Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mm35173 (talk | contribs) at 14:33, 6 October 2005 (→Holding cell: Added a spot for CSD's listed here). 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 (October 23) 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.

October 6

Template:PD-DEGov

Completely misleading U.S. state copyright template. See Template talk:PD-DEGov. Delaware does not automatically put government works into the public domain. AFAIK I know, only California does. Delete this template and re-tag the ~50 images using the tag as appropriate. (We'll need to re-check them, they may not be PD!!) Lupo 11:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

Template: Infobox british hills

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been superceded by the generic format of tables for mountains at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains. Grinner 16:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

n.b this debate should now also include {{Infobox british hills (no image)}}, which has likewise been superseded and is no longer used. --Stemonitis 07:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Grinner has done a great job converted over all of the old infoboxes to the new flexible format. We don't need this template any more. Thanks, Grinner! -- hike395 17:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. --Stemonitis 07:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:White Rajah

October 4

Template: Userpage-edit

Delete: Redundant as states the default. I didn't know about the default when I created it. (my discussion page) 20:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This does not require consensus. Since nobody else edited this template, it is speedy deletable on your request. I have tagged it for you. Go look and see how to tag these in the future. --Mm35173 14:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Subject-editor

Delete: Goes against Wikipedia policy of no original research, etc. Subjects of articles are no more authoratitive than other editors, given that what counts is giving n adequate source (and "I was there" doesn't, of course, count). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: redundant with {{Notable Wikipedian}}, which is much more appropriate since it functions more as a warning that the subject of the article might be more aware than most of changes to content and—if you're paranoid—that they might try to influence it. —Phil | Talk 14:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I created this template; I wasn't aware of {{Notable Wikipedian}} at the time. (BTW, I replaced the link to this template on Wikipedia:Boilerplate text with "Notable".) This template is certainly redundant (although, 1. If you pay attention to the text, you see that it warns against original research, and 2. As I said in the discussion for the template, the purpose was for resolving differences between sources, which is an instance in which there isn't an adequate source to start with). JeremyMcCracken 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

Template:Information

Delete' because this is not in English, and not very informative. 132.205.45.110 18:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Northern Irish hills (no image)

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been superceded by the generic format of tables for mountains at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains. Grinner 09:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Northern Irish hills

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been superceded by the generic format of tables for mountains at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains Grinner 09:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Johto gym

Delete: An obsolete navbox; it was meant to tie together a series of articles which have since been merged into List of Johto Gym Leaders. Indeed, the links now even point to the section headers of that article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EFM

The goal of this template can be accomplished through other processes. Ingoolemo talk 03:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

Template: Album infobox 2

Delete: It makes unnecessary use of "fair use" images (album covers) when we're trying to cut down on this. It also increases the size of (already rather large) infoboxes, and slows down page loading ,especially for dialup users. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: This template is most helpful in helping users browse through albums of interest they may only know by image and not by title. It also adds to the quality of the infoboxes. It is a most worthy infobox style. I also have dial-up and it doesn't affect my page loading at all. In addition, the increase in infobox size is really negligible. BGC 17:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BGC 20:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Mel Etitis --Surachit 19:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Anittas 23:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's perhaps worth mentioning that this user has been going to the AfDs, TfDs, etc. that I've started or on which I've voted in order to vote against me; for those interested I can provide an explanation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Gitaroo Man 23:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus users' ninth edit; only two previous edits were to articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say, I don't like the way you keep undermining other peoples opinions. Everyone is entitled to their say, that's one of the key concepts of wikipedia. Tokle 16:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully concur with you, Tokle. But this is Mel Etitis's style of working. Apparently we're all supposed to roll over and get used to it. BGC 00:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Play nicely, children, or don't play at all! Noting the fact that a particular ID has only recently been created, and the usage of it since creation, is entirely reasonable in this context, since the job of closing these discussions includes validating the various votes as well as counting them. There have been in the past significant incidents where newly-minted IDs have been used to disrupt discussions, and snide remarks about people trying to ensure that this does not happen again are hardly conducive to civility, now are they? As the standup told the heckler: "I don't come down to where you work and tell you where to push your broom!". If you have a beef with a particular editor's manner, take it to their talk page: don't embroil the rest of us in your disgreements. —Phil | Talk 08:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mean it as a personal attack on Mel, but seeing that he has posted a comment on almost all of those who have voted against him below, I thought it deserved a comment. --Tokle 09:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Remember that the "amount and substantiality of the work used" is a criteria used in determining whether images should be used a fair use, and these are small images that are being used. However, of course, we should also limit the use of fair use images as much as possible. I don't think adding an image, in addition to the text links to the previous and next albums in the chronology adds that much (although it does look nicer). The images also do not pertain to the immediate article, which is a consideration with fair use images. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template's whole raison d'etre is adding Fair-Use images to articles that do not relate to that image. Jkelly 05:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. Tuf-Kat 05:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now! per BGC. Part of the WikiPedia Albums project is involved with converting the albums using this template to the "new" standard. (See my user page for albums using this standard). Deleting this template would put the conversion behind. Wait until this template in question has been phased out. Cjmarsicano 06:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after phasing out completed. FWIW I read This template's whole raison d'etre is adding Fair-Use images to articles that do not relate to that image above and boggled, until I realised that the comment referred to the addition of album covers for the previous and next albums by the artist/band (and in some cases even more than that) which is simply taking the mick. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BGC. Most album articles barely have pics on them anyway, save the main one. I find it helpful and justified. 207.164.171.98 11:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This address had been used for nineteen edits before this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mel Etitis. Inconsistent with legal fair use standards, slows down page loading (even with broadband) when wikiservers are sluggish, and, given the impact on dialup users, inconsistent with purposes of Wikipedia according to JWales. Monicasdude 14:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The images about the previous and next albums can't be fair use because the are excessive, mere decorations. I don't even understand, how they would be useful in articles. If you want to know what a cover of a certain album looks like, you naturally see the article about the album in question. -Hapsiainen 16:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! per Cjmarsicano. I like to surf the album entries on here. Let the WikiRegulars who participate in the Album Project change them over to the standard album infobox instead. Downwiththebass 18:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They are still entitled to an opinion. BGC 20:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But their inexperience should be noted. They are also more likely sock puppets than users with more edits. So why did you remove Mel Etitis' comment about such user? Such is suspicious. [1] -Hapsiainen 21:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because some people's remarks are ridiculous and petty, and therefore, not constructive. Direct your self-righteousness at yourself. BGC 00:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sock puppetry is so serious problem that they have an official policy about it. Searching for sock puppets isn't ridiculous or petty. -Hapsiainen 09:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I took a look at the articles on Cjmarsicano's user page and could not detect a difference in those infoboxes, and the infoboxes on pages like this, which bears the "template has been proposed for deletion" message at the top. I took a look at the code and noticed there was indeed a difference, but I can see no difference in the actual infoboxes. I was under the impression that the old infobox was that one with the visible borders and general.. ugliness, and that this was the new one and was to be used in replacing the old border-visible style. --DalkaenT/C 22:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Mike Garcia | talk 22:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's entirely consistent with fair use to put a mini-album cover next to a link to that album's article, it's just what the music company would want. Kappa 05:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks great. If a user is browsing an artist's albums, then only one extra image is loaded each time (if they go up or down by one) - the other 2 covers were on the previous album's page. (assuming their browser utilises cache properly, of course) Also regarding system load, if this template has to go then does <gallery> have to go? They will both load the same number of images (asumming the user views all the album pages). Probably the only bad thing is that when you click on the image proper it takes you that images Image page. (though i think this is unavoidable) deanos {ptaaglek} 09:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Different size copies are different images in the Wikipedia server, so they don't get loaded as you wish. Gallery is markup, not a template. The images in the galleries should be useful for the article. I believe that small images in this template are not such. -Hapsiainen 09:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hapsiainen already voted on this issue just above. This vote should not be counted as an extra one. BGC 00:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand and see how it works now, thanks. So am i correct in saying the issue is not only increased traffic, but requires the server to actually create the thumbnail? Are these thumbnails generated everytime someone loads the page, or are they retained after the first creation? or do expire after a certain amount of time/uses? (to me, the only issue was server load; fair use, clutter & aesthetics were fine) —deanos {ptaaglek} 23:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The thumbnails are entirely discrete image files, which have to be loaded separately. Each image file requires a separate call to its host, increasing the load on the Wikipedia servers. In addition, whenever the uploaded image dimensions do not exactly match the dimensions called for in the template, user load time is increased -- and most of the thumbnail images uploaded for this template that I've checked out don't match up -- often significantly, as the user's browser must regenerate the image in corrected dimensions. Monicasdude 01:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have no doubt using these images in this way can be considered fair use. The reason for including them is purely aesthetic, though. If this is not a good enough reason for doing it this way, then this template should be deleted. I believe this reason stands well enough on its own.
Considering the point on phasing out, it should be noted that this is a new template (that was made independent of the albums project. I tried to get a discussion going on the project site, and the little feedback I got was positive.) and that it is not being used extensively (as far as I know Bob Dylan, The Beatles and Nirvana are the only chronologies it has been used on), so phasing it out should not be a problem. Tokle 16:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The list has now grown to between 250 and 500 albums.here —deanos {ptaaglek} 23:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that User:BGC has been adding this controversial template to articles during the deletion vote. -Hapsiainen 10:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've also noticed that a decision has not been reached yet and therefore users are free to implement the template as they wish. It's too bad a couple of users persist in acting in bad faith rollback editing. BGC 20:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of some of the above comments. I think it's a good, useful design, and I'd like to be able to implement it in some of the album articles I've already contributed to. --DalkaenT/C 23:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary cluttering of infobox. Violates fair use by using album covers on pages not about those particular albums. RedWolf 01:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and not only because of fair use considerations or clutter, but because it's unwise to use images as navigational elements in MediaWiki - clicking on the album cover only takes you to the image description page and that's confusing :P -- grm_wnr Esc 19:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The album cover is not meant to be a link to the article, that's why the title is below it.BGC 19:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn' help from a usability point of view. You and I know that images never work as article links. Newbies don't. -- grm_wnr Esc 11:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkheader

delete. A newbie must be welcomed anyway, a troll will ignore it anyway. So this template is an unnecessary burden for traffic. mikka (t) 17:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: ExtendCOTW

October 1

Template: CountryTOC

Delete: This template was used on a single page, and is specific to that page, so it cannot be used elsewhere. I have substituted the template with the actual code on that page (which needed to be edited anyway) and cannot see any reason to keep this. -- Reinyday, 15:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:US-SupCourt-Justices

Made redundant by Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2005-present, which gives the exact same information and is made superior by being incorporated into other existing templates. We are dealing with four different boxes under John Roberts and three boxes for the other justices and it looks awfully cluttered down there. This one is not needed. --Jiang 08:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

Template:PD-MOGov

Delete unless evidence provided to support the assertion this template makes. JYolkowski // talk 21:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Oh yeah, I should probably mention why I think it should be deleted. It certainly doesn't seem that works of state of Missouri employees are public domain, see [2] for an example. JYolkowski // talk 22:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WV Highways

Listify/categorify then delete: Identical to former TFD candidate Template:VA Highways, which is still sitting in the To convert to category section now. Howcheng 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not Delete This is Based off of the US Highway Template, and several of us are working on it. Someone Vandilised the WV Highway sites taking out hours of work, that had to be repaired. --71Demon 02:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE What is the reasoning behind the decision to delete? Like 71Demon says, the WV State Highway template is bassed off of the US Highway Template, so I'm confused as to why it's been recommended for deletion. Could someone elaborate as to why it's been decided to delete this template and the VA State Highway one as well? --Caponer 02:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reason that the US highway template works is because it only lists the primary routes. Imagine if someone was bold and did one of these for California and its 300 highways. Plus, I would imagine that there are routes listed on this template that do not exist... the template has all routes from 1-100, regardless of whether or not they exist. The US Highway template only has the highways that exist or were depracated, noting the ones that were. The US template doesn't list US Highway 0 because it never existed (for example). Also all of the links (the ones that aren't red) link to redirects because whoever created the template and a few of the WV hwy pages didn't realize that the WV highway articles are at "West Virginia State Route x." (I was the person who had to fix all of the "WV x" articles, so I know.) Finally, I would not consider the removal of the templates vandalism but productivity. Vandalism states that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.". --Rschen7754 03:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This makes working on the highway articles as an editor so much easier, and helps maintain consistency in each, in addition to presentation to readers. Vaoverland 03:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, because it is a redlink farm. Categories are the way to go when most of the links don't point to articles. However, I'm inclined to keep it if there are people trying to add the remaining articles. Titoxd 03:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The red link is only because we are working on them. It takes time to get all the information together to make good articles. It is easier to create the template box, then fill in the blanks. --71Demon 03:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you make articles out of all the state routes listed there? Titoxd 03:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very Easily, that is what a few of us West Virginian's are trying to work on. The is my first negative experience with Wikipedia. It has already take 4 hours away from other entries I could have been working on. --71Demon 05:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Seeing that it is no longer a redlink farm, I change my vote to keep. I'd like to have full standarization of Wikipedia, but maybe it isn't a bad thing to have templates for smaller states. Titoxd(?!?) 02:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The California, Washington, and Kentucky highway WPs do not use a box like this. The Interstate and US highway WPs have a box that only lists the primary highways. It is possible to do highway article edits without one of those- I've done it 2000+ times over. --Rschen7754 03:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup. The Kentucky WP couldn't even begin to think about a nav box for its Primary Highway System...there are over 100. If you include Secondary, Supplmental and Named Highways (such as the Hal Rogers Parkway) there are nearly 3000--not that one would ever think about including every numbered Kentucky State Highway. Just the primary routes that cross the state and join large communities. I think a list could be used to manage the red links just as well from a project /todo page. My opinion, anyhow. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 04:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wayne, Thanks for you input. WV doesn't have over 100 Primaries, and only a handful of connectors. So it works well for us being a small state. --71Demon 05:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • West Virginia has 120+ signed state routes, and doesn't uses the classification "connector" to the best of my knowledge.Nboggs 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • When I was in a meeting 2 weeks ago in the WVDOH District 5 office. They were refered to as connector routes, I always check my sources of info before I make an entry. You do realize there is another classification of state highways in WV that use the round signs, and are not primaries like in the template. --71Demon 06:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm only referring to the signed state routes (rectangular marker with black numbers on a white background) not the named county roads (road name followed by black number inside a white circle on a green background) or the very rare signed county road eg. County Road 21 thru Kanawha, Jackson, Wirt and Wood Counties (rectangular marker with black numbers inside a white circle on a black background) Nboggs 07:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The template is distracting and redundant. My vote is for a list and categories. Nboggs 04:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it can be half the size if the "WV" is removed. --SPUI (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete Why delete a project that peopel are working on that may contain useful information? (Unsigned edit by 65.78.109.83)
  • KEEP easy format to read -- (Unsigned edit by 152.163.100.6)
  • Comment There is a similar debate at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_2#Category:West_Virginia_State_Highways about the category. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 20:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category always trumps a template Soltak | Talk 21:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I have found this template to be useful. Youngamerican 03:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Soltak, Nboggs, et al. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just a HUGE list of meaningless numbers. Heck, for the one article that I rather randomly selected from the "What links here", the template was twice the size of the rest of the article. BlankVerse ∅ 11:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not just a "HUGE list of meaningless numbers", to the people of West Virginia who frequent these state routes mutliple times on a daily basis, they are the lifeblood of their small communities and counties. The West Virginia editors are working diligently to complete the articles. I realize they are merely stubs now, but they will be articles in good time. I do thank you for your concern. --Caponer 21:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't believe this engendered so much debate. The reasoning for removal of this template is identical to that for Template:VA Highways, which passed with no particular rancor. Question: How many other states are using navigation templates for their highway systems? --Howcheng 16:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I agree with the above points. --Jason McHuff 20:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Mr. McHuff, your opinion is ever so graciously appreciated by the West Virginia editors who have spent time creating the template and working on completing articles for each and every West Virginia state highway. Your "I agree with the above points" has been a wonderfully in-depth and meaningful addition to this heated debate. Thank you. --Caponer 21:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find this template useful.Hektor 20:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is utterly silly to compare this to a scenario of whether California was to have a similar state highways template. West Virginia and California are two completely different states, and West Virginia is small enough to be able to get away with having such a useful template to make it easier and simpler to navigate between WV state route articles. I think it is a bit ridiculous that this little harmless template has sparked so much debate...let the West Virginian editors in West Virginia decide what is best for their state and its articles concerning their state routes. Everyone else can simply mind their own business. I think some people have nothing else better to do that undo the work of many dedicated West Virginian editors. --Caponer 21:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd just like to clarify a few things... No, I'm not trying to undermine the West Virginia State Highway effort... I just feel that the template is a bit difficult to use. All of the work I do on Wikipedia is geared towards either state, Interstate, or US Highways. I understand your frustration, as I've dealt with a few difficult issues in my California work. What I'm trying to do is establish consistency among the state highways pages so that they follow the same guidelines and structure (Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads.) This template is nonstandard and that is why it is being TFD'ed... I am not for the deletion of highway articles (but then I can only speak for myself). So yeah. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 02:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This is a simple, logical way of navigating. Almost sounds (from the comments made above) that someone doesn't want it just because it was someone else's idea. I, personaly think that every state should have templates like this. --Drunski 22:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I am surprised that in my absence, a few zealots have taken it upon themselves to undo the work done by the West Virginia contributors. As a contributor, I do see Rschen7754's point that there should be increased consistency among all articles of a similar nature, but at what cost and how much work will be at stake when people take it upon themselves to decide what is "consistent." As a West Virginian and fellow contributor on West Virginian topics, I feel that these contributors who created the WV State Route pages have used these template boxes because of the easiness at which it allows people to view all the state routes. Drunski and MountaineerFan66 reiterate this obvious fact. I also believe there is a lack of active social and sex lifes on Wikipedia, maybe some of these nay-sayers need to address other aspects of their lives, instead of taking their own personal frustrations out on the work of dedicated contributors. --Jhohenzollern 23:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks are truly uncalled for. I brought this template to TFD because I felt, like Rschen7754, that consistency between how state highways are categorized in the different states is a good thing. After all, the VA Highways template was pretty much identical and was deleted almost unanimously (see discussion). If the consensus is that it's acceptable for WV highways to be listed in a navigation template, then so be it. Disparaging the intentions or motivations of other Wikipedians does not help your case in any way. --Howcheng 15:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The VA Template Deletion is not a valid argument. Serveral of us that worked on it, where trying to finish the WV Template them move on to the VA plate. To our dismay, when I voted to Keep my vote was deleted off the page, all be it I found out it late in the process. The WV Template is very consistant with the Highways, US, Interstate, and ADHS Highways all have similar templates which make for easy navigation. --141.157.157.105 22:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

Template:Aircraft-jet-mil

Proposed as a templatised system for aircraft specs a few months ago, but a different template system is being developed. It's no longer necessary, and orphaned as well. Ingoolemo talk 04:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain I second GL's comments; perhaps, with variations, either can be used with civilian aircraft as well? E Pluribus Anthony 11:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The new template system will hopefully be presented to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft within a few hours. The new template covers military and civilian aircraft; planes powered by jets/rockets, props, both, or unpowered gliders; fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft; and both cargo and non-cargo planes. The new system will be able to completely supersede Graeme's system without need for multiple templates. Still, kudos to Graeme for pushing the template idea! Ingoolemo talk 18:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-UTGov (Template:License-UTGov)

What the template describes is not a grant to public domain; it's actually a very restrictive license (no modification allowed, personal or informational use only). These images are not free enough to use on WP. Commercial or noninformational use must be permitted for WP inclusion.--Mm35173 14:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, tagged images

I moved the template to License-UTGov because the PD- prefix is misleading. I still advocate deletion, but I can't do that. I am adding {{nonfreedelete}} to the linked articles. --Mm35173 15:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that someone else has already tagged them IfD. I am changing this to db - they meet WP:CSD#Images/Media number 3. --Mm35173 15:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have also notified the user who se up the template and uploaded all the images. An admin can take down those images now, they are all CSD'd. (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:License-UTGov) --Mm35173 20:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

Template:Country flagISO

This is an unused duplicate of Template:Country flag. The creator's idea was to allow ISO abbreviations, for example via {{country|flagISO|RUS}}, which expands to {{country flagISO|RUS}}. But that isn't necessary, since one can simply use {{country|flag|RUS}}. dbenbenn | talk 17:21, 28 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.

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. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists.

Ready to speedy delete

Templates which were listed above for which consensus to delete or to keep is not required, because a criterion for speedy deletion has clearly been met. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. Admins, delete on sight!

Listings

Template:Sfd-current


Adding a listing

  • Please put new listings under today's date (October 23) 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.

October 6

Template:PD-DEGov

Completely misleading U.S. state copyright template. See Template talk:PD-DEGov. Delaware does not automatically put government works into the public domain. AFAIK I know, only California does. Delete this template and re-tag the ~50 images using the tag as appropriate. (We'll need to re-check them, they may not be PD!!) Lupo 11:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

Template: Infobox british hills

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been superceded by the generic format of tables for mountains at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains. Grinner 16:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

n.b this debate should now also include {{Infobox british hills (no image)}}, which has likewise been superseded and is no longer used. --Stemonitis 07:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Grinner has done a great job converted over all of the old infoboxes to the new flexible format. We don't need this template any more. Thanks, Grinner! -- hike395 17:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. --Stemonitis 07:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:White Rajah

October 4

Template: Userpage-edit

Delete: Redundant as states the default. I didn't know about the default when I created it. (my discussion page) 20:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This does not require consensus. Since nobody else edited this template, it is speedy deletable on your request. I have tagged it for you. Go look and see how to tag these in the future. --Mm35173 14:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Subject-editor

Delete: Goes against Wikipedia policy of no original research, etc. Subjects of articles are no more authoratitive than other editors, given that what counts is giving n adequate source (and "I was there" doesn't, of course, count). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: redundant with {{Notable Wikipedian}}, which is much more appropriate since it functions more as a warning that the subject of the article might be more aware than most of changes to content and—if you're paranoid—that they might try to influence it. —Phil | Talk 14:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I created this template; I wasn't aware of {{Notable Wikipedian}} at the time. (BTW, I replaced the link to this template on Wikipedia:Boilerplate text with "Notable".) This template is certainly redundant (although, 1. If you pay attention to the text, you see that it warns against original research, and 2. As I said in the discussion for the template, the purpose was for resolving differences between sources, which is an instance in which there isn't an adequate source to start with). JeremyMcCracken 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

Template:Information

Delete' because this is not in English, and not very informative. 132.205.45.110 18:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Northern Irish hills (no image)

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been superceded by the generic format of tables for mountains at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains. Grinner 09:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Northern Irish hills

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been superceded by the generic format of tables for mountains at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains Grinner 09:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Johto gym

Delete: An obsolete navbox; it was meant to tie together a series of articles which have since been merged into List of Johto Gym Leaders. Indeed, the links now even point to the section headers of that article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EFM

The goal of this template can be accomplished through other processes. Ingoolemo talk 03:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

Template: Album infobox 2

Delete: It makes unnecessary use of "fair use" images (album covers) when we're trying to cut down on this. It also increases the size of (already rather large) infoboxes, and slows down page loading ,especially for dialup users. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: This template is most helpful in helping users browse through albums of interest they may only know by image and not by title. It also adds to the quality of the infoboxes. It is a most worthy infobox style. I also have dial-up and it doesn't affect my page loading at all. In addition, the increase in infobox size is really negligible. BGC 17:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BGC 20:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Mel Etitis --Surachit 19:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Anittas 23:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's perhaps worth mentioning that this user has been going to the AfDs, TfDs, etc. that I've started or on which I've voted in order to vote against me; for those interested I can provide an explanation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Gitaroo Man 23:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus users' ninth edit; only two previous edits were to articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say, I don't like the way you keep undermining other peoples opinions. Everyone is entitled to their say, that's one of the key concepts of wikipedia. Tokle 16:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully concur with you, Tokle. But this is Mel Etitis's style of working. Apparently we're all supposed to roll over and get used to it. BGC 00:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Play nicely, children, or don't play at all! Noting the fact that a particular ID has only recently been created, and the usage of it since creation, is entirely reasonable in this context, since the job of closing these discussions includes validating the various votes as well as counting them. There have been in the past significant incidents where newly-minted IDs have been used to disrupt discussions, and snide remarks about people trying to ensure that this does not happen again are hardly conducive to civility, now are they? As the standup told the heckler: "I don't come down to where you work and tell you where to push your broom!". If you have a beef with a particular editor's manner, take it to their talk page: don't embroil the rest of us in your disgreements. —Phil | Talk 08:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mean it as a personal attack on Mel, but seeing that he has posted a comment on almost all of those who have voted against him below, I thought it deserved a comment. --Tokle 09:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Remember that the "amount and substantiality of the work used" is a criteria used in determining whether images should be used a fair use, and these are small images that are being used. However, of course, we should also limit the use of fair use images as much as possible. I don't think adding an image, in addition to the text links to the previous and next albums in the chronology adds that much (although it does look nicer). The images also do not pertain to the immediate article, which is a consideration with fair use images. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template's whole raison d'etre is adding Fair-Use images to articles that do not relate to that image. Jkelly 05:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. Tuf-Kat 05:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now! per BGC. Part of the WikiPedia Albums project is involved with converting the albums using this template to the "new" standard. (See my user page for albums using this standard). Deleting this template would put the conversion behind. Wait until this template in question has been phased out. Cjmarsicano 06:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after phasing out completed. FWIW I read This template's whole raison d'etre is adding Fair-Use images to articles that do not relate to that image above and boggled, until I realised that the comment referred to the addition of album covers for the previous and next albums by the artist/band (and in some cases even more than that) which is simply taking the mick. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BGC. Most album articles barely have pics on them anyway, save the main one. I find it helpful and justified. 207.164.171.98 11:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This address had been used for nineteen edits before this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mel Etitis. Inconsistent with legal fair use standards, slows down page loading (even with broadband) when wikiservers are sluggish, and, given the impact on dialup users, inconsistent with purposes of Wikipedia according to JWales. Monicasdude 14:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The images about the previous and next albums can't be fair use because the are excessive, mere decorations. I don't even understand, how they would be useful in articles. If you want to know what a cover of a certain album looks like, you naturally see the article about the album in question. -Hapsiainen 16:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! per Cjmarsicano. I like to surf the album entries on here. Let the WikiRegulars who participate in the Album Project change them over to the standard album infobox instead. Downwiththebass 18:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They are still entitled to an opinion. BGC 20:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But their inexperience should be noted. They are also more likely sock puppets than users with more edits. So why did you remove Mel Etitis' comment about such user? Such is suspicious. [4] -Hapsiainen 21:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because some people's remarks are ridiculous and petty, and therefore, not constructive. Direct your self-righteousness at yourself. BGC 00:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sock puppetry is so serious problem that they have an official policy about it. Searching for sock puppets isn't ridiculous or petty. -Hapsiainen 09:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I took a look at the articles on Cjmarsicano's user page and could not detect a difference in those infoboxes, and the infoboxes on pages like this, which bears the "template has been proposed for deletion" message at the top. I took a look at the code and noticed there was indeed a difference, but I can see no difference in the actual infoboxes. I was under the impression that the old infobox was that one with the visible borders and general.. ugliness, and that this was the new one and was to be used in replacing the old border-visible style. --DalkaenT/C 22:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Mike Garcia | talk 22:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's entirely consistent with fair use to put a mini-album cover next to a link to that album's article, it's just what the music company would want. Kappa 05:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks great. If a user is browsing an artist's albums, then only one extra image is loaded each time (if they go up or down by one) - the other 2 covers were on the previous album's page. (assuming their browser utilises cache properly, of course) Also regarding system load, if this template has to go then does <gallery> have to go? They will both load the same number of images (asumming the user views all the album pages). Probably the only bad thing is that when you click on the image proper it takes you that images Image page. (though i think this is unavoidable) deanos {ptaaglek} 09:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Different size copies are different images in the Wikipedia server, so they don't get loaded as you wish. Gallery is markup, not a template. The images in the galleries should be useful for the article. I believe that small images in this template are not such. -Hapsiainen 09:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hapsiainen already voted on this issue just above. This vote should not be counted as an extra one. BGC 00:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand and see how it works now, thanks. So am i correct in saying the issue is not only increased traffic, but requires the server to actually create the thumbnail? Are these thumbnails generated everytime someone loads the page, or are they retained after the first creation? or do expire after a certain amount of time/uses? (to me, the only issue was server load; fair use, clutter & aesthetics were fine) —deanos {ptaaglek} 23:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The thumbnails are entirely discrete image files, which have to be loaded separately. Each image file requires a separate call to its host, increasing the load on the Wikipedia servers. In addition, whenever the uploaded image dimensions do not exactly match the dimensions called for in the template, user load time is increased -- and most of the thumbnail images uploaded for this template that I've checked out don't match up -- often significantly, as the user's browser must regenerate the image in corrected dimensions. Monicasdude 01:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have no doubt using these images in this way can be considered fair use. The reason for including them is purely aesthetic, though. If this is not a good enough reason for doing it this way, then this template should be deleted. I believe this reason stands well enough on its own.
Considering the point on phasing out, it should be noted that this is a new template (that was made independent of the albums project. I tried to get a discussion going on the project site, and the little feedback I got was positive.) and that it is not being used extensively (as far as I know Bob Dylan, The Beatles and Nirvana are the only chronologies it has been used on), so phasing it out should not be a problem. Tokle 16:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The list has now grown to between 250 and 500 albums.here —deanos {ptaaglek} 23:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that User:BGC has been adding this controversial template to articles during the deletion vote. -Hapsiainen 10:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've also noticed that a decision has not been reached yet and therefore users are free to implement the template as they wish. It's too bad a couple of users persist in acting in bad faith rollback editing. BGC 20:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of some of the above comments. I think it's a good, useful design, and I'd like to be able to implement it in some of the album articles I've already contributed to. --DalkaenT/C 23:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary cluttering of infobox. Violates fair use by using album covers on pages not about those particular albums. RedWolf 01:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and not only because of fair use considerations or clutter, but because it's unwise to use images as navigational elements in MediaWiki - clicking on the album cover only takes you to the image description page and that's confusing :P -- grm_wnr Esc 19:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The album cover is not meant to be a link to the article, that's why the title is below it.BGC 19:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn' help from a usability point of view. You and I know that images never work as article links. Newbies don't. -- grm_wnr Esc 11:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkheader

delete. A newbie must be welcomed anyway, a troll will ignore it anyway. So this template is an unnecessary burden for traffic. mikka (t) 17:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: ExtendCOTW

October 1

Template: CountryTOC

Delete: This template was used on a single page, and is specific to that page, so it cannot be used elsewhere. I have substituted the template with the actual code on that page (which needed to be edited anyway) and cannot see any reason to keep this. -- Reinyday, 15:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:US-SupCourt-Justices

Made redundant by Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2005-present, which gives the exact same information and is made superior by being incorporated into other existing templates. We are dealing with four different boxes under John Roberts and three boxes for the other justices and it looks awfully cluttered down there. This one is not needed. --Jiang 08:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

Template:PD-MOGov

Delete unless evidence provided to support the assertion this template makes. JYolkowski // talk 21:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Oh yeah, I should probably mention why I think it should be deleted. It certainly doesn't seem that works of state of Missouri employees are public domain, see [5] for an example. JYolkowski // talk 22:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WV Highways

Listify/categorify then delete: Identical to former TFD candidate Template:VA Highways, which is still sitting in the To convert to category section now. Howcheng 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not Delete This is Based off of the US Highway Template, and several of us are working on it. Someone Vandilised the WV Highway sites taking out hours of work, that had to be repaired. --71Demon 02:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE What is the reasoning behind the decision to delete? Like 71Demon says, the WV State Highway template is bassed off of the US Highway Template, so I'm confused as to why it's been recommended for deletion. Could someone elaborate as to why it's been decided to delete this template and the VA State Highway one as well? --Caponer 02:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reason that the US highway template works is because it only lists the primary routes. Imagine if someone was bold and did one of these for California and its 300 highways. Plus, I would imagine that there are routes listed on this template that do not exist... the template has all routes from 1-100, regardless of whether or not they exist. The US Highway template only has the highways that exist or were depracated, noting the ones that were. The US template doesn't list US Highway 0 because it never existed (for example). Also all of the links (the ones that aren't red) link to redirects because whoever created the template and a few of the WV hwy pages didn't realize that the WV highway articles are at "West Virginia State Route x." (I was the person who had to fix all of the "WV x" articles, so I know.) Finally, I would not consider the removal of the templates vandalism but productivity. Vandalism states that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.". --Rschen7754 03:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This makes working on the highway articles as an editor so much easier, and helps maintain consistency in each, in addition to presentation to readers. Vaoverland 03:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, because it is a redlink farm. Categories are the way to go when most of the links don't point to articles. However, I'm inclined to keep it if there are people trying to add the remaining articles. Titoxd 03:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The red link is only because we are working on them. It takes time to get all the information together to make good articles. It is easier to create the template box, then fill in the blanks. --71Demon 03:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you make articles out of all the state routes listed there? Titoxd 03:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very Easily, that is what a few of us West Virginian's are trying to work on. The is my first negative experience with Wikipedia. It has already take 4 hours away from other entries I could have been working on. --71Demon 05:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Seeing that it is no longer a redlink farm, I change my vote to keep. I'd like to have full standarization of Wikipedia, but maybe it isn't a bad thing to have templates for smaller states. Titoxd(?!?) 02:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The California, Washington, and Kentucky highway WPs do not use a box like this. The Interstate and US highway WPs have a box that only lists the primary highways. It is possible to do highway article edits without one of those- I've done it 2000+ times over. --Rschen7754 03:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup. The Kentucky WP couldn't even begin to think about a nav box for its Primary Highway System...there are over 100. If you include Secondary, Supplmental and Named Highways (such as the Hal Rogers Parkway) there are nearly 3000--not that one would ever think about including every numbered Kentucky State Highway. Just the primary routes that cross the state and join large communities. I think a list could be used to manage the red links just as well from a project /todo page. My opinion, anyhow. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 04:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wayne, Thanks for you input. WV doesn't have over 100 Primaries, and only a handful of connectors. So it works well for us being a small state. --71Demon 05:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • West Virginia has 120+ signed state routes, and doesn't uses the classification "connector" to the best of my knowledge.Nboggs 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • When I was in a meeting 2 weeks ago in the WVDOH District 5 office. They were refered to as connector routes, I always check my sources of info before I make an entry. You do realize there is another classification of state highways in WV that use the round signs, and are not primaries like in the template. --71Demon 06:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm only referring to the signed state routes (rectangular marker with black numbers on a white background) not the named county roads (road name followed by black number inside a white circle on a green background) or the very rare signed county road eg. County Road 21 thru Kanawha, Jackson, Wirt and Wood Counties (rectangular marker with black numbers inside a white circle on a black background) Nboggs 07:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The template is distracting and redundant. My vote is for a list and categories. Nboggs 04:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it can be half the size if the "WV" is removed. --SPUI (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete Why delete a project that peopel are working on that may contain useful information? (Unsigned edit by 65.78.109.83)
  • KEEP easy format to read -- (Unsigned edit by 152.163.100.6)
  • Comment There is a similar debate at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_2#Category:West_Virginia_State_Highways about the category. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 20:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category always trumps a template Soltak | Talk 21:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I have found this template to be useful. Youngamerican 03:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Soltak, Nboggs, et al. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just a HUGE list of meaningless numbers. Heck, for the one article that I rather randomly selected from the "What links here", the template was twice the size of the rest of the article. BlankVerse ∅ 11:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not just a "HUGE list of meaningless numbers", to the people of West Virginia who frequent these state routes mutliple times on a daily basis, they are the lifeblood of their small communities and counties. The West Virginia editors are working diligently to complete the articles. I realize they are merely stubs now, but they will be articles in good time. I do thank you for your concern. --Caponer 21:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't believe this engendered so much debate. The reasoning for removal of this template is identical to that for Template:VA Highways, which passed with no particular rancor. Question: How many other states are using navigation templates for their highway systems? --Howcheng 16:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I agree with the above points. --Jason McHuff 20:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Mr. McHuff, your opinion is ever so graciously appreciated by the West Virginia editors who have spent time creating the template and working on completing articles for each and every West Virginia state highway. Your "I agree with the above points" has been a wonderfully in-depth and meaningful addition to this heated debate. Thank you. --Caponer 21:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find this template useful.Hektor 20:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is utterly silly to compare this to a scenario of whether California was to have a similar state highways template. West Virginia and California are two completely different states, and West Virginia is small enough to be able to get away with having such a useful template to make it easier and simpler to navigate between WV state route articles. I think it is a bit ridiculous that this little harmless template has sparked so much debate...let the West Virginian editors in West Virginia decide what is best for their state and its articles concerning their state routes. Everyone else can simply mind their own business. I think some people have nothing else better to do that undo the work of many dedicated West Virginian editors. --Caponer 21:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd just like to clarify a few things... No, I'm not trying to undermine the West Virginia State Highway effort... I just feel that the template is a bit difficult to use. All of the work I do on Wikipedia is geared towards either state, Interstate, or US Highways. I understand your frustration, as I've dealt with a few difficult issues in my California work. What I'm trying to do is establish consistency among the state highways pages so that they follow the same guidelines and structure (Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads.) This template is nonstandard and that is why it is being TFD'ed... I am not for the deletion of highway articles (but then I can only speak for myself). So yeah. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 02:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This is a simple, logical way of navigating. Almost sounds (from the comments made above) that someone doesn't want it just because it was someone else's idea. I, personaly think that every state should have templates like this. --Drunski 22:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I am surprised that in my absence, a few zealots have taken it upon themselves to undo the work done by the West Virginia contributors. As a contributor, I do see Rschen7754's point that there should be increased consistency among all articles of a similar nature, but at what cost and how much work will be at stake when people take it upon themselves to decide what is "consistent." As a West Virginian and fellow contributor on West Virginian topics, I feel that these contributors who created the WV State Route pages have used these template boxes because of the easiness at which it allows people to view all the state routes. Drunski and MountaineerFan66 reiterate this obvious fact. I also believe there is a lack of active social and sex lifes on Wikipedia, maybe some of these nay-sayers need to address other aspects of their lives, instead of taking their own personal frustrations out on the work of dedicated contributors. --Jhohenzollern 23:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks are truly uncalled for. I brought this template to TFD because I felt, like Rschen7754, that consistency between how state highways are categorized in the different states is a good thing. After all, the VA Highways template was pretty much identical and was deleted almost unanimously (see discussion). If the consensus is that it's acceptable for WV highways to be listed in a navigation template, then so be it. Disparaging the intentions or motivations of other Wikipedians does not help your case in any way. --Howcheng 15:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The VA Template Deletion is not a valid argument. Serveral of us that worked on it, where trying to finish the WV Template them move on to the VA plate. To our dismay, when I voted to Keep my vote was deleted off the page, all be it I found out it late in the process. The WV Template is very consistant with the Highways, US, Interstate, and ADHS Highways all have similar templates which make for easy navigation. --141.157.157.105 22:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

Template:Aircraft-jet-mil

Proposed as a templatised system for aircraft specs a few months ago, but a different template system is being developed. It's no longer necessary, and orphaned as well. Ingoolemo talk 04:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain I second GL's comments; perhaps, with variations, either can be used with civilian aircraft as well? E Pluribus Anthony 11:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The new template system will hopefully be presented to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft within a few hours. The new template covers military and civilian aircraft; planes powered by jets/rockets, props, both, or unpowered gliders; fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft; and both cargo and non-cargo planes. The new system will be able to completely supersede Graeme's system without need for multiple templates. Still, kudos to Graeme for pushing the template idea! Ingoolemo talk 18:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-UTGov (Template:License-UTGov)

What the template describes is not a grant to public domain; it's actually a very restrictive license (no modification allowed, personal or informational use only). These images are not free enough to use on WP. Commercial or noninformational use must be permitted for WP inclusion.--Mm35173 14:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, tagged images

I moved the template to License-UTGov because the PD- prefix is misleading. I still advocate deletion, but I can't do that. I am adding {{nonfreedelete}} to the linked articles. --Mm35173 15:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that someone else has already tagged them IfD. I am changing this to db - they meet WP:CSD#Images/Media number 3. --Mm35173 15:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have also notified the user who se up the template and uploaded all the images. An admin can take down those images now, they are all CSD'd. (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:License-UTGov) --Mm35173 20:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

Template:Country flagISO

This is an unused duplicate of Template:Country flag. The creator's idea was to allow ISO abbreviations, for example via {{country|flagISO|RUS}}, which expands to {{country flagISO|RUS}}. But that isn't necessary, since one can simply use {{country|flag|RUS}}. dbenbenn | talk 17:21, 28 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.

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. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists.

Ready to speedy delete

Templates which were listed above for which consensus to delete or to keep is not required, because a criterion for speedy deletion has clearly been met. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. Admins, delete on sight!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=24897977"