment is not directed solely to Instantnood... it took almost three months of debate to reach agreement on the template, and it's been edited, amended and reverted nearly a dozen times since agreement was reached. Edit wars on templates we can do without!)

March 15

Template:Reqimg

This template tries to make a general need specific. Many pages need images; these are, almost universally, the ones that have few images. Readers like to look at pictures, even avid bookworms. Even gratuitous graphics help to relieve the eye and are not superfluous.

No template is required on pages that contain insufficient images; the lack of images is immediately and glaringly obvious to all editors with any skill in graphics arts or any inclination to add such images. It is redundant and distracting to call attention to any one individual article by means of this template.

I have marked this template for deletion. — Xiong (talk) 07:22, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

  • delete. There should only be one template for pages listed at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. The most commonly used one is Template:Reqimage (which also has the most appropriate name as well). Even that template should be rewritten it so that it is designed to go on the article's talk page instead of the article's main page, and then all the current uses of the template should be moved to talk pages. BlankVerse ∅ 08:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • For the same reasons given to delete the accompanying Category:Articles that need pictures (namely, it's painfully redundant), this template should go away. --iMb~Mw 07:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (except as outlined below). There are two reasons listed above for deleting: (1) it's obvious which articles need pictures, so no template is necessary (Xiong, iMeowbot); (2) a template is necessary, but only one, and we already have {{reqimage}} (BlankVerse). (1) As to reason 1, I agree, but I think that this discussion should be about {{reqimage}} also; as long as {{reqimage}} isn't listed here, I'm voting "keep" on {{reqimg}}. (For that matter, the stub templates would also belong on tfd by the logic of reason 1.) (2) I absolutely disagree with reason 2, though: (a) There's nothing wrong with two templates; what does it hurt? And (b) this one serves a different purpose from {{reqimage}}, as is obvious from reading their text. —msh210 14:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I did not say it's obvious what articles need pictures. The redundancy is with WP:RP. — user:IMeowbot 23 Mar 2005
      • Sorry for the misunderstanding. —msh210 15:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and redirect to {{reqimage}}. -- Netoholic @ 19:07, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. The template is broken as is. And redundant even if it did work. older≠wiser 01:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - There no real need for almost identical templates like this. {{reqimage}} was perfectly fine to begin with. Louisisthebest_007 19:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)



March 20

Template:419 warning

A very laudable purpose, first seen by me used to warn visitors to Suha Arafat about an ongoing 419 scam, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

In particular:

Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

The 419 scammers are bad guys, but Wikipedia isn't the police force. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Tony feels that soapboxing is okay as long as you're doing it to defraud people, but I find it difficult to agree. --Brion 01:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
See my response to Brion at Talk:Suha Arafat. I don't like these criminals any more than Brion, but this is an encyclopedia and it should deal with them in an encyclopedic (and in my opinion no less effective) manner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added this to the article. In my opinion this is the way to deal with the scam--write about it.
In 2005, Nigerian criminal gangs used her name in some of their Advance fee fraud scams propagated thoughout the world by email [1].
and
Nigerian scammers use Suha Arafat's name
In 2005, Nigerian criminal gangs used her name in some of their Advance fee fraud scams propagated thoughout the world by email [2]. Some of the emails used referred to the Wikipedia article about Ms Arafat. Emails sent out as part of the criminal plot, which was in no way associated with Suha Arafat, falsely purported to be from her, asking for help to recover $20,000,000, and promising the recipient a share of the money for his help. This was simply a false promise intended to prepare the victim to hand over his own money in the vain hope of seeing a share of the fictitious fortune.
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Wikipedia has, unfortunately, become part of the story and that needs to be noted. I have, however, edited the template to make it less prominent. BlankVerse ∅ 08:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the template, but keep the warning on the page affected by this problem. Pcb21| Pete 15:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, don't delete, don't merge into article. Kate.
  • Keep, in either the earliest or current brief form. No, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but it is in the business of curing ignorance, pretty much by definition. --iMb~Mw 19:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, as long as this is a single instance, a template might be overdoing it; but a warning is appropriate in any case, and most certainly not soapboxing. And if such a thing happens again, then surely a template is worth considering. After all, everything that grows above a certain size is bound to attract crooks. -- AlexR 19:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a visible warning - as a service for anyone following a scam link. --Henrygb 10:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: we definitely don't need templates just for one article. Of course, the warning on the page should definitely be kept. -Sean Curtin 00:10, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Template:VfD-Königsburg

This does not seem to be a template at all, but a discussion of a tfd of some other template. It has few incoming links and serves no purpose. — Xiong (talk) 02:42, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Comment: It is the discussion from a VfD for the Königsburg article. This is part of a large number of pages from Wikipedia's ancient history when VfD votes were kept in the Template name space (for more examples, see Wikipedia:VfD votes in the Template namespace). All of there should probably be moved to match current VfD practices after some sort of consensus vote covering all of them, but they should not be voted on one at a time here. BlankVerse ∅ 09:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Precisely... that is a project in itself. -- Netoholic @ 07:01, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Template:Tastes

All six of the links on this template redirect to Basic taste, so it doesn't serve any purpose. It appears on only two pages: Basic taste (from which I already removed it, since it's especially pointless to have that page link to itself) and Taste bud, which already has appropriate links in the content of the article. —Caesura 20:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - serves no purpose. Fawcett5 20:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary; may confuse readers if it takes them in circles. TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:CAM2-stub

Redundant with Template:CAM-stub. Categories for Deletion has decided on the category that will be used for the remaining template. (Decision archived.) -- Beland 23:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • KEEP I am using it for the one and only true stub cateorgy in CAM. -- John Gohde 03:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • ? but it redirects to CAM-stub and is practically orphaned ... did you interpret this as a delete for the CAM-stub altogether? Courtland 02:50, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Delete I created this during a heated discussion and it should be destroyed in favor of the CAM-stub as the default. Courtland 02:50, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Delete - David Gerard 18:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 21

Template:Cantons & Citys in Andorra

Messed up template repeatedly being inserted into the Andorra article by an anon, keeps messing up the formatting of the Andorra article. RickK 07:17, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Template:CompactTOC5

This template is redundant with Template:CompactTOC4, but for the removal of the numbers link. On this page, we've recently voted to remove a number of similar TOCs which existed for only these minor reasons. The numbers link on CompactTOC4 is innocuous and there's great benefit of continuing to keep the number of the TOC templates to a minimal few. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

  • Keep: I like the TOC's without numbers for pages that clearly won't need them. What's the harm? -- Samuel Wantman 07:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • What is the harm? Well, we could end up back to where we were a few months ago with a dozen variations. What about those pages that "clearly won't need" the See also link? How about one for pages with no External links? It is drift, and it's something to avoid. The most popular TOC (Template:CompactTOC) has numbers and it's just fine that way because the extra link is harmless. -- Netoholic @ 18:23, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
  • Keep. We've been through this debate before with other TOCs without the number links and the vote has always been to keep them. Until TOCs can be implemented as a feature in the MediaWiki software, I prefer to have the cleaner choice of a no-number TOC when numbers there are no numbers. BlankVerse ∅ 02:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same reasons as above. --HappyDog 19:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I went to the page looking for a "no number" TOC only to find the only one was up for deletion. Rmhermen 06:15, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Template:History of animation top

Unused, replaced by Template:History of animation. grendel|khan 21:15, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

March 22

Template:UN table

A needless template – it is only used on one page where it could be a table. Extra server call not needed. Smoddy (tgec) 17:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It is only used on United Nations and could easily be merged into that article. Zzyzx11 17:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Tablefy it (and then delete). BlankVerse ∅ 02:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Might as well be a table, at most. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


March 23

Template:Banana-stub

Carrying stub sorting to its illogical conclusion. Can't we speedy this one? Pretty please? Grutness|hello? 00:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (speedy or otherwise). BlankVerse ∅ 03:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template has been here since 15 March and nobody has used it (What a surprise.) I think it's also an excellent candidate for BJAODN. (I couldn't resist adding a picture of a banana to make it a more stylish stub notice.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring, Banana-stub! (delete) Goplat 03:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course. I managed to refrain from making a snarky comment earlier about it not even having a picture, and just what are they teaching the little trolls these days, but now the point is kind of moot. —Korath (Talk) 03:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Just be glad they weren't thorough enough to create a category for banana stubs.--TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This stub-related template is nonsense. You can help Wikipedia by deleting it. dbenbenn | talk 04:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:0-9

A misguided attempt to add a navigation box to the top of 0 (number) through 9 (number). Since January 2 the template has just been a category link, but I just now got around to removing it from the 10 articles that used it.

Template:Dizy

Template that was only used for Dizy, Switzerland. Dizy has now been given real words instead of just a template, this template is unncessary. RickK 09:37, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Barnstarpages

Template that was redundant with Template:Barnstars: I have merged them together so this is now unnecessary. --Phil | Talk 11:23, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - I created that template so that one may have the option of having a list of the barnstar pages without the 20-odd barnstars and other awards. – ClockworkSoul 15:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's also still in use, at least at Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia... – ClockworkSoul 15:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If you can find more than one place where it is needed, then fair enough, but a Template which is only used in one place is not necessary. --Phil | Talk 17:52, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This small template can be used for those who want to want just to visit the three pages, not see the (growing) list of every Barnstar and Wikipedia award. Zscout370 17:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since the number of barnstars continues to grow (and there are many more being developed), there are places where the small template is much more appropriate. --Deathphoenix 00:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:La Courde, Template:L 'Isle, Template:Chevilly, Template:Communes of Pays-d'Enhaut

Templates by a user who has been playing around in articles related to Switzerland for a few weeks, but doesn't seem to be able to grasp the Wikipedia style. By same IP user as Dizy, above. Noisy | Talk 14:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

...and Zofingen, below. They also created a totally unnecessary Grisons-geo-stub (now a redirect to Switzerland-geo-stub), and the Cantons of Andorra one that's further up this page. Consign them all to the pit of Hades... erm, that is, delete. Grutness|hello? 02:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Reqimage

This template tries to make a general need specific. Many pages need images; these are, almost universally, the ones that have few images. Readers like to look at pictures, even avid bookworms. Even gratuitous graphics help to relieve the eye and are not superfluous.

No template is required on pages that contain insufficient images; the lack of images is immediately and glaringly obvious to all editors with any skill in graphics arts or any inclination to add such images. It is redundant and distracting to call attention to any one individual article by means of any template. — Xiong (talk) 14:47, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

There should be some discussion, once and for all, about whether to have templates like this. There was a suggestion somewhere (at WikiProject Stub sorting perhaps?) that {{stub}} and all the other stub templates be gotten rid of, as it's obvious what's a stub. You're suggesting that {{reqimage}} be gotten rid of for the same reason. One can argue that {{unknown}}, {{unverified}}, {{cleanup-copyedit}}, {{gcheck}}, and {{limitedgeographicscope}} should be deleted for the same reason. Perhaps we should move this discussion to WP:VP and decide what to do with all such templates. —msh210 15:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. It is true that there is an "almost universal" need for images. But it is slightly naive to use that as an excuse to delete this template; some pages have a more acute need for images than others. (For instance, featured article candidates, animal pages, etc.) Also, while the need for extra images may be "immediately and glaringly obvious" to expert editors, others might not notice the need immediately; sometimes reminder templates are very helpful. Furthermore, dedicated picture contributors can look for pages listing the template to see where they can assist. The template also acts as a flag that the page is listed at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. (Since it is wrong to request images on specific pages, are you going to list that page for deletion as well?)-- FP 00:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not all articles require images, Especially for the more graphic kinds of subjects which may not be appriopiate for viewing. Maybe what reqimage needs is some rewording which specifically says that its for articles which needs images to greatly improve the information on the page to explain it properly or something...Specific in otherwords... Louisisthebest_007 17:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Joy [shallot] 18:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Am I getting deja vu, or is this template listed further up the page? Grutness|hello? 23:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This has the potential to become a permanent tag on many articles. Can't we use Wikipedia:Requested pictures and barring that, assume that almost every article would be better with an illustration? re: Grutness' question, TfD has also had Template:Picneed and Template:Reqimg listed recently. At the time, they were all separate templates. Reqimg has now been redirected to reqimage, which is up for deletion. re: Msh210's policy question, personally I support cleanup tags which are easily actionable. For cleanup-copyedit there is an obvious course of action to remove the tag. Tags like stub and npov are harder to act upon, but they indicate an important deficiency of the article. I don't think articles need to be tagged for lacking pictures. Rhobite 00:25, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Vik Reykja ♬ 04:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Zofingen

This was created by an anon. I think it was mistakenly created as a template rather than a normal article. It serves no purpose, its only text is "Zofingen is a district & commune in Aargau." Should probably be speedy deleted, but nicely for the newcomer. --Dmcdevit 19:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone has no idea how to make articles... this template was used on one article: Zofingen (The article simply consisted of {{Zofingen}}. I have moved the text from the template to that article, and the template can be expunged from the face of the planet. Grutness|hello? 02:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is that a delete, then? User:Alphax/sig 07:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete
  1. User:Alphax/sig 07:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep
Other

25 March

Template:Manga

Category scheme in a box. Very pretty, but it doesn't even have any content specifically related to any given article that it's put on. Snowspinner 05:04, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete
  • It does not follow the policy for navigational templates because it is more like a combination of TOC templates for the following: List of manga, Mangaka, and Manga. Secondly, the links for List of manga and List of Manga-ka are in alphabetical order, thus making it redundant to categories. Zzyzx11 06:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's big, awkward, redundant, and not useful. (It was worse when it was vertical.) I agree with mako's albumbox-ish proposal, though. -℘yrop (talk) 07:10, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep
  • This template has been around for a while. It used to be a vertical box that occupied a sidebar position, like this. I modified the box to be horizontal a few months back, envisioning placement at the bottom of the page, as suggested on Template_talk:Manga. However the change would require going through every page referencing this template and moving the tag to the bottom, so I did not go through with the change, instead leaving the template on the talk page for comment. User:Minghong decided to implement it yesterday. This is an arduous task, as he has discovered (read the talk if you haven't already). I suspect the user who posted this to vfd viewed a yet unfixed page, which would indeed be aesthetically jarring. However, at the bottom of the page, where it belongs, it serves a navigational purpose. Keep. - mako 06:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Other
  • I don't know... It might be sufficient to link to the various lists in this template on the articles that use this template, but it is a convenient method of navigation if you want to find another manga series. Josh 05:41, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I prefer to use "List of XXX" to do this kind of thing, i.e. List of manga. This navigation bar, while being improved, is just quite large in size. And many manga are also anime and/or game. So in order to make it complete, we need to create "anime" and "game" navbar as well? The article will be overloaded... P.S. Oh yes, I'm the one who make the change from vertical to horizontal. --minghong 07:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I would rather see it a bit smaller than having it removed altogether. Philip Nilsson 22:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, an infobox would be much better. As the articles are now it can take up to 10 seconds to find a single piece of information if it is not written in a standard way in the first paragraph. I do suggest that we keep it until we have something to replace it with though.
  • I don't understand why the design of this box was changed from that vertical version to an horizontal one. To me, it looks pretty bad the way it is now, while it looked just fine the way it used to be. That's why I vote for it to be reverted to the vertical-oriented style.--Kaonashi 07:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I liked it better when it was vertical, too. It certainly took up less space. —Korath (Talk) 02:26, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

March 27

Template:Senior citizen

  • Links to a total of 6 articles on Vfd, and (according to what I think is most likely)]] only the last 2 of these will probably survive Vfd as articles of their own and this probably means the template itself should be deleted. Georgia guy 00:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I abstain until the relevant VfD discussions are complete. Zzyzx11 07:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:KND-stub

Not used by stub sorters. Not really used by anyone (only thyree articles, and nothing's been added to the associated category for a few days now). Unneccessary subcategory, and a dangerous precedent for having stub categories for every cult TV series going (or non-cult TV series, for that matter). Grutness|hello? 04:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • It's got a cuter icon than Angel-stub. Delete overspecific stub templates anyway. —Korath (Talk) 06:47, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • (comment) Angel-stub's likely to be going soon. Talk on WP:SS is of a completely understandable merger between that and Buffy-stub. Grutness|hello?
  • Delete. It would be different if some fan of KND had pumped the stub category full of characters, episodes, animators, tie-ins, etc. It is, however, just sitting there, a near empty container ... and it's unlikely to be mourned in its passing (unless someone refutes that here). Courtland 23:45, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

March 28

Template:RuneScape-stub

Stub template, its single use has been removed, the stub category is unlikely to grow again and seems too specific anyway. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Yup - another one that's been suggested for deletion at WP:WSS. Delete. Grutness|hello? 23:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looking through the series of Runescape articles, I see why the stub category might have been created, but I think the author(s) of those articles have opted to used in-article sections rather than a cloud of stubs, at least for the time being. I wouldn't be surprised to see this come back, but let's let it come back when someone(s) is in a position to use it. Courtland 23:51, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

March 29

Template:Education-wikify

I can't see any reason why wikify tags need to be subject specific. Such a thing makes sense for stubs, where expanding them may require specialized knowledge, but wikifying is a relatively straightforward process. I think Template:Wikify is just fine, and a proliferation of sub-templates would be confusing and lead to instruction creep. CDC (talk) 00:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Phone-stub

Was never proposed on Wikiproject Stub Sorting, used by only one article. Goplat 05:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Holding Cell

Move templates here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should remove them from pages so that they can be deleted.

Template:Sejm Marshals

  • Is this really to be deleted? It has no {TfD] tag, and a large number of pages link to it. Noel (talk) 20:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, so whoever moved it to the holding cell needs a spanking. I've put the discussion on the template talk page. (The Divide has been done already) — MikeX (talk) 20:51, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the "divide" in effect created other templates, this one is no longer needed. orphan and delete it.--Jiang 06:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • actually, the divide has not been done already. it needs to be done. --Jiang 02:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To convert to category

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories get put here until the conversion is completed.

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion moved to the template's Talk page, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

Template:Great little trains Wales

This template has essentially been orphaned; all inlinks are from debate surrounding the deletion, etc. The page Welsh narrow gauge railways has been changed to redirect → List of British heritage and private railways. If not perfect concensus, then fait accompli. TfD discussion moved to template's Talk page. — Xiong (talk) 00:44, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

On hold for technical reasons

This is a temporary subsection needed because of a bug in the Wikipedia software; fully orphaned templates which cannot be deleted because of the bug are collected here.

Disputed (deprecated)

This subsection is deprecated. If the outcome of a proposal for deletion does not result in a clear concensus, the debate may continue on the template's Talk page -- not here.

Template:Deletebecauseoncommons

(and redirect at Template:dbc)

Summary: 2 Delete, 1 Keep ~ Courtland 8 March

(Logged at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/Archive/Feb05)

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

  • Keep - it should be encouraged to upload files to commons under the same name, to avoid having to change the articles. And there's no reason {{NowCommons}} shouldn't be like this one (which I created not knowing of NowCommons's existence, if it existed at the time). --SPUI (talk) 22:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, but we already have templates to handle this. This one is redundant with those established ones. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
    • Why should we encourage people to keep the same name? A lot of images here are titled in CamelCase; and there's no reason not to fix it when the opportunity arises. I always replace bad names with good when pushing to the Commons. dbenbenn | talk 14:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't care - I just wanted to mention that there's a category associated with these which ought to go away too if the template does. Noel (talk) 05:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Replace it with {{NowCommons}} <br/> {{ifd}} or redirect to NowCommons. User:Alphax/sig 01:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have several images I've uploaded to en, and now reuploaded to Commons. I want to delete the en versions so the Commons versions show through, but I hate having that {{ifd}} on there. It's just temporary, but there's no reason that viewers should see that notice. (I also find it a bit silly that even when I am the creator and uploader of the en image, then upload to Commons, I still can't request speedy deletion even though no images in articles will be broken.) Adding {{NowCommons}} doesn't help much because unless someone knows what Commons is, it doesn't really explain. If I were a random visitor and clicked on an image to get the larger one, I would not understand why this apparently good image was up for deletion, and even a casual editor might not understand. If I can't get my images deleted speedily, I would at least like the deletion notice to clearly explain that it is because there is now a redundant copy and there is no problem with the image per se. User:SPUI saw me struggling and was kind enough to point this out to me. This is not just a combination of those two templates, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that this is not a problem for images which are uploaded under different names to Commons; in that case, the other templates work fine. A casual viewer to the article would see the new Commons image if he followed the link and would be unaware of the old local version which was up for deletion. Anyone who came to the old image would have come specifically seeking that image, and the {{NowCommons}} and {{ifd}} would be more than sufficient. But in the event that you actually think the original name is perfectly adequate and want to move to Commons, while the image is in IFD the article viewers will see the deletion notice, and I don't think the two-template combination is adequate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redundant, so delete or redirect BrokenSegue 21:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Listings to log

Templates with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.

March 3

Template:GDFL

Clearly a malicious template created for people who list their images as GFDL but make a typo. The anon's only edit was to create this. The trouble is, there are a selection of pages ([3]) which appear to, effectively, licence their images under this mythical GFDL. Much as I would like to be bold, in this instance, I feel a little cautious about the legal basis for such a move. Smoddy (t) (e) 20:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The legal implications of adding text to this template, or of turning it into a redirect to {{GFDL}}, are unclear. I think that the only safe course of action is to Delete. Uncle G 11:34, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  • If What Links Here is complete and accurate for templates these days, subst it into the places where it's currently used and then redirect. Talk messages to the uploaders would probably well-received, too. —Korath (Talk) 13:21, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Leave it as a redirect, perhaps with a note pointing out the typo. Chamaeleon 13:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect - if redirected, protect it so that this can't happen again. -Sean Curtin 02:30, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I have made this typo myself; it's natural. A protected redirect is correct. However, the legal status of pages licensed using this template before the redirect was put in place is uncertain.
In general, licensing templates should be protected as soon as they are created, and never again edited for any reason. Or, if such is possible, the engine should automatically protect every licensing template upon the first use. This leads naturally to the (very sensible IMHO) idea of a Licensing template: namespace.
  • A Licensing template is functionally different from all other templates in that it has legal effect at the moment in which it is first included by reference in a text. It can never be changed thereafter except:
    • via the arduous process of manually pasting in the complete, original template text in place of every such citation (which is just plain silly); or
    • by unanimous consent of every person who ever used it (which is sillier).
Where do I go to create a new namespace (and automatic protection rule)? — Xiong (talk) 03:45, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
Ugh, that would be annoying. What about when you just want to change the formatting? Goplat 02:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see that this template has been redirected to GFDL, and the redirect has been protected, so I think that wraps it up. Noel (talk) 23:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=11640051"