Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Listings

Adding a listing

• Please put new listings under today's date (October 19) at the top of the section.
• When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages.

August 25

Template:Predecessor

Blank and unused. -- Beland 01:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. This appears to have been a test. —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

August 24

Template:Interwiki-category-check

Er, I can't see how this is useful, all it does is add a category to the main namespace to do with editing, and on a minor issue - the order of categories?!?!?. Dunc|☺ 11:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is used by Pearle and Whobot when doing mass re-cats. It checks for bad interwiki links, and labels them for human intervention. (I think I got everything, Beland could explain better). ∞Who?¿? 20:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This template is in active use. It may seem simple, but it's a convenient way to find all the articles in recent runs where a bot couldn't properly edit an article. These articles need manual attention so they can be automatically edited in the future, and so that they comply with Wikipedia style standards. It's not the sort order of the categories that's checked, it's that the interwiki and category and stub tags can be parsed properly, and that they are at the end of the article. Parse failures (which are what is tagged) are usually an indication that the article is messed up, often that it needs to be split into multiple articles. I usually get around to fixing these within a few days of doing a run, but I do need some way of finding them. -- Beland 01:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:ForCleanup

Unused creation by an anonymous IP, obviously redundant with Template:Cleanup. -- Beland 05:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Just redirect No need to waste your breath here. Dunc|☺ 11:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• We already have redirects from {{tidy}}, {{clean}}, {{CU}}, {{cu}}, and {{cleanup-quality}}. This is getting ridiculous, and it's getting annoying to parse articles in Category:Wikipedia_cleanup as a result. I would like this actually deleted, since it's not being used right now. (I'd like to discourage anyone from using it.) -- Beland 13:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree, don't need every synonym and phrase to be a redirect. ∞Who?¿? 22:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 02:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with above statements as well. Kevin 09:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikitravelbox

We've had this discussion many times before. Wikitravel, not being a sister project, should never get a "box" of any sort, and certainly not a shaded right-hand floating box like Wikiquote or Wikisource gets. See Talk:Wikitravel or Template talk:Wikitravel for discussions. This should be deleted as speedily as possible. --Quuxplusone 02:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: As the person who created this template, I did not realise at the time that WIkitravel was not a wikimedia project. Apologies! TreveX^talk 14:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedied per creator's request. Dragons flight 15:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Deletebecausefakegame

Delete - This seems too specialized, if a page is deleted, then it is deleted. --Mysidia (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

August 23

Template:Short

Edit summary on creation states New template, not related to stubs. Sounds like a stub to me. Doesn't seem to be in use, only edit is creation. Redirect to {{stub}}. ∞Who?¿? 10:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{stub}}. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sectio

Used by Template:Taxobox sectio entry as an inserted template. The content used to be [[Section (biology)|Section]] but is now just Section. I do not see the purpose of this template in its current state, the text can just be subst in the other template. ∞Who?¿? 09:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Sectio and perhaps because it is part of a set of templates that have a similar usage ?? GerardM 10:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep. It is part of a series of templates for the taxobox that allow the taxobox to be more easily copied to other language 'pedias. If the nominator had contacted any of the editors before making the nomination, they would have know that and probably not nominated it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I only nominated it because it only contains plain text with no variables now. It seems that can be subst instead. Also, I did contact both editors after the nomination, which is standard practice. I would have contacted before if it were using a set of variables but seemed unused obsolete in that format. ∞Who?¿? 19:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Reqimage1

Template:Reqimage2, & Template:Reqimage3. Created 23 July 2005 by an anon (NOT me). There was no discussion of additional template creation or demonstration on Wikipedia:Template locations, so I have no idea of the purpose. Redundant with the ever controversial Template:Reqimage, propose deletion. ∞Who?¿? 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redir. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• I think the notice "small banner" and "side box" indicate use, don't you? 132.205.46.188 01:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not the point. These templates are redundant, and its layout was discussed in great length on Wikipedia:Template locations. It is also good to propose new templates on Wikipedia talk:Template messages before creating them. ∞Who?¿? 01:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Search

Created 19 Mar 2005 by an anon. I have no idea what this was supposed to be used for, doesn't seem to be in use anymore, and only edit was creation. Looks like a glorified {{Google}}. ∞Who?¿? 09:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sandbox2

Template:Sandbox2:warn:yes, Template:Sandbox2:warn:yes, & Template:Sandbox2:Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology (AEREC) Created by an anon 18 July and 20 July 2005, not sure if they are used officially, only being used on one user talk page. Any sandbox page can be used for a template sandbox, don't need these. Propose deletion of all. ∞Who?¿? 09:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as test pages. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Had the others speedied, but {{Sandbox2}} has a lot of history. Not sure if/how the rule would apply there. ∞Who?¿? 22:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sad

And all its buddies.

							File:Rwl.gif
{{Smile}}	{{Grin}}	{{Sad}}	{{Wink}}	{{Tongue}}	{{Cry}}	{{Shade}}	{{ROFL}}

I have a feeling I will not be appreciated for this nomiation :( Although cute and fun, I dont see any useful purpose for these on the template namespace. Propose userfy. ∞Who?¿? 08:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Rename {{Smiley :)}}, {{Smiley :D}}, {{Smiley :(}}, etc. Smiley code is fairly useful in certain contexts, such as talk pages where a conversational tone is employed. The obvious template names such as {{[[Template::)|:)]]}} aren't available because the leading colon causes the reference to point to the main namespace leading to transclusion of articles such as ), D, (, etc. However, they really ought to be documented if kept and with an enjoinder that they are not to be used in the main name space (except for the article on smiley codes and maybe one or two other appropriate ones where they would be usefully discussed. Caerwine 15:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ugh, kill it dead. --SPUI (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I dread the day that we will need to use these horrific images to express ourselves, even on Talk pages. Outside of Talk, it has no purpose. -- Ec5618 19:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep useful. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep . TFD is not an appropriate venue for dictating user behavior. If you want keep people from using in their talk page communications then write the policy proposal explaining why are bad, and get people to accept it. Dragons flight 20:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not want to dictate user behaviour, these are in the template namespace, I proposed userfication of these templates. ∞Who?¿? 23:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • My apologies, I was responding more to the delete votes directly above than to you. Though I do have to wonder why bring it to TFD if your intention was to move them? The button is right there. That said, I don't think they should be userfied. That is what we do with templates only of interest to one person. These clearly have broader interest given the several "usefuls" in this thread. Dragons flight 23:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • I did consider it, but I do not like to invade userpage space, and I thought it better the community decide, as it shouldn't be my decision on what to do with them. I would hope others would think the same. ∞Who?¿? 00:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Dragons flight, but rename more or less as per Caerwine. I would suggest {{smiley-sad}}, {{smiley-grin}}, etc, rather than the ascii-art based names, however. DES ^(talk) 20:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful. Add a note of these on some help page if they survive. ~~ N (t/c) 23:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - ug. we don't need images when text is sufficient. however, like allowing people to have ugly, giant, gairish signatures, these are useful as a way of for me or others to identify contributors with bad senses of taste, and whose judgement is therefore to be relied on by me less than I would otherwise. I claim that the previous sentence, while skirting the edge of WP:NPA, is not a personal attack as it does not refer to specific people, and states an opinion(I belive that people who use these templates, or who have some types of signatures, have bad senses of taste and are therefore less worthy of my trust in their judgement), rather than a fact(like, User:Example user is bad.) Thanks to all for your work on the 'pedia! JesseW 10:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it'll just clutter up the servers, and importantly they're probably copyvios. Dunc|☺ 11:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because they're almost certainly copyvios, and because they're a waste of bandwidth. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • m:Avoid copyright paranoia. They're sourced as from Kadu, which looks like an open-source IM. ~~ N (t/c) 14:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Paranoid is fun, is it? They were copyvios, but only because they were mistagged. I tracked down the specific source (part of a messaging package for KDE) and correctly tagged them as being under The Artistic License 2.0. In fairness, this license is so obscure that I had to create an image tag for it, but it is intended to be a free and open license created by the Perl Foundation in 2000. I have asked the people at Commons to review it to make sure it is appropriate, but it looks legit. Dragons flight 14:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with vengeance. Pictorial smileys are Evil, and if someone wants to use them, at least let it be with crying and gnashing of teeth as zie codes them manually - it might help zir see the light of Reason. --Malyctenar 14:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If you ask somone what ":)" means, ey will probably answer you correctly. If you ask em what "zie" means, ey'll probably be confused. Caerwine 21:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Smiley icons are an abomination upon the face of the earth, and should be purged with fire. --Carnildo 21:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I am in full agreeance with Carnildo. These have no place on Wikipedia whatsoever. Kevin 09:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Pt

Seriously wastefull use of template space. This: {{pt}} creates this: pt:. Used on one Portuguese article and the category. I'm not sure I want to see one for every language, besides {{en}} and {{es}} are for other things. A difference of typing 2 less characters. delete. ∞Who?¿? 08:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, pointless. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, delete, no problem. I just was inspired from Commons. (look commons:template:pt) --FML ^{hi me at pt} 23:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Privileged access

Tagged 16 July 2005 by Netoholic. Just listing here, did not see any discussions in the logs for July, if I'm mistaken, please remove. ∞Who?¿? 08:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Featuretest

I'm assuming this was made for a test, as it duplicates {{feature}} hasn't been edited since 21 September 2004, by an anon who created it. Nothing links to it, which doesn't mean much, I know, and has no discussion page. ∞Who?¿? 06:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as user test. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

August 22

Crowncolonies

Delete: The Crowncolonies template has been replaced on all pages it was formerly on with the slightly more expansive and descriptive Template:British dependencies. MediaWiki:Crowncolonies is an unlinked to redirect to Template:Crowncolonies Caerwine 23:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Numbered Seemain series

This entry concerns the following templates: {{seemain2}}, {{seemain3}}, {{seemain4}}, {{seemain5}}, {{seemain6}}, {{seemain7}}, {{seemain8}}, {{seemain9}}, {{seemain10}} and {{seemain20}}
Due to a delay in notification, voting (which began on August 15) has been extended.

Mentioned in the discussion on {{Seemain}}, it seems prudent to separate the discussions since people probably have different opinions here. Delete these, there are overly many of them and they're not very pointful. Radiant_>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete reasons from earlier discussions. Vegaswikian 22:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as below: they're useful. I feel more strongly about 2 to 4 than the rest though. Septentrionalis 19:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 2, 3, and 4. For lists larger than 4 I think there needs to be considered a split to the article section to which the list is attached. In cases where such a split is not warranted, then either a section "see also" or reference to a sectionized "see also" would be useful. In fact, the creation of a {{seemain4plus}} could be considered which would be identical to {{seemain4}} except it would include a reference to the page's "see also" section using an internal bookmark-link to that section via #See also. Courtland 00:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect {{seemain2}} to {{main2}}. Delete all of the others. The {{seemain2}} template serves a valid purpose, but it's 100% redundant with {{main2}}. The remainder are extraneous, because {{main2}} can accommodate any plural number of article links. —Lifeisunfair 00:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect {{seemain2}} to {{main2}} and delete the rest. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The claim about {{main2}} accomodating any number of text links is based upon {{main2|Article1|Article2]], [[Article3]], [[Article 4}} (SEWilco 02:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC))
• Comment: For the record, I strongly object to SEWilco's attempt to "cancel" this vote (which happens to pertain to templates that SEWilco created) because Radiant neglected to engage in the virtually pointless task of inserting {{tfd}} tags that no one will ever see. The {{ccm}} example (below) is a different story, but I doubt that the outcome (keep) is going to change. —Lifeisunfair 17:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there should be no notification then have the TfD process modified. Perhaps speedy deletion of templates would save a lot of pointless consideration. (SEWilco 20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

I don't claim that "there should be no notification," but the insertion of the {{tfd}} tag into unused templates doesn't notify anyone of anything. Radiant's failure to complete this busywork is a flimsy excuse to "cancel" a debate (particularly one concerning templates of your own creation). Wikipedia rules generally should be followed, but common sense should prevail over a miniscule technicality. —Lifeisunfair 21:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You're claiming the templates were unused yet neglect to mention that you made them be unused yesterday. (SEWilco 21:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Of course I did! They had to be orphaned before the {{tfd}} tag could be added (per your insistence). For the record, the article count was as follows:

{{seemain2}} — 15

{{seemain3}} and {{seemain4}} — 1 each

{{seemain5}}–{{seemain20}} — 0

—Lifeisunfair 21:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that you just reverted my edits. Do you not understand that this disrupts legitimate articles by inserting a message that most readers won't understand (because there's no obvious "template" below the text)? —Lifeisunfair 22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What is your understanding of "notification" which requires hiding messages? You also did not mention your older similar "minor" edits. (SEWilco 22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

What the heck are you talking about?! —Lifeisunfair 22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The instructions for tfd say: Please include "tfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead. You minor-edited articles to remove usage of the templates, some edits immediately preceding your addition of {{tfd}} to the templates. How do you expect notification of, and participation in, the TfD when you hide it all? (SEWilco 23:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

"The instructions for tfd say: Please include "tfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor."

Yes, and that's precisely what I did. My edit summary for all ten templates was "tfd tag," and I didn't mark any of these edits as minor.

"If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead."

And yet, when I moved {{seemain2}}'s TfD notice to the talk page, you reverted. Evidently, you're determined to disrupt fifteen articles via the insertion of a contextually nonsensical message. And over what do you wage this battle? A template (which you created, of course) that's patently redundant with {{main2}}. I mean, do you even deny that?

"You minor-edited articles"

The above instructions refer to the insertion of the {{tfd}} tag into the templates, not edits to the articles that contain them! I marked these as minor, because the replacement of one template with another that generates virtually identical output has no major effect on the article.

"to remove usage of the templates, some edits immediately preceding your addition of {{tfd}} to the templates."

That was the point! As I've explained, this was to avoid disrupting the articles via the insertion of a message that makes absolutely no sense to readers (because it refers to a seemingly nonexistent "template"). Earlier in the month, I removed a few other instances, which I stumbled upon when attempting to orphan {{seemain}} — the parent template (which you blanked and proposed for deletion after an earlier TfD consensus was to redirect to {{main}}).

"How do you expect notification of, and participation in, the TfD when you hide it all?"

What did I "hide"? —Lifeisunfair 01:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You hid the TfD notices. And I'm not complaining about the TfD on the templates, I have been making sure they get deleted. I'm complaining about your bypassing the TfD notification process. (SEWilco 02:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

"You hid the TfD notices."

I'm the one who added them! The fact that they aren't displayed as prominently as you would prefer (id est, disrupting numerous articles without conveying any useful information) doesn't mean that they're "hidden."

"And I'm not complaining about the TfD on the templates, I have been making sure they get deleted."

I honestly don't know what the above statement is supposed to mean.

"I'm complaining about your bypassing the TfD notification process."

Please cite one step that I've bypassed. —Lifeisunfair 03:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect 2-5 and Delete the rest For brevity's sake it would best if the core title was {{main}} and not {{seemain}}. Once one gets past five articles I can't see the utility. {{main4|Article1|Article2|Article3|Article 4}} has the advantage of being more intutitive and shorter than the kludge involving {{main2}}. It has the additional advantage that if it is decided to add a conjunction to the main series of templates, it won't break. {{seemain10}} is an interesting attempt at designing an adaptable template, but until or unless templates can be designed that will gracefully accept a variable number of arguments, I can't say I like {{seemain10}}'s approach. Caerwine 21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I prefer the text on {{seemain}} and they are not equivalent; except to those who don't mind having "See Main article", with inconsistent capitalization, all over the place. Septentrionalis 02:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note: While formerly the parent template of this series, {{seemain}} presently is a redirect to {{main}} (per TfD consensus). —Lifeisunfair 03:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep {{seemain2}} for the plural form of the word "articles", delete the rest. — Instantnood 15:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ccm

Due to a delay in notification, voting (which began on August 9) has been extended.

Template was suggested 17 July but no interest/response to develop and not adequate as is - based on music genre template Paul foord 14:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Looks good to me; if it needs to develop, let's develop it, not delete it. --BaronLarf 01:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and develop - as per what Baron Larf said. Halibutt 13:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid infobox type thingy, needs development. Alphax ^τεχ 14:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - excellent template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if noone expressed any interest in using it, why have it hanging around? In the end, it will just be replaced by a redesign if someone wants such an infobox and the signs would seem to be that they don't. -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - now being used Paul foord 06:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep, used --MarSch 17:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 17:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep ditto. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

August 21

Template:Future building

This template is overkill and an inappropriate adoption of the future events template. There's nothing "speculative" or unexpected about construction plans. If construction has occurred, there's nothing dramatic that should happen. The information contained in this article is essentially useless. The articles of every country in the world, every world head of state, and every living person covered in this encyclopedia is in more danger of being outdated that some building under construction. --Jiang 11:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agree with the above. Any good article should already make clear what items are just proposals. - SimonP 22:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Vote bar

While this is prettier than Template:Vfd votes was (tfd discussion), such things were still soundly rejected at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Regarding tally boxes. —Cryptic (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this. And if you're not supposed to use it on VfD, it certainly can be useful in other parts of Wikipedia that involve votes, such as simple yes/no polls. Besides, why do you think "VfD" isn't even in the title of this template?

Also, now that I've read the policy prohibiting such tally boxes on VfD sub-pages, you should know that I only added the vote bar as an ad hoc measure, since so many opinions were registered on that VfD subpage that I felt I had to add it, to make it unnecessary for other users and admins to have to read through all those opinions (almost 200 on that particular page) to simply track the general scenario.  Denelson83  06:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This vote bar has been insanely helpful at Wikipedia :Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. Karmafist 05:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete See here for my reason. --Mysidia (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I suggest using the template on a case by case basis. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly. It should be used only as an ad hoc measure.  Denelson83  06:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Kim Bruning 06:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Unable to comment, because Kim Bruning speedily deleted the template. Under which of the criteria did this qualify, Kim? —Lifeisunfair 10:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  AFAICT that page does not currently seem to reflect actual practice. :-/ Kim Bruning 13:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Apparently under the criterion that since Wikipedia is not a democracy this template is useless or so. No cause for speedy though methinks. --MarSch 12:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I speedied it because it's something that should never be used on wikipedia anyway. But good point: I forget that admin percentages are down relative to all the new folks, so you can't just ask the next guy over to take a look. (So adminship is temporarily a big deal , Very very annoying :-/). Here's an example of the template in use, and I've left it undeleted so you can pick it apart.

The sky is green: 114

The sky is blue: 78

Kim Bruning 13:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Mysidia. ~~ N (t/c) 13:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but only if such a consensus is reached via the TfD process; this is not a speedy deletion candidate. Kim: I recommend that you formally enter your vote (and allow another admin to close the debate). —Lifeisunfair 14:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Vote changed. (See below.) —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  You've probably heard this over and over and over, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, so this is not a vote in the first place.(It's a consensus finding poll). Even then, VFD, TFD and CSD don't override every other policy or practice, else wikipedia would grind to a halt. Kim Bruning 14:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC) (PS. Specifically, WP:NOT was written and reviewed by 100s or even 1000s of wikipedians over a period of years, while this tfd poll is conducted by a handful of wikipedians over a couple of days. Figuring out where consensus lies is left as an excersize to the reader ;-) ) Kim Bruning 15:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is the prerogative of all Admins, to turn their adminstrative power into the ability to impose their will on the community. An admin should not function as a judge-jury-and-executioner, but as a member of the community who is no more or less special in the validity of their opinions as any other non-admin. Figuring out whether you have crossed the line into inappropriate behavior unbecoming of an admin is left as an excersize to the reader. :( Courtland 15:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use admin perogative, like you said, I'm just an editor with a couple more buttons. In this case, there is sufficient (actually overwhelming) consensus to delete, because of existing policy, which is supported by thousands of wikipedians. Does that help? Kim Bruning 19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Invoking majority rule regarding the "votes" to delete this template when you've been touting that this is not a democracy doesn't help, no. Courtland 20:25, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, in this case I'm referring to the inertia of getting all those people to change their mind, there was never any vote for WP:NOT, AFAIK. Kim Bruning 23:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Please consult a dictionary, and you'll find that the word "vote" doesn't necessarily imply that a decision will be reached via a numerical count. Used as a noun, "vote" can mean "a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue" or "a means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot." Used as a verb, "vote" can mean "to express one's preference for a candidate or for a proposed resolution of an issue; cast a vote" or "to express a choice or an opinion." Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition —Lifeisunfair 16:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, wikipedia jargon, my fault. A vote in wikipedia parlance is a majority vote (the root of all evil), while a poll is an opinion poll, which is a nescessary evil. Kim Bruning

I didn't refer to this discussion as "a vote"; I unambiguously referred to "your vote" (id est, your formal expression of preference for a proposed resolution of the issue). This page is the template equivalent of Votes for deletion, so please don't lecture me on "Wikipedia parlance." Please also refrain from arguing the widespread belief that VfD is misnamed, because it isn't.

And even if I had used the term in the context that you suggest, I still wouldn't have been incorrect; "vote" ("the act or process of voting") != "majority vote." —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

2. Yes, WP:NOT was written and reviewed by a multitude of Wikipedians, but so were the deletion policies that you've unilaterally decided to circumvent. I believe that this template should be deleted, but not until the correct process has been followed. I was under the impression that you had realized your error, but it's clear that I was mistaken. I respectfully request that you once again undelete the template (and leave it undeleted, pending the outcome of this debate). —Lifeisunfair 16:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually the CSD was only reviewed by a handful of wikipedians who weren't really using process too well, so a lot of folks think that the current CSD rules are pretty weak. On the other hand, the fact that wikipedia is a consensus community is a given based on the fact that we're a wiki. We've all accepted that rule by editing here, basically. :-) So rather than unilateral circumvention, a better term in this case might be might be kilolateral uncircumvention. Let's not have TFD dictate wikipedia policy. Kim Bruning 19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I referenced "the deletion policies," not any particular deletion policy. Secondly, you claim that the CSD were "only reviewed by a handful of wikipedians who weren't really using process too well," and that "the current CSD rules are pretty weak," but who are you to decide this, and why haven't you raised these issues on the talk page (to which you've yet to post a single remark)? And as I note below, the concept that this template violates the spirit of WP:NOT is your personal belief, and should not be imposed upon the entire community. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but at no point does this template state that the result must be followed - it is merely an indicator. I don't want to cause a fuss, but you are almost violating WP:POINT on this, and you have violated the TfD process. Because there are a few people wanting it to be undeleted I am going to do so - call it partial consensus if you will. violet/riga (t) 19:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it Counts Votes, that sucks quite enough. It's probably ok to undelete it temporarily, but you'll have to watch it carefully to make sure it doesn't get transcluded anywhere. (And explain to and warn every person who does so). Kim Bruning 19:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing any consensus that this template "should never be used"; that's based entirely upon your arbitrary assessment of its potential applications and your equally arbitrary interpretation of WP:NOT. Any template can be misused, but that doesn't mean that we should employ the pre-emptive measure of deleting all of them. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete although it is pretty, and shouldn't have any effect on the closing admins decision, I think it would only make users vote in order to sway the decision, w/o reading the discussion. The discussion is the whole point, and if its going one way or another, maybe its becuase users changed their votes, and you would never know that if you stared at the pretty bar and didn't read the discussion. ∞Who?¿? 19:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have two distinct reasons for keeping this. Reason number 1: While I agree, not a democracy, I also feel that there should not be any prohibition against trying to summarize the state of a complicated discussion. In my mind that is likely to involve counting votes (for good or ill, we all do pay attention to how much support each side has). That said I wouldn't endorse using it on any but the most complicated couple percent of votes. Perhaps having a guideline that there must be 50+ participants before it can be used. Reason number 2: I feel this comparison bar is a neat hack that is likely to be useful in article space. Large parts of the real world are a democracy and certainly Wikipedia talks about that. We could use this to show the outcome of real world votes. Not to mention comparisons where there are two elements but which are not neccesarily votes. Republicans vs. Democrats in Congress? Size of Earth vs. Size of Sun? Men vs. Women as CEOs? Okay, so maybe all of those aren't necessarily good ideas, but I believe the widget could be useful even if there was/is consensus for never using it on VFD. Dragons flight 19:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • To be quite honest, I did not think of its use in that manner. I think it maybe useful for showing outcome of things outside of wiki. Although I somewhat agree on large participation discussions, it may help see where we stand on the issue, I still have reservations about using for Wiki related discussions/votes, per my comments above. Iff it is only used for external outcomes, I would probably support. I would say that it could be used on some Wiki related discussion if there were guidelines, but I feel that borders m:instruction creep. ∞Who?¿? 20:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to explain bit better why deleting the template is useful in this case: Basically, every time this template is transcluded, it violates WP:NOT, or, (if you're actually a sane human being), it violates basic wiki-principles. So by keeping it either blanked or deleted, you kill a large number of birds violations with one stone. Everyone can at least blank a page, so I'm not sure why the first people to spot this problem hadn't already done so.

Perhaps becuase some people realize that their personal opinions and interpretations are not sacrosanct, and that following the correct process (instead of imposing said beliefs upon the entire community) might facilitate productive discourse, thereby bringing to light alternative perceptions and previously overlooked possibilities. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, one other thing I'm demonstrating here is use of consensus rules to quickly get things done that need doing. Everyone has this power, so that means you too. Apply sane reasoning to the problem, and negotiate what you want. or just go ahead and do it :-) You actually applied some of that power today, where you got me to temporarily undelete the template and subst an example here. But note the reasoning above as well, that's why I'm keeping it deleted for the rest. If you'd like a copy of the template someplace if you need to examine it further for some reason, give me a yell. :-) Kim Bruning 19:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

All of your arguments are based upon the (contested) claim that the template unequivocally violates WP:NOT. What gives you the authority to issue such a proclamation? —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is not supposed to be run by votes, no, but this template doesn't pretend that it is. It is simply a tool used to highlight the results of a vote. I'm afraid that voting is commonplace and very much a part of Wikipedia, however - you're taking place in one now. Voting happens all over and is not always a bad thing - it can show consensus much easier than lots of text can. Note that I've not voted on whether this should be deleted, so this isn't a comment on that. violet/riga (t) 19:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a poll to figure out what consensus is, not a vote. There's actually a rather non-subtle distinction. Kim Bruning 20:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

So . . . you also possess the authority to override dictionary definitions? —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If there are votes cropping up all over wikipedia, then there is a significant danger of it failing to be a pedia for very much longer. There was a reason not to have votes, remember? Anyway, I'm glad you're taking over this particular tfd. Have a nice day. Kim Bruning 20:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Violet/Riga is "taking over"? My, how gracious of you to relinquish your self-appointed command. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename to something less specific (such as {{ratio bar}}), and avoid using the template in most (if not all) voting situations (especially those in which more than two options exist). I initially voted (yes, voted) to delete, but Dragons flight has convinced me that this template has legitimate applications. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment from some of the input from Kim above, it's pretty clear to me that this is an example of Kim's violating the WP:POINT guideline, in particular when he says things like "Hmm, one other thing I'm demonstrating here is use of consensus rules to quickly get things done that need doing" which seems to imply that his actions here are meant in part to teach us a lesson about how Wikipedia should be run. Courtland 01:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm actually an individual who favours precision over nebulous scenarios, and this vote bar is an expression of my desire for precision. The term "consensus" on Wikipedia really needs to be rigourously defined. And nowhere in this template did I say that the numbers it shows are binding. It is only an indicator, nothing more. Admins do not, and must not, have to rely on it alone to decide how to close a poll. If they want to read through all of the opinions, then there is nothing I can do about that. All I did was create a simple indication of what the scenario looks like at the present time.  Denelson83  01:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Dragons flight and Lifeisunfair. I find their arguments quite convincing. DES ^(talk) 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the recent discussion and series of polls on extending the CSD drew quite a bit of participation and comments, as well as a number of votes. Peopele were fairly claer, IMO, that they were reluctant to extend the CSD overly, and that they expected the current CSD to be treated rather strictly, not bent. This was not a speedy deletion candidate. DES ^(talk) 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Further comment: Kim_Bruning and I have agreed that there are other legitimate uses for this vote bar. I just added it to 1995 Quebec referendum as a canonical example.  Denelson83  03:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• comment. Had a chat with Denelson83 today. He pointed out uses for the template outside wikipedia: namespace (for example: 1995 Quebec referendum). Ok, well I agree with that (as also per Lifeisunfair and Dragons Flight). The template will have to be carefully gaurded against abuse in the wikipedia: namespace though. As long as people do that, I'm ok with it. Kim Bruning 03:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is just another thing that will mislead people into thinking it is. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have volunteered to guard this template and make sure it is only used under appropriate circumstances.  Denelson83  07:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Should be deleted for the exact same reasons as was Template:Vfd votes. -Sean Curtin 03:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC) Weak keep if renamed. As long as we try to keep this out of the realm of VfD and other WP votes and polls, it's fine by me. As a nitpick, I think that the bar itself ought to be shorter in height; it seems almost like a space filler on my screen. -Sean Curtin 22:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong delete. To reduce all of a discussion down to a colored bar is an absurd reduction and very un-Wiki. BlankVerse ∅ 06:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • After seeing it in use in an article, I am now further opposed to this template. It's one of those cases there a picture is not worth a thousand words, and in fact, doesn't provide a better "picture" than the raw numbers or percentages. If it could be done as a bar graph it fould be helpful, but not as this template. BlankVerse ∅ 07:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, see WP:CENT for two polls regarding usage of such templates, to which people were heavily opposed. Radiant_>|< 08:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Here. Let me give you another way to use this vote bar. I will use it as a summary to list reasons given for keeping this template contrasted with reasons given for deleting it. Do not interpret it as anything more than an innocent summary. And I sincerely hope this isn't an example of a WP:POINT.  Denelson83  08:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Violates "WP is not a democracy" doctrine May influence opinions It simply IS a template Bad choice of name Looks bad where it is used Gives illusion consensus is not used May get overused, causing general clutter

Other uses besides internal votes Acts as a summary

• Rename to {{ratio bar}} as per  Denelson83 's suggestion. While I agree for a number of reasons that its use in VfD pages would be at best unhelpful, there are a number of other reasons to want to use such a bar. My only worry about the template is that the use of '▲' (U+25B2 Black Up-Pointing Triangle) might cause some problems for older browsers, but that's a question of the template's comntenet, not its apprpriateness. Caerwine 22:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• My 2 cents: I don't think admins should speedily delete anything while their VfD lag time still lasts, unless they can point to a specific WP:CSD rule. To quote WP:ADMIN: "Administrators are not imbued with any special authority [...] it should be noted that administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users." (I see the template has already been undeleted, but I still want to be clear on this issue.)
  (No vote on the current template) --IByte 23:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: A way we could discourage abuse of this template would be to make sure it is only inserted into appropriate articles with the "subst" qualifier.  Denelson83  23:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. As a very visual person, something like this would always help me understand arguments better. Its not just for policy, and I don't see what this has to do with being a democracy or not. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 23:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  Eh... wait. How would a two-colored bar help you understand arguments? Summaries of arguments people are using are always helpful and we should certainly use them more, but they don't need two-colored bars. JRM · Talk 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  Some people are more easily able grasp information in a visual manner than a textual one. There's no harm is using graphics where appropriate and there are situations where I feel this template would be appropriate. Caerwine 00:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  That's not quite what I asked—I don't understand what information is being grasped in this way. How many people voted for A and how many for B, yes, obviously. But Páll said it would help him understand arguments better, and that I don't quite get. In case of the ratio bar, it seems obvious you could drop the whole bar and keep just the summaries (mirrored on either side of the page if you like). Counting the "percentage" of reasons offered isn't meaningful in any sense. If this is something you "just can't get" if you're a textual person, I apologize; I'm not trying to belittle or disparage arguments here. JRM · Talk 02:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  This is what I mentioned earlier, if anyone is using a visual aide to get the feel of where the discussion is going, it could be inaccurately persuading their vote on the discussion. If I do not understand a particular discussion, or do not feel like getting involved by reading the entire thing, than I don't get involved! The visual meter destroys the whole point of the discussion. I would only want such a bar to stay around if NOT ever used on Wiki related discussions, ie. presidential polls and such. ∞Who?¿? 06:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy. OK, it's just a template and I mean it no harm, but I'm not going to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the underlying issue. If Denelson feels strongly about stewarding it, he should adopt it in his userspace. It's not even good on polls, as these are supposed to gauge whether an idea meets overwhelming (dis)approval, so you avoid arguing about things nobody really wants to argue about. If there isn't, you don't need a colored bar to tell you that's the case (as it'll be blindingly obvious), you need to poll on something else. Ad hoc, schmad hoc. Yes to attempts at clarifying large, unclear opinion dumps. No to attempts at highlighting where the percentages lie. And we really should go back to the drawing table on the whole "Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's run by consensus" thing, as consensus is hard while democracy is easy. I get the feeling people aren't seeing any added benefit to consensus (or aren't seeing consensus at all) and are thinking this democracy thing looks pretty good in other places, so why not use it here? JRM · Talk 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... Now that just might be a good idea for me to move it to {{User:Denelson83/Ratio bar}} or something.  Denelson83  02:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Even if this isn't ever used on VFD (and, if it is, it should be used only in extremely crowded VFD discussions), it has numerous applications in the rest of the encyclopedia, as noted above. Any time it is necessary to visually display a ratio between two figures, this template enables it to be done easily. Also, I feel that Kim Bruning's speedy delete was highly inappropriate and a violation of Wikipedia policy. Firebug 00:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

August 20

Template:IDRIVErela

• • Please, I run the AID and nobody actually uses this for anything; it's linked in four places or something. -Litefantastic 23:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• del, unused --MarSch 12:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

August 19

Template:R from CamelCase, Template:R from UN/LOCODE, Template:R from title without diacritics, Template:R to decade, Template:R for convenience and Template:R CamelCase

Apparently I missed some. Same reasoning as below. Radiant_>|< 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Template:R from title without diacritics for the same reason as Template:R from misspelling - these redirects attract links, but should be kept orphaned. Also merge Template:R from ASCII into it. —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And I've redirected Template:R CamelCase to Template:R from CamelCase; it was just transcluding it. —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all and nominate individually. Courtland 00:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep most. I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect. ∞Who?¿? 04:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Also see: Wikipedia:Redirect for a better understanding. ∞Who?¿? 04:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep redirects are a bit tricky to categorize normally. DES ^(talk) 02:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Almost all such redirects are useful, as I said below, but some could be merged. merge:
  • {{R for convenience}} with {{R R from shortcut}},
  • {{R CamelCase}} with {{R from CamelCase}},
  • {{R from title without diacritics}} with {{R from ASCII}}.

Keep the rest listed here. -- Paddu 19:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, with merges as suggested by Paddu. We really do need to explain the use of these better, though... JesseW 10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Helpful to select redirects. It might be worth noting that since creation, these templates worked in at least 3-4 different ways. Initially mainly "Whatlinkshere" worked and the text of the template was displayed below the redirect. Since the most recent Mediawiki version, categorization works (again). Personally I think they are good thing to include when a series of redirects are created by bot, e.g. . Later, they can easily be identified. -- User:Docu
• Keep Potentially useful and not being abused. SchmuckyTheCat 22:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears to me that User:Instantnood has already begun to abuse the {{R for convenience}} in The Arts House at the Old Parliament.--Huaiwei 11:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:R from UN/LOCODE

(insert section to make tfd-link to here work))

• Template:R from UN/LOCODE - Keep because no reason given by User:Radiant! that even was so ignorant not to put the tfd tag. How about talking to involved people first? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• To be fair, User:Radiant! gave reasoning in the discussion below this one, and this one is included in the discussion above, as there is no Tfdu template yet (umbrella template like {{Cfdu}} or {{Cfru}}), so this one is just used as a "pointer" for the tfd's. ∞Who?¿? 16:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep redirects are a bit tricky to categorize normally. DES ^(talk) 02:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Those copying Wikipedia content should be able to prune these kinds of redirects out. -- Paddu 19:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep for reasons given above and below. :-) JesseW 10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. -- User:Docu

{{R from misspelling}}

Same reasoning as below, but I've moved it out since Cryptic makes a good point. Radiant_>|< 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep R from misspelling at the very least. Provides a handy list of redirects that should be kept orphaned. —Cryptic (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is useful in highlighting common misspellings (which I probably misspelled :) ) and there are cases where someone labels something as an incorrect spelling (can't screw that spelling up) which is actually an alternate name (for instance "canvas" and "canvass", the latter an uncommon correct spelling of certain defintions of the former). Useful redirect descriptor. Courtland 00:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect. ∞Who?¿? 04:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A bare category can't duplicate the functionality of Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:R from misspelling. —Cryptic (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: Meaning, in my opinion, that without the "whatlinkshere" functionality, there's little hope of editing the referring articles to remove the misspelled linkage. Courtland 14:55, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is good to know which are redirects from misspellings, e.g. for people who want to copy Wikipedia or portions of it but would like have it in a context where having entries for misspellings don't make sense, e.g. for a paper version of Wiikipedia or portions of it. -- Paddu 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep as per paddu, courtland, etc. JesseW 10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Courtland. -- User:docu

Template:R from alternate name and others

{{R from abbreviation}}, {{R from alternate spelling}}, {{R for alternate capitalisation}}, {{R from alternate name}}, {{R from alternate language}}, {{R from ASCII}}, {{R from plural}}, {{R from related word}}, {{R with possibilities}}, {{R to disambiguation page}}, {{R from shortcut}}, {{R to sort name}}, {{R from scientific name}}, and associated categories.

I just came across this scheme for categorizing all redirects to clarify what they redirect to. However, in 99% of all cases that should be immediately obvious from the relevant names, and in others the talk pages should suffice. Few people look at redirects anyway, and attempting to templatize and categorize them all is misguided and serves no real purpose. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• R for Remove. Also, they use a MediaWiki hack that doesn't quite work in other wikis. - Sikon 14:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Template:R from ASCII into Template:R from title without diacritics above. No opinion on the others. (And who cares whether they work on other wikis?) —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No opinion on {{R from CamelCase}}, {{R from UN/LOCODE}}, {{R from title without diacritics}}, {{R to decade}}, {{R for convenience}} or {{R CamelCase}} either, except to wonder whether they were omitted intentionally. 15:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Added now, see above. Radiant_>|< 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Delete these too. - Sikon 15:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - can't see the point. violet/riga (t) 14:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all for now and nominate individually; some I'd vote to delete, some to keep - but I don't want to consider them as a group. I make liberal use of some of these templates and do see a point to them in the form of descriptive classifications of redirects. Courtland 00:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep most. I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect. ∞Who?¿? 04:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Also see: Wikipedia:Redirect for a better understanding. ∞Who?¿? 04:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think categorizing these is a good thing, and if a question arises why a redirect is there, and it falls under one of these categories, it provides a good reference point. "Why does is there a redirect? Oh, I see -- its because of _______" IanManka 06:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It would stop redirects showing up in Special:Uncategorizedpages wouldn't it? -- Joolz 13:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes it would, which is another good reason to use them. ∞Who?¿? 16:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep redirects are a bit tricky to categorize normally. DES ^(talk) 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although some borderline cases might be better nominated individually. -Sean Curtin 04:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep most. For example, it is good to know which are redirects from misspellings, e.g. for people who want to copy Wikipedia or portions of it but would like have it in a context where having entries for misspellings don't make sense, e.g. for a paper version of Wiikipedia or portions of it. There are similar arguments about a few other "R from..." templates. A few might be merged, but IMHO voting must be done on those individually. -- Paddu 19:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  OK, so "R from misspelling" is not included here. Replace "misspellings" with "alternative capitalisation" in my comment above. -- Paddu 19:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (or replace with a better way) Categorizing redirects is a good thing. I'd prefer something in the syntax of #REDIRECT inself, but the technique serves to document the reason for the redirect. Redirects have been abused all over the place (speaking as someone who recently decoupled feature film from film and agricultural subsidy from agricultural policy). BTW feature film had been a redirect for over two years...66.167.137.182 01:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC).
• keep apreciate the cleanup effort, but this is useful and used. Thanks, Radiant, for providing an oppertunity for this demonstration of the consensus to keep these. Thanks! JesseW 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. -- User:Docu

Template:R for as of

Same reasoning as above, except that I was told this was an exception so I'm listing it separately. Its name is somewhat confusing, to say the least. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, useful for finding all the as of redirects, does not cause any problems. --cesarb 16:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've not needed to use this yet, but I can see it's utility. In particular, there are terms in biology and medicine and sociology and et cetera that have changed meaning over the decades or centuries, which would be one application of the template. Courtland 00:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• del, utterly confusing --MarSch 12:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — how else would you find all the as of redirects that are linked to from information that's needed to be kept updated? — Pt _(T) 08:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. See as of to know why. -- Paddu 19:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and clarify for MarSch's sake. (It would be easier if e explained what was confusing, though... ;-) ) JesseW 09:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even though the name was chosen when the text of the template was visible below the redirect. -- User:Docu

Template:Hide

Note: The content of this template is invisible, the source code is

<div style="visibility:hidden; position:absolute;">{{{1}}}</div>

• Delete: Unused, useless. --Quuxplusone 04:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the above. -Splash 06:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• I suspect this is an attempt to create a template to be used in templates that produce conditional output (I created a template of the same name some time ago, which was deleted last April). I'll ask the user who created the template about this, but there seem to be some others (which, no doubt, didn't work either), specifically Template:/div=True and Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

It turns out Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True does work, and is used in Template:Canadian City (and has essentially the same content as Template:hide). Before closing this vote I suggest we wait for comments from the template's creator (User:BCKILLa - no edits since August 7). It may well be that Template:Hide is meant to serve as a less obscurely named pattern for similar templates (in which case, the other same-content templates could redirect to it). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. A template by this name has been deleted once before. [1]. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete useless and introduces potential for serious browser incompatibility. Note, there is an alternative, inote which does the same thing in a different way, just leaving an HTML comment, and which is used for invisible references in text. Mozzerati

Although the local effect is similar, template:inote has a completely different function. The use of Template:Hide (or Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True) is to conditionally suppress some part of the output of a template. For example, Template:Canadian City has a parameter Motto which usually appears following a label (Motto:), see for example Calgary, Alberta. For cities lacking a motto, the label can be suppressed by adding a parameter Disable Motto Link (with the value True), see for example Burlington, Ontario. The "normal" ouput (without the suppression parameter specified) is of the form <div style="visibility:hidden;">weird junk with curly braces</div>[[Motto]]:</div> (so the div makes the weird junk invisible, but note the second close div in this case is unmatched). With the suppression parameter set to true, the "weird junk with curly braces" turns out to be an invocation of a template like Template:Hide which expands into another <div> matching the first close div. This makes the initial div apply to the Motto: label, making it invisible. One advantage of this approach is that if there's ever if-then-else syntax added to templates, the invoking template can be fixed without requiring any changes to any of its references. HTML comments do not nest, so there's no way using HTML comments to do precisely the same thing. This is an extremely clever workaround to a limitation of the existing implementation of templates. We could perhaps argue this is too clever, but I'm not aware of any policy prohibiting (nor even discouraging) excessive cleverness in templates. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep based on Rick Block, though I tend to agree with the excessive cleverness. Once pages start looking like programming code instead of text many editors shy away. SchmuckyTheCat 21:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

August 18

Template:anti-war

Clearly and un-needed/un-wanted template designed entirely for POV pushing, Censorship, and Trolling, has appeared on dozens of un-related articles, and clearly must be deleted--64.12.116.6 14:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war for an explanation of this NPOV wikiproject. David | Talk 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I put it their. I have tryed to cearfully set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war to be a NPOV project. Can you give some evidence of POV pushing, Censorship, and Trolling? I belive that all the articles the template appears on are related by being about anit-war movments or ideas.--JK the unwise 16:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. --Carnildo 18:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a place for free speech or discussion. Agriculture 18:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Keep Wikipedia may not be a palce for free speech and discussion, but it should be. Agriculture 18:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As I mentioned on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Anti-war, "It is entirely possible to keep a NPOV while writing about peace groups and the movement in general. Additionally, some of the material being covered is historic in nature, like those articles dealing with Vietnam." Schuminweb 18:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keey per Carnildo. --Ngb 18:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - although the POV pushing part might be slightly possible. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in agreement with the ability to discuss opposition to war in an NPOV manner. Further, the identity of the nominator is hidden as the IP address is an AOL multi-user address. Anything nominated anonymously should be removed from here by an admin immediately, just as anonymous or unsigned votes are to be ignored in the consideration of whether or not to delete an item. Courtland 01:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • But not an unsigned or anonymous nomination. -Splash 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the charges made in the nomination don't seem to bear scrutiny. -Splash 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, having presumed that purpose is to inform, not persuade. (To make this clear to casual observer, I might suggest renaming the project). ~~~~ 14:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Musicbrainz wiki box

Yet another sister project box for a non-sister project. —Cryptic (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. -Splash 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Main articles

This is redundant with (and less efficient than) {{main2}}, which accommodates any plural number of article links. This template merely generates the following text:

Main articles:

It's as easy to type the actual output as it is to type {{main articles}}. Delete or redirect to {{main2}}. —Lifeisunfair 04:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I have to wonder if we should only keep Main and this one, or the code from Main2 moved here. Somehow this name seems like the right choice for the multiple article version of Main. Vegaswikian 07:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Main2" is a logical name, because the template's default (and most common) application is the display of two article links (which is only the minimum, of course). Why encourage users to type {{main articles}} (seventeen characters) instead of {{main2}} (nine characters)? —Lifeisunfair 12:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Only because the name seems more logical. Using the charcter '2' implies only two articles. Using the word 'articles' implies more than one. Vegaswikian 22:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned, {{main2}} defaults to the display of two article links (unless the user specifies a different number), so the name makes sense. I wouldn't object to making {{main articles}} an undocumented redirect to {{main2}}, but I wouldn't support the reverse (because this would reduce the template's level of convenience for most users). —Lifeisunfair 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a resonable solution. Vegaswikian 23:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to {{main2}}. Vegaswikian 23:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to claim that {{main2}} can display any increasing number, you should explain the incantation. Template_talk:Main2#Usage I know one way, but it isn't obvious nor pretty. (SEWilco 01:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

Is this what you were thinking of? It seems fairly obvious (albeit not particularly "pretty") to me, and it's easier than starting from scratch for all of the links (as {{main articles}} requires). And again, it makes no sense to type {{main articles}} (seventeen characters) in lieu of simply typing ''Main articles: (the sixteen characters that the template outputs). —Lifeisunfair 02:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't created more, but I'll point out another possibility, which might be affected by template termination rules. Cover your eyes, kids. {{main2|Article1|{{more|Article2|{{more|Article3|{{more|Article4|Article5}} }} }} }} (SEWilco 02:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

Template:13colonies

This might be useful, if most of the names were not wrong, thus disseminating misinformation. See the number of redirects in the template. Attempt to make a template do the work of a category.

• Keep, why don't you just fix the errors instead of asking to have it deleted?

05:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, replace with Template:otherarticles Nominator vote. Septentrionalis 02:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Didn't see any redirects in the template, and even if there were I would have edited it. I also think new users and readers find templates easier than categories, so, useful. CanadianCaesar 02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The "wrong" names are an attempt to simplify the issue. The complicated issues are discussed in the articles and if you are dissatisified with the discussion, please feel free to amend. A useful bunching of topics. Templates and categories can overlap. It's not a crime. Creator vote. jengod 06:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It looks boring, but it provides a useful array of related items on a given theme. --Eoghanacht 12:38, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no problem having this template. No different in function than Template:United States. --tomf688^<TALK> 14:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. VFD is not the place to resolve issues with the content of articles, neither is TFD for resolving a disagreement with the way things are named in a template. Tomer ^TALK 20:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. TFD is not cleanup. If it's wrong, then by all means, please fix it. Firebug 00:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ludwig van Beethoven

Delete: The point of this template appears to be easy navigation between articles about Beethoven. I don't think it helps particularly, though, for a number of reasons. The list of works calls for completion in order to be useful (because a bagatelle and two piano sonatas--in addition to the symphonies, of course--hardly deserve their own little template), which would not only be quite too huge for a template, but also already available in its right place (List of works by Beethoven). Listing the symphonies alone might serve a purpose for navigation, admittedly, though, but only marginally. The other articles (i.e. those not about individual works) are all linked from the appropriate section of the main page, like they should be, and as should be enough. EldKatt (Talk) 19:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep: I think this is very useful. I have taken the liberty of adding List of works by Beethoven to the template, though. If we keep the template, we should probably find a few more of his most prominent compositions to include. --Arcadian 20:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But probably remove the works other than the symphonies. Certainly the current selection is poor. 82.35.34.11 01:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but be merciless in deciding which works get onto the template. It might thus be necessary to junk the template at a later time if such agreement simply cannot be reached. -Splash 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I should've clarified this in my original proposal, but I'm only opposed to this template as a general Beethoven-related template, which would be POV-prone and hard to manage, since it can't be exhaustive. I'm quite positive to a specific "Beethoven symphonies" template (and "Beethoven piano sonatas", "Beethoven string quartets" etc, for that matter), though, which seems like a plausible result of the consensus so far. But I very much doubt the possibility of agreeing on a set of notable works for a template like this. Personally, I certainly wouldn't list Für Elise, for example, but I'm sure this would meet some disagreement, by virtue of it being such a famous little piece. EldKatt (Talk) 12:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I find EldKatt's argument completely convincing. There are so many famous works, and we couldn't possibly fit them all in a template of reasonable size. Opus33 16:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I find this to be a useful template --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm convinced by EldKatt; Arcadian wants "more prominent compositions", but a huge number of Beethoven's works are prominent; I think it would save time to modify Splash's proposal: be merciless and delete. FYI: I created the Beethoven string quartets and Beethoven piano sonatas templates. The only reason I think they are a good idea is because musicians refer to them by opus number: "Piano Sonata No. 21" is mostly known as "Op. 53" or "The Waldstein", and "String quartet No. 7" as "Op. 59 No. 1" or "Rasumovsky No. 1", so the template really does aid navigation. I would not oppose a "Beethoven symphonies" navigation template (although should that include Symphony No. 10 (Beethoven/Cooper)?) although I see less of a case for that since the numbering of the symphonies is simpler. I think the template under discussion here is unnecessarily trying to do the impossible. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since it would be unmanageable to have all Beethoven's works in this template, and that would be the only reasonable way to proceed with it. I strongly support the idea of templates for subsets of his compositions, and Robert is right about the works being referred to by opus numbers ("hey, wanna get together tonight and play opus 131?" -- that's the way musicians refer to Beethoven's pieces). For completeness and consistency -- though I'm aware of the threat of Emerson's hobgoblins -- we could have templates for symphonies, concertos, incidental music, variations, and anything else by B. Antandrus (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

August 17

Template:SOreligiousfreedomATW

• Delete. This template is massive, containing a link for every country in a world. Most of the links are red and likely to stay red, because we simply don't need a Status of religious freedom article in countries where it simply isn't article-worthy. It's kinda like having the article Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union, then having a template with 192 links to Involuntary settlements in (country). Coffee 06:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The template’s author hasn’t edited in six months. I have removed the red links, leaving the blue. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 08:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep updated version. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep handy. --Amr Hassan 20:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful. -- Karl Meier 10:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

August 16

Template:Sisterproject

A previous edit war seems to have determined that this meta-template is harmful. It was then blanked, which is how I noticed it. I checked through the using pages and I believe I have now converted them all to use the appropriate one from Wikipedia:Sister projects, so this can be deleted. -- Beland 02:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, then. A series of sister templates custom-tailored by article is better than this one, which basically asserts that the article has useful related content in each sisterproject (which is rare at best). Radiant_>|< 10:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. This one's a tough call. It's been on TFD twice before (1, 2), and kept both times. However, much of the discussion on this template's talk page seems to indicate a legitimate concern about the use of meta-templates and the effect on the server. The best option would likely be to subst: the old version into the templates it uses (which appears to have been done already), and to delete it. Again, however, tough call. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 11:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Reason not given nor properly researched. --Corvun 09:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Might you consider the template for yourself, since it's been brought here for your consideration? -Splash 06:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Huh, Corvun? It's a blank template, unused, never will be used. (Its purpose had been as a meta-template to standardize {{wiktionarypar}}, {{wikisourcepar}}, et al., but none of them use it for standardization anymore — the sister-project format has stabilized.) --Quuxplusone 04:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and others above. -Splash 06:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

August 14

Template:Fantasy

A very large navbox, recently created and added to a number of pages. Some of the topics are only rather distantly related to each other, IMO. I question the value of this particular navigation box, and it takes up a lot of space on the articles it is placed on. DES ^(talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (nom) DES ^(talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Duh. It can always be improved, made smaller, etc. As far as questions of its "value" are concerned, it allows for easier navigation through the series on Fantasy. The general policy here on Wikipedia is to improve rather than to arbitrarily delete. --Corvun 00:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful. Improve rather than destruct. The JPS 00:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Categorify. It's a good idea but it's far too big and unwieldy. I'd like a template of about half the current size, and the rest put in a category. Radiant_>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's pretty much the goal. If you have any ideas about what should stay and what should go, your input would be (greatly!) appreciated on either the template's talk page or the fantasy talk page. --Corvun 11:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful; however, trimming the current content to one level of bullets would make it better in my opinion. The "fantasy authors" and "list of fantasy authors" should be dropped to just "fantasy authors" and that promoted up one level so it remains. Courtland 01:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for the input (and the support!). For now I've divided the template into "articles" and "categories", with the main articles listed as the series and the categories listed in the same order below. Even with this redundancy, when this process is finished and everything cleaned up, it should cut the size of the template down by about 75%.
• Keep and correct if needed. Halibutt 16:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, still needs trimming. I personally find vertical navboxes to be intrusive and ugly and prefer horizontal ones at the bottoms of articles, but that's a content issue. -Sean Curtin 01:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I discussed my reasons for suggesting the deletion of this template at some length at Template talk:Fantasy#Why suggest deletion? with Corvun, the creator of this tempalte. I urge people here to take a look at that exchange. DES ^(talk) 05:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful. CanadianCaesar 07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Seemain and Template:SeeMain

Note: Voting suspended. This is a cleanup of a redirected template. It has been discovered that redirected templates can not be identified as orphans through "What links here". The TfD process has to be altered before redirected templates can be deleted.

• Delete: Redirected in earlier TfD, has now been orphaned except for some Talk and User pages. SEWilco 01:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Stbalbach 02:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Template:main, or even better, template:see details is enough I think. This one seems to imply some kind of hierarchy on Wikipedia. Oleg Alexandrov 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note that the definition of Template:main was changed today. Template_talk:Main#Template_usage_changed SEWilco 04:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

• Note that this change was made by the original author (of both the template and the description) as a correction of a typographical error. The new wording reflects both the creator's original intention and the tag's overwhelmingly popular application. —Lifeisunfair 04:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Redirected. The cat is most decidely out of the bag, and redirects are cheap. Many people have learned to go looking for {{seemain}} when they mean {{main}} and it is too much trouble with very little benefit to try and cure everyone of this confusion. Dragons flight 06:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Despite the nominator's claim to the contrary, {{seemain}} had not been orphaned. I just removed it from nineteen articles, many of which are extremely prominent: Creationism, Final Fantasy airships, Gautama Buddha, Germany, Homosexuality, Human, Kashmir, The Legend of Zelda series enemies, Malaysia, Napoleon I of France, National Basketball Association, New Zealand, Portland, Oregon, Races of Final Fantasy, Slavery, Tutankhamun, United States, Wikipedia and WWE SmackDown! (video game). —Lifeisunfair 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: None of those articles appear in Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Seemain, which is only showing discussion and User pages that the bot ignored. (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

As stated above, I removed the template from all nineteen of those articles. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I suspect Whatlinkshere entries for a redirected template are created in the target template, thus Whatlinkshere:main probably contains some seemain references. The TfD vote can continue, this problem merely means that all cleanup deletions of redirected templates have to deal with such technical issues. (SEWilco 19:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

Last night, when the nineteen articles in question were listed on the "Whatlinkshere" page, {{seemain}} was not a redirect; it contained the TfD notice. As Radiant indicated, three of the titles (Germany, Human and New Zealand) appeared when users made unrelated edits to the corresponding articles (after I first viewed the "Whatlinkshere" page and began removing the template). —Lifeisunfair 19:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. A Redirect page does not allow the TfD template, so the apparently-orphaned redirect was replaced with the TfD template. When I reported the templates were orphans those articles were not in Whatlinkshere:Seemain, and appeared when edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (SEWilco 20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

I'm aware of the above. I meant that the redirect couldn't have been the cause of the glitch. —Lifeisunfair 00:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Along the way, I discovered the existence of ten additional templates that belong to this set: {{seemain2}}, {{seemain3}}, {{seemain4}}, {{seemain5}}, {{seemain6}}, {{seemain7}}, {{seemain8}}, {{seemain9}}, {{seemain10}} and {{seemain20}}. —Lifeisunfair 06:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

For whatever reason, articles containing {{seemain}} continue to appear on the list (without anyone adding the template). For the time being (until this problem has been resolved), I've restored the redirect. (And if you really stop to think about it, a TfD message in an orphaned template serves little purpose.) —Lifeisunfair 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

What "list"? (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

I was referring to this list. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I see. The articles which showed in Whatlinksher:Seemain were those which were edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (SEWilco 20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

• Delete those extra templates #2-#20; where did those come from anyway? As for the first one, I have no objection to the redirect. Templates sometimes get a longer 'whatlinkshere' when articles containing them are 'touched', so for an oft-used template it's not necessarily possible to find all links to it. Try using google as an alternate method.

Radiant_>|< 08:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The extra templates 2-20 are for multiple references, and will be converted later thus are not part of this TfD. (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

As noted below, the numbered templates (excepting {{seemain2}}) are extraneous. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep {seemain} and at least 2 through 4 of the others. Useful, and easier to maintain than typing in the same italicized sentence all the time. Septentrionalis 16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect {{seemain}} and {{seeMain}} to {{main}}; redirect {{seemain2}} to {{main2}}; delete all of the other numbered templates (which are extraneous, because {{main2}} can link to any plural quantity of articles). —Lifeisunfair 17:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect everything including {{see details}} to {{main}}. Vegaswikian 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep {{main2}} (I think it was easier to put this vote as an entry given the number of templates being discussed here, I am not voting twice.) Vegaswikian 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The JPS 11:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but delete all those starting from {{seemain3}}. We need a template for the plural form. The rest can be done by using {{seemain2|Foo1|Foo2]], [[Foo3]], [[Foo4}}. — Instantnood 11:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The numbered variants have been listed separately. —Lifeisunfair 14:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

August 13

Template:Chem-cat

Delete: A convenient and systematic way to crowd the article namespace with suggestions for editors, which (last I checked) were deprecated. Also, if you're going to add this template to a page, you might as well just fulfill the suggestion and skip the extra step. --Smack (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, agree with the above. - SimonP 15:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Might be reasonable if placed on a talk page. Presumably should be placed only by an editor who is not sure what the proepr subcat is. weak keep if restricted to talk pages and properly documented. DES ^(talk) 16:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but only if the template is moved from every article it is currently on to the articles' talk pages. If not moved, then delete. BlankVerse ∅ 21:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The template is used at the bottom of the article, onobtrusively. The chemistry category now has 172 articles. If I knew the appropriate subcategory for these articles, I would go ahead and take care of it myself. The category has had the "cleancat" tag, on its talk page, since May 1. Maurreen (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a good idea but it's better taken from the category (and WikiProject:chemistry) than by sticking a template on each related article and asking 'can someone else please help'. Radiant_>|< 00:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's just in the way and superfluous. ~K 00:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Questions: For the sake of curiosity, how does this template have less value or make any more of a problem than, for example, the stub or wikifacation templates, when those needs are evident in the articles? And for the sake of efficiency, can anyone suggest a more effective method to accomplish the same thing, especially for those categories without a project? For example, Category:Computing got Template:Cleancat on 22 June. I requested help with Category:Computing at Talk:Computing on 27 July. The main cat still has more than 150 articles. Maurreen (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  Your time would probably be better spent recategorizing than slapping a template on each article. I don't really believe there is such a thing as overpopulation of a category. And if someone doesn't know where to categorize an article, we would want them to put it in a general category so that someone more knowledgable could come along and recategorize it properly. —Mike 02:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  I think putting a template on the category would be useful (e.g. "this category is getting too large, please move items to its subcats"). Cleaner-uppers could more easily work from there. Radiant_>|< 13:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  comment: 150 articles ... that is certainly not an example of overpopulation of a category in my opinion. On the other hand, 1,500 would present more of a problem. Courtland 01:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  It usually requires significant expertise in a subject to expand a stub, and it can take a lot of work to wikify an article. IMHO, fussing with categories is fairly quick and requires only superficial knowledge. What we need is a tag placed in the category page that marks it as too large. --Smack (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• It might be useful to generalize this to accept a parameter to the category. Or perhaps simply a template which says: This article is not categorized specifically enough. Or perhaps not. As with article text, people will come along and fix this. Eventually. --MarSch 17:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as too specific, but I strongly encourage the generalization of this to a talk page located, {{cleanup-subcat}} tag. Hope that helps. JesseW 06:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Too specific. Not very useful. -- Reinyday, 15 August 2005
• Delete. The template {{verylarge}} should be used as a general solution; this template places the category into the "cleanup" cateogory Category:Overpopulated categories. Courtland 01:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Areas of Edinburgh

Delete: Offers no extra navigational function than the existing identical category. The majority are red links, and is often bigger than the articles themselves (i.e. Murrayfield). It attracts the creation of substandard articles to turn the red links into blue (I've cleaned up New Town, Edinburgh, but it's still weak). The JPS 13:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Listify: to be precise, substitute the present list into Areas of Edinburgh; convert the template into a link to that article and to the category; add the category to the template. This will be easier to navigate than a bald category, which is uncoubtedly why the template exists at all. Septentrionalis 15:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, that is what the page Areas of Edinburgh used to be. See this revision. Is that really better? Maccoinnich 22:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there any way to divide the list into sections? The JPS 22:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I mean, use the {subst:Areas of Edinburgh) there; which will keep the present appearance; as I have just done. You don't need a template to have a pretty appearance; you just need the code. Septentrionalis 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Is useful to have on each page. If anything, I think the page Areas of Edinburgh should be deleted, just leaving the template. The fact that there isn't a perfect article from each link is hardly a reason to delete the template. Maccoinnich 19:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Listify. Radiant_>|< 00:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Listify per Septentrionalis. -Splash 17:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I have made a small Template:otherarticles as a general-purpose link to general articles and categories; I think this may work here. The format would be {{otherarticles|Areas of Edinburgh|Areas of Edinburgh}}. Septentrionalis 23:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Listify Agree with much of the above. Alphabetical sections will help layout and usability (see List_of_places_in_the_Tayside_region_of_Scotland for an example). -- Cactus.man | Reply 10:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

August 12

Template:Npov-intro/Template:POV-intro

• This is completely unused and should probably be deleted. --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, brilliant, this is just the template for the creation science article (and I'm sure a few others). The article itself is usually fine, as critism and supporting arguments have their own sections, but the intro has been causing a lot of problems. Is this template documented? -- Ec5618 11:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect both to Template:POV-section. Good idea but redundant. Radiant_>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' - and use more widely. The intro is often the most contentious section, and a template that makes that crystal clear is very useful. The "section" version is not clear enough, IMO, when used to refer to an intro (people may not be clear about what it's referring to). Rd232 13:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and list on Wikipedia:Templates. Is there also an in-line version of {npov}; like {dubious} is of {accuracy}? Septentrionalis 19:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it exists, that would be Template:POV-section like I said above. Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • No - put dubious and Pov-section in a page - you'll see the difference. The former is inline, the latter is not - it floats above the line. Rd232 22:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• del per Radiant --MarSch 17:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. BTW the claim about these being "completely used" simply is not true. I came across this debate though the use of this template on a page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Rd232. Robert A West 00:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Shh

• Delete: Looks like a vanity/advert link to a movie site. Jpers36 04:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep:I don't know what you're talking about .. SHH! links have always been put in the articles that concern comic book movie adaptations. what difference does it make if it is put using a template to make it look nicer? why would I advertise for SHH! anyway .. it's not like it's mine, or that I'm making any profit from it .. unless you consider every external link as an ad then you should ban the whole thing from the encylopedia .. and there is right now a whole bunch of templates that are used to generate links to external websites like imdb and rottentomatoes .. they're almost on every page.. the only difference that the SHH! concerns only a few selected articles .. --Amr Hassan 07:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The template uses a different format than that any of the other links in the "external links" section. At the very least it needs a cleanup, to stay standard accros the board. However, I don't see the purpose in it at all; a simple external link works fine. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, ok.. count how many articles it's used in .. what are templates for anyway? and what harm is it doing right now?--Amr Hassan 08:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia's purpose is not to advertise other websites. Radiant_>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This looks very similer to Template:imdb title (links, talk) or Template:isfdb name (links, talk) to me, a template to provide a standard format for making an external link to a site that has pages with urls constructed according to a standard scheme. It should be documented, of course. I routinely add the proper isfdb tempalte to pages on any sf or fantasy author or work I edit, and use one of the IMDB templates on a film-related page. why is this different? DES ^(talk) 12:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed I go further -- if I am editing such an article and i see soemone has added a drirect external link to the ISFDB or the IMDB, I will replace it with a template link. DES ^(talk) 12:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in its current form. It's not very useful and does seem to be vanity.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per DES. Carioca 02:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it's useful for those who want to keep up with the latest updates on the movies based on comic characters.--DizerX 13:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep, per DES --MarSch 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per DES. Havok (T/C) 13:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the delete votes above. DreamGuy 00:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, will somebody delete it or remove the TFD from it already!! --Amr Hassan 13:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless there is some specific issue with the website, which I have not seen evidence of. MosheZadka 14:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per DES. Joeyconnick 17:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because the link is only in the form of domain.com/name (such as the one seen on Sin City page) instead of a harder-to-type form such as IMDb's domain.com/title/ttnumber. Having this template does not make anything easier and does not provide standardization of a complex URL (since the URL is not complex at all). A link to SHH can simply be a regular link, and does not require any special templates. --Hcblue 02:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

August 10

Template:Otherusesabout

Worrying new template that ecourages repetition of opening paragraph above it for disambiguation. Template:Otheruses is already the standard way to provide a disambiguation link. ed g2s • talk 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. (By which I mean bot all uses to Template:Otheruses, then delete.) ed g2s • talk 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I wouldn't suggest botting this as suggested ... there are less than 250 uses and the likelihood is that more than one of the bot replacements would result in some manner of nonsense being writ. Would it be possible to subst: the existing uses if the template gets deleted, which would maintain the status quo on the articles that currently use it while removing it from circulation for new uses? Courtland 01:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. That being voted, I'll say that "worrying" is a far stronger reaction than warranted. The reality is that it (I believe, not having made it or discussed it with the makers) was probably created to provide a crutch for the many many many articles that have introductions that are not well written. I doubt it is encouraging bad writing, because those people who would write a poor introduction would not bother to add the template (one would think), but it is providing a band-aid (or tourniquet, depending on the view of how severe the problem is) to a widespread problem. Better to remove the band-aid and let the wound heal in the open air. Courtland 23:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Note the (nearly) identical template, {{otheruses1}}. Coincidentally, a template named {{otheruses1}} was deleted per TFD consensus in December 2004 --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 00:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  3 to 1 is not exactly "consensus", or even if it is, not a particularly strong one. —Lowellian (talk) 12:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

  Let's reword that, then. It was deleted through a TFD. The consensus may be questionable, but the result is apparent - it was deleted. Now, I have no idea what the "old" template was, and if it was something entirely different than this one, then the TFD doesn't make any difference. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundancy stinks. -- jiy^Talk 00:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Redundancy is sometimes necessary. --DuKot 01:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant with {{otheruses1}}. CG 09:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu

Template:Otheruses1 is now orphaned. I propose we delete this too as it is pretty much identical (unless anyone thinks we need to vote separately?). ed g2s • talk 14:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that adding a template to a TfD part way through is less good than just making a new TfD. You should at least inform the prior voters on their talk pages. Oh, and orphaning a tl before bringing it here and asking if it should be deleted is a little hasty. -Splash 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I did think of starting a new TfD, but as I said, they're practically identical. Anyone who's voted deleted on the first one would definitely vote delete on the second one. Also I don't need a passed TfD to carry out the orphaning, as the orphaning was done per disambiguation guidelines, the TfD is just to clean up.

• comment considering the identity of the two templates, could the second be speedied if the first is deleted? Courtland 01:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete redundant. -Splash 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand why people want to delete this. It's not identical to Template:Otheruses, so it's not redundant, right? —Lowellian (talk) 12:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep overdeletionism is a pain in the arse, redirectionism is better. Dunc|☺ 13:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, provides context not given by Template:Otheruses. -Sean Curtin 04:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  It's the wrong way to do disambiguation. Context is given by the first line/paragraph of the article. ed g2s • talk 08:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • comment No, it's an OK way to do disambiguation; it's just an inelegant way of doing it. There are few cases where application of the concept the template targets is needed (as noted below) and those few cases can be handled without the use of a template. Courtland 01:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu
• Delete redundant with introductory paragraph. JesseW 06:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep see Macedonia for an example of where someone has put it to good use. --Mysidia (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Please keep. There were some terrible revert wars over exactly how the disambig notice at the top of Macedonia should be worded before this template was finally agreed on for that article. I really don't want to see a revert war over its replacement should this template be deleted. It has a use. Please keep. Jonathunder 00:44, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
  • comment I came very close to changing my vote to Keep, but then considered that an ad hoc disambiguation statement to handle the very contentious issues that you've very rightly highlighted is as appropriate as a template, that the revert wars should not start over just because the template disappears because the text can be recapitulated exactly as it appears without the template being used. Courtland 01:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment it can be done with {{dablink}} or {{for}} instead. -- User:Docu

Holding cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.

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 fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

• {{Britishmainlines}} entry moved to Log/Deleted/August 2005 as there was no objection to deletion, User:Ceyockey
• {{Block}} entry moved to Log/Deleted/August 2005 despite a couple of keep comments as the consensus appears to be for deletion; appears on user talk pages, which is the target article-space for the template, User:Ceyockey
• {{Football in Portugal}} entry moved to Log/Deleted/August 2005; one delete comment and one keep comment ... the keep comment was bare without supporting arguments and there is no discussion on the template talk page; interpreted this as the absence of a consensus to keep ... if a single word arguing why to keep had been made, then I wouldn't have taken this action. Courtland 01:59, 25 August 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.

(none at this time)

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

Listings

Adding a listing

• Please put new listings under today's date (October 19) at the top of the section.
• When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages.

August 25

Template:Predecessor

Blank and unused. -- Beland 01:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. This appears to have been a test. —Lifeisunfair 02:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

August 24

Template:Interwiki-category-check

Er, I can't see how this is useful, all it does is add a category to the main namespace to do with editing, and on a minor issue - the order of categories?!?!?. Dunc|☺ 11:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is used by Pearle and Whobot when doing mass re-cats. It checks for bad interwiki links, and labels them for human intervention. (I think I got everything, Beland could explain better). ∞Who?¿? 20:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This template is in active use. It may seem simple, but it's a convenient way to find all the articles in recent runs where a bot couldn't properly edit an article. These articles need manual attention so they can be automatically edited in the future, and so that they comply with Wikipedia style standards. It's not the sort order of the categories that's checked, it's that the interwiki and category and stub tags can be parsed properly, and that they are at the end of the article. Parse failures (which are what is tagged) are usually an indication that the article is messed up, often that it needs to be split into multiple articles. I usually get around to fixing these within a few days of doing a run, but I do need some way of finding them. -- Beland 01:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:ForCleanup

Unused creation by an anonymous IP, obviously redundant with Template:Cleanup. -- Beland 05:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Just redirect No need to waste your breath here. Dunc|☺ 11:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• We already have redirects from {{tidy}}, {{clean}}, {{CU}}, {{cu}}, and {{cleanup-quality}}. This is getting ridiculous, and it's getting annoying to parse articles in Category:Wikipedia_cleanup as a result. I would like this actually deleted, since it's not being used right now. (I'd like to discourage anyone from using it.) -- Beland 13:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree, don't need every synonym and phrase to be a redirect. ∞Who?¿? 22:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 02:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with above statements as well. Kevin 09:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikitravelbox

We've had this discussion many times before. Wikitravel, not being a sister project, should never get a "box" of any sort, and certainly not a shaded right-hand floating box like Wikiquote or Wikisource gets. See Talk:Wikitravel or Template talk:Wikitravel for discussions. This should be deleted as speedily as possible. --Quuxplusone 02:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: As the person who created this template, I did not realise at the time that WIkitravel was not a wikimedia project. Apologies! TreveX^talk 14:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedied per creator's request. Dragons flight 15:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Deletebecausefakegame

Delete - This seems too specialized, if a page is deleted, then it is deleted. --Mysidia (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

August 23

Template:Short

Edit summary on creation states New template, not related to stubs. Sounds like a stub to me. Doesn't seem to be in use, only edit is creation. Redirect to {{stub}}. ∞Who?¿? 10:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{stub}}. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sectio

Used by Template:Taxobox sectio entry as an inserted template. The content used to be [[Section (biology)|Section]] but is now just Section. I do not see the purpose of this template in its current state, the text can just be subst in the other template. ∞Who?¿? 09:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Sectio and perhaps because it is part of a set of templates that have a similar usage ?? GerardM 10:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep. It is part of a series of templates for the taxobox that allow the taxobox to be more easily copied to other language 'pedias. If the nominator had contacted any of the editors before making the nomination, they would have know that and probably not nominated it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I only nominated it because it only contains plain text with no variables now. It seems that can be subst instead. Also, I did contact both editors after the nomination, which is standard practice. I would have contacted before if it were using a set of variables but seemed unused obsolete in that format. ∞Who?¿? 19:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Reqimage1

Template:Reqimage2, & Template:Reqimage3. Created 23 July 2005 by an anon (NOT me). There was no discussion of additional template creation or demonstration on Wikipedia:Template locations, so I have no idea of the purpose. Redundant with the ever controversial Template:Reqimage, propose deletion. ∞Who?¿? 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redir. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• I think the notice "small banner" and "side box" indicate use, don't you? 132.205.46.188 01:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not the point. These templates are redundant, and its layout was discussed in great length on Wikipedia:Template locations. It is also good to propose new templates on Wikipedia talk:Template messages before creating them. ∞Who?¿? 01:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Search

Created 19 Mar 2005 by an anon. I have no idea what this was supposed to be used for, doesn't seem to be in use anymore, and only edit was creation. Looks like a glorified {{Google}}. ∞Who?¿? 09:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sandbox2

Template:Sandbox2:warn:yes, Template:Sandbox2:warn:yes, & Template:Sandbox2:Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology (AEREC) Created by an anon 18 July and 20 July 2005, not sure if they are used officially, only being used on one user talk page. Any sandbox page can be used for a template sandbox, don't need these. Propose deletion of all. ∞Who?¿? 09:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as test pages. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Had the others speedied, but {{Sandbox2}} has a lot of history. Not sure if/how the rule would apply there. ∞Who?¿? 22:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sad

And all its buddies.

							File:Rwl.gif
{{Smile}}	{{Grin}}	{{Sad}}	{{Wink}}	{{Tongue}}	{{Cry}}	{{Shade}}	{{ROFL}}

I have a feeling I will not be appreciated for this nomiation :( Although cute and fun, I dont see any useful purpose for these on the template namespace. Propose userfy. ∞Who?¿? 08:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Rename {{Smiley :)}}, {{Smiley :D}}, {{Smiley :(}}, etc. Smiley code is fairly useful in certain contexts, such as talk pages where a conversational tone is employed. The obvious template names such as {{[[Template::)|:)]]}} aren't available because the leading colon causes the reference to point to the main namespace leading to transclusion of articles such as ), D, (, etc. However, they really ought to be documented if kept and with an enjoinder that they are not to be used in the main name space (except for the article on smiley codes and maybe one or two other appropriate ones where they would be usefully discussed. Caerwine 15:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ugh, kill it dead. --SPUI (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I dread the day that we will need to use these horrific images to express ourselves, even on Talk pages. Outside of Talk, it has no purpose. -- Ec5618 19:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep useful. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep . TFD is not an appropriate venue for dictating user behavior. If you want keep people from using in their talk page communications then write the policy proposal explaining why are bad, and get people to accept it. Dragons flight 20:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not want to dictate user behaviour, these are in the template namespace, I proposed userfication of these templates. ∞Who?¿? 23:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • My apologies, I was responding more to the delete votes directly above than to you. Though I do have to wonder why bring it to TFD if your intention was to move them? The button is right there. That said, I don't think they should be userfied. That is what we do with templates only of interest to one person. These clearly have broader interest given the several "usefuls" in this thread. Dragons flight 23:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • I did consider it, but I do not like to invade userpage space, and I thought it better the community decide, as it shouldn't be my decision on what to do with them. I would hope others would think the same. ∞Who?¿? 00:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Dragons flight, but rename more or less as per Caerwine. I would suggest {{smiley-sad}}, {{smiley-grin}}, etc, rather than the ascii-art based names, however. DES ^(talk) 20:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful. Add a note of these on some help page if they survive. ~~ N (t/c) 23:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - ug. we don't need images when text is sufficient. however, like allowing people to have ugly, giant, gairish signatures, these are useful as a way of for me or others to identify contributors with bad senses of taste, and whose judgement is therefore to be relied on by me less than I would otherwise. I claim that the previous sentence, while skirting the edge of WP:NPA, is not a personal attack as it does not refer to specific people, and states an opinion(I belive that people who use these templates, or who have some types of signatures, have bad senses of taste and are therefore less worthy of my trust in their judgement), rather than a fact(like, User:Example user is bad.) Thanks to all for your work on the 'pedia! JesseW 10:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it'll just clutter up the servers, and importantly they're probably copyvios. Dunc|☺ 11:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because they're almost certainly copyvios, and because they're a waste of bandwidth. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • m:Avoid copyright paranoia. They're sourced as from Kadu, which looks like an open-source IM. ~~ N (t/c) 14:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Paranoid is fun, is it? They were copyvios, but only because they were mistagged. I tracked down the specific source (part of a messaging package for KDE) and correctly tagged them as being under The Artistic License 2.0. In fairness, this license is so obscure that I had to create an image tag for it, but it is intended to be a free and open license created by the Perl Foundation in 2000. I have asked the people at Commons to review it to make sure it is appropriate, but it looks legit. Dragons flight 14:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with vengeance. Pictorial smileys are Evil, and if someone wants to use them, at least let it be with crying and gnashing of teeth as zie codes them manually - it might help zir see the light of Reason. --Malyctenar 14:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If you ask somone what ":)" means, ey will probably answer you correctly. If you ask em what "zie" means, ey'll probably be confused. Caerwine 21:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Smiley icons are an abomination upon the face of the earth, and should be purged with fire. --Carnildo 21:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I am in full agreeance with Carnildo. These have no place on Wikipedia whatsoever. Kevin 09:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Pt

Seriously wastefull use of template space. This: {{pt}} creates this: pt:. Used on one Portuguese article and the category. I'm not sure I want to see one for every language, besides {{en}} and {{es}} are for other things. A difference of typing 2 less characters. delete. ∞Who?¿? 08:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, pointless. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, delete, no problem. I just was inspired from Commons. (look commons:template:pt) --FML ^{hi me at pt} 23:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Privileged access

Tagged 16 July 2005 by Netoholic. Just listing here, did not see any discussions in the logs for July, if I'm mistaken, please remove. ∞Who?¿? 08:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Featuretest

I'm assuming this was made for a test, as it duplicates {{feature}} hasn't been edited since 21 September 2004, by an anon who created it. Nothing links to it, which doesn't mean much, I know, and has no discussion page. ∞Who?¿? 06:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as user test. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

August 22

Crowncolonies

Delete: The Crowncolonies template has been replaced on all pages it was formerly on with the slightly more expansive and descriptive Template:British dependencies. MediaWiki:Crowncolonies is an unlinked to redirect to Template:Crowncolonies Caerwine 23:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Numbered Seemain series

This entry concerns the following templates: {{seemain2}}, {{seemain3}}, {{seemain4}}, {{seemain5}}, {{seemain6}}, {{seemain7}}, {{seemain8}}, {{seemain9}}, {{seemain10}} and {{seemain20}}
Due to a delay in notification, voting (which began on August 15) has been extended.

Mentioned in the discussion on {{Seemain}}, it seems prudent to separate the discussions since people probably have different opinions here. Delete these, there are overly many of them and they're not very pointful. Radiant_>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete reasons from earlier discussions. Vegaswikian 22:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as below: they're useful. I feel more strongly about 2 to 4 than the rest though. Septentrionalis 19:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 2, 3, and 4. For lists larger than 4 I think there needs to be considered a split to the article section to which the list is attached. In cases where such a split is not warranted, then either a section "see also" or reference to a sectionized "see also" would be useful. In fact, the creation of a {{seemain4plus}} could be considered which would be identical to {{seemain4}} except it would include a reference to the page's "see also" section using an internal bookmark-link to that section via #See also. Courtland 00:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect {{seemain2}} to {{main2}}. Delete all of the others. The {{seemain2}} template serves a valid purpose, but it's 100% redundant with {{main2}}. The remainder are extraneous, because {{main2}} can accommodate any plural number of article links. —Lifeisunfair 00:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect {{seemain2}} to {{main2}} and delete the rest. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The claim about {{main2}} accomodating any number of text links is based upon {{main2|Article1|Article2]], [[Article3]], [[Article 4}} (SEWilco 02:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC))
• Comment: For the record, I strongly object to SEWilco's attempt to "cancel" this vote (which happens to pertain to templates that SEWilco created) because Radiant neglected to engage in the virtually pointless task of inserting {{tfd}} tags that no one will ever see. The {{ccm}} example (below) is a different story, but I doubt that the outcome (keep) is going to change. —Lifeisunfair 17:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there should be no notification then have the TfD process modified. Perhaps speedy deletion of templates would save a lot of pointless consideration. (SEWilco 20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

I don't claim that "there should be no notification," but the insertion of the {{tfd}} tag into unused templates doesn't notify anyone of anything. Radiant's failure to complete this busywork is a flimsy excuse to "cancel" a debate (particularly one concerning templates of your own creation). Wikipedia rules generally should be followed, but common sense should prevail over a miniscule technicality. —Lifeisunfair 21:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You're claiming the templates were unused yet neglect to mention that you made them be unused yesterday. (SEWilco 21:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Of course I did! They had to be orphaned before the {{tfd}} tag could be added (per your insistence). For the record, the article count was as follows:

{{seemain2}} — 15

{{seemain3}} and {{seemain4}} — 1 each

{{seemain5}}–{{seemain20}} — 0

—Lifeisunfair 21:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that you just reverted my edits. Do you not understand that this disrupts legitimate articles by inserting a message that most readers won't understand (because there's no obvious "template" below the text)? —Lifeisunfair 22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What is your understanding of "notification" which requires hiding messages? You also did not mention your older similar "minor" edits. (SEWilco 22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

What the heck are you talking about?! —Lifeisunfair 22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The instructions for tfd say: Please include "tfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead. You minor-edited articles to remove usage of the templates, some edits immediately preceding your addition of {{tfd}} to the templates. How do you expect notification of, and participation in, the TfD when you hide it all? (SEWilco 23:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

"The instructions for tfd say: Please include "tfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor."

Yes, and that's precisely what I did. My edit summary for all ten templates was "tfd tag," and I didn't mark any of these edits as minor.

"If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead."

And yet, when I moved {{seemain2}}'s TfD notice to the talk page, you reverted. Evidently, you're determined to disrupt fifteen articles via the insertion of a contextually nonsensical message. And over what do you wage this battle? A template (which you created, of course) that's patently redundant with {{main2}}. I mean, do you even deny that?

"You minor-edited articles"

The above instructions refer to the insertion of the {{tfd}} tag into the templates, not edits to the articles that contain them! I marked these as minor, because the replacement of one template with another that generates virtually identical output has no major effect on the article.

"to remove usage of the templates, some edits immediately preceding your addition of {{tfd}} to the templates."

That was the point! As I've explained, this was to avoid disrupting the articles via the insertion of a message that makes absolutely no sense to readers (because it refers to a seemingly nonexistent "template"). Earlier in the month, I removed a few other instances, which I stumbled upon when attempting to orphan {{seemain}} — the parent template (which you blanked and proposed for deletion after an earlier TfD consensus was to redirect to {{main}}).

"How do you expect notification of, and participation in, the TfD when you hide it all?"

What did I "hide"? —Lifeisunfair 01:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You hid the TfD notices. And I'm not complaining about the TfD on the templates, I have been making sure they get deleted. I'm complaining about your bypassing the TfD notification process. (SEWilco 02:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

"You hid the TfD notices."

I'm the one who added them! The fact that they aren't displayed as prominently as you would prefer (id est, disrupting numerous articles without conveying any useful information) doesn't mean that they're "hidden."

"And I'm not complaining about the TfD on the templates, I have been making sure they get deleted."

I honestly don't know what the above statement is supposed to mean.

"I'm complaining about your bypassing the TfD notification process."

Please cite one step that I've bypassed. —Lifeisunfair 03:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect 2-5 and Delete the rest For brevity's sake it would best if the core title was {{main}} and not {{seemain}}. Once one gets past five articles I can't see the utility. {{main4|Article1|Article2|Article3|Article 4}} has the advantage of being more intutitive and shorter than the kludge involving {{main2}}. It has the additional advantage that if it is decided to add a conjunction to the main series of templates, it won't break. {{seemain10}} is an interesting attempt at designing an adaptable template, but until or unless templates can be designed that will gracefully accept a variable number of arguments, I can't say I like {{seemain10}}'s approach. Caerwine 21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I prefer the text on {{seemain}} and they are not equivalent; except to those who don't mind having "See Main article", with inconsistent capitalization, all over the place. Septentrionalis 02:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note: While formerly the parent template of this series, {{seemain}} presently is a redirect to {{main}} (per TfD consensus). —Lifeisunfair 03:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep {{seemain2}} for the plural form of the word "articles", delete the rest. — Instantnood 15:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ccm

Due to a delay in notification, voting (which began on August 9) has been extended.

Template was suggested 17 July but no interest/response to develop and not adequate as is - based on music genre template Paul foord 14:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Looks good to me; if it needs to develop, let's develop it, not delete it. --BaronLarf 01:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and develop - as per what Baron Larf said. Halibutt 13:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid infobox type thingy, needs development. Alphax ^τεχ 14:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - excellent template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if noone expressed any interest in using it, why have it hanging around? In the end, it will just be replaced by a redesign if someone wants such an infobox and the signs would seem to be that they don't. -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - now being used Paul foord 06:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep, used --MarSch 17:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 17:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep ditto. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

August 21

Template:Future building

This template is overkill and an inappropriate adoption of the future events template. There's nothing "speculative" or unexpected about construction plans. If construction has occurred, there's nothing dramatic that should happen. The information contained in this article is essentially useless. The articles of every country in the world, every world head of state, and every living person covered in this encyclopedia is in more danger of being outdated that some building under construction. --Jiang 11:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agree with the above. Any good article should already make clear what items are just proposals. - SimonP 22:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Vote bar

While this is prettier than Template:Vfd votes was (tfd discussion), such things were still soundly rejected at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Regarding tally boxes. —Cryptic (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this. And if you're not supposed to use it on VfD, it certainly can be useful in other parts of Wikipedia that involve votes, such as simple yes/no polls. Besides, why do you think "VfD" isn't even in the title of this template?

Also, now that I've read the policy prohibiting such tally boxes on VfD sub-pages, you should know that I only added the vote bar as an ad hoc measure, since so many opinions were registered on that VfD subpage that I felt I had to add it, to make it unnecessary for other users and admins to have to read through all those opinions (almost 200 on that particular page) to simply track the general scenario.  Denelson83  06:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This vote bar has been insanely helpful at Wikipedia :Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. Karmafist 05:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete See here for my reason. --Mysidia (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I suggest using the template on a case by case basis. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly. It should be used only as an ad hoc measure.  Denelson83  06:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Kim Bruning 06:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Unable to comment, because Kim Bruning speedily deleted the template. Under which of the criteria did this qualify, Kim? —Lifeisunfair 10:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  AFAICT that page does not currently seem to reflect actual practice. :-/ Kim Bruning 13:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Apparently under the criterion that since Wikipedia is not a democracy this template is useless or so. No cause for speedy though methinks. --MarSch 12:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I speedied it because it's something that should never be used on wikipedia anyway. But good point: I forget that admin percentages are down relative to all the new folks, so you can't just ask the next guy over to take a look. (So adminship is temporarily a big deal , Very very annoying :-/). Here's an example of the template in use, and I've left it undeleted so you can pick it apart.

The sky is green: 114

The sky is blue: 78

Kim Bruning 13:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Mysidia. ~~ N (t/c) 13:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but only if such a consensus is reached via the TfD process; this is not a speedy deletion candidate. Kim: I recommend that you formally enter your vote (and allow another admin to close the debate). —Lifeisunfair 14:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Vote changed. (See below.) —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  You've probably heard this over and over and over, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, so this is not a vote in the first place.(It's a consensus finding poll). Even then, VFD, TFD and CSD don't override every other policy or practice, else wikipedia would grind to a halt. Kim Bruning 14:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC) (PS. Specifically, WP:NOT was written and reviewed by 100s or even 1000s of wikipedians over a period of years, while this tfd poll is conducted by a handful of wikipedians over a couple of days. Figuring out where consensus lies is left as an excersize to the reader ;-) ) Kim Bruning 15:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is the prerogative of all Admins, to turn their adminstrative power into the ability to impose their will on the community. An admin should not function as a judge-jury-and-executioner, but as a member of the community who is no more or less special in the validity of their opinions as any other non-admin. Figuring out whether you have crossed the line into inappropriate behavior unbecoming of an admin is left as an excersize to the reader. :( Courtland 15:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use admin perogative, like you said, I'm just an editor with a couple more buttons. In this case, there is sufficient (actually overwhelming) consensus to delete, because of existing policy, which is supported by thousands of wikipedians. Does that help? Kim Bruning 19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Invoking majority rule regarding the "votes" to delete this template when you've been touting that this is not a democracy doesn't help, no. Courtland 20:25, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, in this case I'm referring to the inertia of getting all those people to change their mind, there was never any vote for WP:NOT, AFAIK. Kim Bruning 23:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Please consult a dictionary, and you'll find that the word "vote" doesn't necessarily imply that a decision will be reached via a numerical count. Used as a noun, "vote" can mean "a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue" or "a means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot." Used as a verb, "vote" can mean "to express one's preference for a candidate or for a proposed resolution of an issue; cast a vote" or "to express a choice or an opinion." Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition —Lifeisunfair 16:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, wikipedia jargon, my fault. A vote in wikipedia parlance is a majority vote (the root of all evil), while a poll is an opinion poll, which is a nescessary evil. Kim Bruning

I didn't refer to this discussion as "a vote"; I unambiguously referred to "your vote" (id est, your formal expression of preference for a proposed resolution of the issue). This page is the template equivalent of Votes for deletion, so please don't lecture me on "Wikipedia parlance." Please also refrain from arguing the widespread belief that VfD is misnamed, because it isn't.

And even if I had used the term in the context that you suggest, I still wouldn't have been incorrect; "vote" ("the act or process of voting") != "majority vote." —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

2. Yes, WP:NOT was written and reviewed by a multitude of Wikipedians, but so were the deletion policies that you've unilaterally decided to circumvent. I believe that this template should be deleted, but not until the correct process has been followed. I was under the impression that you had realized your error, but it's clear that I was mistaken. I respectfully request that you once again undelete the template (and leave it undeleted, pending the outcome of this debate). —Lifeisunfair 16:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually the CSD was only reviewed by a handful of wikipedians who weren't really using process too well, so a lot of folks think that the current CSD rules are pretty weak. On the other hand, the fact that wikipedia is a consensus community is a given based on the fact that we're a wiki. We've all accepted that rule by editing here, basically. :-) So rather than unilateral circumvention, a better term in this case might be might be kilolateral uncircumvention. Let's not have TFD dictate wikipedia policy. Kim Bruning 19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I referenced "the deletion policies," not any particular deletion policy. Secondly, you claim that the CSD were "only reviewed by a handful of wikipedians who weren't really using process too well," and that "the current CSD rules are pretty weak," but who are you to decide this, and why haven't you raised these issues on the talk page (to which you've yet to post a single remark)? And as I note below, the concept that this template violates the spirit of WP:NOT is your personal belief, and should not be imposed upon the entire community. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but at no point does this template state that the result must be followed - it is merely an indicator. I don't want to cause a fuss, but you are almost violating WP:POINT on this, and you have violated the TfD process. Because there are a few people wanting it to be undeleted I am going to do so - call it partial consensus if you will. violet/riga (t) 19:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it Counts Votes, that sucks quite enough. It's probably ok to undelete it temporarily, but you'll have to watch it carefully to make sure it doesn't get transcluded anywhere. (And explain to and warn every person who does so). Kim Bruning 19:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing any consensus that this template "should never be used"; that's based entirely upon your arbitrary assessment of its potential applications and your equally arbitrary interpretation of WP:NOT. Any template can be misused, but that doesn't mean that we should employ the pre-emptive measure of deleting all of them. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete although it is pretty, and shouldn't have any effect on the closing admins decision, I think it would only make users vote in order to sway the decision, w/o reading the discussion. The discussion is the whole point, and if its going one way or another, maybe its becuase users changed their votes, and you would never know that if you stared at the pretty bar and didn't read the discussion. ∞Who?¿? 19:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have two distinct reasons for keeping this. Reason number 1: While I agree, not a democracy, I also feel that there should not be any prohibition against trying to summarize the state of a complicated discussion. In my mind that is likely to involve counting votes (for good or ill, we all do pay attention to how much support each side has). That said I wouldn't endorse using it on any but the most complicated couple percent of votes. Perhaps having a guideline that there must be 50+ participants before it can be used. Reason number 2: I feel this comparison bar is a neat hack that is likely to be useful in article space. Large parts of the real world are a democracy and certainly Wikipedia talks about that. We could use this to show the outcome of real world votes. Not to mention comparisons where there are two elements but which are not neccesarily votes. Republicans vs. Democrats in Congress? Size of Earth vs. Size of Sun? Men vs. Women as CEOs? Okay, so maybe all of those aren't necessarily good ideas, but I believe the widget could be useful even if there was/is consensus for never using it on VFD. Dragons flight 19:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • To be quite honest, I did not think of its use in that manner. I think it maybe useful for showing outcome of things outside of wiki. Although I somewhat agree on large participation discussions, it may help see where we stand on the issue, I still have reservations about using for Wiki related discussions/votes, per my comments above. Iff it is only used for external outcomes, I would probably support. I would say that it could be used on some Wiki related discussion if there were guidelines, but I feel that borders m:instruction creep. ∞Who?¿? 20:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to explain bit better why deleting the template is useful in this case: Basically, every time this template is transcluded, it violates WP:NOT, or, (if you're actually a sane human being), it violates basic wiki-principles. So by keeping it either blanked or deleted, you kill a large number of birds violations with one stone. Everyone can at least blank a page, so I'm not sure why the first people to spot this problem hadn't already done so.

Perhaps becuase some people realize that their personal opinions and interpretations are not sacrosanct, and that following the correct process (instead of imposing said beliefs upon the entire community) might facilitate productive discourse, thereby bringing to light alternative perceptions and previously overlooked possibilities. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, one other thing I'm demonstrating here is use of consensus rules to quickly get things done that need doing. Everyone has this power, so that means you too. Apply sane reasoning to the problem, and negotiate what you want. or just go ahead and do it :-) You actually applied some of that power today, where you got me to temporarily undelete the template and subst an example here. But note the reasoning above as well, that's why I'm keeping it deleted for the rest. If you'd like a copy of the template someplace if you need to examine it further for some reason, give me a yell. :-) Kim Bruning 19:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

All of your arguments are based upon the (contested) claim that the template unequivocally violates WP:NOT. What gives you the authority to issue such a proclamation? —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is not supposed to be run by votes, no, but this template doesn't pretend that it is. It is simply a tool used to highlight the results of a vote. I'm afraid that voting is commonplace and very much a part of Wikipedia, however - you're taking place in one now. Voting happens all over and is not always a bad thing - it can show consensus much easier than lots of text can. Note that I've not voted on whether this should be deleted, so this isn't a comment on that. violet/riga (t) 19:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a poll to figure out what consensus is, not a vote. There's actually a rather non-subtle distinction. Kim Bruning 20:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

So . . . you also possess the authority to override dictionary definitions? —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If there are votes cropping up all over wikipedia, then there is a significant danger of it failing to be a pedia for very much longer. There was a reason not to have votes, remember? Anyway, I'm glad you're taking over this particular tfd. Have a nice day. Kim Bruning 20:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Violet/Riga is "taking over"? My, how gracious of you to relinquish your self-appointed command. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename to something less specific (such as {{ratio bar}}), and avoid using the template in most (if not all) voting situations (especially those in which more than two options exist). I initially voted (yes, voted) to delete, but Dragons flight has convinced me that this template has legitimate applications. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment from some of the input from Kim above, it's pretty clear to me that this is an example of Kim's violating the WP:POINT guideline, in particular when he says things like "Hmm, one other thing I'm demonstrating here is use of consensus rules to quickly get things done that need doing" which seems to imply that his actions here are meant in part to teach us a lesson about how Wikipedia should be run. Courtland 01:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm actually an individual who favours precision over nebulous scenarios, and this vote bar is an expression of my desire for precision. The term "consensus" on Wikipedia really needs to be rigourously defined. And nowhere in this template did I say that the numbers it shows are binding. It is only an indicator, nothing more. Admins do not, and must not, have to rely on it alone to decide how to close a poll. If they want to read through all of the opinions, then there is nothing I can do about that. All I did was create a simple indication of what the scenario looks like at the present time.  Denelson83  01:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Dragons flight and Lifeisunfair. I find their arguments quite convincing. DES ^(talk) 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the recent discussion and series of polls on extending the CSD drew quite a bit of participation and comments, as well as a number of votes. Peopele were fairly claer, IMO, that they were reluctant to extend the CSD overly, and that they expected the current CSD to be treated rather strictly, not bent. This was not a speedy deletion candidate. DES ^(talk) 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Further comment: Kim_Bruning and I have agreed that there are other legitimate uses for this vote bar. I just added it to 1995 Quebec referendum as a canonical example.  Denelson83  03:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• comment. Had a chat with Denelson83 today. He pointed out uses for the template outside wikipedia: namespace (for example: 1995 Quebec referendum). Ok, well I agree with that (as also per Lifeisunfair and Dragons Flight). The template will have to be carefully gaurded against abuse in the wikipedia: namespace though. As long as people do that, I'm ok with it. Kim Bruning 03:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is just another thing that will mislead people into thinking it is. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have volunteered to guard this template and make sure it is only used under appropriate circumstances.  Denelson83  07:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Should be deleted for the exact same reasons as was Template:Vfd votes. -Sean Curtin 03:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC) Weak keep if renamed. As long as we try to keep this out of the realm of VfD and other WP votes and polls, it's fine by me. As a nitpick, I think that the bar itself ought to be shorter in height; it seems almost like a space filler on my screen. -Sean Curtin 22:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong delete. To reduce all of a discussion down to a colored bar is an absurd reduction and very un-Wiki. BlankVerse ∅ 06:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • After seeing it in use in an article, I am now further opposed to this template. It's one of those cases there a picture is not worth a thousand words, and in fact, doesn't provide a better "picture" than the raw numbers or percentages. If it could be done as a bar graph it fould be helpful, but not as this template. BlankVerse ∅ 07:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, see WP:CENT for two polls regarding usage of such templates, to which people were heavily opposed. Radiant_>|< 08:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Here. Let me give you another way to use this vote bar. I will use it as a summary to list reasons given for keeping this template contrasted with reasons given for deleting it. Do not interpret it as anything more than an innocent summary. And I sincerely hope this isn't an example of a WP:POINT.  Denelson83  08:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Violates "WP is not a democracy" doctrine May influence opinions It simply IS a template Bad choice of name Looks bad where it is used Gives illusion consensus is not used May get overused, causing general clutter

Other uses besides internal votes Acts as a summary

• Rename to {{ratio bar}} as per  Denelson83 's suggestion. While I agree for a number of reasons that its use in VfD pages would be at best unhelpful, there are a number of other reasons to want to use such a bar. My only worry about the template is that the use of '▲' (U+25B2 Black Up-Pointing Triangle) might cause some problems for older browsers, but that's a question of the template's comntenet, not its apprpriateness. Caerwine 22:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• My 2 cents: I don't think admins should speedily delete anything while their VfD lag time still lasts, unless they can point to a specific WP:CSD rule. To quote WP:ADMIN: "Administrators are not imbued with any special authority [...] it should be noted that administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users." (I see the template has already been undeleted, but I still want to be clear on this issue.)
  (No vote on the current template) --IByte 23:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: A way we could discourage abuse of this template would be to make sure it is only inserted into appropriate articles with the "subst" qualifier.  Denelson83  23:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. As a very visual person, something like this would always help me understand arguments better. Its not just for policy, and I don't see what this has to do with being a democracy or not. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 23:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  Eh... wait. How would a two-colored bar help you understand arguments? Summaries of arguments people are using are always helpful and we should certainly use them more, but they don't need two-colored bars. JRM · Talk 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  Some people are more easily able grasp information in a visual manner than a textual one. There's no harm is using graphics where appropriate and there are situations where I feel this template would be appropriate. Caerwine 00:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  That's not quite what I asked—I don't understand what information is being grasped in this way. How many people voted for A and how many for B, yes, obviously. But Páll said it would help him understand arguments better, and that I don't quite get. In case of the ratio bar, it seems obvious you could drop the whole bar and keep just the summaries (mirrored on either side of the page if you like). Counting the "percentage" of reasons offered isn't meaningful in any sense. If this is something you "just can't get" if you're a textual person, I apologize; I'm not trying to belittle or disparage arguments here. JRM · Talk 02:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  This is what I mentioned earlier, if anyone is using a visual aide to get the feel of where the discussion is going, it could be inaccurately persuading their vote on the discussion. If I do not understand a particular discussion, or do not feel like getting involved by reading the entire thing, than I don't get involved! The visual meter destroys the whole point of the discussion. I would only want such a bar to stay around if NOT ever used on Wiki related discussions, ie. presidential polls and such. ∞Who?¿? 06:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy. OK, it's just a template and I mean it no harm, but I'm not going to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the underlying issue. If Denelson feels strongly about stewarding it, he should adopt it in his userspace. It's not even good on polls, as these are supposed to gauge whether an idea meets overwhelming (dis)approval, so you avoid arguing about things nobody really wants to argue about. If there isn't, you don't need a colored bar to tell you that's the case (as it'll be blindingly obvious), you need to poll on something else. Ad hoc, schmad hoc. Yes to attempts at clarifying large, unclear opinion dumps. No to attempts at highlighting where the percentages lie. And we really should go back to the drawing table on the whole "Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's run by consensus" thing, as consensus is hard while democracy is easy. I get the feeling people aren't seeing any added benefit to consensus (or aren't seeing consensus at all) and are thinking this democracy thing looks pretty good in other places, so why not use it here? JRM · Talk 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... Now that just might be a good idea for me to move it to {{User:Denelson83/Ratio bar}} or something.  Denelson83  02:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Even if this isn't ever used on VFD (and, if it is, it should be used only in extremely crowded VFD discussions), it has numerous applications in the rest of the encyclopedia, as noted above. Any time it is necessary to visually display a ratio between two figures, this template enables it to be done easily. Also, I feel that Kim Bruning's speedy delete was highly inappropriate and a violation of Wikipedia policy. Firebug 00:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

August 20

Template:IDRIVErela

• • Please, I run the AID and nobody actually uses this for anything; it's linked in four places or something. -Litefantastic 23:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• del, unused --MarSch 12:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

August 19

Template:R from CamelCase, Template:R from UN/LOCODE, Template:R from title without diacritics, Template:R to decade, Template:R for convenience and Template:R CamelCase

Apparently I missed some. Same reasoning as below. Radiant_>|< 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Template:R from title without diacritics for the same reason as Template:R from misspelling - these redirects attract links, but should be kept orphaned. Also merge Template:R from ASCII into it. —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And I've redirected Template:R CamelCase to Template:R from CamelCase; it was just transcluding it. —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all and nominate individually. Courtland 00:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep most. I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect. ∞Who?¿? 04:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Also see: Wikipedia:Redirect for a better understanding. ∞Who?¿? 04:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep redirects are a bit tricky to categorize normally. DES ^(talk) 02:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Almost all such redirects are useful, as I said below, but some could be merged. merge:
  • {{R for convenience}} with {{R R from shortcut}},
  • {{R CamelCase}} with {{R from CamelCase}},
  • {{R from title without diacritics}} with {{R from ASCII}}.

Keep the rest listed here. -- Paddu 19:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, with merges as suggested by Paddu. We really do need to explain the use of these better, though... JesseW 10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Helpful to select redirects. It might be worth noting that since creation, these templates worked in at least 3-4 different ways. Initially mainly "Whatlinkshere" worked and the text of the template was displayed below the redirect. Since the most recent Mediawiki version, categorization works (again). Personally I think they are good thing to include when a series of redirects are created by bot, e.g. . Later, they can easily be identified. -- User:Docu
• Keep Potentially useful and not being abused. SchmuckyTheCat 22:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears to me that User:Instantnood has already begun to abuse the {{R for convenience}} in The Arts House at the Old Parliament.--Huaiwei 11:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:R from UN/LOCODE

(insert section to make tfd-link to here work))

• Template:R from UN/LOCODE - Keep because no reason given by User:Radiant! that even was so ignorant not to put the tfd tag. How about talking to involved people first? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• To be fair, User:Radiant! gave reasoning in the discussion below this one, and this one is included in the discussion above, as there is no Tfdu template yet (umbrella template like {{Cfdu}} or {{Cfru}}), so this one is just used as a "pointer" for the tfd's. ∞Who?¿? 16:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep redirects are a bit tricky to categorize normally. DES ^(talk) 02:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Those copying Wikipedia content should be able to prune these kinds of redirects out. -- Paddu 19:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep for reasons given above and below. :-) JesseW 10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. -- User:Docu

{{R from misspelling}}

Same reasoning as below, but I've moved it out since Cryptic makes a good point. Radiant_>|< 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep R from misspelling at the very least. Provides a handy list of redirects that should be kept orphaned. —Cryptic (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is useful in highlighting common misspellings (which I probably misspelled :) ) and there are cases where someone labels something as an incorrect spelling (can't screw that spelling up) which is actually an alternate name (for instance "canvas" and "canvass", the latter an uncommon correct spelling of certain defintions of the former). Useful redirect descriptor. Courtland 00:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect. ∞Who?¿? 04:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A bare category can't duplicate the functionality of Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:R from misspelling. —Cryptic (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: Meaning, in my opinion, that without the "whatlinkshere" functionality, there's little hope of editing the referring articles to remove the misspelled linkage. Courtland 14:55, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is good to know which are redirects from misspellings, e.g. for people who want to copy Wikipedia or portions of it but would like have it in a context where having entries for misspellings don't make sense, e.g. for a paper version of Wiikipedia or portions of it. -- Paddu 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep as per paddu, courtland, etc. JesseW 10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Courtland. -- User:docu

Template:R from alternate name and others

{{R from abbreviation}}, {{R from alternate spelling}}, {{R for alternate capitalisation}}, {{R from alternate name}}, {{R from alternate language}}, {{R from ASCII}}, {{R from plural}}, {{R from related word}}, {{R with possibilities}}, {{R to disambiguation page}}, {{R from shortcut}}, {{R to sort name}}, {{R from scientific name}}, and associated categories.

I just came across this scheme for categorizing all redirects to clarify what they redirect to. However, in 99% of all cases that should be immediately obvious from the relevant names, and in others the talk pages should suffice. Few people look at redirects anyway, and attempting to templatize and categorize them all is misguided and serves no real purpose. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• R for Remove. Also, they use a MediaWiki hack that doesn't quite work in other wikis. - Sikon 14:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Template:R from ASCII into Template:R from title without diacritics above. No opinion on the others. (And who cares whether they work on other wikis?) —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No opinion on {{R from CamelCase}}, {{R from UN/LOCODE}}, {{R from title without diacritics}}, {{R to decade}}, {{R for convenience}} or {{R CamelCase}} either, except to wonder whether they were omitted intentionally. 15:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Added now, see above. Radiant_>|< 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Delete these too. - Sikon 15:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - can't see the point. violet/riga (t) 14:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all for now and nominate individually; some I'd vote to delete, some to keep - but I don't want to consider them as a group. I make liberal use of some of these templates and do see a point to them in the form of descriptive classifications of redirects. Courtland 00:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep most. I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect. ∞Who?¿? 04:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Also see: Wikipedia:Redirect for a better understanding. ∞Who?¿? 04:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think categorizing these is a good thing, and if a question arises why a redirect is there, and it falls under one of these categories, it provides a good reference point. "Why does is there a redirect? Oh, I see -- its because of _______" IanManka 06:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It would stop redirects showing up in Special:Uncategorizedpages wouldn't it? -- Joolz 13:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes it would, which is another good reason to use them. ∞Who?¿? 16:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep redirects are a bit tricky to categorize normally. DES ^(talk) 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although some borderline cases might be better nominated individually. -Sean Curtin 04:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep most. For example, it is good to know which are redirects from misspellings, e.g. for people who want to copy Wikipedia or portions of it but would like have it in a context where having entries for misspellings don't make sense, e.g. for a paper version of Wiikipedia or portions of it. There are similar arguments about a few other "R from..." templates. A few might be merged, but IMHO voting must be done on those individually. -- Paddu 19:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  OK, so "R from misspelling" is not included here. Replace "misspellings" with "alternative capitalisation" in my comment above. -- Paddu 19:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (or replace with a better way) Categorizing redirects is a good thing. I'd prefer something in the syntax of #REDIRECT inself, but the technique serves to document the reason for the redirect. Redirects have been abused all over the place (speaking as someone who recently decoupled feature film from film and agricultural subsidy from agricultural policy). BTW feature film had been a redirect for over two years...66.167.137.182 01:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC).
• keep apreciate the cleanup effort, but this is useful and used. Thanks, Radiant, for providing an oppertunity for this demonstration of the consensus to keep these. Thanks! JesseW 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. -- User:Docu

Template:R for as of

Same reasoning as above, except that I was told this was an exception so I'm listing it separately. Its name is somewhat confusing, to say the least. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, useful for finding all the as of redirects, does not cause any problems. --cesarb 16:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've not needed to use this yet, but I can see it's utility. In particular, there are terms in biology and medicine and sociology and et cetera that have changed meaning over the decades or centuries, which would be one application of the template. Courtland 00:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• del, utterly confusing --MarSch 12:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — how else would you find all the as of redirects that are linked to from information that's needed to be kept updated? — Pt _(T) 08:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. See as of to know why. -- Paddu 19:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and clarify for MarSch's sake. (It would be easier if e explained what was confusing, though... ;-) ) JesseW 09:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even though the name was chosen when the text of the template was visible below the redirect. -- User:Docu

Template:Hide

Note: The content of this template is invisible, the source code is

<div style="visibility:hidden; position:absolute;">{{{1}}}</div>

• Delete: Unused, useless. --Quuxplusone 04:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the above. -Splash 06:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• I suspect this is an attempt to create a template to be used in templates that produce conditional output (I created a template of the same name some time ago, which was deleted last April). I'll ask the user who created the template about this, but there seem to be some others (which, no doubt, didn't work either), specifically Template:/div=True and Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

It turns out Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True does work, and is used in Template:Canadian City (and has essentially the same content as Template:hide). Before closing this vote I suggest we wait for comments from the template's creator (User:BCKILLa - no edits since August 7). It may well be that Template:Hide is meant to serve as a less obscurely named pattern for similar templates (in which case, the other same-content templates could redirect to it). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. A template by this name has been deleted once before. [2]. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete useless and introduces potential for serious browser incompatibility. Note, there is an alternative, inote which does the same thing in a different way, just leaving an HTML comment, and which is used for invisible references in text. Mozzerati

Although the local effect is similar, template:inote has a completely different function. The use of Template:Hide (or Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True) is to conditionally suppress some part of the output of a template. For example, Template:Canadian City has a parameter Motto which usually appears following a label (Motto:), see for example Calgary, Alberta. For cities lacking a motto, the label can be suppressed by adding a parameter Disable Motto Link (with the value True), see for example Burlington, Ontario. The "normal" ouput (without the suppression parameter specified) is of the form <div style="visibility:hidden;">weird junk with curly braces</div>[[Motto]]:</div> (so the div makes the weird junk invisible, but note the second close div in this case is unmatched). With the suppression parameter set to true, the "weird junk with curly braces" turns out to be an invocation of a template like Template:Hide which expands into another <div> matching the first close div. This makes the initial div apply to the Motto: label, making it invisible. One advantage of this approach is that if there's ever if-then-else syntax added to templates, the invoking template can be fixed without requiring any changes to any of its references. HTML comments do not nest, so there's no way using HTML comments to do precisely the same thing. This is an extremely clever workaround to a limitation of the existing implementation of templates. We could perhaps argue this is too clever, but I'm not aware of any policy prohibiting (nor even discouraging) excessive cleverness in templates. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep based on Rick Block, though I tend to agree with the excessive cleverness. Once pages start looking like programming code instead of text many editors shy away. SchmuckyTheCat 21:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

August 18

Template:anti-war

Clearly and un-needed/un-wanted template designed entirely for POV pushing, Censorship, and Trolling, has appeared on dozens of un-related articles, and clearly must be deleted--64.12.116.6 14:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war for an explanation of this NPOV wikiproject. David | Talk 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I put it their. I have tryed to cearfully set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war to be a NPOV project. Can you give some evidence of POV pushing, Censorship, and Trolling? I belive that all the articles the template appears on are related by being about anit-war movments or ideas.--JK the unwise 16:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. --Carnildo 18:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a place for free speech or discussion. Agriculture 18:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Keep Wikipedia may not be a palce for free speech and discussion, but it should be. Agriculture 18:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As I mentioned on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Anti-war, "It is entirely possible to keep a NPOV while writing about peace groups and the movement in general. Additionally, some of the material being covered is historic in nature, like those articles dealing with Vietnam." Schuminweb 18:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keey per Carnildo. --Ngb 18:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - although the POV pushing part might be slightly possible. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in agreement with the ability to discuss opposition to war in an NPOV manner. Further, the identity of the nominator is hidden as the IP address is an AOL multi-user address. Anything nominated anonymously should be removed from here by an admin immediately, just as anonymous or unsigned votes are to be ignored in the consideration of whether or not to delete an item. Courtland 01:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • But not an unsigned or anonymous nomination. -Splash 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the charges made in the nomination don't seem to bear scrutiny. -Splash 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, having presumed that purpose is to inform, not persuade. (To make this clear to casual observer, I might suggest renaming the project). ~~~~ 14:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Musicbrainz wiki box

Yet another sister project box for a non-sister project. —Cryptic (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. -Splash 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Main articles

This is redundant with (and less efficient than) {{main2}}, which accommodates any plural number of article links. This template merely generates the following text:

Main articles:

It's as easy to type the actual output as it is to type {{main articles}}. Delete or redirect to {{main2}}. —Lifeisunfair 04:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I have to wonder if we should only keep Main and this one, or the code from Main2 moved here. Somehow this name seems like the right choice for the multiple article version of Main. Vegaswikian 07:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Main2" is a logical name, because the template's default (and most common) application is the display of two article links (which is only the minimum, of course). Why encourage users to type {{main articles}} (seventeen characters) instead of {{main2}} (nine characters)? —Lifeisunfair 12:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Only because the name seems more logical. Using the charcter '2' implies only two articles. Using the word 'articles' implies more than one. Vegaswikian 22:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned, {{main2}} defaults to the display of two article links (unless the user specifies a different number), so the name makes sense. I wouldn't object to making {{main articles}} an undocumented redirect to {{main2}}, but I wouldn't support the reverse (because this would reduce the template's level of convenience for most users). —Lifeisunfair 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a resonable solution. Vegaswikian 23:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to {{main2}}. Vegaswikian 23:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to claim that {{main2}} can display any increasing number, you should explain the incantation. Template_talk:Main2#Usage I know one way, but it isn't obvious nor pretty. (SEWilco 01:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

Is this what you were thinking of? It seems fairly obvious (albeit not particularly "pretty") to me, and it's easier than starting from scratch for all of the links (as {{main articles}} requires). And again, it makes no sense to type {{main articles}} (seventeen characters) in lieu of simply typing ''Main articles: (the sixteen characters that the template outputs). —Lifeisunfair 02:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't created more, but I'll point out another possibility, which might be affected by template termination rules. Cover your eyes, kids. {{main2|Article1|{{more|Article2|{{more|Article3|{{more|Article4|Article5}} }} }} }} (SEWilco 02:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

Template:13colonies

This might be useful, if most of the names were not wrong, thus disseminating misinformation. See the number of redirects in the template. Attempt to make a template do the work of a category.

• Keep, why don't you just fix the errors instead of asking to have it deleted?

05:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, replace with Template:otherarticles Nominator vote. Septentrionalis 02:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Didn't see any redirects in the template, and even if there were I would have edited it. I also think new users and readers find templates easier than categories, so, useful. CanadianCaesar 02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The "wrong" names are an attempt to simplify the issue. The complicated issues are discussed in the articles and if you are dissatisified with the discussion, please feel free to amend. A useful bunching of topics. Templates and categories can overlap. It's not a crime. Creator vote. jengod 06:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It looks boring, but it provides a useful array of related items on a given theme. --Eoghanacht 12:38, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no problem having this template. No different in function than Template:United States. --tomf688^<TALK> 14:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. VFD is not the place to resolve issues with the content of articles, neither is TFD for resolving a disagreement with the way things are named in a template. Tomer ^TALK 20:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. TFD is not cleanup. If it's wrong, then by all means, please fix it. Firebug 00:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ludwig van Beethoven

Delete: The point of this template appears to be easy navigation between articles about Beethoven. I don't think it helps particularly, though, for a number of reasons. The list of works calls for completion in order to be useful (because a bagatelle and two piano sonatas--in addition to the symphonies, of course--hardly deserve their own little template), which would not only be quite too huge for a template, but also already available in its right place (List of works by Beethoven). Listing the symphonies alone might serve a purpose for navigation, admittedly, though, but only marginally. The other articles (i.e. those not about individual works) are all linked from the appropriate section of the main page, like they should be, and as should be enough. EldKatt (Talk) 19:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep: I think this is very useful. I have taken the liberty of adding List of works by Beethoven to the template, though. If we keep the template, we should probably find a few more of his most prominent compositions to include. --Arcadian 20:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But probably remove the works other than the symphonies. Certainly the current selection is poor. 82.35.34.11 01:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but be merciless in deciding which works get onto the template. It might thus be necessary to junk the template at a later time if such agreement simply cannot be reached. -Splash 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I should've clarified this in my original proposal, but I'm only opposed to this template as a general Beethoven-related template, which would be POV-prone and hard to manage, since it can't be exhaustive. I'm quite positive to a specific "Beethoven symphonies" template (and "Beethoven piano sonatas", "Beethoven string quartets" etc, for that matter), though, which seems like a plausible result of the consensus so far. But I very much doubt the possibility of agreeing on a set of notable works for a template like this. Personally, I certainly wouldn't list Für Elise, for example, but I'm sure this would meet some disagreement, by virtue of it being such a famous little piece. EldKatt (Talk) 12:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I find EldKatt's argument completely convincing. There are so many famous works, and we couldn't possibly fit them all in a template of reasonable size. Opus33 16:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I find this to be a useful template --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm convinced by EldKatt; Arcadian wants "more prominent compositions", but a huge number of Beethoven's works are prominent; I think it would save time to modify Splash's proposal: be merciless and delete. FYI: I created the Beethoven string quartets and Beethoven piano sonatas templates. The only reason I think they are a good idea is because musicians refer to them by opus number: "Piano Sonata No. 21" is mostly known as "Op. 53" or "The Waldstein", and "String quartet No. 7" as "Op. 59 No. 1" or "Rasumovsky No. 1", so the template really does aid navigation. I would not oppose a "Beethoven symphonies" navigation template (although should that include Symphony No. 10 (Beethoven/Cooper)?) although I see less of a case for that since the numbering of the symphonies is simpler. I think the template under discussion here is unnecessarily trying to do the impossible. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since it would be unmanageable to have all Beethoven's works in this template, and that would be the only reasonable way to proceed with it. I strongly support the idea of templates for subsets of his compositions, and Robert is right about the works being referred to by opus numbers ("hey, wanna get together tonight and play opus 131?" -- that's the way musicians refer to Beethoven's pieces). For completeness and consistency -- though I'm aware of the threat of Emerson's hobgoblins -- we could have templates for symphonies, concertos, incidental music, variations, and anything else by B. Antandrus (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

August 17

Template:SOreligiousfreedomATW

• Delete. This template is massive, containing a link for every country in a world. Most of the links are red and likely to stay red, because we simply don't need a Status of religious freedom article in countries where it simply isn't article-worthy. It's kinda like having the article Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union, then having a template with 192 links to Involuntary settlements in (country). Coffee 06:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The template’s author hasn’t edited in six months. I have removed the red links, leaving the blue. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 08:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep updated version. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep handy. --Amr Hassan 20:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful. -- Karl Meier 10:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

August 16

Template:Sisterproject

A previous edit war seems to have determined that this meta-template is harmful. It was then blanked, which is how I noticed it. I checked through the using pages and I believe I have now converted them all to use the appropriate one from Wikipedia:Sister projects, so this can be deleted. -- Beland 02:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, then. A series of sister templates custom-tailored by article is better than this one, which basically asserts that the article has useful related content in each sisterproject (which is rare at best). Radiant_>|< 10:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. This one's a tough call. It's been on TFD twice before (1, 2), and kept both times. However, much of the discussion on this template's talk page seems to indicate a legitimate concern about the use of meta-templates and the effect on the server. The best option would likely be to subst: the old version into the templates it uses (which appears to have been done already), and to delete it. Again, however, tough call. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 11:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Reason not given nor properly researched. --Corvun 09:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Might you consider the template for yourself, since it's been brought here for your consideration? -Splash 06:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Huh, Corvun? It's a blank template, unused, never will be used. (Its purpose had been as a meta-template to standardize {{wiktionarypar}}, {{wikisourcepar}}, et al., but none of them use it for standardization anymore — the sister-project format has stabilized.) --Quuxplusone 04:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and others above. -Splash 06:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

August 14

Template:Fantasy

A very large navbox, recently created and added to a number of pages. Some of the topics are only rather distantly related to each other, IMO. I question the value of this particular navigation box, and it takes up a lot of space on the articles it is placed on. DES ^(talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (nom) DES ^(talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Duh. It can always be improved, made smaller, etc. As far as questions of its "value" are concerned, it allows for easier navigation through the series on Fantasy. The general policy here on Wikipedia is to improve rather than to arbitrarily delete. --Corvun 00:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful. Improve rather than destruct. The JPS 00:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Categorify. It's a good idea but it's far too big and unwieldy. I'd like a template of about half the current size, and the rest put in a category. Radiant_>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's pretty much the goal. If you have any ideas about what should stay and what should go, your input would be (greatly!) appreciated on either the template's talk page or the fantasy talk page. --Corvun 11:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful; however, trimming the current content to one level of bullets would make it better in my opinion. The "fantasy authors" and "list of fantasy authors" should be dropped to just "fantasy authors" and that promoted up one level so it remains. Courtland 01:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for the input (and the support!). For now I've divided the template into "articles" and "categories", with the main articles listed as the series and the categories listed in the same order below. Even with this redundancy, when this process is finished and everything cleaned up, it should cut the size of the template down by about 75%.
• Keep and correct if needed. Halibutt 16:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, still needs trimming. I personally find vertical navboxes to be intrusive and ugly and prefer horizontal ones at the bottoms of articles, but that's a content issue. -Sean Curtin 01:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I discussed my reasons for suggesting the deletion of this template at some length at Template talk:Fantasy#Why suggest deletion? with Corvun, the creator of this tempalte. I urge people here to take a look at that exchange. DES ^(talk) 05:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful. CanadianCaesar 07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Seemain and Template:SeeMain

Note: Voting suspended. This is a cleanup of a redirected template. It has been discovered that redirected templates can not be identified as orphans through "What links here". The TfD process has to be altered before redirected templates can be deleted.

• Delete: Redirected in earlier TfD, has now been orphaned except for some Talk and User pages. SEWilco 01:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Stbalbach 02:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Template:main, or even better, template:see details is enough I think. This one seems to imply some kind of hierarchy on Wikipedia. Oleg Alexandrov 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note that the definition of Template:main was changed today. Template_talk:Main#Template_usage_changed SEWilco 04:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

• Note that this change was made by the original author (of both the template and the description) as a correction of a typographical error. The new wording reflects both the creator's original intention and the tag's overwhelmingly popular application. —Lifeisunfair 04:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Redirected. The cat is most decidely out of the bag, and redirects are cheap. Many people have learned to go looking for {{seemain}} when they mean {{main}} and it is too much trouble with very little benefit to try and cure everyone of this confusion. Dragons flight 06:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Despite the nominator's claim to the contrary, {{seemain}} had not been orphaned. I just removed it from nineteen articles, many of which are extremely prominent: Creationism, Final Fantasy airships, Gautama Buddha, Germany, Homosexuality, Human, Kashmir, The Legend of Zelda series enemies, Malaysia, Napoleon I of France, National Basketball Association, New Zealand, Portland, Oregon, Races of Final Fantasy, Slavery, Tutankhamun, United States, Wikipedia and WWE SmackDown! (video game). —Lifeisunfair 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: None of those articles appear in Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Seemain, which is only showing discussion and User pages that the bot ignored. (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

As stated above, I removed the template from all nineteen of those articles. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I suspect Whatlinkshere entries for a redirected template are created in the target template, thus Whatlinkshere:main probably contains some seemain references. The TfD vote can continue, this problem merely means that all cleanup deletions of redirected templates have to deal with such technical issues. (SEWilco 19:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

Last night, when the nineteen articles in question were listed on the "Whatlinkshere" page, {{seemain}} was not a redirect; it contained the TfD notice. As Radiant indicated, three of the titles (Germany, Human and New Zealand) appeared when users made unrelated edits to the corresponding articles (after I first viewed the "Whatlinkshere" page and began removing the template). —Lifeisunfair 19:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. A Redirect page does not allow the TfD template, so the apparently-orphaned redirect was replaced with the TfD template. When I reported the templates were orphans those articles were not in Whatlinkshere:Seemain, and appeared when edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (SEWilco 20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

I'm aware of the above. I meant that the redirect couldn't have been the cause of the glitch. —Lifeisunfair 00:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Along the way, I discovered the existence of ten additional templates that belong to this set: {{seemain2}}, {{seemain3}}, {{seemain4}}, {{seemain5}}, {{seemain6}}, {{seemain7}}, {{seemain8}}, {{seemain9}}, {{seemain10}} and {{seemain20}}. —Lifeisunfair 06:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

For whatever reason, articles containing {{seemain}} continue to appear on the list (without anyone adding the template). For the time being (until this problem has been resolved), I've restored the redirect. (And if you really stop to think about it, a TfD message in an orphaned template serves little purpose.) —Lifeisunfair 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

What "list"? (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

I was referring to this list. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I see. The articles which showed in Whatlinksher:Seemain were those which were edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (SEWilco 20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

• Delete those extra templates #2-#20; where did those come from anyway? As for the first one, I have no objection to the redirect. Templates sometimes get a longer 'whatlinkshere' when articles containing them are 'touched', so for an oft-used template it's not necessarily possible to find all links to it. Try using google as an alternate method.

Radiant_>|< 08:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The extra templates 2-20 are for multiple references, and will be converted later thus are not part of this TfD. (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

As noted below, the numbered templates (excepting {{seemain2}}) are extraneous. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep {seemain} and at least 2 through 4 of the others. Useful, and easier to maintain than typing in the same italicized sentence all the time. Septentrionalis 16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect {{seemain}} and {{seeMain}} to {{main}}; redirect {{seemain2}} to {{main2}}; delete all of the other numbered templates (which are extraneous, because {{main2}} can link to any plural quantity of articles). —Lifeisunfair 17:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect everything including {{see details}} to {{main}}. Vegaswikian 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep {{main2}} (I think it was easier to put this vote as an entry given the number of templates being discussed here, I am not voting twice.) Vegaswikian 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The JPS 11:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but delete all those starting from {{seemain3}}. We need a template for the plural form. The rest can be done by using {{seemain2|Foo1|Foo2]], [[Foo3]], [[Foo4}}. — Instantnood 11:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The numbered variants have been listed separately. —Lifeisunfair 14:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

August 13

Template:Chem-cat

Delete: A convenient and systematic way to crowd the article namespace with suggestions for editors, which (last I checked) were deprecated. Also, if you're going to add this template to a page, you might as well just fulfill the suggestion and skip the extra step. --Smack (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, agree with the above. - SimonP 15:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Might be reasonable if placed on a talk page. Presumably should be placed only by an editor who is not sure what the proepr subcat is. weak keep if restricted to talk pages and properly documented. DES ^(talk) 16:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but only if the template is moved from every article it is currently on to the articles' talk pages. If not moved, then delete. BlankVerse ∅ 21:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The template is used at the bottom of the article, onobtrusively. The chemistry category now has 172 articles. If I knew the appropriate subcategory for these articles, I would go ahead and take care of it myself. The category has had the "cleancat" tag, on its talk page, since May 1. Maurreen (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a good idea but it's better taken from the category (and WikiProject:chemistry) than by sticking a template on each related article and asking 'can someone else please help'. Radiant_>|< 00:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's just in the way and superfluous. ~K 00:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Questions: For the sake of curiosity, how does this template have less value or make any more of a problem than, for example, the stub or wikifacation templates, when those needs are evident in the articles? And for the sake of efficiency, can anyone suggest a more effective method to accomplish the same thing, especially for those categories without a project? For example, Category:Computing got Template:Cleancat on 22 June. I requested help with Category:Computing at Talk:Computing on 27 July. The main cat still has more than 150 articles. Maurreen (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  Your time would probably be better spent recategorizing than slapping a template on each article. I don't really believe there is such a thing as overpopulation of a category. And if someone doesn't know where to categorize an article, we would want them to put it in a general category so that someone more knowledgable could come along and recategorize it properly. —Mike 02:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  I think putting a template on the category would be useful (e.g. "this category is getting too large, please move items to its subcats"). Cleaner-uppers could more easily work from there. Radiant_>|< 13:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  comment: 150 articles ... that is certainly not an example of overpopulation of a category in my opinion. On the other hand, 1,500 would present more of a problem. Courtland 01:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  It usually requires significant expertise in a subject to expand a stub, and it can take a lot of work to wikify an article. IMHO, fussing with categories is fairly quick and requires only superficial knowledge. What we need is a tag placed in the category page that marks it as too large. --Smack (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• It might be useful to generalize this to accept a parameter to the category. Or perhaps simply a template which says: This article is not categorized specifically enough. Or perhaps not. As with article text, people will come along and fix this. Eventually. --MarSch 17:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as too specific, but I strongly encourage the generalization of this to a talk page located, {{cleanup-subcat}} tag. Hope that helps. JesseW 06:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Too specific. Not very useful. -- Reinyday, 15 August 2005
• Delete. The template {{verylarge}} should be used as a general solution; this template places the category into the "cleanup" cateogory Category:Overpopulated categories. Courtland 01:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Areas of Edinburgh

Delete: Offers no extra navigational function than the existing identical category. The majority are red links, and is often bigger than the articles themselves (i.e. Murrayfield). It attracts the creation of substandard articles to turn the red links into blue (I've cleaned up New Town, Edinburgh, but it's still weak). The JPS 13:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Listify: to be precise, substitute the present list into Areas of Edinburgh; convert the template into a link to that article and to the category; add the category to the template. This will be easier to navigate than a bald category, which is uncoubtedly why the template exists at all. Septentrionalis 15:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, that is what the page Areas of Edinburgh used to be. See this revision. Is that really better? Maccoinnich 22:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there any way to divide the list into sections? The JPS 22:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I mean, use the {subst:Areas of Edinburgh) there; which will keep the present appearance; as I have just done. You don't need a template to have a pretty appearance; you just need the code. Septentrionalis 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Is useful to have on each page. If anything, I think the page Areas of Edinburgh should be deleted, just leaving the template. The fact that there isn't a perfect article from each link is hardly a reason to delete the template. Maccoinnich 19:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Listify. Radiant_>|< 00:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Listify per Septentrionalis. -Splash 17:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I have made a small Template:otherarticles as a general-purpose link to general articles and categories; I think this may work here. The format would be {{otherarticles|Areas of Edinburgh|Areas of Edinburgh}}. Septentrionalis 23:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Listify Agree with much of the above. Alphabetical sections will help layout and usability (see List_of_places_in_the_Tayside_region_of_Scotland for an example). -- Cactus.man | Reply 10:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

August 12

Template:Npov-intro/Template:POV-intro

• This is completely unused and should probably be deleted. --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, brilliant, this is just the template for the creation science article (and I'm sure a few others). The article itself is usually fine, as critism and supporting arguments have their own sections, but the intro has been causing a lot of problems. Is this template documented? -- Ec5618 11:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect both to Template:POV-section. Good idea but redundant. Radiant_>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' - and use more widely. The intro is often the most contentious section, and a template that makes that crystal clear is very useful. The "section" version is not clear enough, IMO, when used to refer to an intro (people may not be clear about what it's referring to). Rd232 13:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and list on Wikipedia:Templates. Is there also an in-line version of {npov}; like {dubious} is of {accuracy}? Septentrionalis 19:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it exists, that would be Template:POV-section like I said above. Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • No - put dubious and Pov-section in a page - you'll see the difference. The former is inline, the latter is not - it floats above the line. Rd232 22:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• del per Radiant --MarSch 17:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. BTW the claim about these being "completely used" simply is not true. I came across this debate though the use of this template on a page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Rd232. Robert A West 00:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Shh

• Delete: Looks like a vanity/advert link to a movie site. Jpers36 04:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep:I don't know what you're talking about .. SHH! links have always been put in the articles that concern comic book movie adaptations. what difference does it make if it is put using a template to make it look nicer? why would I advertise for SHH! anyway .. it's not like it's mine, or that I'm making any profit from it .. unless you consider every external link as an ad then you should ban the whole thing from the encylopedia .. and there is right now a whole bunch of templates that are used to generate links to external websites like imdb and rottentomatoes .. they're almost on every page.. the only difference that the SHH! concerns only a few selected articles .. --Amr Hassan 07:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The template uses a different format than that any of the other links in the "external links" section. At the very least it needs a cleanup, to stay standard accros the board. However, I don't see the purpose in it at all; a simple external link works fine. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, ok.. count how many articles it's used in .. what are templates for anyway? and what harm is it doing right now?--Amr Hassan 08:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia's purpose is not to advertise other websites. Radiant_>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This looks very similer to Template:imdb title (links, talk) or Template:isfdb name (links, talk) to me, a template to provide a standard format for making an external link to a site that has pages with urls constructed according to a standard scheme. It should be documented, of course. I routinely add the proper isfdb tempalte to pages on any sf or fantasy author or work I edit, and use one of the IMDB templates on a film-related page. why is this different? DES ^(talk) 12:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed I go further -- if I am editing such an article and i see soemone has added a drirect external link to the ISFDB or the IMDB, I will replace it with a template link. DES ^(talk) 12:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in its current form. It's not very useful and does seem to be vanity.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per DES. Carioca 02:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it's useful for those who want to keep up with the latest updates on the movies based on comic characters.--DizerX 13:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep, per DES --MarSch 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per DES. Havok (T/C) 13:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the delete votes above. DreamGuy 00:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, will somebody delete it or remove the TFD from it already!! --Amr Hassan 13:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless there is some specific issue with the website, which I have not seen evidence of. MosheZadka 14:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per DES. Joeyconnick 17:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because the link is only in the form of domain.com/name (such as the one seen on Sin City page) instead of a harder-to-type form such as IMDb's domain.com/title/ttnumber. Having this template does not make anything easier and does not provide standardization of a complex URL (since the URL is not complex at all). A link to SHH can simply be a regular link, and does not require any special templates. --Hcblue 02:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

August 10

Template:Otherusesabout

Worrying new template that ecourages repetition of opening paragraph above it for disambiguation. Template:Otheruses is already the standard way to provide a disambiguation link. ed g2s • talk 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. (By which I mean bot all uses to Template:Otheruses, then delete.) ed g2s • talk 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I wouldn't suggest botting this as suggested ... there are less than 250 uses and the likelihood is that more than one of the bot replacements would result in some manner of nonsense being writ. Would it be possible to subst: the existing uses if the template gets deleted, which would maintain the status quo on the articles that currently use it while removing it from circulation for new uses? Courtland 01:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. That being voted, I'll say that "worrying" is a far stronger reaction than warranted. The reality is that it (I believe, not having made it or discussed it with the makers) was probably created to provide a crutch for the many many many articles that have introductions that are not well written. I doubt it is encouraging bad writing, because those people who would write a poor introduction would not bother to add the template (one would think), but it is providing a band-aid (or tourniquet, depending on the view of how severe the problem is) to a widespread problem. Better to remove the band-aid and let the wound heal in the open air. Courtland 23:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Note the (nearly) identical template, {{otheruses1}}. Coincidentally, a template named {{otheruses1}} was deleted per TFD consensus in December 2004 --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 00:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  3 to 1 is not exactly "consensus", or even if it is, not a particularly strong one. —Lowellian (talk) 12:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

  Let's reword that, then. It was deleted through a TFD. The consensus may be questionable, but the result is apparent - it was deleted. Now, I have no idea what the "old" template was, and if it was something entirely different than this one, then the TFD doesn't make any difference. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundancy stinks. -- jiy^Talk 00:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Redundancy is sometimes necessary. --DuKot 01:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant with {{otheruses1}}. CG 09:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu

Template:Otheruses1 is now orphaned. I propose we delete this too as it is pretty much identical (unless anyone thinks we need to vote separately?). ed g2s • talk 14:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that adding a template to a TfD part way through is less good than just making a new TfD. You should at least inform the prior voters on their talk pages. Oh, and orphaning a tl before bringing it here and asking if it should be deleted is a little hasty. -Splash 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I did think of starting a new TfD, but as I said, they're practically identical. Anyone who's voted deleted on the first one would definitely vote delete on the second one. Also I don't need a passed TfD to carry out the orphaning, as the orphaning was done per disambiguation guidelines, the TfD is just to clean up.

• comment considering the identity of the two templates, could the second be speedied if the first is deleted? Courtland 01:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete redundant. -Splash 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand why people want to delete this. It's not identical to Template:Otheruses, so it's not redundant, right? —Lowellian (talk) 12:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep overdeletionism is a pain in the arse, redirectionism is better. Dunc|☺ 13:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, provides context not given by Template:Otheruses. -Sean Curtin 04:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  It's the wrong way to do disambiguation. Context is given by the first line/paragraph of the article. ed g2s • talk 08:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • comment No, it's an OK way to do disambiguation; it's just an inelegant way of doing it. There are few cases where application of the concept the template targets is needed (as noted below) and those few cases can be handled without the use of a template. Courtland 01:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu
• Delete redundant with introductory paragraph. JesseW 06:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep see Macedonia for an example of where someone has put it to good use. --Mysidia (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Please keep. There were some terrible revert wars over exactly how the disambig notice at the top of Macedonia should be worded before this template was finally agreed on for that article. I really don't want to see a revert war over its replacement should this template be deleted. It has a use. Please keep. Jonathunder 00:44, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
  • comment I came very close to changing my vote to Keep, but then considered that an ad hoc disambiguation statement to handle the very contentious issues that you've very rightly highlighted is as appropriate as a template, that the revert wars should not start over just because the template disappears because the text can be recapitulated exactly as it appears without the template being used. Courtland 01:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment it can be done with {{dablink}} or {{for}} instead. -- User:Docu

Holding cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.

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 fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

• {{Britishmainlines}} entry moved to Log/Deleted/August 2005 as there was no objection to deletion, User:Ceyockey
• {{Block}} entry moved to Log/Deleted/August 2005 despite a couple of keep comments as the consensus appears to be for deletion; appears on user talk pages, which is the target article-space for the template, User:Ceyockey
• {{Football in Portugal}} entry moved to Log/Deleted/August 2005; one delete comment and one keep comment ... the keep comment was bare without supporting arguments and there is no discussion on the template talk page; interpreted this as the absence of a consensus to keep ... if a single word arguing why to keep had been made, then I wouldn't have taken this action. Courtland 01:59, 25 August 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.

(none at this time)

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete.