Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dragons flight (talk | contribs) at 14:24, 2 September 2005 (→Ready to delete: rm Search deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

Template:Sfd-current


Adding a listing

  • Please put new listings under today's date (November 15) 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.


September 2

Template: Check

delete: I just vapourised the two uses of this I found I can't see any legit use for this Geni 00:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

Template:Futuregame

Delete, duplicate of {{Future game}}. No reason for this. Nothing links there. I don't know what the point of this is. Might be candidate for speedy. K1Bond007 19:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

August 31

Template:Philippines-fairuse

Delete: This image copyright template asserts that that the associated image is copyrighted and used under the fair use provisions of the Philippines and the United States. However, since the fair use laws of the Philippines are the same as those of the United States, and the Wikimedia servers are located in the United States, this tag is pretty much redundant with Template:Fairuse. Furthermore, it's only used on one page.}} JYolkowski // talk 23:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user dz template:user dzl template:user dz-N template:user dzl-N and accompanying categories

Delete: This is a falsified language userpage infobox. Obviously. Patrick Lucas 02:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Schzzl. aka Do Not Delete the Template. Could someone please hip me to what constitutes the existence of a lang when deciding whether a lang template may exist? McVonn 03:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A language is usually spoken by a large amount of people, not as a dialect or slang, but as the sole form of communication. This isn't it. --Titoxd 03:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'r right. A language is usually those things. Spoken by many and natively by someone. Is that enough to delete the template? and you say it's not the only one? can I see the others? have they been deleted yet? McVonn
    • See for example Sango123 who speaks excellent squirrel. That one is a modified local substitution, not a template. Dragons flight 04:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wow. I wish I could speak squirrel. --fvw* 04:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bad imitation of the Babel templates, but it isn't the only one. There are many user pages with one copy or another of it. Userfy and delete redirect. --Titoxd 03:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. --fvw* 03:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • So is this template ;) Radiant_>|< 09:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I hereby consent to Delete template:user dz and template:user dz-N. I tagged them for a speedily deletionistic fate. somebody make me proud and start up some killer inter en:-dz: type content w/ that, okay! love ya.
I'm waiting to hear back from the guy who seems to have nominated the template for deletion. He has not responded yet to my second message. I want to know how he came about it and why he felt it should be deleted. I'v heard from you all, and I know it doesn't look good for my template. let's admit though: judging whether this thing should stay or go seems simple once the object in question is up on this page- that's why I'd like to hear from patrick Lucas. I appreciate everyone's input and help. Ideally I would like to be able to use some kind of lang code/lang template (as Caerwine suggested miiiight be possible) to (at least in some way, unofficially) represent this language on wikipedia. I understand that dzalakha is not even in wikipedia at all, is that correct? dzongkha content only lacks pages in english yet. so I understand the objection to my using User dz. I have mad respect for ISO and all but what does that standard have to do w/ wikipedia right now? I would not mind using dzz.
I admit I'm the only wikipedian who actually knows about this lang first-hand. It is very new and still developing. It does only have a handful of speakers and it is not spoken truly natively by anyone the way that the world's major languages are. I still maintain, though, that it is not a mere dialect of english, but a language unto itself. Any linguist will tell you that the distinction "language" or "dialect" is largely political. McVonn 03:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

Template:An Irish Guide to Furniture (Blackwater Press)

Created today by an anonymous user that also has been vandalizing a VfD (see Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Adam connon on the only page that has a connection to this template. Template is poorly formed, and in no way helpful or noteworthy in my opinion. --Durin 19:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LosAngelesInfoBox

Seems redundant to all of the other city infobox templates, and it is currently used on only one article: Los Angeles, California. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. You can just have the code in the actual article. This just makes it harder for people to edit the infobox. --Hottentot
    • Note: The vote on the talk page is not about keeping the template, it is about having the picture inside or outside the infobox. --Hottentot
  • I support Deletion of the Template:LosAngelesInfoBox and moving the code into the main article. While at first, I was opposed to this, due to the fact that it would probably boost the size of the page with more text, we're not really changing the size anyway, since the page is bringing in the text from the template anyways ... so it's a wash (on that note, the wikipedia recommendation on page size needs to be boosted a bit, due to advances in technology & download speeds). As Hottentot said, the code can be placed into the main article itself (which he has already taken the liberty to do on several other city articles).
I do like the placement of the city skyline image in the infobox template. It greatly increases the quality of the page, and also prevents some weird things from happening, like paragraph text from inserting between the skyline image and the template, which has happened in other articles. The statement about this infobox format being used on only one article is inaccurate - this format is currently used by Chicago, Illinois, Louisville, Kentucky (a featured article), Washington, D.C., Richmond, Virginia, Atlanta, Georgia, Norfolk, Virginia, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Phoenix, Arizona, and probably several other city articles. Dr. Cash 15:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are several city articles doing the same thing (Chicago for example, has {{ChicagoInfoBox}}, It would be best to create one single template that could be used on any city article that wanted to include an image at the top of their infobox. That's the reason that I said generalize and rename. BlankVerse ∅ 16:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCities has a general article template for cities. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. They also have a Template:Infobox City. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Second Rise of Lord Voldemort

  • Template regarding two fictional battles in the Harry Potter series. Isn't really needed. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 07:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete While it is certain that Harry Potter book 7 will contain one or more additional battles, WP is not a crystal ball and the two known battles are not enough to justify a template. Might be worth a template after book 7 is out, but not now. Caerwine 17:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Harry Potter is garbage, anyway, and there isnt enough information to say this would happen
  • Delete. I doubt it will even need a template of its own in the future. -Splash 01:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

all French Region infobox templates

Template:Aquitaine infobox
Template:Auvergne infobox
Template:Bourgogne infobox
Template:Bretagne infobox
Template:Centre infobox
Template:ChA infobox
Template:Corse infobox
Template:Franche-Comté infobox
Template:Île-de-France infobox
Template:Languedoc-Roussillon infobox
Template:Limousin infobox
Template:Lorraine infobox
Template:Midi-Pyrénées infobox
Template:Nord-Pas-de-Calais infobox
Template:PACA infobox
Template:Pays-de-la-Loire infobox
Template:Picardie infobox
Template:Poitou-Charentes infobox
Template:Rhône-Alpes infobox
Redundant single use templates. Remplacements based on an expanded Template:Infobox French Région are now available for all regions (please add the ones I missed to the list above). Template:Infobox French Région can be added directly to the articles. -- User:Docu

August 29

Template: Uncyclopedia

Delete: Promotional in nature, unnecessary and like-minded Templates previously voted for deletion. Template author contends template is not Speedy Delete since its a different style and wording than the previous one that was delete. Stbalbach 22:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

archived TFD comment stream from July 2005 → deletion — Courtland 04:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Err I'm not the author, I just felt that is was suffiently different to be considered a "new" template, and speedy deletion was inappropriate.--ElvisThePrince 23:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I really liked McDonalds hamburgers and told all my friends that Wendy's hamburgers aren't McDonalds hamburgers, it would still be advertising, although McDonalds didn't sanction me to do so. (btw I hate McD's hamburgers :) ). ∞Who?¿? 03:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If telling people that Wendy's burgers aren't MacDonalds burgers is advertising, I'm not quite sure what isn't....--64.170.153.127 03:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, uncyc admins did not create this template. Please don't be under the impression we're constantly trying to promote our site on wikipedia, that is not our goal. We take no stance on this template, but will not officially support it. (uncyc admin) --Chronarion 13:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and restrict usage to talk pages only. Comments Doubt that {{vfd}} and {{cleanup}} are direct equivalents (cleanup is vague, vfd is an invitation to go vote) - not sure if there are other templates out there that might be a closer match, comments? In any case, am surprised to see Stbalbach attempting to pass this off as a duplicate of some previous template in order to bypass normal voting procedure - if he was the one who originated the previous VFD (different template, same name) he must be familiar enough with both affected templates to know better? --carlb 03:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See its use at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monsterism where it is obvious from the talk page that the article has had all sorts of nonsense added to it that is clearly unencyclopedic (and possibly Uncyclopedia inspired). Or I would also support the alternative of renaming it to template:Encyclopedic, and rewording the beginning to "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia..." Either way, the template should be changed to one of the talk page classes that use the CoffeeRoll formatting. BlankVerse ∅ 10:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, not a sisterproject. Radiant_>|< 12:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you even look at the template? It not a article page template that links to articles at the Unencyclopedia, like the old template did, its a talk page template that tells editors that the Wikipedia is not the Unencyclopedia and so they shouldn't edit Wikipedia articles like they would articles on the Unencyclopedia. BlankVerse ∅ 16:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I've seen that, but I still consider it linkspam. Radiant_>|< 09:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, talk:Uncyclopedia claims it's a first-cousin project, and an adopted one at that. ;) --carlb 15:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This just seems to be promoting Uncyclopedia more. Not needed.  Thorpe talk 16:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thsi doen't seem advertising any more than a google test tempalte is advertising google -- indeed not so much, as it contians no internal links. if anything it is a slander against Uncyclopedia. Possibly useful, but should only be used on talk pages IMO, and should be documentd to that effect. DES (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a variant on {{pov}}, not an advertisement for Uncyclopedia. Making this into another redirect to PoV would be fine too. In any case, clearly not a speedy, as the existence of DES's post should show. 02:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I concur with User:BlankVerse. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 06:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Transwikied and Deleted

I don't think we need to keep this log at talk pages of transwikied (and deleted) pages. We already have the transwiki log, and often the individual VFD discussions. Note that all pages containing the template are speediable as CSD#G8, or CSD#A5. Some of the (non-existent) article pages that could accompany those talk pages could be replaced by redirects, or soft interwiki links. Radiant_>|< 11:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stillman-Allen-Four Lads

This template seems to be an attempt to automatically generate entire articles. See it in use at Who Needs You?. The articles it produces are pretty useless, and because their format is hard coded into the template, they are impossible to expand. Moreover if all the information that it is possible to add are name, date recorded, and date released simply creating a list would be more useful than these pseudo-articles. - SimonP 01:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

August 28

Delete: This is misleading and makes LISWiki look like a sister project of Wikipedia (see the {{wikibooks}} template etc.), or at least priveliges it over other external links, which is not appropriate. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just like Template:Musicbrainz wiki box below. Sisterproject box for nonsisterproject. They should all be speedyable as recreations, really; all of the past consensuses have been quite strong, and since they haven't seemed to care what the external site is, pasting a different link in doesn't make the template not be "substantially identical" to the deleted ones. —Cryptic (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, modified per Template:Uncyclopedia discussion to conform to the Template:Memoryalpha style of third party wiki links --John Hubbard 13:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. External site templates are promotional in nature. Need a more formal acceptance process to avoid cluttering up articles with pseudo-advertising. Stbalbach 22:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete promo for a non-sister site. -Splash 00:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't understand. The modified version is identical to the approved Memoryalpha link syntax. It goes in the "External links" section of articles. Why are you guys saying that a "pseudo-advertising" "promo" like this shouldn't deserve a (formatted) link? --John Hubbard 00:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, as a recreation in substance of the Uncyclopedia templates. No templates for non-sibling projects should be a CSD rule, in my view. By the way, when is the next CSD expansion poll, for that matter? --Titoxd 03:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There probably needs to be some standard on the formatting and types of template links that are used in the External links sections of articles. I think that both LISWiki and Memoryalpha are appropriate wikis to link to when their articles are much more detailed that the comparable Wikipedia articles (compare Digital Library to LSIWiki Digital Library] article). One change should be that ALL such templates should begin with an asterisk to emphasize that they are for the External links sections only. BlankVerse ∅ 10:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the previous debate on {{Sh}} and the usage of {{isfdb name}} and the like. Standardized tempaltes for linking to commonly cited external sources are (IMO) a Good ThingTM in general. DES (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vfd-edmeston

Specialized variant of Template:Vfd for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Edmeston, New York (Subarticles). Should have just been substed and edited on the articles it was on in the first place; now entirely useless. —Cryptic (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Editors

  • Delete: Redundant, does not provide much information and is quite big, creating clutter. --Sn0wflake 17:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you see this as being redundant with? It looks to me as if the intent was to use "what links here" to create a list of reference pages for fairly new editors. That doesn't strike me as a bad idea. Tentative keep pending furhter discussion. DES (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have a few templates of this kind already, but most importantly, for its large size, it does not provide enough information. This is not a very effective solution to a not so existant problem, as nowadays all users are greeted with an appropriate template anyway. The Help:Contents is also quite accesible. In resume, what I am trying to say is: it's not needed. --Sn0wflake 20:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi - I created the template. The uses are legitimate, and I think good. See the template talk page for more information; but I truly think that this is a good idea. It only appears "redundant" because it is new and hasn't been implemented on many pages yet. --Heebiejeebieclub 18:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's definitely a good idea, but we have several dozen toolbox templates already, and I think that what you're looking for actually already exists. But I see no harm in helping n00bs - might I also direct you to {{welcome}} for adding links? Radiant_>|< 19:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Heebiejeebieclub, I am in no way questioning your good faith. I just believe this will unecessarily increase template stacking. --Sn0wflake 20:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good grief nominated 30 minutes after creation and part of an ongoing proposal on the Village Pump. I made some changes to its format that should reduce its size to something less objectionable and let those who have an interest in the pages it is intended for decide whether this template is useful. Caerwine 20:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In use, undergoing revision. -- Visviva 01:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So can I summarize from this that I had the right idea, but just not the right template? That it will be kept but redesigned? Anyway, the template was not meant as a welcome message, it was intennded to be put at the top of articles that helped with editing.--Heebiejeebieclub 12:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and delete. Simply putting that message at the top doesn't go anyplace, but putting them in a category would be possibly useful. -Splash 00:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless someone can point out at least one other template that makes this one redundant. -- Reinyday, 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • del, self evident message is not useful --MarSch 11:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as insufficient time for discussion so far. But, at least as of now, it seems like a bad idea, and I would support deleting it in a few weeks, unless things change. JesseW 05:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Template: Abu Ghraib

Delete: Redundant. There's already a category for this purpose. /Jebur 16:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otherarticles-alph

Courtland 01:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italian prime minister

Unused --MarSch 15:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPA fonts

Only used in {IPA} and I substituted it there. Contains a list of fonts. --MarSch 14:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it's also used on its own in the CSS code of a few tables scattered around Wikipedia. Without this template, there's no way those tables will get their font specifications updated. —Michael Z. 2005-08-28 15:36 Z
I looked a little more and found {IPA2} which now uses {IPA}. Which tables? --MarSch 15:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It, {{Unicode fonts}} and others are supposed to be a single point to edit the list of fonts needed to show some special characters on MSIE. The list of fonts is kept separate from the template on purpose. --cesarb 19:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test2c

Delete: Content disputes are not vandalism. Therefore, a vandalism warning intended for people who delete content that they dispute is not approprate. The dispute-resolution guidelines offered in this warning may be admirable; using a vandalism warning when dispute resolution is called for is not. Aquillion 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 27

Template:Space1, et al.

Other similar templates (more at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:PostScript_name):

Template:GNumber

This is a template listing everything that is named with a G followed by a number. Other than the similar names these items and organizations have nothing in common. I find it difficult to believe that someone reading about the G8 would then want to read about the Heckler & Koch G11, or that someone reading about the Group of 77 nations would then want to move to the G13 marijuana variety. - SimonP 20:13, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, agree with above. -- Ec5618 20:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Template:vandal1

I've observed this template, and feel it to be redundant with {[tl|test1}} through {{test3}}. I also feel it is worded a bit harshly and can be construed as biting the newbies. It also causes confusion when a person edits the section on a page this template is added to. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 26

Template:The Simpsons ads

This is a fine looking template until you realize that all the links are redirects to a single list page: List of The Simpsons television advertisements, and that this template is not used anywhere. Dragons flight 22:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete for the love of jebus. ~~ N (t/c) 22:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blank

Delete: The template doesn't create a blank space.  Thorpe talk 19:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • As I told you, report it at template talk:blank. Though I'm not sure if it needs to be protected. (Anyone wondering what the purpose of this is, see [1] and [2].) I made {{blank}} as a completely empty template, but someone decided it needs Unicode. I'd think the former would still prevent an autoreplace, but who knows. --SPUI (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't thought of using html comments, which are now in {{userpage}}. Thus, unless someone can find another use for {{blank}}, delete. --SPUI (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del, shouldn't be a template as SPUI has now understood: single-use. Used for "scrambling" Wikipedia (WikiInformation icon Hello, I'm Dragons flight. I noticed that you recently removed all content from a page. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.pedia) in {userpage} so other sites cannot replace it with their own name.--MarSch 14:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although from a procedural standpoint, the template, which is protected, should probably have a tfd tag on it. -- Norvy (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep serves a useful technical purpose. DES (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

Template:Law


Template:Idw

  • Delete. This type of message intimidates me every time I'm sent it. Is it really necessary to send the uploader of an allegedly-copyrighted image such a harsh warning every time such an image is put on WP:PUI?  Denelson83  22:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redwolf24 22:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's harsh (and frankly I dislike the box around it; it could just be a regular paragraph) then make it less so. But it's only fair that the uploader of an image be informed of its being deleted, so this template is entirely necessary. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think most Wikipedians have thick enough skin to endure a teeny bit of criticism. However, it could use a de-uglification (simple text would be nice). — Dan | Talk 22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is commonly used and useful, and saying you're in a bad mood isn't an excuse for it, Denelson83. Superm401 | Talk 22:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • While it's ugly and fairly unpleasant to recieve, this template is one of the few that gets nominated here that actually serves a useful purpose. →Raul654 22:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I find this factual, not harsh. If you do reformat or reword this, similer changes should probably be made to {{idw-cp}} which i use far more often. DES (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Edit so as to be less obtrusive. There is little need for a message any more obtrusive than the {{TFD}} message. This template seems quite an overkill and I can see it's deep-sixing wikimood (or elevating wikistress) with each application. As an aside, I think that the {{CFD}} and {{VFD}} notices could be significantly reduced in size/invasiveness without reducing their impact or noteworthiness as well. Courtland 00:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC) input altered from "delete" to "edit" Courtland 14:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Revise it, if you feel like it, but something like this is required for notifying the uploader of an image listed on WP:IFD per the image deletion guidelines. I know why this requirement exists and I'm still not convinced it is strictly necessary, but as long as the requirement to notify is in place, we need some template to put on uploaders' talk pages. --MarkSweep 07:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only change that I'd make to the template is to add a second parameter to list the reason why the image was nominated for deletion. BlankVerse ∅ 07:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you disliked the tone of the message you could have edited it. -- Joolz 23:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's quite useful. (added without signature, but determined to be from User:ScribeOfTheNile on consulting page history)
  • Keep. Reword it if you have to. But having a template around makes it easier to warn uploaders about upcoming image deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 04:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is useful for an uploader to be informed if an image they uploaded is IFD'd. --Wikiacc (talk) 00:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I vote for maybe a rewrite as well. NOT a delete. Very handy! --None-of-the-Above 19:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Macedonian naming dispute

  • Delete: there's a naming dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece. The text of this template was written by the Greek nationalists to be used in every article that included the name of "Republic of Macedonia". This is not the Wikipedia way to settle dispute. See Talk:Macedonian denar / Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote / Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute for discussions and Republic of China for a similar case. bogdan | Talk 21:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia must be clean. Actually there is no problem with "Republic of Macedonia". Only these ultra-POV-pushers are doing problems here. -- Darwinek 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur wholeheartedly with Bogdan and Darwinek. If interested, see extensive comments at Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute. – Friejose 21:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just use the most common name. Superm401 | Talk 22:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This template resulted after many contributions and talks on Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia. Before being a template, it was a notice on the relevant subjects. Instead of talking on how it could be improved, see also Talk:Macedonia, they set it as a VfD candidate. I can agree on one thing, for sure this is not how wikipedia works. MATIA 23:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The present text of the despute is supporting the Greek side. Even if it stays, it should be changed and made neutral. The naming despute is reality, but the official goverment information show that at least 70% of the countries that recognized Macedonia use its constitutional name: "Republic of Macedonia". In the direct goverment contacts, only Greece and Cyprus use another name. Everyone else uses "Republic of Macedonia". In the same time, the text does not say anything about the proposals from the Macedonian side (Macedonia for the world, but Greece can use any inoffensive name they pick, a proposal that Greece rejected) and that Macedonia already made drawbacks by changing its flag and its constitution (like Greece insisted). Also the text does not include information that the 3 of the 5 members of the security council of UN recognize Macedonia under the constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" and the parlament of the 4th member already recomended its goverment to do the same. 62.162.198.232 00:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So what the fuck is going on. I thought we would wait for the vote to close (has it closed? did it even have a time-limit? it should have) before deleting anything. If the vote is closed already, the disclaimer clearly lost, and the template should be deleted. We don't need a template for a note in one article (Republic of Macedonia). ---Alex 00:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the template as it is is silly, and there can be a footnote in the Macedonia article without need for a template. dab (ᛏ) 06:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree. The naming dispute should not be ignored or covered up, as this kind of censorship would undermine Wikipedia's stated principles of pluralism and neutrality.--Theathenae 08:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is entirely the wrong way of solving the dispute (see Template:Carfuel). Radiant_>|< 08:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and keep out of articles in the meantime. Susvolans ⇔ 08:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete on formal grounds. All the template says is that the use of certain names "is not meant to imply an official position on the naming dispute with Greece." Anyone who knows the most basic thing about Wikipedia -- that anyone can edit any article at any time, so there's no such thing as an official position on matters of fact -- knows that much already. Dell Adams 09:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken a look at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, I regret the overbearing tone of my comment, but the vote and the reasoning stand. Dell Adams 10:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there are people here who want any mention of the dispute gagged. They will not succeed.--Theathenae 10:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This voting should be considered invalid. People should really check a better alternative as Dell Adams mentioned, Talk:Macedonia and other related pages. bogdan is trying to force his personal point of view and erase any opposing views. If you check the contributions of the first voters, you can see that some of them instead of talking how the text can change to reflect the facts, they engaged edit-wars removing or messing the template. One of the facts is that the word Macedonia and all related terms are subjects of negotiations between Greece and FYROM on UN. MATIA 11:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Gene Nygaard 12:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I agree completely. This is a ridiculous reason for a template. It's too broad in its applicability. 'By definition, Wikipedia does not endorse a point of view on any such dispute. It's mention is irrelevant.--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said at Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute, and as it has been repeated by one user above already, before being a template, this was an already existing notice on the articles. Hence, TFD is the wrong method of handling this issue - it is not syntactic, it is semantic, and highly controversial at that. The decision should be deferred to Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote which has precedence. --Joy [shallot] 14:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly my position, Joy. This is to be settled by Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote since it was already started there and people took the time to actually vote there. If that voting is over, and if the results of that vote are accepted as final (at least for now), then we should delete the template. Am I missing something here? ---Alex 14:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither a semantic (wording) nor syntactic (grammar) issue, this is an issue of policy. A template is not the appropriate way to deal with this issue and hence, should be deleted. Plus, the very fact that you have to argue "precedence" and "voting" is troublesome; it shows that the template attempts to circumvent article-specific discussion and attempts to abrogate the principle that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Friejose 14:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much a semantic issue, because the controversy stems from the meaning of the word "Macedonia" &co. within "Republic of Macedonia" &co. Why is the template not a good way to deal with it? You haven't provided an actual reason for this statement. I do not see any real reason for it to be removed per Wikipedia:Template messages or #Deletion criteria. Perhaps on POV grounds - but how do we define POV without expressing opinions and votes on this, and thereby implicitly involving the rule that Wikipedia is not a democracy? Besides, the whole notion of discouraging an existing vote process on a page where voting is done is ludicrous.
Sure, we may all consider it as one in a long line of pro-Greek attempts to modify the name of the republic to their north, but have you actually watched how horrible some of the previous attempts were, and do you really think that removing this template on the grounds that this is not a great template will prevent the discontents from complaining about the relevant articles in some other manner, which will tend to cause more mess because we're not using the useful template mechanism?
Let's not beat around the bush. This is not an issue that's going to be settled by a single vote on TFD or even at the voting on that linked page. However, trying to kill off the very notion that a problem exists can only exacerbate the problem, it certainly won't do anything to help solve it. --Joy [shallot] 14:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly because Wikipedia is not a democracy this voting is invalid. A tyrany of the majority is not the way to go. Talk about it and explore alternative wording. Check the RFC procedure. Disputed are not included in the official deletion policy. MATIA 15:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seemain

Delete: Redirect to {{main}} after TfD not needed. Orphaned other than in Talk pages (including hidden WLH:main). SEWilco 21:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (Extend vote an extra day; notification begun now. SEWilco 17:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

note the survival of this and Template:SeeMain @ Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/August_2005#Template:Seemain_and_Template:SeeMain
Firstly, you've yet to explain why Main article: Example is "less civil" (your description from the TfD talk page) than See main article: Example. Secondly, what if someone prefers Please see main article: Example, For main article: Example, or another of the countless possibilities? Should we have a separate template for every conceivable variation? —Lifeisunfair 22:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Once again, the template was not orphaned (due to a software bug that causes some articles to be omitted from the "whatlinkshere" list until they're edited). The article Suicide methods was using {{seemain}} until I removed the two remaining instances. (An additional instance was removed by another user, triggering the article's inclusion on the aforementioned list). —Lifeisunfair 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tibetan people just appeared on the "whatlinkshere" list. I performed another template replacement, but there probably are more articles where that came from. —Lifeisunfair 22:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually WLH is showing articles, they're just elsewhere. WLH:seemain was only showing articles not edited before the redirect. Articles which use seemain through the redirect show in WLH:main. To find those articles one has to search WLH:main for articles whose source actually contains seemain (there were 240 such articles). The orphaning bot had trouble because it silently encountered a WLH limit due to the number of WLH:main articles. (SEWilco 17:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Retain the redirect to {{main}}. As demonstrated above, {{seemain}} might still be present in some articles, and it probably will be added to other articles from time to time. While the template's use certainly shouldn't be encouraged, there's no reason why it needs to be deleted. —Lifeisunfair 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect. Radiant_>|< 08:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: What does "Delete and redirect" mean? When an unwanted article is deleted we don't redirect them someplace. "September 6th 1988", "Prevention of Travelers Diarrhea", "US Government Simulator". and "Snack time" were just deleted, but there is no redirect because someone might refer to them in the future. Unwanted terms become redlinks. (SEWilco 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • "Delete then redirect" means to first delete the template, and then put a redirect in its place. The first step is optional, I suppose. Most things that are deleted become redlinks. Some are more suitable as bluelinks to a related topic. Radiant_>|< 19:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I dont like to be told what to do, tell me its there, Ill decide to see it or not. If you must see it, then somthing is wrong with the article. Stbalbach 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then don't use {{seemain}}, and change it when you come across it. If enough people dislike See X, which is the traditional English (and Latin) way of indicating cross-reference, it will fall out of use; if not, not. That would seem to be the wiki method. Septentrionalis 18:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Getting bored of this debate. This isn't a bureaucracy. -Splash 17:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{Main}} should be ok for the vast majority of uses. All other variants can be enabled using ad hoc text without the need to resort to a new template. Courtland 01:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asiamiles

See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Airlines/Affinity programs for more information. We are discouraging the use of templates for frequent flyer programs, as they could result in 30+ such templates being used on a single page. Dbinder 18:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone else with that feeling of deja vu. This was discussed about a month ago and seems to have closed no consensus [4] (2d-2k) but doesn't seem to have made it into the log. Dragons flight 18:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I know. I renominated it because the WikiProject is now calling for the removal of templates like this. Dbinder 20:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And it was actually 3d 2k since the nomination counts as a delete vote. Dbinder 20:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's still no consensus, however. -Splash 17:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • If this is a personal template, it should be userfied and the resulting redirect deleted. --MarSch 11:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BlankVerse ∅ 13:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - userfy if that is feasible and only Beland is using it, otherwise, just keep. JesseW 18:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ForCleanup

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



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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • del, this just makes taxoboxes more confusing --MarSch 11:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as people are using it. JesseW 18:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 . TFD is not an appropriate venue for dictating user behavior. If you want keep people from using This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep, useful. Add a note of these on some help page if they survive. ~~ N (t/c) 23:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete, it'll just clutter up the servers, and importantly they're probably copyvios. Dunc|☺ 11:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because they're almost certainly copyvios, and because they're a waste of bandwidth. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)
      • Consider my remark amended. Wikipedia's servers are sufficiently sluggish without encouraging the use of unnecessary transclusion and embedded images. Call me a crotchety old fart, but dang it, we used to use ASCII emoticons and we liked it. <mumble>kids these days...</mumble> TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete I am in full agreeance with Carnildo. These have no place on Wikipedia whatsoever. Kevin 09:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • del, use images directly or not. If there is any use for these templates at all. Shouldn't be used for talk >8( --MarSch 11:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's wrong with just using the images by themselves? They don't appear to be copyvio, so that's not a problem. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – do not help in any way. violet/riga (t) 21:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless cutesy images used as aa annoying substitute for actual communication. --Calton | Talk 03:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Cryptic. HollyAm 04:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Honestly, there's no harm in them being in template space. Having to type {{User:........./Wink}} would just mean they weren't worth it anymore. Superm401 | Talk 19:42, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEEEEP NOOOO data-sort-value="" | , Don't delete these poor defenseless creatures . This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions anyway, they are pretty useful, and a bit easier rowspan="1" style="background:#F8F9FA;color:black;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;"|0 to remember than the image way This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions. So, just say NO "Templates for discussion". Germplasm Resources Information Network. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. to emotemplate deletion!!!! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't mind the images per se, but I'm concerned about the load they might have on the servers if they are transcluded (which they will, because I don't see why anyone would want to type {{subst:smile}}). As far I know, transclusion results in a double load on the servers, and too much of it can overload our already straining Wikimedia servers. --Titoxd 23:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing comment to delete without prejudice. That means, leave the images, but get rid of the templates. Smileys cause transclusion/server load nightmares. We're already overloaded: Wikipedia search is currently disabled because of the problem. --Titoxd 05:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SPUI et al. These are annoying as anything, and just tax the servers. Stop the AOLification of Wikipedia!!!--Pharos 23:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — mark ✎ 09:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for God's sake. Besides be using as a crutch in communication, they are twice the height of a normal twelve-point "line" and break normal reading of text. KILL THEM WITH FIRE. Garrett Albright 16:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, some of the votes above prove why they should be deleted. They are so full of smileys that it makes reading the test impossible and they annoy the heck out of me. Smileys are useless and make the servers bear an uneeded burden. If you feel like using one, stop, think and use your words instead. This link is Broken 19:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no affirmative reason to delete. Typing the images would be a greater pain than using the templates. Many of the above votes to delete are based on the annoyance factor of using said images. If people really want to use the images, removing the templates won't prevent them from doing so. Some people feel that these images allow them to be more expressive. I don't tend to agree (at least not outside IM/IRC) but there is no reason not to tolerate those people using these images on talk pages. Also agree with Dragons flight above. Pakaran 22:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Expressing emotion isn't really necessary in discussion anyway, and on the few occasions when I've desired to do so, <tt>:-)</tt> has worked just fine. — Dan | Talk 23:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being. If we see them being overused/abused, then I might change my mind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy It's ok for user namespaces, and talk pages. But if it shows up on ONE ARTICLE... Pacific Coast Highway 00:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • weak delete until conditions are met - use must be regularized only for non-formal spaces (user: and talk:) and resize each one to 15x15 or 16x16 size, these are simply huge and waste resources and sacrifce readability. wS;✉ 00:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a waste of server resources. These and many more can all be done with text anyway. the wub "?/!" 08:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless, of course, a better use of the template name can be found. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I shudder to think how talkpages will look if this catches on :( ascii smilies are good enough :p dab (ᛏ) 15:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Let's close this Pandora's Box before something bad happens. --Cholmes75 16:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless clutter. Johntex 17:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Will severely increase the load on the servers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these are cute. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 22:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and give someone looking to increase their edit count the chore of going through and substing them.  The template Grin has been proposed for deletion.  Tomer TALK 22:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Tomer. --Vizcarra 23:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These templates don't do anything to server load. Placing them on TfD does though, as would deleting them. :-P Kim Bruning 23:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Graphical smilies have their place... just not here. :o) CheekyMonkey 23:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, if it's smart it would cache the template to HTML (thus the only thing needed would be a hash and a single virtual method call), thus making it as fast as using the image itself Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like overly complicated signatures, they detract from serious discussion. Take the smileys back to Gaim where they belong. --Ardonik.talk()*07:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Distracting and unpleasant.--Eloquence* 13:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please, no. Wikipedia is not the place for this at all. Angela. 13:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stbalbach 13:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless, and useful for talk pages to lighten the atmosphere. Also, how can we get rid of the "template up for deletion" sign in the meantime? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but make the inclusion of subst: a rule of use.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, no matter what rule we make, the regular inclusion of "subst:" is just not going to happen. If these are kept, they will become a serious strain on the servers for very little practical benefit. If you want emoticons, what's wrong with the original :) etc.?--Pharos 16:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel I need a discussion page for this debate, to post my suggestion. I like these (see above), but I still have a suggestion that could make everyone happy:
    Could we help each other to make a user-usable javascript addtion that automatically inserts these images on discussion and wikipedia pages (where the ascii :) and =P are found)? I think it's possible, it should be no problem.
    Benefits: Only the users that want smileys will see them. More smileys that those explicitly linking to images would be shown. Everyone else will get no bother.
    — Sverdrup 23:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What an odious idea. I've written the script; it's at User:Cryptic/smiley.js. —Cryptic (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If one can not express his ideas/feelings in written words... what the hell is he doing writing an encyclopedia? Waste of bandwith. Waste of page space. Diverts the attention from the content. Nabla 23:52:53, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
  • Delete, ugly. Just look at this TfD if you don't believe me... JYolkowski // talk 01:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --nixie 03:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)

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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
What the heck are you talking about?! —Lifeisunfair 22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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))[reply]
"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)[reply]
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))[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep {{seemain2}} for the plural form of the word "articles", delete the rest. — Instantnood 15:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Please note that the pre-existing {{main2}} template serves exactly the same purpose as {{seemain2}}. Also note that {{seemain}} already has been redirected to {{main}} (per TfD consensus). —Lifeisunfair 17:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Delete agree with the above. Any good article should already make clear what items are just proposals. - SimonP 22:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, there is speculation, in Burj Dubai's case. --WikiFan04Talk 22:56, 25 Aug 2005 (CDT)
  • Keep. Serves its purpose like the expected/planned product template. Andrew pmk 19:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It must be clear from the text that it is discussing something that will happen in the future. If it is retained it should be toned down to be less visually intrusive.Saga City 06:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article about proposed construction is not speculative. The construction is proposed, and the proposition itself is worthy of encyclopedic note. --Mm35173 22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • Delete as per Mysidia. ~~ N (t/c) 13:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So . . . you also possess the authority to override dictionary definitions? —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Violet/Riga is "taking over"? My, how gracious of you to relinquish your self-appointed command. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Dragons flight and Lifeisunfair. I find their arguments quite convincing. DES (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Template:Vote bar

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Oh dear. So according to you I didn't just apply policy properly, I actually violated it. I think I just arrived here from an alternate universe or something, this is so wierd :-/ . *Sigh* very well, could you point out which policy you think I violated? Kim Bruning 19:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename. Although I don't think it's necessary for votes, it has a number of other uses. Aquillion 20:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am now getting an uncomfortable amount of mutually contradictory information regarding this policy. This Wikipedia Signpost article includes a tally of keep vs. delete votes for the Wikipedians for Decency WikiProject. I attempted to apply the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" doctrine to it by removing the tally, and here's the message I got from the editor of the Signpost:
"As I understand it, Template:Vote bar was rejected because it was unneeded, and it assumed, in many cases, that there was a specific spot between keep and delete. All I did is report on what the unofficial vote tally was. That is not wrong, nor is it a double-standard. If you wanted to create your own page where you kept tallies on controversial votes, that would be fine.
"In any event, please do not edit the Signpost unless to fix an inaccuracy or a typo. I at least deserved the respect of having you talk to me on my talk page or in the Newsroom, rather than finding out on a Discussion page 3 days after you made the change. ral315 05:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)"
With this message, I am now seriously opposing the policy against internal vote tallies on Wikipedia. There is clearly a hypocritical atmosphere here, and it isn't fair.
You know what, that does it! I had no choice but to put this template into my userspace. It is now officially known as User:Denelson83/Ratio bar.  Denelson83  07:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT er, what does this have to do with VfD? IT's a bar comparing two amounts out of a whole, could be used anywhere... like in the election pages comparing the amounts a Democrat or a Republican gets. 132.205.3.20 15:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I know I'm probably on the wrong side of the crowd here, but there are other uses for this template than a VfD vote. Please consider that before deleting this template. Misuse of the template doesn't mean the template is useless. --Titoxd 23:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, violation of m:Polls are evil, WP:NOT, and, arguably, WP:POINT. James F. (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.. As per others, this has the potential to be used to undermine WP:NOT a Democracy by giving a certain person's interpretation of discussion the 'color' of an official ballot poll. Also:
    • Encourages the fallacy of representing discrete data (numbers of votes) as if they were continuous in nature. A bar graph in column form would be better, pictograph ideal.
    • Doesn't seem to adequately represent contests with more than 2 parties where a plurality 'wins' the contest.
    • All stated "legitimate use" examples would be equally or better served by using Microsoft Excel, Apple Keynote, or similar Open Source packages to generate a chart suitable to the article and upload as an image. Template programming mechanics are simply not well-suited to this use. (Seems like hammering a nail using a banana)
      • Excuse me, since when is Microsoft Excel or anything else by Microsoft an Open Source package? Or did you mean an open source package of similar functionality? DES (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I realize that most of those are criticisms calling for improvement rather than deletion, but I think that these shortcomings detract from any legitimate use such that it cannot justify the potential for negative use per the first reason. Kwh 19:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP This thing is neat... now if only I could figure out how to use it :\. Whether or not majority votes are banned or whatever has nothing to do with this template. Just doing it for fun on a talk page (as it obviously has its uses there) is by itself enough reason to KEEEEEEEPPP Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vote bar

OK, I really think this is awesome now, LOL (gets messed up if one side has 0 votes though) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can be misused, and often shouldn't be used. Might be useful on occasions, and I see no benefit to deleting it. And WP:WIN does not allow admins to delete articles that contravene it. And the definition of "vote" as "majority vote" is fascinating, and ridiculous. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and all that. I guess Kim might argue that it still has thorns, but that's his problem :-). [[smoddy]] 22:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

Template:IDRIVErela

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 the rest listed here. -- Paddu 19:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:R from UN/LOCODE

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

{{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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • keep as per paddu, courtland, etc. JesseW 10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)

These help clarify the purpose of redirects, and keep editors from mistakenly deleting or changing them. Unfortunately during some MediaWiki upgrade they stopped displaying on the redirect page. Is it possible to make them show up again? —Michael Z. 2005-08-28 15:45 Z
  • del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep redirects are a bit tricky to categorize normally. DES (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep as above. -- User:Docu
  • Keep, though some of them could be merged. There might be too many to choose from now. --Kaleissin 20:00:15, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it would be nice if I could see it on the destination page TransUtopian 05:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

Template:Musicbrainz wiki box

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sounds like a resonable solution. Vegaswikian 23:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]


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)[reply]

previous trips to TFD: Jan 28, Feb 21

  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep - Reason not given nor properly researched. --Corvun 09:52, August 17, 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)[reply]
    • comment and my understanding is that outcome was precipitated by persistant pushing by persons who failed to listen to the expert advice that had been received when it was anticipated that such advice would unequivocally support their interpretations and actions and it did not. Unfortunate. Courtland 04:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and others above. -Splash 06:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've read in some detail the previous comment streams for the trips to TFD earlier this year and it's clear that there is a consensus to Keep that survived across both trips. Further, the primary expert consulted on this matter clearly states that the use of this particular template doesn't pose undue load problems. The primary argument for deletion previously had to do with deletion of the instance as a way of addressing harm issues surrounding the class of templates, even in the face of expert advice that this instance poses little harm while also providing significant benefits to the editor in the face of increasing demand for variety in template links to sisterprojects while not seeing a concomittant increasing demand for the volume of such linkages. In order to support these comments, I've resolved the linkages to each of the archived trips to TFD and placed those links at the top of this comment stream. Courtland 04:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Delete (nom) DES (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Useful. CanadianCaesar 07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)
  • Keep. Constructive. -- Visviva 01:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't seem to be used by any pages in the main namespace. --Ixfd64 06:08, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Comment I have acted on the suggestion of the template in those cases where it had been placed on articles. I have also placed a note on the Talk page of the template asking whether it has now completed in the service it was designed to perform. I still think that this can be deleted, but it is stated to perform a service and I'd like to determine whether suporters for its being kept believe it has in fact served its purpose and is no longer required in the clean-up arsenal. Courtland 01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We get a lot of people placing articles into the general chemistry category because they know it is chem-related, but a lot of people are hesitant to categorise it any further (we have hundreds of sub-categories!). As such, it is useful. My concern is, how are the people (who are unfamiliar with chem) to know that this template exists? If there are plenty of people who would use it, we should keep it. If it's too obscure/hard to find, then delete it. Walkerma 22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.


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

Template:Sfd-current


Adding a listing

  • Please put new listings under today's date (November 15) 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.


September 2

Template: Check

delete: I just vapourised the two uses of this I found I can't see any legit use for this Geni 00:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

Template:Futuregame

Delete, duplicate of {{Future game}}. No reason for this. Nothing links there. I don't know what the point of this is. Might be candidate for speedy. K1Bond007 19:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

August 31

Template:Philippines-fairuse

Delete: This image copyright template asserts that that the associated image is copyrighted and used under the fair use provisions of the Philippines and the United States. However, since the fair use laws of the Philippines are the same as those of the United States, and the Wikimedia servers are located in the United States, this tag is pretty much redundant with Template:Fairuse. Furthermore, it's only used on one page.}} JYolkowski // talk 23:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user dz template:user dzl template:user dz-N template:user dzl-N and accompanying categories

Delete: This is a falsified language userpage infobox. Obviously. Patrick Lucas 02:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Schzzl. aka Do Not Delete the Template. Could someone please hip me to what constitutes the existence of a lang when deciding whether a lang template may exist? McVonn 03:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A language is usually spoken by a large amount of people, not as a dialect or slang, but as the sole form of communication. This isn't it. --Titoxd 03:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'r right. A language is usually those things. Spoken by many and natively by someone. Is that enough to delete the template? and you say it's not the only one? can I see the others? have they been deleted yet? McVonn
    • See for example Sango123 who speaks excellent squirrel. That one is a modified local substitution, not a template. Dragons flight 04:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wow. I wish I could speak squirrel. --fvw* 04:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bad imitation of the Babel templates, but it isn't the only one. There are many user pages with one copy or another of it. Userfy and delete redirect. --Titoxd 03:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. --fvw* 03:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • So is this template ;) Radiant_>|< 09:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I hereby consent to Delete template:user dz and template:user dz-N. I tagged them for a speedily deletionistic fate. somebody make me proud and start up some killer inter en:-dz: type content w/ that, okay! love ya.
I'm waiting to hear back from the guy who seems to have nominated the template for deletion. He has not responded yet to my second message. I want to know how he came about it and why he felt it should be deleted. I'v heard from you all, and I know it doesn't look good for my template. let's admit though: judging whether this thing should stay or go seems simple once the object in question is up on this page- that's why I'd like to hear from patrick Lucas. I appreciate everyone's input and help. Ideally I would like to be able to use some kind of lang code/lang template (as Caerwine suggested miiiight be possible) to (at least in some way, unofficially) represent this language on wikipedia. I understand that dzalakha is not even in wikipedia at all, is that correct? dzongkha content only lacks pages in english yet. so I understand the objection to my using User dz. I have mad respect for ISO and all but what does that standard have to do w/ wikipedia right now? I would not mind using dzz.
I admit I'm the only wikipedian who actually knows about this lang first-hand. It is very new and still developing. It does only have a handful of speakers and it is not spoken truly natively by anyone the way that the world's major languages are. I still maintain, though, that it is not a mere dialect of english, but a language unto itself. Any linguist will tell you that the distinction "language" or "dialect" is largely political. McVonn 03:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

Template:An Irish Guide to Furniture (Blackwater Press)

Created today by an anonymous user that also has been vandalizing a VfD (see Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Adam connon on the only page that has a connection to this template. Template is poorly formed, and in no way helpful or noteworthy in my opinion. --Durin 19:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LosAngelesInfoBox

Seems redundant to all of the other city infobox templates, and it is currently used on only one article: Los Angeles, California. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. You can just have the code in the actual article. This just makes it harder for people to edit the infobox. --Hottentot
    • Note: The vote on the talk page is not about keeping the template, it is about having the picture inside or outside the infobox. --Hottentot
  • I support Deletion of the Template:LosAngelesInfoBox and moving the code into the main article. While at first, I was opposed to this, due to the fact that it would probably boost the size of the page with more text, we're not really changing the size anyway, since the page is bringing in the text from the template anyways ... so it's a wash (on that note, the wikipedia recommendation on page size needs to be boosted a bit, due to advances in technology & download speeds). As Hottentot said, the code can be placed into the main article itself (which he has already taken the liberty to do on several other city articles).
I do like the placement of the city skyline image in the infobox template. It greatly increases the quality of the page, and also prevents some weird things from happening, like paragraph text from inserting between the skyline image and the template, which has happened in other articles. The statement about this infobox format being used on only one article is inaccurate - this format is currently used by Chicago, Illinois, Louisville, Kentucky (a featured article), Washington, D.C., Richmond, Virginia, Atlanta, Georgia, Norfolk, Virginia, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Phoenix, Arizona, and probably several other city articles. Dr. Cash 15:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are several city articles doing the same thing (Chicago for example, has {{ChicagoInfoBox}}, It would be best to create one single template that could be used on any city article that wanted to include an image at the top of their infobox. That's the reason that I said generalize and rename. BlankVerse ∅ 16:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCities has a general article template for cities. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. They also have a Template:Infobox City. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Second Rise of Lord Voldemort

  • Template regarding two fictional battles in the Harry Potter series. Isn't really needed. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 07:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete While it is certain that Harry Potter book 7 will contain one or more additional battles, WP is not a crystal ball and the two known battles are not enough to justify a template. Might be worth a template after book 7 is out, but not now. Caerwine 17:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Harry Potter is garbage, anyway, and there isnt enough information to say this would happen
  • Delete. I doubt it will even need a template of its own in the future. -Splash 01:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

all French Region infobox templates

Template:Aquitaine infobox
Template:Auvergne infobox
Template:Bourgogne infobox
Template:Bretagne infobox
Template:Centre infobox
Template:ChA infobox
Template:Corse infobox
Template:Franche-Comté infobox
Template:Île-de-France infobox
Template:Languedoc-Roussillon infobox
Template:Limousin infobox
Template:Lorraine infobox
Template:Midi-Pyrénées infobox
Template:Nord-Pas-de-Calais infobox
Template:PACA infobox
Template:Pays-de-la-Loire infobox
Template:Picardie infobox
Template:Poitou-Charentes infobox
Template:Rhône-Alpes infobox
Redundant single use templates. Remplacements based on an expanded Template:Infobox French Région are now available for all regions (please add the ones I missed to the list above). Template:Infobox French Région can be added directly to the articles. -- User:Docu

August 29

Template: Uncyclopedia

Delete: Promotional in nature, unnecessary and like-minded Templates previously voted for deletion. Template author contends template is not Speedy Delete since its a different style and wording than the previous one that was delete. Stbalbach 22:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

archived TFD comment stream from July 2005 → deletion — Courtland 04:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Err I'm not the author, I just felt that is was suffiently different to be considered a "new" template, and speedy deletion was inappropriate.--ElvisThePrince 23:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I really liked McDonalds hamburgers and told all my friends that Wendy's hamburgers aren't McDonalds hamburgers, it would still be advertising, although McDonalds didn't sanction me to do so. (btw I hate McD's hamburgers :) ). ∞Who?¿? 03:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If telling people that Wendy's burgers aren't MacDonalds burgers is advertising, I'm not quite sure what isn't....--64.170.153.127 03:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, uncyc admins did not create this template. Please don't be under the impression we're constantly trying to promote our site on wikipedia, that is not our goal. We take no stance on this template, but will not officially support it. (uncyc admin) --Chronarion 13:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and restrict usage to talk pages only. Comments Doubt that {{vfd}} and {{cleanup}} are direct equivalents (cleanup is vague, vfd is an invitation to go vote) - not sure if there are other templates out there that might be a closer match, comments? In any case, am surprised to see Stbalbach attempting to pass this off as a duplicate of some previous template in order to bypass normal voting procedure - if he was the one who originated the previous VFD (different template, same name) he must be familiar enough with both affected templates to know better? --carlb 03:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See its use at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monsterism where it is obvious from the talk page that the article has had all sorts of nonsense added to it that is clearly unencyclopedic (and possibly Uncyclopedia inspired). Or I would also support the alternative of renaming it to template:Encyclopedic, and rewording the beginning to "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia..." Either way, the template should be changed to one of the talk page classes that use the CoffeeRoll formatting. BlankVerse ∅ 10:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, not a sisterproject. Radiant_>|< 12:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you even look at the template? It not a article page template that links to articles at the Unencyclopedia, like the old template did, its a talk page template that tells editors that the Wikipedia is not the Unencyclopedia and so they shouldn't edit Wikipedia articles like they would articles on the Unencyclopedia. BlankVerse ∅ 16:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I've seen that, but I still consider it linkspam. Radiant_>|< 09:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, talk:Uncyclopedia claims it's a first-cousin project, and an adopted one at that. ;) --carlb 15:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This just seems to be promoting Uncyclopedia more. Not needed.  Thorpe talk 16:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thsi doen't seem advertising any more than a google test tempalte is advertising google -- indeed not so much, as it contians no internal links. if anything it is a slander against Uncyclopedia. Possibly useful, but should only be used on talk pages IMO, and should be documentd to that effect. DES (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a variant on {{pov}}, not an advertisement for Uncyclopedia. Making this into another redirect to PoV would be fine too. In any case, clearly not a speedy, as the existence of DES's post should show. 02:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I concur with User:BlankVerse. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 06:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Transwikied and Deleted

I don't think we need to keep this log at talk pages of transwikied (and deleted) pages. We already have the transwiki log, and often the individual VFD discussions. Note that all pages containing the template are speediable as CSD#G8, or CSD#A5. Some of the (non-existent) article pages that could accompany those talk pages could be replaced by redirects, or soft interwiki links. Radiant_>|< 11:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stillman-Allen-Four Lads

This template seems to be an attempt to automatically generate entire articles. See it in use at Who Needs You?. The articles it produces are pretty useless, and because their format is hard coded into the template, they are impossible to expand. Moreover if all the information that it is possible to add are name, date recorded, and date released simply creating a list would be more useful than these pseudo-articles. - SimonP 01:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

August 28

Delete: This is misleading and makes LISWiki look like a sister project of Wikipedia (see the {{wikibooks}} template etc.), or at least priveliges it over other external links, which is not appropriate. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just like Template:Musicbrainz wiki box below. Sisterproject box for nonsisterproject. They should all be speedyable as recreations, really; all of the past consensuses have been quite strong, and since they haven't seemed to care what the external site is, pasting a different link in doesn't make the template not be "substantially identical" to the deleted ones. —Cryptic (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, modified per Template:Uncyclopedia discussion to conform to the Template:Memoryalpha style of third party wiki links --John Hubbard 13:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. External site templates are promotional in nature. Need a more formal acceptance process to avoid cluttering up articles with pseudo-advertising. Stbalbach 22:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete promo for a non-sister site. -Splash 00:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't understand. The modified version is identical to the approved Memoryalpha link syntax. It goes in the "External links" section of articles. Why are you guys saying that a "pseudo-advertising" "promo" like this shouldn't deserve a (formatted) link? --John Hubbard 00:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, as a recreation in substance of the Uncyclopedia templates. No templates for non-sibling projects should be a CSD rule, in my view. By the way, when is the next CSD expansion poll, for that matter? --Titoxd 03:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There probably needs to be some standard on the formatting and types of template links that are used in the External links sections of articles. I think that both LISWiki and Memoryalpha are appropriate wikis to link to when their articles are much more detailed that the comparable Wikipedia articles (compare Digital Library to LSIWiki Digital Library] article). One change should be that ALL such templates should begin with an asterisk to emphasize that they are for the External links sections only. BlankVerse ∅ 10:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the previous debate on {{Sh}} and the usage of {{isfdb name}} and the like. Standardized tempaltes for linking to commonly cited external sources are (IMO) a Good ThingTM in general. DES (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vfd-edmeston

Specialized variant of Template:Vfd for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Edmeston, New York (Subarticles). Should have just been substed and edited on the articles it was on in the first place; now entirely useless. —Cryptic (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Editors

  • Delete: Redundant, does not provide much information and is quite big, creating clutter. --Sn0wflake 17:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you see this as being redundant with? It looks to me as if the intent was to use "what links here" to create a list of reference pages for fairly new editors. That doesn't strike me as a bad idea. Tentative keep pending furhter discussion. DES (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have a few templates of this kind already, but most importantly, for its large size, it does not provide enough information. This is not a very effective solution to a not so existant problem, as nowadays all users are greeted with an appropriate template anyway. The Help:Contents is also quite accesible. In resume, what I am trying to say is: it's not needed. --Sn0wflake 20:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi - I created the template. The uses are legitimate, and I think good. See the template talk page for more information; but I truly think that this is a good idea. It only appears "redundant" because it is new and hasn't been implemented on many pages yet. --Heebiejeebieclub 18:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's definitely a good idea, but we have several dozen toolbox templates already, and I think that what you're looking for actually already exists. But I see no harm in helping n00bs - might I also direct you to {{welcome}} for adding links? Radiant_>|< 19:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Heebiejeebieclub, I am in no way questioning your good faith. I just believe this will unecessarily increase template stacking. --Sn0wflake 20:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good grief nominated 30 minutes after creation and part of an ongoing proposal on the Village Pump. I made some changes to its format that should reduce its size to something less objectionable and let those who have an interest in the pages it is intended for decide whether this template is useful. Caerwine 20:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In use, undergoing revision. -- Visviva 01:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So can I summarize from this that I had the right idea, but just not the right template? That it will be kept but redesigned? Anyway, the template was not meant as a welcome message, it was intennded to be put at the top of articles that helped with editing.--Heebiejeebieclub 12:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and delete. Simply putting that message at the top doesn't go anyplace, but putting them in a category would be possibly useful. -Splash 00:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless someone can point out at least one other template that makes this one redundant. -- Reinyday, 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • del, self evident message is not useful --MarSch 11:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as insufficient time for discussion so far. But, at least as of now, it seems like a bad idea, and I would support deleting it in a few weeks, unless things change. JesseW 05:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Template: Abu Ghraib

Delete: Redundant. There's already a category for this purpose. /Jebur 16:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otherarticles-alph

Courtland 01:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italian prime minister

Unused --MarSch 15:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPA fonts

Only used in {IPA} and I substituted it there. Contains a list of fonts. --MarSch 14:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it's also used on its own in the CSS code of a few tables scattered around Wikipedia. Without this template, there's no way those tables will get their font specifications updated. —Michael Z. 2005-08-28 15:36 Z
I looked a little more and found {IPA2} which now uses {IPA}. Which tables? --MarSch 15:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It, {{Unicode fonts}} and others are supposed to be a single point to edit the list of fonts needed to show some special characters on MSIE. The list of fonts is kept separate from the template on purpose. --cesarb 19:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test2c

Delete: Content disputes are not vandalism. Therefore, a vandalism warning intended for people who delete content that they dispute is not approprate. The dispute-resolution guidelines offered in this warning may be admirable; using a vandalism warning when dispute resolution is called for is not. Aquillion 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 27

Template:Space1, et al.

Other similar templates (more at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:PostScript_name):

Template:GNumber

This is a template listing everything that is named with a G followed by a number. Other than the similar names these items and organizations have nothing in common. I find it difficult to believe that someone reading about the G8 would then want to read about the Heckler & Koch G11, or that someone reading about the Group of 77 nations would then want to move to the G13 marijuana variety. - SimonP 20:13, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, agree with above. -- Ec5618 20:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Template:vandal1

I've observed this template, and feel it to be redundant with {[tl|test1}} through {{test3}}. I also feel it is worded a bit harshly and can be construed as biting the newbies. It also causes confusion when a person edits the section on a page this template is added to. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 26

Template:The Simpsons ads

This is a fine looking template until you realize that all the links are redirects to a single list page: List of The Simpsons television advertisements, and that this template is not used anywhere. Dragons flight 22:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete for the love of jebus. ~~ N (t/c) 22:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blank

Delete: The template doesn't create a blank space.  Thorpe talk 19:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • As I told you, report it at template talk:blank. Though I'm not sure if it needs to be protected. (Anyone wondering what the purpose of this is, see [5] and [6].) I made {{blank}} as a completely empty template, but someone decided it needs Unicode. I'd think the former would still prevent an autoreplace, but who knows. --SPUI (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't thought of using html comments, which are now in {{userpage}}. Thus, unless someone can find another use for {{blank}}, delete. --SPUI (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del, shouldn't be a template as SPUI has now understood: single-use. Used for "scrambling" Wikipedia (WikiInformation icon Hello, I'm Dragons flight. I noticed that you recently removed all content from a page. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.pedia) in {userpage} so other sites cannot replace it with their own name.--MarSch 14:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although from a procedural standpoint, the template, which is protected, should probably have a tfd tag on it. -- Norvy (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep serves a useful technical purpose. DES (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

Template:Law


Template:Idw

  • Delete. This type of message intimidates me every time I'm sent it. Is it really necessary to send the uploader of an allegedly-copyrighted image such a harsh warning every time such an image is put on WP:PUI?  Denelson83  22:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redwolf24 22:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's harsh (and frankly I dislike the box around it; it could just be a regular paragraph) then make it less so. But it's only fair that the uploader of an image be informed of its being deleted, so this template is entirely necessary. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think most Wikipedians have thick enough skin to endure a teeny bit of criticism. However, it could use a de-uglification (simple text would be nice). — Dan | Talk 22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is commonly used and useful, and saying you're in a bad mood isn't an excuse for it, Denelson83. Superm401 | Talk 22:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • While it's ugly and fairly unpleasant to recieve, this template is one of the few that gets nominated here that actually serves a useful purpose. →Raul654 22:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I find this factual, not harsh. If you do reformat or reword this, similer changes should probably be made to {{idw-cp}} which i use far more often. DES (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Edit so as to be less obtrusive. There is little need for a message any more obtrusive than the {{TFD}} message. This template seems quite an overkill and I can see it's deep-sixing wikimood (or elevating wikistress) with each application. As an aside, I think that the {{CFD}} and {{VFD}} notices could be significantly reduced in size/invasiveness without reducing their impact or noteworthiness as well. Courtland 00:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC) input altered from "delete" to "edit" Courtland 14:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Revise it, if you feel like it, but something like this is required for notifying the uploader of an image listed on WP:IFD per the image deletion guidelines. I know why this requirement exists and I'm still not convinced it is strictly necessary, but as long as the requirement to notify is in place, we need some template to put on uploaders' talk pages. --MarkSweep 07:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only change that I'd make to the template is to add a second parameter to list the reason why the image was nominated for deletion. BlankVerse ∅ 07:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you disliked the tone of the message you could have edited it. -- Joolz 23:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's quite useful. (added without signature, but determined to be from User:ScribeOfTheNile on consulting page history)
  • Keep. Reword it if you have to. But having a template around makes it easier to warn uploaders about upcoming image deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 04:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is useful for an uploader to be informed if an image they uploaded is IFD'd. --Wikiacc (talk) 00:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I vote for maybe a rewrite as well. NOT a delete. Very handy! --None-of-the-Above 19:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Macedonian naming dispute

  • Delete: there's a naming dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece. The text of this template was written by the Greek nationalists to be used in every article that included the name of "Republic of Macedonia". This is not the Wikipedia way to settle dispute. See Talk:Macedonian denar / Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote / Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute for discussions and Republic of China for a similar case. bogdan | Talk 21:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia must be clean. Actually there is no problem with "Republic of Macedonia". Only these ultra-POV-pushers are doing problems here. -- Darwinek 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur wholeheartedly with Bogdan and Darwinek. If interested, see extensive comments at Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute. – Friejose 21:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just use the most common name. Superm401 | Talk 22:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This template resulted after many contributions and talks on Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia. Before being a template, it was a notice on the relevant subjects. Instead of talking on how it could be improved, see also Talk:Macedonia, they set it as a VfD candidate. I can agree on one thing, for sure this is not how wikipedia works. MATIA 23:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The present text of the despute is supporting the Greek side. Even if it stays, it should be changed and made neutral. The naming despute is reality, but the official goverment information show that at least 70% of the countries that recognized Macedonia use its constitutional name: "Republic of Macedonia". In the direct goverment contacts, only Greece and Cyprus use another name. Everyone else uses "Republic of Macedonia". In the same time, the text does not say anything about the proposals from the Macedonian side (Macedonia for the world, but Greece can use any inoffensive name they pick, a proposal that Greece rejected) and that Macedonia already made drawbacks by changing its flag and its constitution (like Greece insisted). Also the text does not include information that the 3 of the 5 members of the security council of UN recognize Macedonia under the constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" and the parlament of the 4th member already recomended its goverment to do the same. 62.162.198.232 00:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So what the fuck is going on. I thought we would wait for the vote to close (has it closed? did it even have a time-limit? it should have) before deleting anything. If the vote is closed already, the disclaimer clearly lost, and the template should be deleted. We don't need a template for a note in one article (Republic of Macedonia). ---Alex 00:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the template as it is is silly, and there can be a footnote in the Macedonia article without need for a template. dab (ᛏ) 06:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree. The naming dispute should not be ignored or covered up, as this kind of censorship would undermine Wikipedia's stated principles of pluralism and neutrality.--Theathenae 08:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is entirely the wrong way of solving the dispute (see Template:Carfuel). Radiant_>|< 08:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and keep out of articles in the meantime. Susvolans ⇔ 08:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete on formal grounds. All the template says is that the use of certain names "is not meant to imply an official position on the naming dispute with Greece." Anyone who knows the most basic thing about Wikipedia -- that anyone can edit any article at any time, so there's no such thing as an official position on matters of fact -- knows that much already. Dell Adams 09:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken a look at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, I regret the overbearing tone of my comment, but the vote and the reasoning stand. Dell Adams 10:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there are people here who want any mention of the dispute gagged. They will not succeed.--Theathenae 10:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This voting should be considered invalid. People should really check a better alternative as Dell Adams mentioned, Talk:Macedonia and other related pages. bogdan is trying to force his personal point of view and erase any opposing views. If you check the contributions of the first voters, you can see that some of them instead of talking how the text can change to reflect the facts, they engaged edit-wars removing or messing the template. One of the facts is that the word Macedonia and all related terms are subjects of negotiations between Greece and FYROM on UN. MATIA 11:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Gene Nygaard 12:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I agree completely. This is a ridiculous reason for a template. It's too broad in its applicability. 'By definition, Wikipedia does not endorse a point of view on any such dispute. It's mention is irrelevant.--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said at Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute, and as it has been repeated by one user above already, before being a template, this was an already existing notice on the articles. Hence, TFD is the wrong method of handling this issue - it is not syntactic, it is semantic, and highly controversial at that. The decision should be deferred to Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote which has precedence. --Joy [shallot] 14:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly my position, Joy. This is to be settled by Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote since it was already started there and people took the time to actually vote there. If that voting is over, and if the results of that vote are accepted as final (at least for now), then we should delete the template. Am I missing something here? ---Alex 14:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither a semantic (wording) nor syntactic (grammar) issue, this is an issue of policy. A template is not the appropriate way to deal with this issue and hence, should be deleted. Plus, the very fact that you have to argue "precedence" and "voting" is troublesome; it shows that the template attempts to circumvent article-specific discussion and attempts to abrogate the principle that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Friejose 14:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much a semantic issue, because the controversy stems from the meaning of the word "Macedonia" &co. within "Republic of Macedonia" &co. Why is the template not a good way to deal with it? You haven't provided an actual reason for this statement. I do not see any real reason for it to be removed per Wikipedia:Template messages or #Deletion criteria. Perhaps on POV grounds - but how do we define POV without expressing opinions and votes on this, and thereby implicitly involving the rule that Wikipedia is not a democracy? Besides, the whole notion of discouraging an existing vote process on a page where voting is done is ludicrous.
Sure, we may all consider it as one in a long line of pro-Greek attempts to modify the name of the republic to their north, but have you actually watched how horrible some of the previous attempts were, and do you really think that removing this template on the grounds that this is not a great template will prevent the discontents from complaining about the relevant articles in some other manner, which will tend to cause more mess because we're not using the useful template mechanism?
Let's not beat around the bush. This is not an issue that's going to be settled by a single vote on TFD or even at the voting on that linked page. However, trying to kill off the very notion that a problem exists can only exacerbate the problem, it certainly won't do anything to help solve it. --Joy [shallot] 14:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly because Wikipedia is not a democracy this voting is invalid. A tyrany of the majority is not the way to go. Talk about it and explore alternative wording. Check the RFC procedure. Disputed are not included in the official deletion policy. MATIA 15:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seemain

Delete: Redirect to {{main}} after TfD not needed. Orphaned other than in Talk pages (including hidden WLH:main). SEWilco 21:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (Extend vote an extra day; notification begun now. SEWilco 17:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

note the survival of this and Template:SeeMain @ Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/August_2005#Template:Seemain_and_Template:SeeMain
Firstly, you've yet to explain why Main article: Example is "less civil" (your description from the TfD talk page) than See main article: Example. Secondly, what if someone prefers Please see main article: Example, For main article: Example, or another of the countless possibilities? Should we have a separate template for every conceivable variation? —Lifeisunfair 22:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Once again, the template was not orphaned (due to a software bug that causes some articles to be omitted from the "whatlinkshere" list until they're edited). The article Suicide methods was using {{seemain}} until I removed the two remaining instances. (An additional instance was removed by another user, triggering the article's inclusion on the aforementioned list). —Lifeisunfair 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tibetan people just appeared on the "whatlinkshere" list. I performed another template replacement, but there probably are more articles where that came from. —Lifeisunfair 22:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually WLH is showing articles, they're just elsewhere. WLH:seemain was only showing articles not edited before the redirect. Articles which use seemain through the redirect show in WLH:main. To find those articles one has to search WLH:main for articles whose source actually contains seemain (there were 240 such articles). The orphaning bot had trouble because it silently encountered a WLH limit due to the number of WLH:main articles. (SEWilco 17:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Retain the redirect to {{main}}. As demonstrated above, {{seemain}} might still be present in some articles, and it probably will be added to other articles from time to time. While the template's use certainly shouldn't be encouraged, there's no reason why it needs to be deleted. —Lifeisunfair 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect. Radiant_>|< 08:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: What does "Delete and redirect" mean? When an unwanted article is deleted we don't redirect them someplace. "September 6th 1988", "Prevention of Travelers Diarrhea", "US Government Simulator". and "Snack time" were just deleted, but there is no redirect because someone might refer to them in the future. Unwanted terms become redlinks. (SEWilco 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • "Delete then redirect" means to first delete the template, and then put a redirect in its place. The first step is optional, I suppose. Most things that are deleted become redlinks. Some are more suitable as bluelinks to a related topic. Radiant_>|< 19:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I dont like to be told what to do, tell me its there, Ill decide to see it or not. If you must see it, then somthing is wrong with the article. Stbalbach 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then don't use {{seemain}}, and change it when you come across it. If enough people dislike See X, which is the traditional English (and Latin) way of indicating cross-reference, it will fall out of use; if not, not. That would seem to be the wiki method. Septentrionalis 18:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Getting bored of this debate. This isn't a bureaucracy. -Splash 17:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{Main}} should be ok for the vast majority of uses. All other variants can be enabled using ad hoc text without the need to resort to a new template. Courtland 01:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asiamiles

See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Airlines/Affinity programs for more information. We are discouraging the use of templates for frequent flyer programs, as they could result in 30+ such templates being used on a single page. Dbinder 18:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone else with that feeling of deja vu. This was discussed about a month ago and seems to have closed no consensus [8] (2d-2k) but doesn't seem to have made it into the log. Dragons flight 18:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I know. I renominated it because the WikiProject is now calling for the removal of templates like this. Dbinder 20:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And it was actually 3d 2k since the nomination counts as a delete vote. Dbinder 20:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's still no consensus, however. -Splash 17:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • If this is a personal template, it should be userfied and the resulting redirect deleted. --MarSch 11:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BlankVerse ∅ 13:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - userfy if that is feasible and only Beland is using it, otherwise, just keep. JesseW 18:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ForCleanup

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



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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • del, this just makes taxoboxes more confusing --MarSch 11:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as people are using it. JesseW 18:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 . TFD is not an appropriate venue for dictating user behavior. If you want keep people from using This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep, useful. Add a note of these on some help page if they survive. ~~ N (t/c) 23:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete, it'll just clutter up the servers, and importantly they're probably copyvios. Dunc|☺ 11:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because they're almost certainly copyvios, and because they're a waste of bandwidth. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)
      • Consider my remark amended. Wikipedia's servers are sufficiently sluggish without encouraging the use of unnecessary transclusion and embedded images. Call me a crotchety old fart, but dang it, we used to use ASCII emoticons and we liked it. <mumble>kids these days...</mumble> TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete I am in full agreeance with Carnildo. These have no place on Wikipedia whatsoever. Kevin 09:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, if it's smart it would cache the template to HTML (thus the only thing needed would be a hash and a single virtual method call), thus making it as fast as using the image itself Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like overly complicated signatures, they detract from serious discussion. Take the smileys back to Gaim where they belong. --Ardonik.talk()*07:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Distracting and unpleasant.--Eloquence* 13:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please, no. Wikipedia is not the place for this at all. Angela. 13:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stbalbach 13:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless, and useful for talk pages to lighten the atmosphere. Also, how can we get rid of the "template up for deletion" sign in the meantime? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but make the inclusion of subst: a rule of use.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, no matter what rule we make, the regular inclusion of "subst:" is just not going to happen. If these are kept, they will become a serious strain on the servers for very little practical benefit. If you want emoticons, what's wrong with the original :) etc.?--Pharos 16:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel I need a discussion page for this debate, to post my suggestion. I like these (see above), but I still have a suggestion that could make everyone happy:
    Could we help each other to make a user-usable javascript addtion that automatically inserts these images on discussion and wikipedia pages (where the ascii :) and =P are found)? I think it's possible, it should be no problem.
    Benefits: Only the users that want smileys will see them. More smileys that those explicitly linking to images would be shown. Everyone else will get no bother.
    — Sverdrup 23:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What an odious idea. I've written the script; it's at User:Cryptic/smiley.js. —Cryptic (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If one can not express his ideas/feelings in written words... what the hell is he doing writing an encyclopedia? Waste of bandwith. Waste of page space. Diverts the attention from the content. Nabla 23:52:53, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
  • Delete, ugly. Just look at this TfD if you don't believe me... JYolkowski // talk 01:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --nixie 03:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)

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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
What the heck are you talking about?! —Lifeisunfair 22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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))[reply]
"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)[reply]
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))[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep {{seemain2}} for the plural form of the word "articles", delete the rest. — Instantnood 15:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Please note that the pre-existing {{main2}} template serves exactly the same purpose as {{seemain2}}. Also note that {{seemain}} already has been redirected to {{main}} (per TfD consensus). —Lifeisunfair 17:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Delete agree with the above. Any good article should already make clear what items are just proposals. - SimonP 22:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, there is speculation, in Burj Dubai's case. --WikiFan04Talk 22:56, 25 Aug 2005 (CDT)
  • Keep. Serves its purpose like the expected/planned product template. Andrew pmk 19:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It must be clear from the text that it is discussing something that will happen in the future. If it is retained it should be toned down to be less visually intrusive.Saga City 06:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article about proposed construction is not speculative. The construction is proposed, and the proposition itself is worthy of encyclopedic note. --Mm35173 22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • Delete as per Mysidia. ~~ N (t/c) 13:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So . . . you also possess the authority to override dictionary definitions? —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Violet/Riga is "taking over"? My, how gracious of you to relinquish your self-appointed command. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Dragons flight and Lifeisunfair. I find their arguments quite convincing. DES (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Template:Vote bar

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Oh dear. So according to you I didn't just apply policy properly, I actually violated it. I think I just arrived here from an alternate universe or something, this is so wierd :-/ . *Sigh* very well, could you point out which policy you think I violated? Kim Bruning 19:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename. Although I don't think it's necessary for votes, it has a number of other uses. Aquillion 20:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am now getting an uncomfortable amount of mutually contradictory information regarding this policy. This Wikipedia Signpost article includes a tally of keep vs. delete votes for the Wikipedians for Decency WikiProject. I attempted to apply the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" doctrine to it by removing the tally, and here's the message I got from the editor of the Signpost:
"As I understand it, Template:Vote bar was rejected because it was unneeded, and it assumed, in many cases, that there was a specific spot between keep and delete. All I did is report on what the unofficial vote tally was. That is not wrong, nor is it a double-standard. If you wanted to create your own page where you kept tallies on controversial votes, that would be fine.
"In any event, please do not edit the Signpost unless to fix an inaccuracy or a typo. I at least deserved the respect of having you talk to me on my talk page or in the Newsroom, rather than finding out on a Discussion page 3 days after you made the change. ral315 05:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)"
With this message, I am now seriously opposing the policy against internal vote tallies on Wikipedia. There is clearly a hypocritical atmosphere here, and it isn't fair.
You know what, that does it! I had no choice but to put this template into my userspace. It is now officially known as User:Denelson83/Ratio bar.  Denelson83  07:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT er, what does this have to do with VfD? IT's a bar comparing two amounts out of a whole, could be used anywhere... like in the election pages comparing the amounts a Democrat or a Republican gets. 132.205.3.20 15:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I know I'm probably on the wrong side of the crowd here, but there are other uses for this template than a VfD vote. Please consider that before deleting this template. Misuse of the template doesn't mean the template is useless. --Titoxd 23:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, violation of m:Polls are evil, WP:NOT, and, arguably, WP:POINT. James F. (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.. As per others, this has the potential to be used to undermine WP:NOT a Democracy by giving a certain person's interpretation of discussion the 'color' of an official ballot poll. Also:
    • Encourages the fallacy of representing discrete data (numbers of votes) as if they were continuous in nature. A bar graph in column form would be better, pictograph ideal.
    • Doesn't seem to adequately represent contests with more than 2 parties where a plurality 'wins' the contest.
    • All stated "legitimate use" examples would be equally or better served by using Microsoft Excel, Apple Keynote, or similar Open Source packages to generate a chart suitable to the article and upload as an image. Template programming mechanics are simply not well-suited to this use. (Seems like hammering a nail using a banana)
      • Excuse me, since when is Microsoft Excel or anything else by Microsoft an Open Source package? Or did you mean an open source package of similar functionality? DES (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I realize that most of those are criticisms calling for improvement rather than deletion, but I think that these shortcomings detract from any legitimate use such that it cannot justify the potential for negative use per the first reason. Kwh 19:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP This thing is neat... now if only I could figure out how to use it :\. Whether or not majority votes are banned or whatever has nothing to do with this template. Just doing it for fun on a talk page (as it obviously has its uses there) is by itself enough reason to KEEEEEEEPPP Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vote bar

OK, I really think this is awesome now, LOL (gets messed up if one side has 0 votes though) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can be misused, and often shouldn't be used. Might be useful on occasions, and I see no benefit to deleting it. And WP:WIN does not allow admins to delete articles that contravene it. And the definition of "vote" as "majority vote" is fascinating, and ridiculous. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and all that. I guess Kim might argue that it still has thorns, but that's his problem :-). [[smoddy]] 22:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

Template:IDRIVErela

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 the rest listed here. -- Paddu 19:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:R from UN/LOCODE

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

{{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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • keep as per paddu, courtland, etc. JesseW 10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)

These help clarify the purpose of redirects, and keep editors from mistakenly deleting or changing them. Unfortunately during some MediaWiki upgrade they stopped displaying on the redirect page. Is it possible to make them show up again? —Michael Z. 2005-08-28 15:45 Z
  • del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep redirects are a bit tricky to categorize normally. DES (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep as above. -- User:Docu
  • Keep, though some of them could be merged. There might be too many to choose from now. --Kaleissin 20:00:15, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it would be nice if I could see it on the destination page TransUtopian 05:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

Template:Musicbrainz wiki box

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sounds like a resonable solution. Vegaswikian 23:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]


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)[reply]

previous trips to TFD: Jan 28, Feb 21

  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep - Reason not given nor properly researched. --Corvun 09:52, August 17, 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)[reply]
    • comment and my understanding is that outcome was precipitated by persistant pushing by persons who failed to listen to the expert advice that had been received when it was anticipated that such advice would unequivocally support their interpretations and actions and it did not. Unfortunate. Courtland 04:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and others above. -Splash 06:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've read in some detail the previous comment streams for the trips to TFD earlier this year and it's clear that there is a consensus to Keep that survived across both trips. Further, the primary expert consulted on this matter clearly states that the use of this particular template doesn't pose undue load problems. The primary argument for deletion previously had to do with deletion of the instance as a way of addressing harm issues surrounding the class of templates, even in the face of expert advice that this instance poses little harm while also providing significant benefits to the editor in the face of increasing demand for variety in template links to sisterprojects while not seeing a concomittant increasing demand for the volume of such linkages. In order to support these comments, I've resolved the linkages to each of the archived trips to TFD and placed those links at the top of this comment stream. Courtland 04:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Delete (nom) DES (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Useful. CanadianCaesar 07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)
  • Keep. Constructive. -- Visviva 01:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't seem to be used by any pages in the main namespace. --Ixfd64 06:08, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Comment I have acted on the suggestion of the template in those cases where it had been placed on articles. I have also placed a note on the Talk page of the template asking whether it has now completed in the service it was designed to perform. I still think that this can be deleted, but it is stated to perform a service and I'd like to determine whether suporters for its being kept believe it has in fact served its purpose and is no longer required in the clean-up arsenal. Courtland 01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We get a lot of people placing articles into the general chemistry category because they know it is chem-related, but a lot of people are hesitant to categorise it any further (we have hundreds of sub-categories!). As such, it is useful. My concern is, how are the people (who are unfamiliar with chem) to know that this template exists? If there are plenty of people who would use it, we should keep it. If it's too obscure/hard to find, then delete it. Walkerma 22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=22401411"