Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/August 2005

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log‎ | Deleted

Template:Block edit

Created in the middle of an admin war, way too agressive, redundant with {{test5}}. Delete. --cesarb 03:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can tone it down. I think it's a good idea, keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did what I could with the wording (which was initially a little inapropriate), but I still see it as a bit useless. If anything needs more explanation than test5 can provide (ie, cite specific policies), then it's clear we would need a personalized, custom message that can actually provide details, not just slap on this template. Dmcdevit·t 04:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Copying my own comment from WP:AN/I:
    I, however, sent it to TFD. Way too flashy, and the "note to sysops" is just dumb — administrators are supposed to know that rule (and a lot of others) already. We didn't waste hours of our life pouring over the administrator's reading list after (or even before) we got the sysop flag for nothing. --cesarb 04:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having a templated "you have been blocked" message, while convienient, encourages admins to take blocking too lightly. If you're going to block someone, you should at least have the inconvienience of having to compose an explanation to put on the user's talk page. --05:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with the above. Radiant_>|< 10:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's just one fly in the ointment: admins don't necessarily feel pressure to inconvenience themselves without such a message. After all, can't people read the block log? </sarcasm> JRM · Talk 10:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant, fugly, feature creep. Dan100 (Talk) 22:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary. Flowerparty talk 21:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per everything above. Shem(talk) 06:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yuk. -Splash 19:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. or Move to {{obnoxious msg}}. Tomer TALK 19:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Effective and useful. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant with {{test5}} --Ryan Delaney talk 05:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SI electricity units and Template:SI magnetism units edit

A noble idea, but empty and unused. Agentsoo 10:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I think, and populate. It is indeed a noble idea that is not superceded by a cat or a list. I presume we have articles on all the SI units, so templateboxing them seems like a good idea. If this is kept, I might even do it myself if the closing admin gives me a prod. -Splash 19:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del, blank templates = unuseful --MarSch 16:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone needs to create these in the future with the information they can. Vegaswikian 17:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Confederate States infobox edit

Delete. Nothing links to it except a General namespace redirect, and Wikipedia:List of blank pages. As far as I can tell, nothing ever came of using this template, or placing it on former Confederate states' pages ran against community consensus. ral315 19:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete blank template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it was rejected by the states over which it has "jurisdiction", then it's not usable at all. --Titoxd 20:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blank, useless template. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If you look at the edit history of this and Confedreate States of America, you see that this was indeed an infobox and not a navbox. As far as I can tell, it never was used as more than a sandbox and in anycase it isn't used or needed now. Caerwine 16:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Areas of Edinburgh edit

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

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

Period of comment 13 August PM to 17 August AM — 3 days
Removed from TFD 30 August AM — 17 days

Template:CurrentCSBCOTW edit

Delete. Template for the former Wikipedia:CSB Collaboration of the Week, which was dissolved nearly five months ago. ral315 19:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


Template:FFVI Places edit

A template once used to easily access the different articles covering Final Fantasy VI locations, but there is already an article called List of Final Fantasy VI locations which regroups all locations of Final Fantasy VI. It is now unused and unneeded as far as I can see, but I will still place an announcement about it at the Wikiproject Final Fantasy's discussion page in case someone would oppose. – DarkEvil 05:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --ZeWrestler Talk 11:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --*drew 12:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Flowerparty talk 22:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have List of Final Fantasy VI locations already. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — WARPEDmirror 02:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Look at my name; I think I should know FFcruft when I see it. Footer boxes are for very similar things; countries in a region, states in a country; governors of a state. Being two locations in a video game doesn't quite fit the criteria, especially since there will be little interest in horizontal research. --Golbez 08:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Adultswim edit

{{Adultswim}} produces [adult swim]. Need I say more? —Cryptic (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Eh, I made it to reflect the way they write their name. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:11, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well intentioned, but per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), we don't stylize names in this way. Dragons flight 14:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Dragons flight --BaronLarf 01:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As mentioned we shouldn't be using the brackets. ed g2s • talk 15:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del --MarSch 17:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone's reasoning. --Titoxd 07:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If they had it in a box and had some shows below, I'd say Keep, but jeez, that's useless. Karmafist 22:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jo_Mango edit

Delete: self-indulgent band template. The band itself manages 358 google hits and they haven't relesased any records yet. Flowerparty talk 18:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only used on one article, as well. --BaronLarf 01:22, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, not useful. Perhaps keeping it in talk and seing if the thingie develops would be a decent idea. Halibutt 13:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Halibutt --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity spilling over into template space! Aargh! -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I share Splash's pain. This is a new low for vanity articles. --Titoxd 07:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sorry, I created this article without fully understanding the guidelines and based most of it on Radiohead's article. I should point out, however, that I am not affiliated with Jo Mango in any way and am purely a fan. Sorry again. Emanekaf talk 17:19, 22 August 2005 (GMT)

Template:TV Network edit

Ddespie@san.rr.com put {{tfd}} on this but maybe forgot to add to this page, but I agree with the deletion and will put it up. Provides an infobox for TV Networks with the network's logo and some information that doesn't seem very useful or specific for an 'at-a-glance' reference. -Kwh 02:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not helpful, nothing really that can be done with this template that can't be better done with categories. -Kwh 02:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • This template appears to be a sloppily written infobox, so Cleanup and Move to an infobox template, if such does not already exist. Otherwise, simply delete.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were expanded and cleaned up maybe, but delete otherwise.
    ✮ Fredo (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote delete. I've already created a separate template - template:Infobox Network - which I've applied to some of the networks where the template in question previously appeared. Stickguy 03:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox SoftwareProduct edit

An unnecessary fork of Template:Infobox Software. --minghong 06:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • del, unused --MarSch 16:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue, first Template:Infobox Software was not a fork of Infobox_Software, it included better technical support for open-source software then the original template of which the pending discussion has not yet completed -- obviously some people don't read or respond to comments as they are posted around. I am very unimpressed by Minghong's lack of response to every comment that I have posted, except for 1, and I have been more then reasonable considering the attitude and the course of actions to which he has engaged himself in this manner -- for example the 'haste' to which he has done things with no discussion. I am also saddened by Wikipedia's lack of investigating both parties before performing this course of action. I find it very hard to have a sense of actual community in the entire running of this instance and I certainly thought more of Wikipedia before this happened then I do now. One frustrated Wikipedia submitter, Quadra23

Template:Musicbrainz wiki box edit

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

  • Delete per nominator. -Splash 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:07, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
  • Comment I've asked three former editors of the MusicBrainz article to see if they could provide input on this TFD in order to reach a deeper rooted consensus. Courtland 01:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, transwiki boxes only for sister projects, and even then sparingly. --fvw* 02:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. In addition, the only place it is used is on CyberSkull's user page. Plop 06:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template is useless, because MusicBrainz Wiki contains very specific knowledge limited to MusicBrainz project itself. — Anrie Nord 21:34:38, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
  • Delete. The MusicBrainz Wiki is a documentation wiki for the MusicBrainz project, and would be relevant only to the MusicBrainz article itself. Also, my understanding is that these types of templates are only used for Wikimedia sister projects. -- Stephen Gilbert 02:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC) (one of the above-mentioned former editors)[reply]

Period of comment 18 August AM to 2 September AM &mdash 15 days
Removed from TFD 3 September AM &mdash 16 days

Template:Uncyclopedia link edit

  • Delete: I don't think we should be linking to Uncyclopedia. — Itai (f&t) 14:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We allready voted to delete an Uncylopedia template just a few weeks ago. Stbalbach 14:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This is nearly identical to the deleted history of Template:Uncyclopedia, which underwent a TFD here. I've orphaned and tagged it. —Cryptic (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like this one was deleted -- how is that that the Uncylopedia article still links most of the terms on its own article over to its own site instead of to links here? DreamGuy 13:24, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seem like rather biased decisions to me. Be nice to the Uncyclopedia. It never did anything to you. Having an Uncyclopedia parody of an article on here just means enough people have read it that it was worth writing a parody article about. I think it'd be a good idea and it would be helpful to people who are interested, on both ends. (sites, whatever. (puts hands over head in dread of being perma-banned for daring to say one disagrees with an admin's decision))Nerd42 22:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Template edit

Currently blank. Looks like some sort of test template. Exabyte (talk)­ 03:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It was a test template. The first revision said test. -Hyad 04:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. WP:CSD, general #1 & #2. Dragons flight 04:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template:American edit

Delete: In addition to not being a Soap Box, Wikipedia is also not dark blue. This unused template is a waste of space for an enyclopedia. Hipocrite 14:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keepIf you're biggest problem with the template, is the color of the template, then change the color, don't nominate it for deletion--I-2-d2 15:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to the personal namespace of the user to use this template. Halibutt 16:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Userfy. Obviously not appropriate for any article or article talk or wikipedia namespace page. If a user wants to put such a thing on a user page, fine, but there is no reason to have a main template namespace page for this. DES (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any single-use template should either be subst:'d or put on a subpage. If the creator thinks that he will continue to modify it, then userfy it, otherwise subst: and delete it. BlankVerse ∅ 22:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note that this template went the way of the phonograph. --Titoxd 07:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Shit edit

Please speedy this! I meant to create it on the Encyclopediadramatica! I'm so sorry! ♥purplefeltangel 04:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Penis edit

Speedy: Template that will only be used to vandalize -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy like roadrunner' Havok (T/C) 19:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy. agree with drini. the only purpose of this template is to make vandalism easier for some 9 year old. Tomer TALK 19:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete quickly — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Minplan and Template:Minplan2 edit

No longer useful, as the Template:mp and Template:mpl do exactly the same thing and are better shorthand. Urhixidur 22:30, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

Template:Book info edit

Infoboxes are useful when there is some information to tabulate. Not really the case here. Fairly trivial information that can be included in a short paragraph.

  • Delete. ed g2s • talk 01:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (maybe closer to a Weak Keep). I agree, the information can be included in a free text statement. From a database point of view, though, organizing information in this manner assists in determining the shape of Wikipedia's coverage in this area. Therefore, I support a keep not on the notion that it greatly assists the reader, but on the basis of the potential assistance provided to editors and researchers. Courtland 10:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's not what infoboxes are for, this is why we have categories. ed g2s • talk 12:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Categories cannot accomplish what I stated. Infoboxes, template tags, and cross-referring wikilinks provide a fine level of detail which is accessible to database queries that categories do not reach and should not, as categories are primarily (in my opinion) for the assistance of readers finding related articles and high level organization of topic spaces. Courtland 20:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • Courtland is correct, categories do not serve the purpose this template is trying to serve. Unfortunately I don't think an infobox serves it well either, see my comment below. DES (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Many books have multiple editions, with different editions having different publishers, different years, and different numbers of pages. There is no way for such an info box to accomodate that in a reasonable space, I think. I presume that this box is intended for use only when a book is the actual subject of the article, but that is precisely when the issue of multiple editions is most likely to come up, because it is in such an article that that info is most relevant. Also this template doesn't include a space for the ISBN, but that is also edition-specific. A template that gives a text rendition in a nice standard format for putting in bibliographic lists (and handles missing info well) would be a good thing. This template isn't the way to go, IMO. DES (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DES. But I think some standard way of representing the information in textual form for each edition would be a nice thing to design. -Splash 19:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is {{Book reference}} which should perhaps be better known and more widely used. DES (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on comment. It is used on at least 3,000 pages at the last count, making it one of the most used templates. Pcb21| Pete 10:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There is the possibility that it can be useful for the more popular fiction books, however, since these are being reprinted over and again, the given stats may not be completely accurate. If this is kept, it should be restricted to the original publication of the book.
    While I'm on the subject, re DES, {{Book reference}} isn't suitable enough for the use which {{Book info}} is being used. The former was created for reference lists, not general book details. --JB Adder | Talk 09:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Oh I agree that {{Book reference}} isn't suitable for use on an article about the particular book, I was mentioning it in response to my own comment above about A template that gives a text rendition in a nice standard format for putting in bibliographic lists which I took Splash to be agreeing with. This is really a side issue as far as this template goes, however. As for use on popular fiction books, see for example Aubrey-Maturin series and the various "editions" sub-sections. Actually this might be more use on the sort of large academic books that are rarely if ever re-issued. But no kind of book is guarenteed to appear in only a single edition. If this is kept, I would advise adding a line for the ISBN. DES (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rebellion edit

A huge template attempting to list every rebellion in history, and being placed in each of their articles. Is someone reading about the Great Jewish Revolt really going to be interested in Pontiac's Rebellion? - SimonP 14:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The choice of rebellions is arbitrary, the template is far too long and unwieldy, so it turns the articles into a mess. -Ghirlandajo 15:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read "Some consider it to be the first modern revolution" at Revolt of the Comuneros and thought some perspective would be useful. At Rebellion I found a list of rebellions and thought it would provide a useful context in a template in each listed rebellion. There is too little understanding of historical context. Everything is called the first or the greatest or the sole this or that. There is a continuity and repetiveness in historical events not appreciated and therefore not looked for. If its tucked away somewhere the typical reader won't even know to look for it. Retitle to famous rebellions maybe? shorten maybe? break into more than one template maybe? All quite reasonable possibilities. Meanwhile I'll stop adding the template to articles until a consensus forms. WAS 4.250 15:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • A reasonable soultion would be to create a separate article List of rebellions, with dates and brief summaries. mikka (t) 16:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It might well be approipriate to have a link to Rebellion in each of these articles, that readers could follow for historical perspective. When a sentence such as the above appears it could be deleted with a mention of the list to give perspective, unless the statement is sourced -- If some people are documeted to really consider that "the first modern revolution" then their views need to be reported, although reasons why others hold other views should be included, and the facts pointed out for historical perspective. But this template is much to blunt a weapon for this purpose. DES (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do think that a template linking to Rebellion and Category:Rebellion would be useful; but this is not it.Septentrionalis 15:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is basically a list of non-related events which may be called as rebellion. A list may be useful, even if the term itself is vague, but to put it as template in every article is clutter, keeping in mind that in fact there were hundreds of rebellions. mikka (t) 16:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Link or Category would be useful instead. - The sentence:"Some consider it to be the first modern revolution" was omitted, why? You may disagree with the opinion, but even the template list actually would support a view that this position might be a valid one to argue about. Was it the first modern one? There would be a lot to discuss, a topic for a seminar perhaps. But why not leave the sentence in and challenge the reader at least to think about this? You do not have to agree.Ekem 16:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template is absolutely unnecessary. A category would probably be enough. KNewman 16:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This is why we have categories. The list is much too long, and it is entirely incomplete. There were over 60 rebellions in Germany in the 13-14th century alone. There are 1000s and 1000s of Rebellions. They are only meaningful as a group when put into context, for example Popular revolt in late medieval Europe.
  • Delete. and/or move the information to an ordinary page like "List of rebellions" as suggested by mikka. One problem though is that not all rebellions are seen as rebellions by all because it presupposes that the uprising is against a legitimate government which is not always the case and that opens up POV disputes. -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment I would call an armed uprising agaisnt a regime that was in effective control a revolt or a rebellion, regardless of the ligitimacy or otherwise of the regime. The action by the inhabitants of the Wassaw Ghetto agaisnt the Nazi occupying force I would call a revolt, althouhg it is hard to think of a less legitimate "government". That said, the user of the terms "rebellion" or "revolt" does sometiems involve PoV issues. But no more than with many issues involving war and government. DES (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List Page. Dragons flight 18:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete -- the information would make an appropriate list and Famous Rebellions or Rebellions a good category, but the template is a case of "too much information." WBardwin 19:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and delete, or just delete if there is already a cat. -Splash 19:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete jengod 21:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

The consensus is clear. I humbly suggest that those who have shown they know better than I how to handle this issue lead by example rather than words. I assure all I will follow such behavior. WAS 4.250 22:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have provided a draft substitute template, which will do some of the things the original was intended for. I will let WAS 4.250 decide if it's worth keeping or modifying for his purpose. Septentrionalis 22:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stuyvesant High School infobox and Template:Stuyvesant High School infobox2 edit

Delete: Not used anywhere. Presumably Template:Stuyvesant High School infobox2 doesn't need to be a template either? I haven't listed this second one, but surely the code should just be dumped into the article itself? (sorry - my first time in the TfD zone!) Bobbis 22:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete move used one to article sub page, or use other available template boxes that perform same function. Redirect un-used one to sub-page. ∞Who?¿? 00:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC) update vote ∞Who?¿? 04:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst: and delete, obviously only subst:ing the used one (infobox2). These are specific to one article. I have added the other one to this TfD too, there's no need to separate them. I have also notified the article's talk, the creator's talk and the templates' talk pages. -Splash 01:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the second one but move it to the first one's name. Templates used on only a single page are permissible if the content they represent is sufficiently complicated as to clutter the page source and interfere with editting. I may have an unusually low threshold for judging this, but 30+ lines of table code right at the start of an article is sufficiently complicated for me that I would rather see this kept as a template. Dragons flight 02:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, did you see the code that is now on Stuyvesant High School page? It's been changed to an infobox. Therefore, there is no need for either of these two templates. -Hyad 05:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, if they want the infobox version then delete both. Dragons flight 23:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Personal opinion: There should be a Wikipedia Policy that any single-use template for an article should be a subpage of that article and then transcluded from there. Therefore my vote is to move to article subpage(s). BlankVerse ∅ 15:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am persuaded by User:BlankVerse's argument. So Move to subpage per User:BlankVerse. for the template in current use. Delete the currently unused template. DES 15:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:BlankVerse's idea is an excellent one, and I too am persuded by it. So Move to subpage per User:BlankVerse, for the template in current use. Delete the currently unused template. -Splash 15:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the one being used to a subpage and then Delete the redirect and other name per User:BlankVerse. Vegaswikian 00:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC) Speedy Delete both. Neither one is being used and they are too specific to be used in any other articles. Vegaswikian 19:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no need for either template as both the html text has been converted to a wiki-friendly infobox on the Stuyvesant High School page on August 1st. -Hyad 05:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both The Stuyvesant High School article—if it exists—should be using the one of the school infoboxes, not creating their own. --JB Adder | Talk 10:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Can't seem to agree that this a template. Agree with the aboveLacrymology 10:34:26, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

Template:PD-awio edit

This template seems to misunderstand the concept of public domain. kmccoy (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with Kmccoy. Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Assumes that when released info will automatically will be public domain, seems like a misunderstanding of public domain. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree, this is apparently a misunderstanding of PD.--Pharos 06:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least rename. The authorities release these images into the public domain, but if people are uncomfortable with the p/d bit perhaps the tag could be called "released for information" minus the p/d part. I'd say that these images -are- public domain myself because the owners of the image intend for it to be used everywhere, to gain publicity. --PopUpPirate 19:05, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Public domain" and "display everywhere" are two very different things. If an image is in the public domain, you can modify it to make derivative works. If it's released for display everywhere, no modification is permitted. --Carnildo 19:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not public domain. Frequently, a press releases or similar material is disseminated without restrictions on copying (i.e. encouraging broad distribution), but users are forbidden from modifying the material or making excerpts from it (except as allowed under fair use, etc). Material released by the US government and related agencies is public domain under {{PD-USGov}} however. Dragons flight 19:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • Material created by the US government and related agencies is public domain. Saying "released" makes it sound like an image released by the FBI is automatically PD, which it is not, for the reasons noted above. kmccoy (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Dragons flight 19:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Test7 edit

Unnecessary and confrontational. We've done fine up until now with templates test and test2-test5. Jtdirl has created Template:Test6 and Template:Test7 with no discussion. Test7 is particularly problematic because we never ban IP addresses indefinitely, except in the case of open proxies. Calling someone a "serial vandal" is not likely to make them change their ways. Rhobite 01:05, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • keep This template was created to deal with a specific problem over a user who repeatedly appeared to write comments on the page of a user who is gay, accusing him of being a faggot, and implicitly accusing him of child abuse. He has already been blocked indefinitely by other users. Tonight I imposed a 24 hour ban. He promptedly came back under a new IP and began adding in other homophobic abuse on pages. (The user being attacked on principle does not like people protecting his page.) But something had to be done to stop the vandal. This problem does occasionally occur. No amount of polite appeals were going to stop this individual. Nor was the vandalism a minor matter. Some people might see the vandalism and going on the old addage about no smoke without fire might think, utterly incorrectly in that case, that the user in question had engaged in, or was a defender of, under-age sex with children . The best tactic in this case was to put an explicit, graphically designed statement making it quite clear that Wikipedia knew what the vandal was up do, knew he was jumping between IPs to make the attacks, was not going to tolerate it and would impose indefinite blocks on him to stop it. It left him with two choices: continue to change IPs and come back to add in homophobic comments on user pages and so find himself blocked every time, or, if he wanted to be a real contributor, stop. The message worked. He stopped. In this case he was a serial vandal making potentially slanderous and highly damaging attacks on a respected user.
Both templates are not likely to be regularly used. Both are aimed at extreme cases. One reminds someone engaged in serious vandalism that if, when they come back after a block expires they start back at the vandalism they may be blocked for a longer period. (Two such examples occurred recently which I had to deal with. One guy is on his third block.) The other was aimed at someone jumping between IPs and warned them that their actions were known and would be dealt with. Only a tiny number of cases would need either message. In those extreme cases, the messages are there for use if necessary. (BTW I don't know where you get the idea that Wikipedia never bans IP addresses all the time. It does so all the time. Indefinitely means for an undefined period of time. In reality most such blocks I impose I unblock after a day or two. Wikipedians do impose such blocks many times a day.) Fear�IREANN\(caint) 01:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are aware that IP banning a dynamic IP is inneffective and pointless, right? First of all, they change with every logon, so you never can succesfully block the user until you've blocked every potential address at their ISP. Second of all, blocking these addresses also locks out legitimate editors, whose only crime is that they happen to share the same ISP. I don't deny that there are times where this template may be of use, but these would be rare indeed. I believe that there are already templates for these "special cases" were such a block would be warranted. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You block IP addresses indefinitely? Do you trust yourself to remember to unblock them? Why don't you just block them for a number of hours or days? Rhobite 02:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Because I make a list and have it beside me. And the reason I don't specify a timespan is because sometimes I play it by ear and give it a few minutes, sometimes an hour or two. Also the location of the vandal may make a difference. In some timezones the odds are they'll be logging off shortly. In others they could be on for a few hours. It depends on whether it was just some asshole messing and who after he found himself blocked would go off and find something else to play with (maybe himself!) or whether, like the pillock above, it someone acting seriously and making slanderous and abusive comments that could hurt the reputation of someone here. Now that he has stopped I will be unblocking his IPs. If he was still at it I'd wait til he stopped coming back, then unblock one and see would be use it to revandalise. If he didn't, then I'd unblock the lot. Fear�IREANN\(caint)
  • Delete. Unnecessary, and maybe Judge Roy Bean there ought to reconsider his working methods. --Calton | Talk 02:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Uneccessary and confrontational, if you really need something for a specific circumstance you can always create a subpage and transclude it by using {{user:USERNAME/subpage}}, there's no need to create a global template for one circumstance. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Templates should be in wide use; you don't need to use a template message when blocking a user, you can tailor your own. Since this is going to be a rarity, a template in not neccessary. --Scimitar parley 16:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as said, it's just not needed. Dan100 (Talk) 17:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Scimitar. Joyous (talk) 22:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Template:SOWL edit

Obsoleted by Template:Consonants.  Denelson83  23:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am not a linguist. However, the two templates look radically different and are presumably trying to do different things. I note however that very few pages link to the template proposed for deletion compared to Template:Consonants.--AYArktos 23:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. I don't fully understand the obsolescence here, but I'm no linguist/grammarian. Can the nominator explain a little further? -Splash 00:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The links listed in Template:SOWL are already covered in Template:Place of articulation and Template:Manner of articulation. Template:SOWL was formerly used exclusively in the IPA consonant articles, but that template did not link to any of those articles. Template:Consonants, which I created to replace Template:SOWL, does have links to those consonant articles, and I actually replaced all of those Template:SOWL transclusions with Template:Consonants, which I think fits the articles it is now transcluded in better than Template:SOWL.  Denelson83  02:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the response. This is clearly an expert area, however, and my ignorance of the topic is overwhelming. I have made my 'no vote' vote clear up top. -Splash 02:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or expand {{Consonants}}. Right now, Consonants simply can't replace SOWL completely. As someone more than passing familiar with IPA, even I am not sure exactly where all of the places of articulation are in the IPA table. I have to hover over the links to see "velar fricative" and whatnot. On top of that, the SOWL template will get you to information about vowel sounds; this appears to be totally absent from Consonants. In summary, it's very hard for me to see how Consonants makes SOWL obsolete. —HorsePunchKid→龜
  • Comment: I'm no longer sure about my vote. It looks like Denelson83 has already taken {{SOWL}} out of every page that it showed up on. I think that action was limited to consonant pages, in which case it's certainly fine. I would like to see the {{Consonants}} template updated to match {{Vowels}} a little bit more closely; in particular, I'm still interested in seeing the articulation labels added as in this standard chart. Certainly Consonants still doesn't obsolete SOWL; it's just totally different. So my question is: Are there any pages that would be served better by SOWL than either Vowels or Consonants? (By the way, I appreciate the improvement since this got listed here! Perhaps the points I've brought up here would be better addressed on the template's talk page?) —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have just obsoleted Template:SOWL further by actually caving into your opinion and putting articulatory labels into Template:Consonants.  Denelson83  07:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new version looks great and provides all of the information I would like to see. I hope you're not just "caving in" to shut me up, though! If you see any specific problems with having the labels there, please elaborate, though it might be better done on the {{Consonants}} talk page. With the vowel and consonant templates as they currently are, I no longer see too much value in SOWL. Let's delete it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Integral theory4 edit

Delete: Fork of {{Integral theory}}, not used anywhere. —PrologFan {Talk} 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll just move it to my user page. --goethean ॐ 21:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved it. As far as I'm concerned, you may delete the redirect speedily. --goethean ॐ 22:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Movecat edit

This is borderline duplicating of Template:Cfd, and it also, when placed prior to the cfd discussion closing, encourages people to empty the category, in direct violation of the Cfd notice: Please do not remove this notice or empty the category while the question is being considered. --Kbdank71 16:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed, this confuses the issue more than helping it. Courtland 18:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment doesn't this indicate a category that has already undergone CfD approval for merger or rename, and thus indicate a category that will only exist long enough to move articles out of it before being deleted? 132.205.3.20 20:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would appear to indicate that yes. However, the CfD notice usually remains on the cat until it has been fully dealt with, and that contains a link to the CfD page/discussion. Generally, cats are moved/renamed more or less on the spot either by human or by bot, so this notice doesn't have much of a life. -Splash 00:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; risks being placed during discussion, is not used in the CfD process and would only be appropriate very transitorily. -Splash 00:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otherlang edit

This template was proposed as a test (see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles_in_other_languages#Template) but It has been replaced by Template:FAOL. CG 08:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Current UK COTW edit

No longer used anywhere. -- Francs2000 | Talk   22:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Possible UK COTW edit

Obsolete version of {{UKCOTWC}}. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it is deleted could someone please notify me on my talk page? Many thanks. -- Francs2000 | Talk   18:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COTW1 edit

Obsolete version of {{COTW}}. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect for redundancy. No need for tfd. Dunc|☺ 16:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:QOTD edit

Apparently a template for an abortive Quote of the day project. If this was being organized by the folks at Wikiquote as a daily feature, I'd love to see it. As is, it should be deleted. I'll let someone else have the fun of taking Wikipedia:Quote of the day to WP:VFD. BlankVerse ∅ 12:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moved to Wiktionary edit

Delete as redundant to {{VFD}} and unused. --Dmcdevit�t 09:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - do we have one of these for each sister project? -Splash 23:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bordered edit

As meta templates go, this one is pretty egregious - it forces everything to be class="notice metadata" id="cleanup" in addition to the stylistic formatting, which really should be handled in css instead of a template. I've reverted it out of Template:spoiler and Template:endspoiler and pre-emptively substed it in Template:stub, Template:dynamic list, and Template:OntarioSH. Leaving it in the latter three at all was against my better judgement. —Cryptic (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as said, CSS should handle this and not meta-templates. violet/riga (t) 09:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe it is easier to memorize how to put a template in an article rather than the base code for bordered notices. --SuperDude 15:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. For starters, naming a template after what it does graphically is a poor idea. Having a template that does little other than put a border around another piece of text has little value. Applying an XHTML ID to such a generic template is bound to cause validation problems, since IDs (naturally) are intended to be unique in a page. You might be able to fix some of the problems, but I suspect that fixing them will remove essentially any value the template might have had. —HorsePunchKid→龜 17:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. This is better done via CSS. -Splash 23:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stub-base edit

Redundant to Template:Metastub. —Cryptic (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirectbug edit

And associated category Category:Redirectbug.

I can't figure out why this exists. It is only used on one page, and so I think subst'ing it in should be sufficient. There's no point to a template and creating a category for this. --Dmcdevit�t 00:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Subst:, delete...I can't figure this out either! -Splash 23:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is an (extremely minor) example of WP:POINT. Yes, categories can't be the subjects of redirects. It's apparently a known bug, and might even be fixed in the current (not stable) build of MediaWiki, if I'm reading that bug page right. There's no reason to make a category page about it. Delete. --Quuxplusone 22:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No such bug. Comment By linking to categories with a lead-in colon, redirects work, although there are a few errors in the category display. Example. It works like this: #REDIRECT [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]]. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's those "few errors in the category display" that are the problem for shortcuts like CAT:CSD (which, being a shortcut, like the WP:WP shortcuts, is far less useful at Wikipedia:CAT:CSD than at its original location, by the way). Uncle G 03:39:22, 2005-07-29 (UTC)
      • Ah, that is a good point. If you simply click on the "category" tab after being redirected to such a page, though, it fixes it right up. But not everyone knows that, so I guess this works. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, even though it is currently only used on one page, the problem it describes is potentially relevant to other pages in the future. If/When a fixed version of wikimedia is implemented then it can be deleted of course, but not before. As any mathematician will tell you, having a set with only one member can be perfectly meaningfull :). Thue | talk 09:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thue. This works as a soft redirect, as the regular redirect doesn't work quite as it should. Apparently, redirects to categories are treated as if they were in the main namespace, and so the category contents are not listed. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mathematics edit

This template not linked from any article. The templates {quantity}, {change}, {space} and {structure} mentioned in this template are themselves up for deletion below, it it seems they are going to be deleted. In addition, this template joins topics not having anything in common besides the fact that they are math. As such,

  • Delete Oleg Alexandrov 04:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two of the four templates used by this one have already been deleted. Add to that that this template isn't used anywhere, and... yeah. Make it go bye-bye. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AcademicBoosterism edit

Created as a joke, being used in lieu of discussion. - Nunh-huh 23:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hopeless. Also send the image to IFD after deletion of the template please. JFW | T@lk 00:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Created as a joke? It's a real problem. The picture may be bland, but that should be an incentive to improve the article so the template goes away. (That was a joke.) Anville 00:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This might be a problem, but I think it is merely a special case of non-NPOV issues (a strain of POV Disease, if you will). Courtland 01:31, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Anville. The template raises a good point. 69.17.20.106 07:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Points are to be raised on talk pages, not templates. - Nunh-huh 08:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Courtland. Just another synonym for NPOV, and this template is more likely to discourage productive discussion than encourage it. Having a somewhat inflammatory name for a template that is intended to help resolve NPOV disputes is just silly. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
We have a science-fiction stub which is more specific than the general stub, and we have a Star Trek stub which is more specific still. What's wrong with a slightly more specific version of the NPOV banner? Anville 13:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment again. I think I was fairly clear about my concern. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it does not relate to any part of Wikipedia policy that is not already covered by the various NPOV templates, and it has a design that is pretty unpleasant. -Splash 17:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the article is not NPOV, tag it as such. This just lends itself to edit wars around the Harvard-Yale football game, for example.--SarekOfVulcan 19:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit, Keep, Make More. I agree with Courtland and others that this is a strain of POV disease, but I disagree that this is a reason for killing the template. {{NPOV}} and similar templates are warnings to the reader that something may be wrong with the article, however most of these templates do little to explain what the problem is. If we assume that many people read encyclopedia articles about subjects with which they are unfamiliar, then a naive reader may have no way of recognizing what the problem actually is. Because of this I would advocate the creation of either a number of general classes of NPOV templates to identify specific types of problems (of which this could be one), and/or the creation of a template {{POV-because}}, which could take a parameter for giving an explanation of what the POV problem is. I do think however, that all of the NPOV type templates need to conform to a similar style, and as such this would need to be redesigned without the ugly graphic and with a link to NPOV. Dragons flight 20:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I guess I don't have any specific problem with expanding the selection of POV indicators, as long as it is done in such a way that they are visually consistent, non-invasive, and non-inflammatory. This particular one fails each of those criteria but could certainly be cleaned up to conform. —HorsePunchKid→龜 22:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nature of how an article has strayed into non-NPOV should be described in gory detail (complete with blood stains from the debates) in the talk-space. True, the underlying reasons for putting the general non-NPOV template on are not obvious to the casual reader, but they should be clear to the reader who reads the article deeply and who takes the talk-space as part of the clarification of the article's treatment of the topic. Regards, Courtland 23:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and created {{POV-because|Some Reason}} for the purposes of having an NPOV template that can note for the benefit of the reader what the issue in question is. I also added it to the page of dispute message templates. If people don't like this, well then, there is always TFD, but I think this fills an important and valuable niche given that the issues in dispute are often not obvious to the reader. The instructions on the template's talk page still say that the issue should always be explained in detail on talk. Dragons flight 21:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Improve and keep. Changed vote, see below Yes, it's too big, it's too intrusive. Nunh-huh's comment that it's been used in lieu of discussion is fair. Academic boosterism is, however, a real problem, because it spreads from article to article and keeps reinfecting articles. Every few months I'll see a fresh crop of six paragraphs about "prestige" or U. S. News rankings sprouting up somewhere, and the justification given is always that some other school has done it, and theirs is much worse. The reason why I think it might be appropriate to use this in place of a standard NPOV is that I believe the warning should be weaker than the NPOV warning. Academic boosterism usually does not mean that the article is factually inaccurate. It's more a question of vanity, not bias. Taste, not accuracy. I, for one, want to be able to read about my alma mater without having a bunch of cardinal and gray butt feathers waved in my face, and I believe most other readers feel the same way. Other encyclopedias can talk about colleges without sounding like the admissions department, why can't we? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this template will assist in producing such an article how? It was used to label about ten successive college articles - none of them with any particular issues regarding boosterism-- in a flurry of vandalism, and none of them with any notation on the accompanying talk page. Why should we make that easy? - Nunh-huh 22:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. First off, :) the way you (User:Dpbsmith) put things made me laugh. Thanks. I hadn't thought on the notion of a weaker version of non-NPOV warnings, but I can see your point. There was a discussion of "community pride" in some deletion-related debate a while ago and this relates to it in an indirect way; there is no reason for the pride of an author with regard to a topic to compromise the tone or factual accuracy of the treatment in the case of social organizations and institutions .. it is that pride among members that keeps such things in existence and leads them to grow, and to talk about them. I'll have to think some more on that and consider my vote in the context of your comments ... Courtland 23:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • As I've said elsewhere, this is a matter for a style guide, for reasoned discussion, or for collaborative editing. Applying a disparaging label to someone's enthusiasm for their school, and smashing that label in their face by plastering a template on the article they've contributed to does not seem like a step toward a solution to me. - Nunh-huh 00:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nunh-huh has convinced me. (I hate it when that happens.) Dpbsmith (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete!. Redundant with {{NPOV}}. Unnecesary, unneeded. BlankVerse ∅ 13:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as this is a real problem, and as the casual reader cannot be expected to go through everything that's written on the talk page just so that they can be able to read an encyclopedia article without having to doubt everything that's said there. - ulayiti (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So all articles without the template are guaranteed not to have the problem?! Er no! The person who reads an article with the problem should fix it, not add a template. Template like this are a disease affecting the quality of articles of Wikipedia and should be deleted as fast as procedure allows. Pcb21| Pete 16:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say that. It's just that the {{NPOV}} template is effectively a way of saying that 'there's something wrong with this article, but we're not gonna tell you what it is', and, as such, discourages casual users from reading and/or believing what's written in the articles. If there's no template, people will tend to believe it. If there's a template that says exactly what's wrong with the article, people might believe everything else in the article. But if the template is vague like {{NPOV}}, they won't bother. And what comes to your argument that 'The person who reads an article with the problem should fix it, not add a template', then why do we have cleanup templates in the first place? Shouldn't anyone who sees problems in articles automatically fix them within the next five seconds? - ulayiti (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "there's something wrong with this article, but we're not gonna tell you what it is" — The NPOV template does specifically direct the reader to the talk page for more information about what's wrong with the article. This seems like a very good solution to me. If you are seeing instances of that template with no relevant discussion, perhaps you should remove the template. —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Eloquence* 02:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not the way to deal with academic boosterism (or "school spirit" as we used to call it). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 23:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant with other NPOV templates. ∞Who?¿? 12:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Song infobox edit

There's another one called Template:Single infobox already used on quite a few articles. So delete. -- WB 02:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, until migration is complete, no? It seems to be on quite a few articles. -Splash 17:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense, but it's only used in 4 articles (3 Beatles songs, 1 Rolling Stones). Migration will be really quick. If you're confused, Template:Single infobox is the on used alot, not the Song infobox.
  • Keep until either one template is used or a third is created from a merger. Infoboxes are complicated and useful beasts in general because they encourage the organization of (in many cases) mundane information, allowing the article text to tell a unique story about the topic. The deletion of one just because there is a competing one with overlapping scope isn't in the best interests of Wikipedia. Courtland 00:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Similar comment to as above. Of course, templates are good. Anyway, the one up for deletion (Song infobox) is only in 4 articles. It will be quick. -- WB 11:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. These looks like an issue that should be handled by the participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, instead of here at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 14:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That's a pretty good idea, a good precedent to start perhaps. Courtland 23:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm the original author of the template, and I see here that Template:Single infobox is pretty much the same and it was created earlier, so it should be the one that stays. If I had known that other one existed, I wouldn't have created Template:Song infobox. --Arcadian 16:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Thanks for coming forward to say that, Arcadian. :) Courtland 23:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep My reasoning being, we have some songs that weren't released as singles where this box would work. Such as... pretty much every Beatles song article we have that wasn't released as a single. Most are stubs and this box would improve them. Redwolf24 21:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:Single infobox They're one and the same, but some people will still use this template name. Why...better off asking them. --JB Adder | Talk 05:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If needed I'll do the 4 migrations, god. Do we really need to discuss this if it's been used only 4 times and everyone seems to agree they are pretty much the same? maybe modify Template:Single infobox so it's not only for singles anymore 06:02:20, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

Template:Harry Potter spoiler edit

Delete: This is obselete, even before it was created. We have happily used {{spoiler}} for Episode III and various other big-name books/movies without issue, I don't see why this is any more useful than {{spoiler}} is. GarrettTalk 03:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • maybe leave it for a couple of weeks, then delete it and revert to {{Spoiler}}. I think there are many people who will be very annoyed if they find out and the {{Spoiler}} warning may be not noticible enough for newbies. As for Episode III, I think everyone knew what was gonna happen in that. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 03:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love the Harry Potter series, but the attitude of the people who write about it here is beginning to annoy. The template is needlessly specific. Superm401 | Talk 03:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and subst. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete a tad too specific. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for at least another week or so. This formatting popped up independently on multiple pages, and was reverted after being converted to the normal spoiler template. I created it to ease transition to {{spoiler}} once things slow down on these articles, as clearly explained on its talk page. Yes, it's overspecific, and large, and annoying, and redundant, but it's a much better solution than having this code on those pages instead of a template. Absolutely should not be substed in its current form, as TBSDY suggests - when deleted, it should be replaced with {{spoiler}}. —Cryptic (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant. --[[User:JonMoore|—JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 05:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant. Radiant_>|< 08:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 13:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep until 1 August, per Cryptic. Then Delete. If we create a Template: New publication spoiler, less visible than this one, but more visible than Template:spoiler, we can avoid this discussion next year. Septentrionalis 15:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess it could be made a bit smaller, but it is very helpful. I had just finished HBP and was looking at the Wizarding World page. It spoils who dies right there! I thought that the regular spoiler template meant it only had spoilers for the first five books.Keep for at least three more weeks. It takes some people a long time to read the books. It can get smaller over that time.Phoenix Song 16:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace all instances of this template with {{spoiler}}. I don't think HBP-specific spoilers require their own templates. --Deathphoenix 16:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have our lovely Template:Spoiler! --Neigel von Teighen 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and use {{spoiler-about}} to make it clar that the spoilers are for the new work, where this might not be obvious. DES 18:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Book 6 was spoiled for me when carlessly reading an article that just had a regular spoiler warning. I was not expecting, that the information was updated so soon and that such spoilers would be at places where I did not expect them (of course I would not have read sections that were specific to book 6). Leave it for one or two weeks, that should be enough to warn other careless readers like me. -- 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - waaaay too specific. We do not need a template just for spoilers in one book series. Find a better way of doing it. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The regular spoiler warning is sufficient. Anyone that claims otherwise is, in my opinion, such a careless reader then they would probably have missed half the plot reading the book anyway. --Colin Angus Mackay 22:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - regular spoiler warning sufficient. Ingoolemo talk 02:18, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
  • Keep. The generic spoiler warning is actually insufficient in my interpretation. zen master T 07:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind either way, as long as you remove all the old spoiler warnings for the previous books. 14:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Do we really want or need 5,000 different spoiler templates? If we keep this one, why not create a new one for every article? Makes no sense and defeats the entire purpose of a template. Gblaz 15:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't exactly understand the point in deleting a template just because it's narrow. We may be only able to use it for an article or two, but is it really taking up space on the site or something? --SeizureDog 16:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least use the {{Spoiler}} format. violet/riga (t) 17:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant. {{spoiler}} works fine. -Hmib 17:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / replace with {{spoiler-about}}. Agreed that this is too specific; apologies to the Harry Potter fans but if this template survives then that would be considered tacit support for dozens, neh hundreds of topic-specific spoilers, which I doubt many people would find beneficial. Courtland 01:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Comments: Regarding the concern that this template should be retained until a specified time ... it might be appropriate to use {{Current}} or create a template that deals specifically with time-sensitive spoiler information. With regard to immediate obsolescence, information on the content of works that have not yet been published isn't really something we should encourage for inclusion in an encyclopedia, in my opinion, as it is not descriptive but (in many cases) speculative or (in some cases) ill-gotten (i.e. from a stolen copy of a screenplay published on the internet, for instance .. talking in general terms here and not specifically on the Harry Potter matter). Courtland 02:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, use {{spoiler-about}} instead. -Sean Curtin 01:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - {{spoiler}} and {{spoiler-about}} are good enough as it is. We don't need specific spoiler warnings for every single book. Aecis 12:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- but I like the "new publication" suggestion above.--SarekOfVulcan 18:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign it when I voted)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing special about HP.  Grue  20:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this crawl should probably crawl to /dev/null, overly specific and repetitive since we already have a spoiler template and we don't need 50 overly specific ones as well. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 07:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft m:Instruction creep. BlankVerse ∅ 12:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. other templates suffice. To those that had the book spoiled for them, well, I'm sorry to hear that. I'm a contributor to the HP WikiProject, but I also knew that stuff would be getting added very quickly, so I didnt read any of the HP areas of the wiki until I was done reading the book, knowing there would be spoilers-a-plenty. EvilPhoenix talk 18:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, too specific; {{spoiler}} should be good for all. K1Bond007 04:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Refactor into a current-spoiler template. Although I agree that this template is a bit too specific, there is a need for a more prominent spoiler warning in cases like this. —Brent Dax 00:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few more weeks as the book hasn´t reached all of its readers yet, people may be curious to check the articles in English even if they can´t read the whole books in English but are awating for translations, which only come at the end of the year. Doidimais Brasil 05:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely unnecessary.→Encephalon | T | C 14:55:43, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

q


Template:AD, Template:CE, Template:BCE and Template:BC edit

Redirect to the below - thus they have all the problems of ADCE and BCEBC, PLUS the fact that they're metatemplates. Strong delete. Radiant_>|< 12:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Point of information: These "metatemplates" cause no more or less problems than the "regular" templates they direct to. It is the number of pages on which a template (perhaps indirectly) appears that is the issue in terms of load. Pcb21| Pete 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly. A template that includes another template (such as these four) causes twice the load of a template that does not. Radiant_>|< 12:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. See below. Pcb21| Pete 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no idea what your templates are trying to achieve, Pete, but, I think, it's time to let this debate rest a while. Agree with Radiant, jguk 12:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as below. —Cryptic (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confusing. Ugly if you don't jump through the hoops, apparently works only with one skin. Screws up date preferences even if you have jumped through the hoops (the presence or absence of commas, in particular). Probably also keeps preference for 2001-01-15 date format from working. Gene Nygaard 19:56:34, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see this as making articles harder to read. It adds no value to the content and it will probably cause a few edit or revert wars. The cost of any perceived gain is not worth it. These templates almost look like an invitation to a war. This almost appears like a backdoor way to phase in a new policy. In the word of another editor, ugly! Vegaswikian 17:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Begin code and Template:End code edit

  • Delete: Both are used on a single page: Wikipedia:WikiProject C/Syntax highlighting, an apparently stillborn idea from nearly a year ago. The template's creator, User:Eequor, is the single edit to both the page and the templates. -Splash 20:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not exactly cluttering namespace that might be used for other things, it's not likely to cause trouble if it's used, and it's a good idea. That it is, at present, unused and appears to be part of an abandoned project is not sufficient reason to delete it. It's not hurting anything, so why get rid of it? Kurt Weber 21:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the deletion criteria say that not being used is a reason to delete. -Splash 21:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. I'm going to propose that that be deleted from the deletion criteria; could we suspend this TfD until a decision is reached on that proposal? If not then I'll just archive them in my userspace, and then if the proposal passes (and "it's not being used" is the only significant argument for deleting these particular templates) Kurt Weber 21:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, we can't really just artbitrarily suspend policy. You might want to make your proposal at either the Village Pump or the instruction page's talk page. -Splash 21:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I already made the proposal...and I wasn't talking about "suspending policy", just suspending this particular vote until a yes or no is reached on the particular proposal I made. Kurt Weber 21:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Kurt, where did you make this proposal? Tomer TALK 06:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep "Being unused" may be a sufficient reson for deletion, it is not a necessary reson -- in other words although we can delete soemthing unused, we don't have to. i find Kurt Weber's arguments above persuasive. DES 22:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The syntax highlighting proposal doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. In fact, the entire Wikipedia:WikiProject C doesn't seem to be all that active. On top of that, I don't think templates are going to be a good way to bring syntax highlighting to Wikipedia. This is something that (as far as I can see) could only be implemented effectively with new wiki markup. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Any programming code that is used in relation to an article should appear on Wikimedia Commons anyhow. --JB Adder | Talk 01:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - manual syntax highlighting is an exercise in tedium. Better to write an extension to do it. That the templates have sat around utterly unused for a very long time is a bonus. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I share Cyrius's sentiment. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 13:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should just point out, in case the signature is unfamiliar, that the immediately above vote is by User:Eequor, the creator and only editor of the template. -Splash 20:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Agree with Splash and and Cyrius about the usefulness of this template, but also with Kurt that this vote should be suspended until the (reportedly) proposed policy change is addressed. [2] Tomer TALK 06:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, could be useful, let's not eliminate the potential for usage by deleting them. JYolkowski // talk 22:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unprotected edit

This template seems to be well intentioned, but looks like unnecessary clutter for the reader and contains information that could just as well be placed in a comment at the top of the article containing advice for editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support a delete, but I do think that it may be slightly useful in a few articles. Anyways, it's not worth it. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slightly useful, but I support a note made by the admin on the talk page, at the time of unprotecting. This template could be userfied for those purposes. ∞Who?¿? 23:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This could actually be harmful. Why bring other users into an edit war that's dying down? If there is still a dispute, {{NPOV}} would be appropriate. Otherwise, drop it. Superm401 | Talk 20:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless. Dunc|☺ 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Superm401. pamri 07:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although I don't like the wording, there really needs to be something added to the talk pages of articles that have recently been removed from protection--especially on those article that seem to have recurring edit wars. BlankVerse ∅ 13:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This template NEVER received the {{tfd}} notice. Also: The template's creator is currently on vacation, so they can't speak up for the template. BlankVerse ∅ 14:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although this should normally be used only on the talk page, I think, and should be documented on its own talk page to that effect. Rewording might be a good idea. BTW this template is not marked with the {{tfd}} tag, either on the template page or on its talk page. Should it be so tagged and the clock on the TfD reset? DES 15:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • tfd tag has now been added. RedWolf 17:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very weak Keep. Should definitely be re-worded if kept. Whitehorse1 00:53, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: No TfD notice was created when process began. (SEWilco 18:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment so just reset the clock to July 31 when the template was added. Oh, for the record someone removed the TfD today. Vegaswikian 20:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. chocolateboy 18:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing that can't be said on the talk page. Rhobite 04:06, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Waste of space. Dan100 (Talk) 21:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Speedyimage edit

Bogus speedy deletion template (there is no such CSD criteria). Delete. --cesarb 21:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Obscene images that are candidates for speedy deletion need a more seculded category therefore this template was made. I am the hero of eliminating those obscene images from the normal CSD category. --SuperDude 21:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No such CSD criterion, and SuperDude has invented the policy that this notice points to. SuperDude, if you want to make "obscene" images deletable on sight, you will receive plenty of resistance from the community. Wikipedia is not censored. android79 21:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete along with associated categories Category:Obscene image candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Obscene images. Creator also made Wikipedia:Obscene image and has tagged a bunch of images for deletion. Oh yeah, and you're right, they should be eliminated from the normal CSD category, because they aren't speedies. --Dmcdevit�t 21:57, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all applicable categories and pages as per Dmcdevit and User:Android79. Also, I had already tagged the images with an IFD... which is the proper way of getting rid of images, since none of them are considered speedies. Plus nudity isn't obscene; see: WP:NOT. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No such criterion, no such category, no such policy. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, together with the fake policy and all the rest of it. Please. - ulayiti (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What other people said, though I applaud SuperDude's interest in making sure Wikipedia is not a porno farm as long as he keeps in mind that there are valid uses of nudity in Wikipedia. Dragons flight 23:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Dmcdevit. ∞Who?¿? 23:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. -Splash 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading since there's no such speedy deletion criteria. Angela. 02:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Dmcdevit. Indeed can't this be speedy deleted as a form of vandalism? DES 14:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no such speedy deletion criterion. I wouldn't call the template vandalism, but I do suspect it's making a point. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no such CSD, this is an attempt at inventing policy from scratch. Xaa 05:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non Notables In Image edit

Pure madness.--Eloquence* 02:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. There's no policy about everything in an image needing to be notable. Angela. 02:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I assure you, it's not madness. The people in the picture at Trivial Pursuit are trying to use WIkipedia to become world famous. --Zeno of Elea 03:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I assure you, the two women in this photo are not desperately trying to become "world famous"; the image is a file on www.flickr.com and the two have probably never even heard of Wikipedia. Personally, I dislike overly extraneous elements in an image (the 'players' here aren't really doing anything connected to the game), but it would be crazy if the only acceptable photo was Bill Clinton playing Trivial Pursuit against Fran�ois Mitterrand.--Pharos 03:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No policy against non-notable people in images, and it would be ridiculous if there were. Do we delete this excellent photograph from Human just because they're non-notable? android79 03:36, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; completely ridiculous. There is no need for a template for this. Be bold and remove the image. If someone disagrees, talk it out; isn't that exactly the kind of thing talk pages are for? If this is kept, this template needs to appear on talk pages, not on the main article! —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:26, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ridiculous. K1Bond007 04:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the ramifications of keeping this make my mind boggle. -Splash 02:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly template. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete —thames 20:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone's gone crazy.--michael180 21:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Technical limitation redirect edit

A strange reversed version of {{wrongtitle}}. See [3] for an example of how it was being used, and Talk:Pokémon#Redirect due to "technical limitations" for previous discussion. --cesarb 23:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This doesn't seem to make any sense. If the page is being redireced to, then ther are no technical limits preventign that page's name from being used. DES 05:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant but probably just a confused user somewhere. -Splash 01:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuba infobox edit

Delete: The one main namespace page that used it Cuba has been modified to to use Template:Infobox Country instead. Caerwine 16:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --tomf688<TALK> 14:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete now redundant. -Splash 06:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete single use template. -- User:Docu
  • Delete. There's a lot of countries infobox that should be deleted after their transition to {{Infobox Country}}. CG 09:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Britishmainlines edit

Delete: This template has become too large. I have already replaced it with List of railway lines in Great Britain and regional templates for National main lines, Scotland, Wales, North England, Central England, East England, SW England, London and SE England. Only links to it now are from user pages and from one page that will soon be merged with another. Our Phellap 23:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Obsoleted. Coffee 08:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -Splash 06:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:FloridaDecencyLaw edit

  • Delete. Wikipedia:No legal threats. Zoe 06:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. There is no legal threat, instead it simply states that the image may be in violation of Florida Law and the issue should be considered. It isn't a threat to alert people to possible problems with the law, it's helpful to Wikipedia. This TfD is completely without merit. Agriculture 06:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This is created to misleadingly promote an agenda. The text of the law is here for those interested: [4] (PDF). In order to qualify as obscene the work must be such that "Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". If Wikipedia, or any part of it, lacks serious literary value, that is a problem, but we certainly don't need a warning sticker on every nude photo that: "Without an age check, such photos are against Florida Law, and could cause Wikipedia to be shut down". Common sense in the construction of an encyclopedia is more than enough. Dragons flight 06:57, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree, this doesn't pass the Miller Test. However, this made me wonder, if Wikimedia's servers are in Florida, isn't Wikipedia liable under Florida state law? Can this somehow end up causing any legal problems? --Titoxd 07:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes they are which is the entire point of the boiler plate text. It never says "This image must be deleted" just that it appears to be a problem and should be considered for deletion on the grounds of the law. Agriculture 07:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So list it on ifd. Don't try to hit people over the head with this legal threat club. Zoe 07:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not a legal threat anymore than the copyvio boilerplate is, it's a clear reason on the image information page as to why it should be considered for deletion. Agriculture 07:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thinking about it, it isn't a legal issue, because sexually explicit pictures in Wikipedia have to be of some encyclopedic value in order to remain here, and that automatically protects them under the "literary value" part of the Miller Test's SLAPS clause. Any image that isn't encyclopedic could be an offender of this law, but it should be dealt at IFD anyway. No purpose for the template, vote stays as delete. --Titoxd 07:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Many studies have questioned whether Wikipedia is encyclopedic, most bodies have said it doesn't quite qualify yet. Dubbing oneself encyclopedic doesn't prevent one from being targeted by laws. Agriculture 07:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Most" bodies? Please quantify that, and list a few of those "bodies". And if Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, why are you here? Zoe 07:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
                • Do an article search on Wikipedia's reliability of a source. As to why I'm here, it should be obvious, to make it more reliable. Agriculture 07:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Whaaaaat? I'm not even talking about Wikipedia's reputation, I'm talking about the inclusion standards we keep here. We strive to be encyclopedic, and if something isn't, well, we try to fix it or get rid of it if it's useless. There's no need for this template. --Titoxd 07:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And Agriculture please stop hounding people who oppose your POV! Anyways when Essjay showed me this template it scared the hell out of me. Legal threats are teh sux. Redwolf24 07:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please describe how commenting in a thread from one vote is hounding. Agriculture 07:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. You know what's decent? Free speech. CanadianCaesar 07:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 08:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Believe it or not, Wikipedia is not pornography and the inclusion of nude photos in an encyclopedic context does not make it so.--Pharos 08:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, While I'm for elimiating the faux-PTC, I am for keeping this template. Some items placed on Wikipedia could cause it to run afoul of Florida law which is covered in WP:NOT as something Wikipedia has to avoid. Gateman1997 08:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't carry stuff that is against Florida law here. This is superfluous with the site disclaimer. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Wikipedia doesn't tolerate that sort of thing anyway, and can't be held responsponsible for people who abuse it. Even if Wikipedia isn't a "real" encyclopedia, it is open to the public, and anything in violation of Florida law would constitute abuse of a public resource on the part of whomever posted it here. --Corvun 09:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - it is far from firmly established that Wikipedia would be in violation of Florida law for hosting certain content; even if it is, it's unnecessary given the preexisting content disclaimer and guidelines to contributors; part of one user's POV-pushing campaign. --Ngb 11:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With Extreme Prejudice. The application of this particular law to encyclopedic content would violate established federal constitutional law, which even the state of Florida is usually required to follow. Wikipedia doesn't need fearmongerers. Kelly Martin 11:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 11:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just gone and speedy deleted the template, mainly because:
    1. A standard IFD will do the job of notifying an image should be deleted
    2. Wikipedia:No legal threats is violated
    3. It is misleading anyway
    4. This is extreme POV pushing (and folks, I strongly disagree with pornography).
  • I suggest that the authors look for other ways to delete offensive content. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or else create a template summarizing relevant United States Supreme Court case law, which would over-ride Florida law on this point. We have federalism and a First Amendment which combine to counter censorship. -- BD2412 talk 13:02, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:DecencyWikiProject edit

1) Used for spamming talk pages (and articles); 2) Part of a WikiProject that looks like being deleted; 3) If it is needed, it can be placed as a subpage of the project and transcluded from there. Putting it as a template gives it undue legitimency; 4) The idea that most of the pages using the template are part of the project is nonsense. [[smoddy]] 22:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: POV project template aimed at undermining Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Gateman1997 22:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This vote is premature, but I vote for deletion if its project page is deleted. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 22:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting picture. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: clearly intended to be a blunt instrument for forcing a fringe POV ➥the Epopt 22:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if the project survives, labeling pages prominently as "indecent" or siubject to a "decency watch" is PoV and wrong. the use of sectarian religious imagry in the current version ofm the template simply adds insult to injury. DES (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The version on Talk: Wicca uses a differnet image than the one linked to from here. DES (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete unless someone can show how this template can be something other than an attempt at censership and a violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. At least one person on the project has also been causing a problem in VfD over POV nominations. So leaving this template may give the impression that articles so tagged can be put on VfD. Vegaswikian 22:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed my vote to speedy based on CSD General item 3 'Pure vandalism (see also dealing with vandalism).' Where Wikipedia's definition is 'Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content.' Vegaswikian 22:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a pro-censorship, pro-POV template. --Carnildo 22:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The articles are not part of the project, rather the project is aiming to interfere with them. --Cherry blossom tree 22:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is being applied inappropriately and in a PoV way. David | Talk 22:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scour from the face of the earth, as per everyone else. ~~ N (t/c) 23:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already stated. CanadianCaesar 23:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per User:Vegaswikian. - ulayiti (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing more than an attempt to impose censorship. Pirate2000
  • Speedy delete and nuke from orbit. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vandalism. At first I thought this was a few clueless newbies flogging the dead horse of Wikipedia censorship. They've now gone and slapped this tag all over the place, and it's clear that they're either being deliberately provocative (using a Jesus picture as the template image and adding it to Talk:Wicca, as if to imply that here was an 'indecent' religion that needed cleaning up by some decidedly redneck Christians) or totally ridiculous (adding it to Talk:Bisexuality with the edit summary "explicit descriptions of sexual acts are hardly appropriate", when as far as I can see there is nothing of the sort in that article). Time we blocked the trolls, I think. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I think the current VfD effort to delete the Project itself is misguided, I see no reason that the project needs to put such a template on article talk pages - this would create a false impression of ownership or control over the article in question. Johntex 23:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This serves no purpose for anyone other than trolls. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 23:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia has no room for free speech or discussion. Agriculture 00:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
* huh? *confused* --GNU4Eva 02:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suggest they open their own censorpedia and leave us alone. -- AlexR 00:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke it..I mean Delete--ZeWrestler Talk 00:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Vegaswikian. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-18 T 00:40:06 Z
  • Wait. We don't know if the WikiProject is going to be deleted. The vote count hovers around somewhere about 60% for deletion, which is a consensus for deletion for some admins and a no consensus for others. If the project is deleted, then speedy delete the template, but not until that VfD expires. --Titoxd 00:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WikiProject or no, it's clearly not a good idea to have this template turning up everywhere. Flowerparty talk 01:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Flowerparty. I was brought to the attention of this WikiProject when an anon added it to the Mariah Carey article. Their reason? "we're not here to help sell records for her, so she doesn't need to go all hoochy coochy on us". Extraordinary Machine 01:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV template. There can be no single "standard of Decency", Wikipedia should only be concerned with what's encyclopedic and NPOV (and of course legal) and those are covered already. To see this template on a page can only imply that it may not be decent...whatever that means. And I strongly object to the 7th vote above, to have an idea not meet consensual approval does not mean that there is no room for free speech here. Rx StrangeLove 01:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This so-called "WikiProject" is simply an attempt to push bias upon Wikipedia. --FOo 01:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This is a blatant attempt at censorship, and IMHO is both indecent and unethical. --Corvun 02:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV template that is being used for spamming pages. ManoaChild 02:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for promoting censorship of Wikipedia. Don't like the material here? Get off your butt and create your own online encyclopedia. 23skidoo 03:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't need Big Brother watching us. Zoe 04:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • And why was this template put on the Talk page of a VfD vote? Is that some sort of threat? Putting it on religion articles is bad enough. Zoe 04:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, we don't need Big Brother watching our tags, this one is likely to be misused, but whose fault is that? certianly not the people who created it--I-2-d2 04:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it was entirely their intent to misuse it. Zoe 04:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sounds like someone isn't familiar with assuming good faith. All wikiprojects have such templates. Agriculture 04:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They can have their hysteria on their wikiproject page, but allowing them to spam talk pages with POV pushing templates would be wrong. Rhobite 06:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, delete the project, and delete its little friend FloridaTemplate too. MCB 07:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete evil horseboy 09:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV. Or swap with User:Tony Sidaway's version on his user page.--Commander Keane 10:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wynler 13:04:49, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Delete violet/riga (t) 13:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Search edit

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

  • del, unused, probably broken --MarSch 11:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 23 August AM to 26 August AM — 3 days
Removed from TFD 31 August AM — 8 days

Template:ForCleanup edit

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

  • Just redirect No need to waste your breath here. Dunc|☺ 11:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have redirects from {{tidy}}, {{clean}}, {{CU}}, {{cu}}, and {{cleanup-quality}}. This is getting ridiculous, and it's getting annoying to parse articles in Category:Wikipedia_cleanup as a result. I would like this actually deleted, since it's not being used right now. (I'd like to discourage anyone from using it.) -- Beland 13:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree, don't need every synonym and phrase to be a redirect. ∞Who?¿? 22:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 02:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with above statements as well. Kevin 09:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I also agree; this is just redundant. Phantom784 16:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's evidently getting in the way without being useful. -Splash 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 24 August AM to 26 August PM — 2 days
Removed from TFD 3 September AM — 10 days

Template:Featuretest (speedy) edit

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

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

Template:Wikitravelbox (speedy) edit

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

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

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

Template:Deletebecausefakegame (speedy) edit

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

  • Just to note that this template has gone the way of the phonograph. --Titoxd 03:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Predecessor (speedy) edit

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

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

Template:Ferret! (speedy) edit

Pointless spam, but I'm not sure if it should be speedied. Wikipedia is not a repository of images. -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy. Okay that made me laugh. I like it. That said, it should be moved to a subpage of the guy using it on his user page. Dragons flight 02:19, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy userfy. BJAODNed. ~~ N (t/c) 02:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfy --MarSch 11:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, kind of funny, so Userfy instead of delete. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This can't be userfied, since it was made by an anon.</s. -Splash 17:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy userfy and delete the redirect. I hadn't checked what links here. -Splash 17:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userfied here, was wondering how an anon would userfy for a minute there. ∞Who?¿? 01:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JoeMele 18:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy userfy. *drew 18:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it was userfied, should it be delisted now? --Titoxd 03:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ChickenLittle (speedy) edit

The creation of this template seems to have been a violation of WP:POINT. Furthermore, the NPOV status of this template is questionable. The creator, Benjamin Gatti (talk · contribs), seems to be on a mission to debunk the Hubbert peak theory. Aecis 12:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even the name hurts. Nandesuka 12:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just silly; this is not exactly a reasonable way to resolve article content disputes.--Pharos 13:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh yeah, this’ll encourage civility. J.K. 14:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very silly indeed.  Thorpe talk 14:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Brings back bad memories. Foxy Loxy 14:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment As the contributer. The fairy tale of chicken little as well as the Boy who cried wolf exist because they need to exists. People are more susceptible to certain patterns of falsehood than to others. Combinations of celebrity, psuedo-science, and a self-selected pool of supporting data can appear on the surface to be inseperable from double-bind, and repeatable science. If an encyclopedia is a collection of factual knowledge - it ought to have the means to recognize when a posited fact lies outside of rigorous objectivity. Benjamin Gatti
  • Delete. I've done a lot of reading and panicking about peak oil, and while I think it is Chicken Little-ish, this template is silly and does nothing {{disputed}} and {{NPOV}} can't. ~~ N (t/c) 14:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trolling. Gazpacho 16:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No article should "make predictions", only report them if they are influential and verifiable (note, I do not say that they need be correct). Thus, they should be treated an any other fact should and, as noted above, {{disputed}} and {{NPOV}} cover the needed ground. Courtland 21:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Look at the category! Hehe! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Yea, I put it on SFD, but it is funny. ∞Who?¿? 22:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied as nonsensical for the title. Feel free to throw in BJAODN if you really must but personally I didn't find it funny. Radiant_>|< 09:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Asiamiles edit

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 Déjà vu. This was discussed about a month ago and seems to have closed no consensus [5] (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]

Period of comment 25 August PM to 31 August AM — 5 days
Removed from TFD 3 September AM — 7 days

Template:GNumber edit

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)
  • Delete per nom. ∞Who?¿? 20:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To partially satisfy the navigational thirst that this template aims to slake, I've created List of all single-letter-single-digit combinations, an addition to Category:Lists of two-letter combinations. Courtland 22:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per WP:NOT 1.7.2: Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely associated topics. --Titoxd 22:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Good grief, I didn't know about that particular piece of officialdom. There are hundreds of pages that could be deleted speedily under this policy .. including almost all of the lists of acronyms/abbreviations/letter combinations and many disambiguation pages. Not that I'm advocating such a forest fire ... Courtland 22:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should be noted that meeting a criterion at WP:NOT is not the same as being eligible for speedy deletion. That's what we have Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for. If it's not on WP:CSD, it's not a candidate for speedy deletion. I just saw an admin(!) make the same mistake over at VFU; it's a little bit worrying. Things that contravene WP:NOT but don't fit anything at WP:CSD belong in our other processes: cleanup, VfD, TfD, etc. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, TenOfAllTrades. I stand corrected. :) It still should be deleted, though. --Titoxd 03:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. CG 07:20, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the creator would like to keep this in his user space as an amusing personal project, that would be fine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 27 August PM to 29 August PM — 2 days
Removed from TFD 4 September PM — 8 days

Crowncolonies edit

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]

Period of comment — 0 days (no opposition / no comment)
Removed from TFD 4 Sept. PM — 12 days

Template:IDRIVErela edit

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

Period of comment 20 August PM to 21 August PM — 1 day
Removed from TFD 4 Sept. PM — 15 days

Template:Sandbox2 edit

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]

  • Speedy as test pages. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Had the others speedied, but {{Sandbox2}} has a lot of history. Not sure if/how the rule would apply there. ∞Who?¿? 22:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del, unused --MarSch 11:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 23 August AM to 26 August AM — 3 days
Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 13 days

Template:Short edit

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]

  • Agreed. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{stub}}. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, A redirect would be useless. -- Ec5618 21:01, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • del, keep {short} free for other uses --MarSch 11:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need for a redirect, however cheap they may be. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just to confirm the consensus for deletion; as per MarSch's reasoning. JesseW 18:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have two choices. If it's not related to stubs - delete. if it's related to stubs, take it to sfd. Redirecting a stub template (or to a stub template) is outside the bounds of this page. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed that redirecting to {{Stub}} is an option, but doing so would muddy the waters as "short" is prone to different interpretations than "stub" (see Wikipedia:Stub). Courtland 02:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 23 August AM to 28 August AM — 5 days
Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 13 days

Template:Reqimage1 edit

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]

Period of comment 23 August AM to 30 August AM — 7 days
Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM &mdash 13 days

Template:Main articles edit

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]

Period of comment 18 August AM to 26 August AM — 8 days
Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 18 days

Numbered Seemain series edit

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

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

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

Period of comment 15 August to 25 August PM — 10 days
Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 21 days

Template:Sad edit

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]
  • Ugh, kill it dead. --SPUI (talk) 19:51, 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 useful. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{tongue}}. TFD is not an appropriate venue for dictating user behavior. If you want keep people from using {{smile}} in their talk page communications then write the policy proposal explaining why {{cry}} 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. {{wink}} ~~ 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]
    • Comment If you ask somone what "" means, ey will probably answer you correctly. If you ask em what "zie" means, ey'll probably be confused. Caerwine 21:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[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)
  • Keep {{Cry}}, why would anyone want to hurt the poor defenceless smilies? Kim Bruning 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Unnecessary templates make baby Jimbo cry. Keep the images though (not that we have jurisdiction, since they're on commons), and just use them directly.   —Cryptic (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 {{cry}} NOOOO {{sad}}, Don't delete these poor defenseless creatures {{wink}}. {{smile}} anyway, they are pretty useful, {{tongue}} and a bit easier {{shade}} to remember than the image way {{smile}}. {{wink}} So, just say NO {{grin}} to emotemplate deletion!!!! {{wink}} 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 dab (?) 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. 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 {{wink}} Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I found a better solution (see below), they are great {{smile}} — Sverdrup 01:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ral315 03:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you really want to use these images so badly, remember the image filenames. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and ditto AllyUnion's comment. - SoM 17:09, 1 September 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 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]
    Great! Thank you! This is a much better solution, and it won't bloat anything but one's own wikipedia browsing. I'll look over the script and try to make it faster, and make it only run on talk pages. — Sverdrup 11:51, 3 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]
  • Keep, these are cute and useful. How much load can these small images put on the server? Loom91 08:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't make me {{cry}}, I hate it when that happens. —RaD Man (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bad idea. If you really want to say it, do it with an image, not a template. -- BD2412 talk 15:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I don't see what harm it would be to keep these around, even if they are useless. I don't recommend overusing them, but they spice up some talk pages. Acetic'Acid 18:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What are the grounds for nominating these for deletion? The only criteria I can see is a disputed question over whether these are "useful" or not, which clearly some users think they are (even if I think they are garish). Other than that, I don't see what rules they violate, besides being ugly as all hell. --Fastfission 19:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ugly and unprofessional. - SimonP 19:55, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as abominable. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:17, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete to save the WP servers which must take precedence over cute. (I've updated the bar graph thingy by my one vote.) --bodnotbod 10:07, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as all of above. also, aren't these just copyvio'ed from aol or msn messenger anyway? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 12:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As discussed somewhere above, they are from a GAIM extension pack and freely licensed, so no copyright concern. Dragons flight 17:07, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.-encephalon | ?  13:19:17, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
  • Delete - these things break up normal pages, add a tremendous load to the servers, serve no purpose in articlespace and are plain irritating. Rob Church Talk | Desk 17:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_chatroom. slambo 17:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Get them all dead —Snargle 17:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I see ten thousand talkers whose tongues are all broken.--Pharos 23:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire if necessary. Aquillion 00:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from orbit; it's the only way to be sure. --Alan Au 07:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then fly a plane into them. They totally break the layout when using small fonts. Sam Hocevar 08:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then dump them in a black hole.Geni 09:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We aren't a message board. They look unprofessional. If someone can't communicate what they mean without one, the user needs to re-word the comment. They're distracting. They draw attention to specific users and their statements at the expense of other comments on a page. Did I mention they look unprofessional? Joyous (talk) 16:26, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep what on earth is wrong with having them? Borisblue 18:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: Several commenters above are wrong. The smilies are NOT copvio provided we use the smilies distributed freely under GNU license as part of the highly popular phpBB opensource bulletin board system Renmiri 03:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 23 August AM to 4 Sept. PM — 12 days
Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 13 days

Template:Sisterproject edit

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)
    • Might you consider the template for yourself, since it's been brought here for your consideration? -Splash 06:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
  • Delete a blanked template will not see much use, and addressing this particular meta template is as good a start as any. Ingoolemo talk 06:28, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
  • Delete. From what I understood, this one is obsolete. So, why are we keeping it? Titoxd 06:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 16 August AM to 6 Sept. AM — 21 days
Removed from TFD 6 Sept. AM — 21 days

Template:Vfd-edmeston edit

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]

  • Delete, single-use templates should be speediable. Radiant_>|< 19:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, delete. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Reinyday, 01:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Subst: and delete. --Titoxd 03:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del, single-use fork --MarSch 12:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 28 August PM to 30 August PM — 2 days
Removed from TFD 7 August PM — 10 days

Template:Law edit

  • A broken redirect to MediaWiki:Law, and unlinked from anywhere. Is there any reason not to get rid of this? Delete JesseW 18:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del, unused, broken --MarSch 14:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does seem like something that should be swept into the dust bin ... unless it can be fixed and has a use. Courtland 00:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As head cheerleader for Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, I can assure you that we've made all the templates we need. :-) -- BD2412 talk 15:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 26 August PM to 2 September PM — 7 days
Removed from TFD 8 August AM — 12 days

Template:The Simpsons ads edit

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]
  • Delete oh no, now i'll never know which butterfinger commercials to watch. ∞Who?¿? 01:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the TOC in that article is good enough. violet/riga (t) 21:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What an unfortunate waste of an editor's effort to create *sigh* Courtland 22:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. unused and unusable template. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 04:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: useless --Amr Hassan 18:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 26 August PM to 28 August PM — 2 days
Removed from TFD 8 Sept. PM — 13 days

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Deleted/August_2005&oldid=1145854010"