Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log‎ | Deleted

Template:Signed edit

Delete: Considering that we already have the "unsigned" template, I don't think we need a "signed" one. HappyCamper 23:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If it's signed, why would we have to...? This template confuses me.--Sean|Black 23:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN? Pointless template, most decidedly a bad idea because of ~~~~. The only uses I've seen are an anon just wanting to sign as User:anon. At the very least delete. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey! I used to use that, for comments like these that have a signature but no link to a user page or talk page, or for when one person left a message on behalf of another. I used {{user}} now but I kind of liked {{signed}}. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:if edit

Delete: Not used. – Adrian | Talk 09:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it is an API to be used in other templates. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now it's no longer required. —Phil | Talk 10:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my bot didnt touch 15,000 articles for nothing. Martin 10:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to {{qif}} Delete and rename {{qif}} to {{if}}. Once we've got rid of the old template, the new and improved one should be given the obvious name. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. More to come soon. -- Netoholic @ 14:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I never want to see this thing again. —Lifeisunfair 14:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and related templates; the trouble and confusion they cause more than offsets the value they add. Radiant_>|< 18:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and rename {{qif}} to {{if}}, per Ilmari Karonen. Shawnc 22:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would propose not to do a redirect. qif is at the moment an extreme high use template: What links here lists 31'000+ articles. A redirect means an additional database lookup, which should be avoided. At least, if there is a real need to have qif under the name if, please copy the contents of qif to if. Do not create a redirect. Disclaimer: Beware of WP:AUM. Adrian Buehlmann 12:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My intent was to imply that, if a rename is done, another bot run should be performed to change all instances of {{qif}} (back) to {{if}}. But the naming issue is actually rather minor, and it may not actually be worth doing anything about until this entire logic template controversy is settled. Hopefully we'll eventually get new MediaWiki syntax that will obsolete all these templates, preferably sooner that later. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer protecting it as a blank template, so editors can have access to its edit history. Keep the talk page so that people who're interested would be able to know what'd been happening. — Instantnood 20:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, meta-template, unused and deprecated in favor of {{qif}}. --Wikiacc (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and protect per Instantnood... ++Lar 14:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:User 2.05, Template:User es 1337, Template:User ca 1337, Template:User_ast_1337 edit

  • Delete — Strange templates →AzaToth 20:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All four seem like abandoned tests. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all four not used, first looks like a test, the others look like somone was trying to reserve userbox fictious languages' foreign language equivs. xaosflux Talk/CVU 08:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violet/riga (t) 10:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYC Hudson River crossings edit

Delete: A template covering the entire Hudson River, Template:Hudson River crossings, has been created (and already used north of the city line), and I think it would be good to put that all along the Hudson River. Having both would make them a bit cluttered, not to mention the fact that all really within the City have Template:NY-bt. I have already put notices on all of the talk pages for these articles, and noone has strongly objected. I suggest that first Template:Hudson River crossings be used all along, and then, pending the result of this TFD, all instances of Template:NYC Hudson River crossings be removed and it be deleted. Redirection would not work, since the newer one uses north and south parameters. Chris 16:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Webber edit

Delete: Found on Wikipedia:Neglected articles, this oddity is a template from one editor warning other editors not to revert his edits. BD2412 T 21:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, get rid of it. Beyond unwiki into just plain rude. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Guettarda 04:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and remove all instances from non-User page spaces; any use on a non-User page of any kind should be dealt with as vandalism. Courtland 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no point in userfying - there are no instances in any space, and it's a bad template to have, period. BD2412 T 03:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied by me. No reason for this to stay around any longer. android79 01:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FrTed edit

Quotes from Father Ted are not all that relevant to a lot of our users, so they send a confusing message. Cute at the expense of effectiveness. FreplySpang (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep was created as a tongue-in-cheek way of dealing with light vandalism where a heavy warning was merely likely to drive a new user away. It and the rest in the series are intended to be a lighthearted way of asking people to stop doing stupid things. Has been used in that context and worked in all cases. It and all the other templates that exist deal with specific problems that the test templates are unsuited to handling. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep per Jtdirl. Izehar (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reasoning as {{Behave}}, plus this one is slightly worse; folks on both sides of the pond have likely heard of Austin Powers. I'm guessing most non-UK users will be left scratching their heads... android79 00:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually Father Ted is shown in among other places the United States, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and even in Latin America. You seriously underestimate the international audience of the show. It has a particularly strong cult viewership among students in part of the US. It was chosen for the template on that basis. You may not be aware of it. Millions of other (non British people) are. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anyone is disputing that people watch Father Ted. But I think we can all agree that not everybody does. The probability of a random vandal not knowing of it (or not liking it) is too great for this template to be of practical risk-free use in any such contexts. EldKatt (Talk) 15:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete there is no reason to assume that a particualr user knows of a perticualr TV show, and this is nmot an appropriate way to handle a light-hearted warning, IMO DES (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gerard Foley 03:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless. If vandal-removers want to use this template, so be it. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same as with the behave-template. Variations of the sterile test1 and test2 can be useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtdirl. Gary Kirk 12:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a "light-hearted" warning is necessary, use one without pop culture references. (I have no idea what this one is about). Kusma (討論) 14:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - certainly not as useful as Template:Behave. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Dan | talk 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have to approach vandalism on a case-by-case basis. Djegan 20:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Warning messages shouldn't presuppose that a user is familiar with a particular television show or other cultural reference. —Psychonaut 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. I've never heard of "Father Ted", and the template seems silly, but if it reduces the vandalism from UK school IPs by even 1%, hell, keep it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:18, Dec. 15, 2005
  • Weak delete ditto Jifish Borisblue 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe it does need revision to be effective on US vandals, but it works as an escalation against those who have already been warned. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm all for more humorous and relaxed vandalism responses, but this template is clearly a failed experiment in this area. It comes across more like an old, out-of-the-loop disciplinarian trying (and failing) to be "cool" and "hip" by misusing pop culture references, than as a genuinely layed-back and entertaining comment. People who aren't fans of the show (i.e. the vast majority of Wikipedia vandals, regardless of its popularity) will just be thoroughly confused ("Father Ted? Is this some sort of weird Wikipedia thing?") and annoyed, and people who are fans of the show will just roll their eyes at how blatant and uncleverly-worded the text is (going out of your way to define the show's terminology is like going out of your way to explain a joke; it diffuses all potential humor from the situation). Anyone who wants to use this message can easily just copy it into any usertalk page he wants to use it on, but it shouldn't be a Wikipedia template unless it's a vandalism-response that's actually of some use. -Silence 14:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Silence above. Thanks/wangi 14:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This completely fails to encourage taking Wikipedia "seriously". User:Silence makes his point well. EldKatt (Talk) 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy. To have this in the main namespace is silly by itself.  Grue  17:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Userfying is probably the best solution; no one would object to this template if it was at, say, User:Jtdirl/FrTed, and the template would still have the exact same effect when someone typed {{User:Jtdirl/FrTed}}. It's having bad jokes and nonsense like this on the Template namespace that's a problem. -Silence 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Iff kept, restrict its use to the user pages of UK & Irish vandals. BlankVerse 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a helpful talk message. Ashibaka tock 22:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (with option to Userfy). I appreciate the effort, but it's rather too ideosyncractic for general use. Feel free to keep using it yourself, though. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not helpful. --Carnildo 01:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Move to Userspace. I've seen the show on late night Public Broadcasting, but otherwise would have no idea. I would never use it, but I think it may be applicable in some instances and should be moved to the userspace. -Scm83x 07:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wholly uncommunicative, and jokiness is not the message we want to send to vandals. Phil Sandifer 19:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtdirl. Go on go on go on go on go on go on go on go on... the wub "?!" 17:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and user:Silence and user:Snowspinner ++Lar 04:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler MC top edit

An unused combination of {{spoiler top}} and {{solution}}. —Cryptic (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler-red edit

As below. —Cryptic (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Stbalbach 17:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wasn't intending this to be used for main namespace yet, I just wanted to use it as an example on Spoiler talk. Is there a way to move this into user space and still have it work? If not, can you just give me two days so my examples of what I'm talking about in Spoiler talk make sense? Thanks. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 18:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Userfied to User:Cyde/Spoiler-red. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 19:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template:Vwatched edit

Pointless template - adds nothing to the article. Should never have been created and should never be used. Raul654 01:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this becomes widely used, won't the absence of it encourage vandals even more? Kusma (討論) 01:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (creator): This was created for use on high-profile pages that would normally be protected, particularly pages describing current events. Protection of such pages allows out-of-date or incorrect information to remain for a prolonged period of time during the peak viewing time of the page. The intent of the template is to allow such pages to be unprotected, allowing editorial collaboration on the live article, while notifying vandals that their usual right to deface a page three or four times before being dealt with doesn't apply.
         A notable example is the Stanley Williams article, whose subject was executed earlier today, which was protected for much of the time leading up to and after the event. The template was created and placed there as an alternative to continuing a prolonged protection, and the article was positively edited by many editors with very little vandalism (and no major vandalism). The template was in place for just under an hour before being removed by Raul654 (nominator). I disagree that the template will encourage vandalism; it simply points out that vandalism on that page is dealt with more immediately than usual, not that vandalism on other articles isn't dealt with. // Pathoschild 02:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep useful as an extreme warning. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The very presence of this warning will encourage vandalism, if not on the article in question, then on other articles. Let the vandals assume by default that all articles are closely watched for vandalism, which is usually the case anyway. —Psychonaut 02:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Useless. An extreme warning contributes nothing to Wikipedia articles, as there are already countless tags for such matters as "controversial topics". If it isn't currently locked to deal with vandalism, we shouldn't discourage valid contributions to articles with intimidating. Just continue to revert vandalisms as we always have. As soon as we brand perfectly good articles with big ugly boxes just because of vandalism, the vandals win: they've successfully made a strong impression, and can gladly continue their efforts on this and other articles when they want a similar amusing reaction, a sort of "badge of honor" for the hard work they've put into messing with others' hard work. -Silence 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use on George W. Bush. If the only other alternative is protection, this is a good last ditch effort to preserve the Wiki-way. Firebug 03:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you realize that GWB will still have to be proteted from vandalism when it gets out of control, completely regardless of whether the tag is here. There is no "other option", this is just a poorly-thought-out and meaningless overlabeling that will in the end only cause more vandalisms and subsequent page protections for every article that ever uses it, GWB included. -Silence 06:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think this will actually encourage vandals, while distracting readers, hopefully these situations will get resolved by the proposed Semi Protection Policy. xaosflux Talk/CVU 05:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Silence. Alai 06:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along with template:Maintained. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Psychonaut. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. RIDDLE TIME!! You have two pristine picture windows in stores on opposite sides of the street. One picture window has a big sign on it saying, "Do not throw glass through this window." Which gets broken first? --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 13:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vandalism is frustrating always but we don't give certain articles special status. In fact, vandalism to high profile articles might be preferable to vandalism to obscure articles since it is reverted faster and more surely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No ugly box templates should be permanent. In addition, it is incorrect, as I have never seen an admin apply a "one bit of vandalism, you're blocked" concept. [[Sam Korn]] 13:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BEANS. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep iff it is used only on talk pages. Otherwise, delete. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (creator): Consensus is clearly against the template; as the creator, I don't oppose speedy deletion at this point. // Pathoschild 09:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates WP:BEANS. Alphax τεχ 15:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have Speedy deleted it(and it's asociated category) on request of the author(see above). We can close this now. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television 3 edit

Delete, not used →AzaToth 00:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FFII edit

Navigational Aid between pages that have now been merged together. Redundent. Speedy Delete if possible. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not used in articles anymore. xaosflux Talk/CVU 05:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as now pointless, with most links going to the same page. Kusma (討論) 23:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons mentioned above. warpedmirror (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subst:NPOV and Template:Subst:Prettytable edit

These templates are pointless because the leading subst: stops them from being used. Susvolans ⇔ 19:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, ugly, waste of the Wiki. --Computerjoe 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have speedy-deleted Template:Subst:NPOV as patent nonsense. DES (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I recall correctly, Prettytable is the name of a CSS class in MediaWiki, so it is no longer needed. Delete, preferably speedily if someone feels like ignoring rules. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 23:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per CSD G1 and/or CSD G2 (and or perhaps CSD G7 (§2) per anon only creator (bend the rules)) (anon created, only user) →AzaToth 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied. We can close this now. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nominated 2005-11-24–2005-12-01 edit

Template: if2 edit

Delete: Should not be used any more, {{show1}} is used instead. --AzaToth talk 17:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete once all uses have been converted (should be relatively trivial). —Phil | Talk 17:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 01:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Template: ifdef edit

Delete: use {{if}} instead --AzaToth talk 17:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete once all uses have been converted (not trivial). —Phil | Talk 17:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have changed ifdef to use if, so it can now be subst:ed till oblivion --AzaToth talk 18:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: actually turned out it was only used in {{Album infobox 2}} so once that was changed and all client articles were "touched" (kudos once again to Bluebot), there's nothing left using it seriously. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 09:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two duplicate Philosophy Templates: Conflict over which tag name to keep edit

The vote was to delete the below template, but merge Philosophy (navigation) (which has the same title as the deleted template
"Philosophy Quick Navigation Guide") into the Portal:Philosophy, by either embedding it directly into the Portal's page, or by storing it on a subpage and transcluding it. The discussion for Philosophy (navigation) can be found on the keep log. Go for it! 03:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template: Philosophy Quick Topic Guide edit

Delete: Duplicate at Template:Philosophy_(navigation), which is the original and has a shorter title. Talk Page Infinity0 17:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I've changed my mind. If people were actually using this thing, then they would have come to its defense by now. More discussion is needed concerning what articles to place it in anyways, and the other template is in a position to place more carefully from scratch. Go for it! 06:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify, and then delete both Brobdingnagian templates. BlankVerse 17:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What does Brobdingnagian have to do with this??? Did you post in the wrong section? Template:Philosophy_(navigation) has been through a TfD before, the end result was Keep. Infinity0 19:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As is said in the article, Brobdingnagian is an adjective describing something of enormous size. Listify and delete both both for this reason. —jiy (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge with the navigation template, then delete this one. I don't like either, since they are both far too long, but the basic idea is sound. This version is the newer, so it should be the one to go. . On consideration, I think the idea of a nav template too fiddly and prone to abuse. Banno 22:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither is this version useful, nor is it a quick guide to overview articles either. —thames 05:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 00:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Moosh88 04:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per banno. — goethean ॐ 21:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template: Philosophy topics edit

Keep, and use it on the portal in addition - (BTW, I withdraw my nomination to delete). Infinity0 and I have worked on this thing for weeks! Go for it! 06:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Even if this template is not going to be used in articles I think it should be kept to be inserted into Portal:Philosophy rather than embedded within that page itself.Infinity0 11:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This would be absurd; since the portal contains the cats list, this template is overkill, and simply confuse users. Delete this template and stick to the cats list. Banno 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why include a list of philosophical links on a page that contains a list of philosophical links? Can someone explain the appeal of this doubling-up to me? Banno 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete per Pjacobi. This template is far too large to be useful as a navigational aid and belongs rather in a portal. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 00:58:49Z
  • Delete. Not useful, and isn't a quick guide to overview articles. —thames 05:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There are already several navigation features built in to the Wiki. The most obvious one is the "See also" section of each article. Combined with the Cats page, these two should be sufficient, provided they are done properly. So it is incumbent on editors that they ensure the cats and "see also" are correct and usable. In that regard this template is a distraction. It is also almost unreadable, and biased in a way that the cats will not be. And it is too large - on some philosophy articles, half the page will consist of this template. Banno 09:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a Merge can be arranged. User:Go for it! and User:Infinity0 brought this on themselves by their inability to compromise, but a philosophy template is clearly useful. It should be named "Template:Philosophy", and the existing templates should Merge. Rick Norwood 14:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not that useful. The "See also" for each article would be far preferable. Banno
    • Comment: "Template:Philosophy" is already taken. That's the first name I tried when I titled it.
  • Keep Izehar 00:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No way should this template be erased.--Moosh88 04:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per banno. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus seems to be keep but merge. As best I can tell, the current Template:Philosophy is blank except for an announcement. My vote is to put this there. Rick Norwood 13:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Deletion tools edit

Delete: This is apparently a duplicate of Template:Deletiontools, except with a different design and not floated to the right. It doubles the effort of updating Template:Deletiontools, and it's only used on one user subpage. Coffee 01:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resevoir dogs edit

Delete: Useless trivia and unencyclopedic. (Also, it's jarringly ugly and not even spelled correctly, though that's not why I'm nominating it.) --Misterwindupbird 01:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • ow my eyes! recolour and rename at the very least. Not sure it's really needed though. weak delete. Grutness...wha? 03:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Are we really going to start adding templates for each film an actor is in? - SimonP 03:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Monkbel 11:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE! Iff kept, rename and de-color. BlankVerse 17:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not usefull at all --AzaToth talk 19:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. Delete. BD2412 T 15:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Lotvandal edit

This rather lovely little template positively screams the fact that the article is lousy and not worth reading. Then, it goes on to bite the newbies by threatening to block them if their edit is vandalism. If I were making my first edit to Wikipedia on George W. Bush and Muhammad (where this was used) it'd sure put me off. This isn't the way to do things, isn't needed, and was shot down in flames on Talk:George W. Bush. Delete. -Splashtalk 02:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sounds good to me. I agree whole-heartedly. It's bad enough to have it hidden in the text, but saying it was vandalized repeatedly doesn't really do it for me. We need to come up with a solution--a better solution--than this, or the article's doomed. What do people think about semi-protect? -Mysekurity 02:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact is that Dubya is going to be vandalized. Period. Perhaps we could use semi-protection, but what we won't use is biting newbies. Delete. Titoxd(?!?) 02:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • #include<Template:vandal> Delete. Chris talk back 03:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems that somebody would be dettered by these, but the limited track record of these tags seems bleak. I have tagged articles with these, and maybe the few vandals it deters is negatated by the vandals that get egged on, either way there is little difference. I thought that this tag looked better than the last, and that it might fair better. I am putting full faith in Semi-Protect now. However, I am not voting delete because of the "the article is lousy and not worth reading" idea, as I definitely do not see it that way.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find where it was shot down in flames. I just wanted to create a template to warn vandals. My first template, and now everybody wants it deleted. this just sucks. --karrmann
  • Extreme delete. Essentially a replacement for the Template:Stopvandalism that was nominated below and is going to be deleted. Not quite a candidate for speedy deletion, but... BlankVerse 16:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 15:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:ObertestTemplate edit

Delete: What is this template? –AzaToth talk 20:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: if equal edit

Delete: It's now substed, so no templates are using this any more. –AzaToth talk 20:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: {{if equal g}} and {{ine}} should also be removed, no use at all –AzaToth talk 20:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being, for comparison.--Patrick 23:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: comparison for what? –AzaToth talk 23:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • People who have been using one of the older templates should be able to try out at ease how the new version works compared with the old, so that at some stage they may or not may not conclude that the new one is sufficient.--Patrick 09:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The people who were using this template, did only use it to check against the empty string, no one have made a calpar. →AzaToth 15:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Unicode chart…default font edit

Delete: Full list here, all orphaned and redundant; versions exist without explicit font specifications which are much more useful. Phil | Talk 09:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per earlier consensus –AzaToth talk 14:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sobreakit edit

Delete. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can vandalize any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold and ignore all rules. In light of current events, is it really a good idea to have this template around? Firebug 05:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NJ Congress 7 edit

This is(was) a duplicate of NJ Congress 07 and is just unneccessary. my mistake. —theomanno (talk)

Template:Talkpage edit

A blank template, made for the talk page of a single user (Jachin) and blanked three minutes later, its only edits. I vote Delete and hope I can contact the user and get it speedied as he is its only contributer (aside my adding the TFD notice). Erath 17:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it was originally being organised for a group of Wikipedians I associate with to make a default template for our talk pages with general protocol outlined, we all decided to suffer the extra bytes as the wording was variable between users. My apologies. 211.30.72.208 00:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Nirvana edit

Useless template in the wrong namespace. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Samsara edit

Useless template in the wrong namespace. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seedab edit

What's the difference between this template and Template:Otheruses? --Hottentot 03:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template not finished yet... Rich Farmbrough 22:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE,it hasn't been changed in a week. 132.205.45.148 18:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted sicne it hasn't been edited since the nomination -Splashtalk 23:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: MaintenanceCOTW edit

Delete: It's not a substantive addition over Wikipedia:Maintenance collaboration of the week/current, so is redundant. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Navigation bar with pictures edit

Delete: Does not appear to do anything; only used in one article, where it creates redlinks; apparent template-within-a-template purpose is better served by just making the target template right in the first place. BD2412 T 15:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Template: Infobox_Showbiz edit

Delete: I don't know of a suitable replacement, but this is only used in one article and could probably be subst'd in for that prior to deletion. This is by the same author as Template:Infobox_Film (below). —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 07:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obliterate as unspeakably horrible. —Phil | Talk 15:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Too ugly for words. — Wackymacs 17:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_Film edit

Delete: Unused, duplicated at the (far superior) {{Infobox Movie}}.--Sean|Black 07:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obliterate as unspeakably horrible. —Phil | Talk 15:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The new one is far better, you're right. Erath 17:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Wow, that's the ugliest thing I've ever seen! — Wackymacs 16:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:Infobox Movie, or move that here, per our usual naming conventions. —Cryptic (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox CVG/ratings edit

Delete: Unused template, Template:Infobox CVG/rating is the currently used one. Thunderbrand 22:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Feature edit

Needless duplicate of Template:Feature, in the wrong namespace. Suggest deleting and replacing links. MediaWiki space should only be used for internal system messages -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Goodolddays edit

Personal template in the wrong namespace. MediaWiki space should only be used for internal system messages -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:IrishUni edit

Useless template in the wrong namespace. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Sami_navigator edit

Useless template in the wrong namespace. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


MediaWiki:StatusVulnerable edit

Useless template in the wrong namespace. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:U.S.Regions edit

Useless template in the wrong namespace. -- Netoholic @ 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • shuld these be here or at WP:MFD? BL kiss the lizard 23:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merge as throwback from the time the Template namespace did not exist. It has been replaced now by {{U.S.Regions}} (which might need a renaming, by the way), and it has now been completely redesigned. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 18:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Db-uselessdisambiguation & derived edit

also Template:uselessdab, Template:emptydab & Template:db-a9

Template:Standards edit

Delete: This template is orphaned, and apparently never finished. It was created by an unregistered user in response to the deletion of some dubious material and serves no purpose. Willmcw 20:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NHL mascots edit

Delete: Since the entries on this template are essentially just in alphabetical order, I would prefer, under WP:CLS, that it be converted into a list called List of National Hockey League mascots. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and go it one better by merging the 20+ borderline substub articles on the individual mascots into said list. BD2412 T 01:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, go for it. Croat Canuck 06:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful tool if the articles remain split. This box has clear advantages over both the category and list alternatives. Feel free to delete for now if the articles are merged, with expectation to recreate later. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles are merged except for three that had enough material to stand alone - stubs are now all redirects, so the template is obviated until enough is written on the mascots to break them out into seperate articles again. BD2412 T 15:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. mikka (t) 21:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.—jiy (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Central_Baseball_League edit

Delete: League no longer exists; disbanded after 2005 season. –Swid 16:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia edit

What's the point? --Hottentot 19:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Delete it.--Anti-Anonymex2Come to my page! I've gone caliente loco! 19:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Y templates edit

Template:Y1, Template:Y2, Template:Y3 and Template:Y4 were sandbox test templates, and no longer needed. --82.7.125.142 17:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedied under CSD:G2/G7 per user's request. Owen× ☎ 23:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Costliest hurricanes edit

Delete: Moved to {{Costliest US Atlantic hurricanes}}. Jdorje 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no longer needed.--MONGO 06:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, almost a CSD G7, since Jdorje is one of the most significant contributors (if not the principal) contributor of the template. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 06:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a redirect, which really belongs on WP:RfD. -Splashtalk 15:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GamespyE3Awards2005 edit

Delete: Not used in any articles, and all around useless and unruly. Similar to the deleted Template:Xbox25greatest. Thunderbrand 20:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete orphan.--MONGO 06:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UPC edit

Delete Looks like a confused attempt to make an article. --Sherool (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFDdis edit

Disastrously misguided. There is no such thing as an afd disambiguation page. —Cryptic (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated 2005-12-02–2005-12-09 edit

Template:UPC Starbase edit

  • Delete One piece in a string of nonsense created by the same user. See Template:UPC below. Soltak | Talk 17:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Don't delete edit

I can't see any reason why this template should exist. I am stuggling to find a rationale for deletion, as there just is no logical reason at all for keeping it. [[Sam Korn]] 20:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created the template to prevent verified articles from wrongfully being speedied, as I've noticed that happening often, such as the article on the Yumemi Kobo which was originally speedily deleted. 64.194.44.220 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a way to write articles that means they won't get deleted: don't make them excessively short and give a basic coverage of the topic. After all, it is not the author's shout whether an article be deleted or not. That is the job of an admin. If a bad decision has been made, WP:DR is the place to go. Odd templates are not. Would you have this template on every article in Wikipedia? [[Sam Korn]] 20:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to disagree that it is the job of an admin to decide whether an article should be deleted or not. While admins are the ones who ultimately have to pull the trigger, articles should not be deleted unilaterally. They should only be deleted if they meet the criteria for speedy deletion or if community consensus at AFD indicates that they should go. FWIW, I agree that {{underconstruction}} is a better option. On the basis that it's redundant, I'd say delete the {{don't delete}} template. Firebug 16:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the hell? Templates aren't supposed to say "don't speedy this", that's CSD's job. And I'm pretty sure that "everything in it is verifiable" doesn't automatically have an article from speedying anyway, so the text of the article is misleading. And, as User:Sam Korn said, would we have this on every page on Wikipedia? Geez, template bloat is bad enough as it is...anyway, I guess what I'm saying is, delete. Lord Bob 21:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think, regrettably, that we couldn't put this on anything like the whole of Wikipedia. -Splashtalk 05:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobby →AzaToth 21:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's already a {{underconstruction}} template to keep articles you've just started from getting speedied or AfD-nominated. What if the {{don't delete}} template had this on itself? Man, would that be meta (or more likely, an infinite loop). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No infinite loop is possible, because the presence of this template has no impact on whether an admin speedies it or not. That being the case, it serves no function. -- SCZenz 23:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.—jiy (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Putting this template on a page would be like asking for trouble, in my opinion. karmafist 07:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Twins edit

A template that serves as navigation for a pop music group composed of two people. Nothing here that can't be covered by links between the articles. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame - I was hoping this would be an "otheruses" type template for connection between articles of siblings born on the same day. Even that, though would have been of only marginal use. This one is equally redundant. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Either change it to what Grut suggested, or Delete--Atlantima 20:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dialect edit

Delete: This template is a lightly-modified copy of an old version of {{language}}. This latter template has been updated to provide greater flexibility to cover all articles on languages. The articles that were served by {{dialect}} have now been converted to {{language}}. Also, the distinction between language and dialect is a subjective one. Gareth Hughes 16:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Free software edit

Nasty thing in the first place; not used anymore. Ashibaka (tock) 19:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well first, let's clarify do you facetiously mean that free software is nasty and not used anymore, or are you referring just to this template? If just the template, is there something better now that can link together this aspect of all the articles on and references to free/open-source/GPL/whatever software? --Nigelj 20:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template is not used anymore. Back around 2002 it was used to describe GNU GPL software, as in "Mozilla is a (free (as in speech) software) browser." People soon realized this was unneeded. Now it is an orphan. Ashibaka (tock) 03:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "People soon realized this was unneeded" - that's my point - what people? why not needed? There's even more free (as in speech) software around now under even more obscure and less obscure licences. I agree that the wording is clunky, but is it not useful to have some way to tag them as such, as we work on the articles? --Nigelj 19:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The phrase was an attempt at an internet meme by the Free Software Foundation that was used moderately often during some of the very early discussions on the Wikipedia. You'll find it if you start digging through the archives, especially on Meta. Since it mostly of historical value and no longer used, it may be time for the template to be deleted. BlankVerse 21:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Nigelj, this isn't about free software at all. It's about a template that serves doesn't really do anything- Is it so hard to type [[Free software|Free (as in speech) software]]? Even if it weren't, this is unencyclopediac language that I would remove if I ever saw it in an article.--Sean|Black 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless.--Sean|Black 03:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems useless -- Dpark 15:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, worse than useless. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete template is about as useful as free software. SchmuckyTheCat 20:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply horrible. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 22:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BC AD edit

Do we really want such a warning on every page that uses BC? - SimonP 16:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Change to talk page template. The template is about editing, not about content, and asserts something like ownership of an article in an intrusive way. If BC/BCE is seen as a style issue that is up to the article's main editors to decide, it is enough to put this in the text as a comment (like some pages have a "use en-UK spelling" on top, as a comment). Kusma (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created this template and don't think it is all that bad...I think it would even come in handy because half of the articles I've viewed today were changed to BCE/CE wrongly. I don't necessarily care one way or the other though. Chooserr
    • Perhaps it could be turned into a talk page template, one to be used in place of the messages you are currently leaving there? - SimonP 18:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's possible...how would you do that though? Chooserr
    • I understand what you want to do, and have changed my vote accordingly. I still stand by my suggestion that this kind of style comments should be in edit box comments, not on the article page. Kusma (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the only real solution to stylistic differences such as this would be more so-called wikimagic, (in the same way that [[December 3]] and [[3 December]] render as December 3 and 3 December). Propose a software update. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete creators do not have ownership here. And this is no different than a template which says "The creator is of this article uses American spellings, so you must, too". Maybe we need a software update, or a style rule, but this isn't the way to deal with the issue. -- Dpark 20:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The original usage is in most cases not the the controling factor, it is suewd only when no other decision criterion applies, according to the MOS. Even then a long persiod of usage should IMO be more significant than the original version, if the change was early. This tempalte impolies a level of control by the articel creator that does not and should not exist. DES (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This tag attempts to enforce a nonexistent policy. I knew as soon as I read the nomination that it was created by Chooserr. This individual was blocked for his 3RR violations involving changes from BCE/CE to BC/AD, unblocked on the condition that he promise not to make such edits for 24 hours, and re-blocked when he violated this agreement. 28 minutes later, he created a sock puppet (confirmed to have logged in via the same IP address}, and continued to make the same edits/reversions (along with other non-NPOV edits and reversions) via that account and various anonymous IP addresses on the same network. This behavior continues. —Lifeisunfair 22:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Predsokratovci edit

Delete: Unused template written in a foreign language, full of non-English spelling redlinks. Kusma (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 01:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bmdavll talk 08:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If equal call et al. edit

=====Template:If defined call===== Subst and delete, same thing can be done generic way →AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Subst and delete, same thing can be done generic way →AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Subst and delete, same thing can be done generic way →AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Subst and delete, same thing can be done generic way →AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If non-empty call1 edit

Delete or userfy, only used once →AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. These may be subst where it is are currently extensively used, but templates should stay and so it can be subst where appropriate for future use. Trödel|talk 01:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all until this "generic way" is actually demonstrated. The changes earlier tonight broke hundreds of pages. Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll look into it, logically it shouldn't break →AzaToth 02:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ok, my misstake, I didn't see that if a template returns |{}, it intercept other calls, I recall the deletion off all templates except if non-empty, witch is a copy of the other, but I think the other templates should be combined to one, using default values inside. →AzaToth 03:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete the non-empty one, then. I suspect | will continue to be a problem for the others, as it's pervasive in wiki table markup. Kirill Lokshin 03:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not currently in use at all, so I think the first comment is out-of-date. -Splashtalk 01:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Livestock 2004 edit

I don't see why this needs to be a template. --Hottentot 00:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the information into the article namespace as appropriate, or delete if all this information is already present. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't appear to have a home I can find easily in article space, so I'll delete it. An undelete on finding a home would be fine. -Splashtalk 01:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DP edit

[obscenity removed] template. Delete both this and the useless Template:Vutprotected.McBeer 23:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination should only be considered to include {{DP}}. Given the user's history, I have removed the nomination of {{Vutprotected}} as almost certainly in bad faith. -- SCZenz 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this tone inappropriate for this page. Can we have this nom removed? Owen× ☎ 23:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should this [obscenity removed] template stay on Wikipedia.McBeer 23:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This [obscenity] is a [obscenity] orphan. It hasn't been worked on since the bloody 12th of June. It's not [obscenity] used anywhere. [swear removed], delete this [obscenity]. Ashibaka (tock) 00:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure rubbish. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DP. -- SCZenz 01:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Expletive deleted] it. BD2412 T 13:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename and Repair or if not willing Delete, This navigation template has garbage in it like [[]] | [[]] | [[]] | [[]] | [[]] | [[]] | [[]] | [[]] | [[]] | [[]] | [[]] | [[]]; and if keeping should probally be moved to a longer tempalte name, with the notion that a supershort name like DP be used for a template with more widespread appeal xaosflux T/C 01:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - If it gets cleaned up and moved to a longer name, then it can stay, but as is, it needs to be deleted. -- Dpark 15:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, orphan/unused (except on one talk page, after I removed two other uses on totally unrelated articles/images). Thanks/wangi 15:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cities of World edit

It's just a list of big cities and Asian big cities --Hottentot 19:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, more of the alpha/beta city nonsense. - SimonP 23:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree, are we going to have a template with 50,000 entries on it? Evil Monkey - Hello 00:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:nmc edit

Speedy delete template, covered basically in {{nonsense}} and {{empty}}, so its not needed.

Just a comment, I'm not going to say delete or keep. I do use it a lot, but that doesn't mean that it follows the CSD. I problably should of thought of that before I created it. Quentin Pierce 20:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This doesn't add anything not covered by other templates. (By the way, linking into a userspace subpage to explain the reason is bad form.) -- Dpark 20:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DisambigSan edit

Delete: Unused. Part of a proposed scheme that never caught on (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/archive4#Series boxes for geographical dab pages). Bo Lindbergh 00:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 00:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Purpose would be better served by a category of places named after saints. Kusma (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DisambigSanta edit

Delete: Unused. Part of a proposed scheme that never caught on (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/archive4#Series boxes for geographical dab pages). Bo Lindbergh 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 00:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Purpose would be better served by a category of places named after saints. Kusma (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Battles edit

Delete: Obsolete, first by {{battlebox}} and now by {{warbox}}. No longer in use. Geoff/Gsl 21:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National University of Ireland edit

Delete: Obsolete, not used for some time and also replaced by Template:IrishUni and Category:National University of Ireland. Djegan 18:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Only four Irish universities are National Universities of Ireland. It is not at all obsolete. Stifle 19:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To expand on my reason for deletion the template has not being used since the infoboxes in the National University of Ireland and four constituent universities were created as their is simply no place to fit this template in the articles in a uniform and organised way. Template:IrishUni was a defacto replacement as it contains all neccessary links required for the National University of Ireland. Why have two templates (of which this one is obsolete) when you can have one comprehensive template? Djegan 19:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The keep comment seems to have missed the point of the new template, so I'm going to delete the old one. -Splashtalk 05:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navarre edit

Delete: The template reproduces a list of villages and towns from List of municipalities in Navarre and Category:Navarre - right now it's far too large and unwieldy, and will only get more useless if all 272 towns are added. Ziggurat 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.—jiy (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 20:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - yeah, that's way too big. Renata3 19:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gipuzkoa edit

Delete: The same situation as Template:Navarre above; reproduced from List of municipalities in _Guipúzcoa. There are too many towns in the region (88) to make a template a useful addition. Ziggurat 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 20:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Araba edit

Delete: The same situation as Template:Navarre above; reproduced from List of municipalities in Álava. There are too many towns in the region (51) to make a template a useful addition. Ziggurat 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. These templates are so large and useless.—jiy (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 20:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:The Royal Dublin Fusiliers edit

Delete: Template no longer in use - only links that this now generates are to Wikipedia:Templates with red links and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates. BD2412 T 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 11:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fordgallery edit

Delete: Unused template is nothing more than a gallery of images - which, my understanding is, we don't do. BD2412 T 14:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Large unused image template. xaosflux T/C 01:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless, that can be done without the need of a template on any article if need so. — Wackymacs 07:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBAteams edit

Delete and Subst to National Basketball Association: Primarily only used on that article. Its original purpose was taken over by Template:NBA. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've already replaced this template with a table on the NBA page, so this template can go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dknights411 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete as obsolete. BD2412 T 20:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Movie (2,3,4) edit

Template:Infobox Movie (2) edit
Template:Infobox Movie (3) edit
Template:Infobox Movie (4) edit

Delete: Template:Infobox Movie is made generic. →AzaToth 00:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at least #2, it is used on numerous pages. Also, the nomination is incomplete as the templates haven't been marked. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: oops, forgot :/ →AzaToth 03:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until mostly replaced by new template, delete once unused. Kusma (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to delete now migration is mostly done, thanks to whoever fixed all those boxes. Kusma (討論) 05:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Infobox movie 1 does not credit musicians, editors, or distributors. It's also useful for stories that are based on previous stories ("Original story by", "Based on the version by", "Screenplay by") - Please keep, it's unfair not to credit these people... --Chaosfeary 09:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islands of Pacific Ocean edit

Delete: Huge unused navigation template, only partially translated. Has only had maintenance (disambiguation link repair) edits for the last year. Kusma (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's truly unused, delete it. Otherwise, it seriously needs to be cleaned up. No template should have (translation needed) anywhere in it. -- Dpark 15:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - it's a monster, and lacks organization. BD2412 T 20:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - we need a better template than this!--File Éireann 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and finish translation. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anyone translates it, it should also be NPOVified. It currently looks as if Hong Kong is the center of the world, and has a strong emphasis on Chinese islands. Kusma (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Microsoft edit

Delete: I don't think we need a template to link to Corporation and Board of Directors, articles only exist for three of the ten people linked from this template, and the annual revenue / employees / stock symbols / etc. belong in the Microsoft article itself. And is there really a strong need to link between the various "Assets & Products" in articles which don't already contain these links, and how huge would the template become if it ever even came close to listing all of Microsoft's assets and products? I really don't see any need for this template.- Brian Kendig 15:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but move the corporate information to the main Microsoft article; it does not belong on the template. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 08:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This kind of template helps get those other articles filled in. It's also well made and clean. It's as useful as Template:Disney, which I would also argue is well-made and clean. -- Dpark 15:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, now that I look at Template:Disney, I think that's a perfect example of a template gone terribly wrong. Isn't a template supposed to make navigation easier by providing a small set of related links to articles which might not otherwise contain them? The Disney template seems to be an "everything including the kitchen sink" substitute for a category; its purpose seems to be to promote articles, not to help users. I'm concerned that the Microsoft template is destined to share the same fate. - Brian Kendig 00:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. category:Microsoft is more than enough. If some items are missining, then if they are important, they should already be present redlinked in other articles to be noticed to fill in. mikka (t) 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, enough articles to link from. Gerrit CUTEDH 17:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant with an infobox in the article. Don't need to include annual revenue in articles about people who happen to work for a company. -Splashtalk 17:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree with you if the people included in this template merely "happen to work for a company". However, the individuals in this template are the members of the board of directors of the company, and that entity has final governing authority over the operations of the corporation. Annual revenue is an excellent measure of the resources of a company, and so should be in the navigational template. Including it gives readers of articles about the company's directors a clear, quantitative indicator of the amount of resources under the collective discretion of the company's board. Kurieeto 23:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these info belongs to Microsoft's infobox, not an independent template! Sitenl 19:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, This isn't just for the Microsoft page. Quite a few pages use this, and others could. I'd say it's got plenty of use (and potential use) beyond inclusion in Microsoft. Again, look at Template:Disney. It's useful. How is this any different? -- Dpark 19:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - used enough, and should be used more; it has redlinks which ought to be made blue! BD2412 T 20:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep OK template, definitely useful. Putting things like this on this page is IMHO deletionism gone mad.FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Most Fortune 500 companies have their own templates that are similar to this one (See {{Wal-Mart}} and {{Disney}}), this is a silly nomination. Quite a few articles are already using this template. — Wackymacs 21:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should the Wal-Mart template list annual revenue and directors? That information does not belong on a template put on all Wal-Mart related pages. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 08:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • On what grounds do the members of the board of directors of the company not belong in a navigational template about that company? They are related in that they have ultimate governing control over the corporation, its products, and its assets. In the case of Microsoft they have final decision-making power over the direction of company brands and products like Windows, the Xbox 360 and Encarta. The situation is the same for Wal-Mart and the board's ultimate control over the products and assets of that corporation. Kurieeto 11:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks useful to me, the redlinks will get filled before long. Walkerma 22:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks useful. - David Björklund (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Navigational templates serve to link together related articles, and Microsoft has several central articles that relate to it. The content of any navigational template is always up for debate, though preferably on its talk page, as is the same for any article on Wikipedia. Including corporate navigational templates on articles for the products and assets of the largest corporations in the world, such as Microsoft, provides several services to viewers of Wikipedia. It allows readers to quickly see what other notable products the company makes, see which individuals have ultimate governing control over the operations of the company, and get a feeling for the resources of the company in terms of variables such as annual revenue. Corporate navigational templates such as this one are unobtrusive and serve the role of facilitating movement between related articles much more easily than categories. There are more than 30 corporate navigational templates with similar types of content for other major multinational companies at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics/Navigation templates. A discussion of the deletion of Template:Microsoft should make mention of them as well, given their similarities. Kurieeto 00:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adraeus 01:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Kurieeto. Megapixie 01:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Kurieeto. One concern is some duplication with the Infobox, but that could be discussed and fixed and should not be an issue. --Pamri • Talk 02:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Concerns about the types of content in corporate navigational templates like Template:Microsoft would best be discussed at Template talk:Navbox Company. Kurieeto 15:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems useful to me, seems like a lot of large companies have these. Bdelisle 02:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but revise. Potentialy useful, but it isn't now.--HereToHelp (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please elaborate - Why is it currently not useful, and what would improve it? Kurieeto 20:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could use improvement, though. Ouuplas 02:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On Microsoft, it is mostly redundant with company infobox; on other articles, it is mostly uninteresting. 66.167.138.184 21:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Split I really don't think that the board of directors has much in common with its products and video games. I suggest doing something like Template:Nintendo president and spinning its products into perhapis separate templates, such as one for its software and another for its Xbox prdoucts. And the stuff about its stocks needs to go. Hbdragon88 17:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Split. The fact that 30 templates violate template guidelines is not justification for any of their existence. Note that the split is best responded to by categorization and deletion. Phil Sandifer 19:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article subject to vandalism edit

Another template that makes much ado about vandalism. We shouldn't be putting such things on the top of articles, since it directly discredits them. I considered speedying this, but thought better of it. Delete. -Splashtalk 21:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This template takes up too much room, and I agree with what Splash says. Though, the picture used on this template made me laugh for some reason. — Wackymacs 21:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN? It made me laugh too. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 21:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - adding a broken toilet (or any such) to the top of any article degrades the article even if the article hasn't been vandalized recently. Do not use. - [User:Texture|Tεx]]τurε 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Sean|Black 21:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete— there is no logic in this template →AzaToth 21:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Unnecessary, if humorous. – ClockworkSoul 22:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I realize that this may impair the aesthetics of an article to some degree, but we really need a stern warning for vandalism on the most visible and heavily vandalized articles (including, especially, George W. Bush - one of the most heavily visited pages on Wikipedia, and one of the most vandalized). I would have no problem with removing the photo of real-world vandalism and replacing it with something more sedate such as a red triangle. Crotalus horridus 13:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the problem is that its useless. A notice threatening users not to vandalize a page is not very professional and won't stop anonymous users from vandalizing. Vandalism is becoming less of a problem at Wikipedia because so many people are reverting vandalism and on patrol at Special:Recent Changes. Even if a page does get vandalized a lot (like the Michael Jackson page), it is always reverted very quickly. — Wackymacs 14:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, placing a HTML-commented warning at the top of George W. Bush has dramatically reduced the amount of vandalism. It won't deter the malicious repeat vandals, but it may serve to cause new vandals to think twice. Crotalus horridus 15:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure about that? I watched George W. Bush for a while, both when it had the comment and when it didn't. I don't think the comment helped deter vandalism; the fact that users plainly won't be getting 48hr blocks for vandalising a heavily-vandalised article (remember, it's the user, not the article, that counts) also degrades the value of the tag. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Templates of this kind in our most prominent pages send all the wrong messages. Delete. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 18:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete', unfit for serious pages, only BJAODN (but I doubt that, the image will likely be speedied for lacking true source info). There is nothing wrong with a template like this as long as it is appropriate. --Wcquidditch | Talk 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. good warning--123456798
    • Such a short comment... did you even read the discussion? Ashibaka tock 01:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN or Delete. Who would place this template? I deal with vandals a lot, and the normal proceedure requires goign through user warnings depending on the vandalism level, vandalizing of one article over another is not the primary decision in blocking, the content of the vandalism or repeated actions after warnings are. xaosflux T/C 07:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to BJAODL as per above. But's it's funny, so don't delete it.--HereToHelp (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not BJAODN on the grounds that it is a boring joke, not a "bad joke", and is not nonsensical enough to be "nonsense". (Though it's already on BJAODN anyway.) -Silence 23:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not that funny... Borisblue 07:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stargate edit

Delete. An ancient Stargate template, now replaced by {{StargateTopics}}. Staxringold 23:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not precisely ancient, used until a couple of minutes ago. Voting keep for the moment (see what the Stargate editors like), and anyway I think editing {{Stargate}} would have been easier than writing a new template and deleting the old one. Kusma (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's exactly why I'm calling it ancient. The stargate technology has slowly been deleted (it was only linked on a little over 20 of ALL of the Stargate pages) and the recent culling brought on by someone adding a really long See Also list made it clear we needed an updated template. I felt that a new template (we'd have to link a majority of pages anyways, as they didn't have Stargate) that left Template:Stargate open for a more basic template was better. Staxringold 23:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Dpark 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 8 edit

Infobox Movie sub templates edit

Template:Infobox Movie/movie language, Template:Infobox Movie/release date, Template:Infobox Movie/runtime, Template:Infobox Movie/tagline, Template:Infobox Movie/cinematography, Template:Infobox Movie/editing, Template:Infobox Movie/director, Template:Infobox Movie/image, Template:Infobox Movie/movie name, Template:Infobox Movie/original story by, Template:Infobox Movie/screenplay by, Template:Infobox Movie/budget, Template:Infobox Movie/distributor, Template:Infobox Movie/imdb id, Template:Infobox Movie/music, Template:Infobox Movie/producer and Template:Infobox Movie/starring

Speedy Deletion — have been superseded and are unused, where used only a couple of days →AzaToth 21:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since no one's answered to the original templates listed for deletion here:Delete, they're unused and duplicates of templates that still exist with simpler wording. - Bobet 14:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Actually, I looked a bit closer, and it seems a lot of films still use (or at least link to) these, even though the current infobox film has been changed. Delete them only after someone's touched the linking film pages so that they use the newer version of the infobox template and the data won't just disappear for no reason. - Bobet 21:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've stumbled on one major problem with these sub- or meta-templates - residual linking. Until each article is "touched" or edited, the links (database) table will still show it in Whatlinkshere - but those links are phantoms. All the more reason to get rid of them. In any case, I've run a script and "touched" the articles. Please reconsider your vote. -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (revised)[reply]
  • Delete all sub-templates. -- 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok thanks, Delete based on my original reasoning, since no page uses them and even if someone ever changed back to using meta-templates, these wouldn't be the ones used. -Bobet 14:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Districts in Switzerland by canton edit

Delete: Unnecessary duplication of Districts of Switzerland. Kusma (討論) 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - wrong namespace Renata3 19:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brewbox seasonal beers edit

Delete: I created this template. It is no longer in use because Template:Brewbox beers now has a defaulted parameter allowing any string (including "Seasonal") to be used in place of "Active". Mike Dillon 16:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political parties edit

Comment: This was previously marked for speedy deletion but does not qualify as such, and thus has been moved here to TFD. Currently its "what links here" is empty. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Is it replaced by another template? — Instantnood 16:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I thought I qualified as a speedy deletion. No pages uses the template and the template itself is only a link to Template:Elections. - David Björklund (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks more the less the same as {{elections}}. In that case, keep either one, and delete or redirect the other. — Instantnood 06:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have a function anymore (I created the template), so Delete. Electionworld 12:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GMA Network edit

Delete. This template is not used, and contain mostly red-links. --Sherool (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Movie (Elvis Presley) edit

Delete. This template is not needed. Instead all movie pages should be uniform with infobox movie template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Eifert (talk • contribs) 1:53, 8 December 2005

  • Delete, overly specific, no substantial difference from generic {{Infobox Movie}}.--Sean|Black 06:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The series ordering functionality provided by this box does not appear to be present in the general infobox. This major feature seems to me to be a "substantial difference." Also, be sure to place this back onto the pages from which it was removed, i.e. List of Elvis Presley films. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we make an exception for the King, then we should have Sean Connery info box, Beatles Movies Info Box... Steve-O 08:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't especially see a problem with that, but you'll notice also that the point of my vote isn't making an exception for the King but for the fact that this box is substantially different from the one you replaced it with. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — totaly obsolete by generic infobox. →AzaToth 11:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obsolete by infobox movie - David Björklund (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could you (User:Christopherparham) explain on why the fields 'preceded by' and 'followed by' need to be present in the infobox? If the movie belongs in a series, it should be discussed in the article itself, and that doesn't even seem to be the case here, they're just films starring Elvis Presley. A separate template is the way this has been dealt with in every other case (like with {{Kurosawa}}. - Bobet 18:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's now been included in the infobox, so all is well. Generally, though, I think that what templates to use in an article is up to the editors and certainly, if you're writing a movie article you can use whatever template you want with whatever features and fields you want. There's no reason editors should be bound by precedent developed at other articles; indeed, that would contradict the open model of WP. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep - Specialized, yes, but used on a wide body of movies that are a franchise in itself. -- Cjmarsicano 06:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aargau Communes edit

Delete: Unused and unusable, more a list than a template, no substantial edits. Same content in much prettier form is in Municipalities of the canton of Aargau. Kusma (討論) 02:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If template edit

Delete, have been superseeded by <noinclude> and <includeonly> →AzaToth 23:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete now that the last remaining usage has been taken care of. I have added the {{tfd}} notice to this template. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If else edit

Speedy Delete, unneeded, unused template, only used on a missplaced user test template Template:Ausir test →AzaToth 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete along with {{Ausir test}} which I have tagged with the {{tfd}} notice pointing to this discussion. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 9 edit

Template:Under construction edit

Penniless orphan. Also a dupe of {{underconstruction}}. Ashibaka tock 06:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ashibaka tock 06:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I notice that it's intended for use on under-construction templates, not articles. Does that make a difference? (I'm not voting, at least in this post.) -- stillnotelf has a talk page 19:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The (article -> template) modification appeared to have been done by a vandal back in October. I've changed the wording back. However, of course, we can consider keeping the template and making it for a template under construction.
  • Keep, Rename, Rename to {{tuc}} →AzaToth 19:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this seems to be a vote for having a template for under-construction templates, I guess I have to revert back to the vandalism! Ashibaka tock 01:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs to be here if an article is undergoing a major rehaul over a period of time. --kralahome 00:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral as it stands. Originally, I would be in favor of deleting this template as duplicative of {{underconstruction}} (which now appears it will survive the TfD), but both Stillnote and AzaToth have raised the possibility of alternative uses (which the vandal inadvertently alerted us to :-)). (I guess it's not true that all vandalism is harmful, then.) --Nlu (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Every Wikipedia page is under construction. Stifle 14:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and let the TfD for {{underconstruction}} (see below) decide the fate of this concept. If kept, we only need to keep one, and {{underconstruction}} is evidently more popular. EldKatt (Talk) 19:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikipediaFAQBottom edit

Completely redundant with Template:WikipediaFAQ. Renata3 19:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I agree that there is a duplication of information going on here, but the placement, layout, and purpose are different. I think this is useful to have because if I, for example, read through a help page idly – just, you know, out of interest – and then reach the end and ask myself, "okay, what else am I curious about?", then it is more useful to have those links at the bottom of the help page instead of having to scroll back up (some help pages are quite long). Some help pages have both this template and Template:WikipediaFAQ, and I also think that usage is justified. --Qirex 11:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the two templates do serve two slightly different purposes, one can still scroll to the top. Also, the template at the top is cleaner and more organized than the template at the bottom. SujinYH 04:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F Anonymex edit

delete. Personal cruft. mikka (t) 04:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Tsd edit

Delete: A template for speedy deletion candidates that are templates. According to a short discussion on the talk page of TfD and the official directions, the proper procedure is to orphan and add {{db|reason}}. Wcquidditch | Talk 13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, useless. — Wackymacs 14:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I'm certain we've deleted something nearly identical before. Any template that's legitimately speedyable can and should be orphaned immediately, so there's no need for a tiny version of {{db}} like {{tfd}} is for {{afd}}. —Cryptic (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless. -- Dpark 16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless. Sitenl 01:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I originally created {{tsd}} because some vandals will create templates used purely for vandalism. But I guess you guys are right - this template probably won't be used often, if at all. --Ixfd64 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I correctly reading this as a support for deletion? Am I also correct in that this may have, in retrospect, been a mistake? I'm just wondering... --<font color="red">WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd just like to say that the linked template looks hilarious. Here's how I saw it:

--Cyde Weys talkcontribs 22:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Jewishhistory edit

Delete this orphan that has never been used and is not linked to anything but itself. IZAK 10:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete empty template, can always be recreated if someone wants to do the work. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks to be completely useless. Template:Jew already incorporates history. -- Dpark 16:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, delete. --HereToHelp (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete box cruft. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lada class submarine edit

Delete: Only one link, to Russian submarine B-100 Sankt Petersburg, which doesn't exist. Not needed until someone makes an article and/or the submarine put into service. kallemax 08:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Looks useless. -- Dpark 16:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above--HereToHelp (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Camp Lazlo Season 1 edit

Speedy Delete: Unneeded, replicates info at Episodes of Camp Lazlo, Season 1; not used on any pages. Also poorly cobbled together from a Simpsons infobox template. Slicing 06:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong (if not speedy) delete, only truly, very notable shows need such season infoboxes. I agree it was poorly built from a Simpsons infobox, there is still a link to the list of Simpsons episodes! This should never be used. --Wcquidditch | Talk 14:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 10 edit

Template:Infobox television (current/past cast) edit

Delete: I had made this back in April 2005, but has been not used in any articles. This was made as a way for displaying shows that have current cast splitted up with former cast. For example, Stephanie March, Michelle Hurd and Dean Winters (former cast) vs. Chris Meloni Mariska Hargitay (current cast) on L&O:SVU. [2] Roadrunner3000 19:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Nominator is creator.—jiy (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, per CSD G7 →AzaToth 19:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have appended {{db-g7}} to the template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was going to point out that CSD G7 was inapplicable, because the template's author hasn't reasonably explained that it was created by mistake, but I see that Radiant removed that requirement on November 24. Was this change discussed somewhere? —Lifeisunfair 21:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I speedy deleted this template per G7. I can't come up with an rationale for why that shouldn't apply. Nandesuka 22:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Under the current wording, G7 applies. Under its former wording, it doesn't (because the template wasn't created by mistake). I'd like to know if this change was discussed somewhere. I checked the CSD talk page (including the August–November archive), and found no relevant text. —Lifeisunfair 23:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did only assume the current G7. Don't know if current, or criterias per creation should apply. →AzaToth 23:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I only placed the tag because someone brought up the G7. I don't think I noticed that change -- but then again, I don't usually notice some changes to the wiki... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not happy with this new interpretation of G7. It allows people to have things deleted that we want kept just because they are the creator and sole editor. That's not they way it works once you press "save", and it shouldn't be interpreted like this. If the author acknowledges that, in hindsight, it was a mistake, that's fine, but not simply because they request it. -Splashtalk 19:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. G7 was intended for situations along the lines of "Whoops, I just created a page with a typo in the title!", "Whoops, I just duplicated an existing page!", or "Oh, I didn't realize that this sort of thing was against Wikipedia policy." It was not intended for situations along the lines of "I created this eight months ago, and now I changed my mind." —Lifeisunfair 21:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then should an admin restore the template and we resume the debate? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I don't believe that speedy deletion is warranted for a potentially useful template (even if it hasn't been utilized). In this case, the template seemed like a good idea to me, and it's possible that editors simply were unaware of its existence. —Lifeisunfair 21:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, the old, "true" G7 seems to have come back to prevent this from ever happening again. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Took this up on WP:VPP, becaus it's about policy, should not be handled here →AzaToth 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Meatpuppet edit

A really bad idea. This template could only be used for newbie-biting, and would escalate AfD disputes into userspace. rspeer 19:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In violation of the spirit of goodwill Wikipedia stands for (and the specific policies that seek to protect it).--Eloquence 19:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's also no reason I can see to tag the pages of meatpuppets, because by definition they aren't going to stay around. If they do stick around, they aren't a meatpuppet anymore. Meatpuppets are single-use accounts, and they are best marked as such in the one place they are contributing (such as an AFD) rather than on their user page. No opinion on deletion, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. mikka (t) 19:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. While the two sometimes are difficult to distinguish between, meat puppetry is not the same thing as sock puppetry. If Wikipedian123 (a nonexistent user, as of this posting) were to invite a friend to register a Wikipedia account for the purpose of voting to support his/her position, that would be an example of meat puppetry. It would not, however, mean that this friend should be labeled "a disruptive meatpuppet of Wikipedian123." Unlike the term "sock puppet" (which, by definition, is an account created by an existing user — a condition that cannot change), the term "meat puppet" is not a permanent designation; it applies strictly to the specific situation(s) in which the meat puppetry occurs. And of course, many instances of meat puppetry are good faith efforts by users entirely unfamiliar with the concept. —Lifeisunfair 20:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I've deleted this template, because Firebug, the creator and sole contributor of the template, marked it for speedy deletion. As such, consider this debate closed.--Sean|Black 20:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comment Guidelines edit

Merge/Delete: Redundant when {{talkheader}} is available. It also doesn't seem to fit the visual style used by other talk page templates (color, size). Finally, {{talkheader}} is in use on over 500 articles, while this template is in use on less than 50. Better to merge anything of value from this into the more widely used template and call it good. =) Locke Cole 12:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. --Wcquidditch | Talk 14:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While I personally like the "feel" of this template better then {{talkheader}}, I agree with Locke Cole that we should strive to reach concensus on what the talk header should be, not create a bunch of different ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonHawk (talk • contribs) 2005-12-11 16:47:36
  • Comment (creator): The purpose of the template is to provide a simple and clean list of talk page guidelines. It's designed to be 'soft', avoiding template overload; {{talkheader}} nearly causes template overload in itself. Its smaller number of in-links is due to the fact that it's existed for less than two months. Although theoretically we could merge 'anything of value', this would involve totally redesigning the appearance of {{talkheader}}, which would likely be opposed. // Pathoschild 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully, if you had problems with {{talkheader}} ("template overload") you should make your proposals there rather than creating another template. The design of {{talkheader}} is meant to complement other talk page templates however, and {{Comment Guidelines}} doesn't fit into that at all. —Locke Cole 19:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just as respectfully, there's no need for a one-and-only-one paradigm for talk templates. Of those templates in the recently-created Category:Talk_header_templates, only {{talkheader}} uses the standardised scheme for talk templates, and it does so incorrectly. The entire box should be coloured, not particular sections; these sections detract attention from the main content of the box. I would much prefer to keep this template distinct from {{talkheader}}, but due to my obvious bias I won't vote. If the template is deleted, though, I'll do my best to reform {{talkheader}} with the consensus of other editors. // Pathoschild 20:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is your opinion, but this doesn't excuse forking from {{talkheader}} to avoid debate. If you have problems with {{talkheader}}, take it up on the talk page there and gain consensus, don't circumvent consensus by forking. It's also worth noting that Category:Talk header templates was created by you less than two weeks ago; it seems logical that the only templates included are likely those added by you (hence why only {{talkheader}} utilizes the standardized scheme). —Locke Cole 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 15:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless anyone can present a rationale why having more than one talk header to choose from is a bad thing. So far, no basis for deletion has been provided. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought it was obvious: having more than one may be confusing for newbies. Further, this one clashes with what seems to be the accepted style used for talk page templates. Finally, it seems like, instead of discussing changes at {{talkheader}}, Pathoschild opted to fork {{talkheader}} to his own preferred style. While it's not a big deal for a template, this would be akin to disagreeing with the George W. Bush article and forking to your own George W. Bush (Locke Cole's article). —Locke Cole 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and migrate to {{talkheader}}. Agree on formatting on the talkheader talk page. Thanks/wangi 17:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. 66.167.138.184 20:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Result: Merged and redirected to save the closing admin some orphaning. Phil Sandifer 18:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ina edit

Delete: Apart from being poorly formatted (which is fixable), it is not actually useful. If an administrator is contacting a user to tell them their name is inappropriate, the user is owed a full and complete explanation of what, exactly is wrong. That can be done on a talk page, without a template. As near as I can tell, the creator of this template has been using it to inappropriately threaten users with fairly innocuous usernames that he feels are inappropriate. Nandesuka 07:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 11 edit

Template:United Federation of Planets infobox edit

Delete a year old, not used and only edited once (disambig fix) after it's creation. Clearly not needed. --Sherool (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler2 edit

Delete. We don't need a "bolder more visible version of the spoiler tag." We need one uniform design. Given the controversial nature of this issue, any potential changes to the long-standing appearance should be discussed at Template talk:Spoiler. Thus far, all such proposals have failed to garner consensus. —Lifeisunfair 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The purpose of this template is to give readers the opportunity to avoid text that they don't wish to read. This is best accomplished my providing a consistent format to look out for. Furthermore, this is an encyclopedia, not an assortment of personal pages. What if one person were decide that he/she wants a blue "spoiler" template with yellow text, and someone else were decide that green with white text and a red icon is the way to go? If we allow each user to create a redundant "spoiler" template that suits his/her exact preferences, we'll end up with hundreds of these. —Lifeisunfair 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think consistency is of overriding importance; both templates serve the purpose of attracting the reader's attention to the presence of spoilers equally well. Allowing the general editing population to choose the template they prefer is likely to lead to most pages having the best possible template; I trust this process better than discussion between a handful of users at Template talk:Spoiler. Your slippery slope worries can be taken into account when the time comes; I doubt I'd vote keep for Template:Spoiler100. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. If the two templates "serve the purpose of attracting the reader's attention to the presence of spoilers equally well," why do we need both of them? 2. The community already has selected its preferred "spoiler" template. If it can be improved, that's precisely what should occur. We should not have two competing templates that serve exactly the same purpose. 3. what number of stylistic variations do you deem acceptable? Five? Ten? Fifty? Where should we draw the line? —Lifeisunfair 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Because why not have both of them? 2) What community? When did this happen? Perhaps you're confusing the few people who pay attention to what happens on template talk pages with the community, but the two are not the same; one includes perhaps 50 people, the other a few thousand. Frankly I think the idea that a couple dozen people on a talk page should dictate the appearance of every page that uses a spoiler warning is utterly absurd. 3) Who knows, however many seem reasonable going into the future. Probably not too many, as there isn't that much scope for functional variation. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already provided the reasoning behind my opinion that it's impractical to have a redundant template. Anyone capable of recognizing the fact that both of these templates exist (and preferring one over the other) is equally capable of expressing his/her opinion on a talk page (and is entirely welcome to do so). —Lifeisunfair 23:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another note, people at Template talk:Spoiler seem fairly frequently to oppose changes to the template that make it more visible and "annoying", which perhaps undermines the idea that the original template is effectively serving the purpose of "giving readers the opportunity to avoid text that they don't wish to read." Christopher Parham (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, all of the suggested modifications merely made the tag uglier, without enhancing its performance in the slightest. Cyde's design is nicer, and might be a good idea — but not as a separate template. —Lifeisunfair 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great -- it's safe to say that when you write pages you won't be using this template. I see no reason, however, to expect that other editors would agree with you. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if I happen to be the next person to edit an article containing this template? Would it be okay for me to switch to {{spoiler}}, and for the following person to switch back to {{spoiler2}}, et cetera? No one's opinion is sacrosanct, so who ultimately should decide which template to use? Do we really need yet another reason to revert war? —Lifeisunfair 23:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nominator. For a template like this, I believe it is imperative to keep a uniform design. K1Bond007 21:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - People can't seem to come to a consensus on what to make the spoiler template look like, so I don't see the harm in letting people choose what the spoiler tag should look like on the page they're editing. There is a wide variety in formatting and color schemes on Wikipedia already, and in some pages, especially TV series pages with lots of images, the vanilla spoiler warning tends to get lost. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 22:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should be arguing this point at Template talk:Spoiler, not creating a redundant fork. What if the next person to edit the page prefers the original version? Are we going to have revert wars over this? Oh, and please don't relocate the TfD tag to the <noinclude> section. —Lifeisunfair 22:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But when the TfD tag isn't in the noinclude section it gets on the pages that use the template and make them ugly. When a page is up for deletion you don't insert some annoying notice in everything that links to it. And it's kind of pointless to argue at the Spoiler talk page because they deal with that ONE version of the template, discounting any possible uses where you'd need a different-looking template. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 01:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. The tag is supposed to appear on the pages that use the template, thereby informing readers of the deletion debate. There are very few cases in which the disruption is significant enough to override this rule. 2. There shouldn't be second template to deal with. If we truly need a "different-looking" version, {{spoiler}} should be modified accordingly. —Lifeisunfair 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried updating the Spoiler template and that got reverted because it was "too conspicuous". I'm sorry, but if I'm using a spoiler warning on the pages I'm editing I want it to be conspicuous, you know, so people will actually see it. And your comment about "If you need something different-looking, just modify the current version" makes no sense. People are not allowing the current one to be modified, so there needs to be a second, higher-visibility version for pages that warrant it. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 02:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps if you were to present a well-reasoned explanation on the talk page (instead of announcing the creation of {{spoiler2}}), you'd succeed in building a consensus. If not, oh well; we can't always get what we want. Whether dealing with an article or a template, the solution to a content dispute is not to fork a separate version. You stated that "there needs to be a second, higher-visibility version for pages that warrant it," but you haven't explained why some pages deserve special treatment, nor have you specified who should decide which pages this describes. The answer can't logically be "the editor," because the next editor might disagree. Then what? —Lifeisunfair 02:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow me to quote you, if you will, as my justification as to what decides which template version is used: "Anyone capable of recognizing the fact that both of these templates exist (and preferring one over the other) is equally capable of expressing his/her opinion on a talk page (and is entirely welcome to do so)." --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above doesn't remotely answer my question; it's a complete non sequitur. —Lifeisunfair 20:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me spell it out further. Your main objection seemed to be that "we don't need another reason for edit wars". I'm saying if there is a fuss over which version of the template to use it should be discussed on the talk page, not sent off to edit-war-dom. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 22:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main objection is the fact that it's a redundant template that creates unwarranted incongruity. Your suggestion is impractical; we don't need yet another issue to distract us from the task of compiling an encyclopedia. Do you propose that we conduct a poll on the talk page of every article for which two editors disagree over which template to use? —Lifeisunfair 23:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether or not one template or two or twenty are available with various graphic differences, they should all use the same text. Besides changing the visuals, this one also changes the text, regressing to an earlier version before {{solution}} existed. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then the text on it can be changd, the original intent was to change the coloring to make it more visible, not change the text. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Then make whoever created this come and clean my brains, which just exploded in a fit of "WHY THE FUCK DO WE HAVE THIS TEMPLATE CRUFT" off my walls. Jesus. Phil Sandifer 00:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The other templates at Wikipedia:Spoiler do the job just fine, and are more effective since they specifically list "plot" or "solution". --Idont Havaname 01:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Pls. do not think of this from the editors' preferences. When we look at it from the view of some one who comes to Wikipedia for some info, he'd be put-off by excessive variety of tags on the article page. Which is why the current spoiler tag should be enough. I'd be indifferent for templates used in talk pages. --Gurubrahma 11:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Consistency is the whole reason we even have templates in the first place. Chris talk back 11:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Christopher Parham. Stifle 14:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Duplicate. Unneeded. Encourages edits wars. (I like this one. No, I like this one.) -- Dpark 17:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Lifeisunfair. DES (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Chris. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 19:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per all discussion above. CG 20:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and resolve usage via discussion at Template talk:Spoiler ... failing that, take the matter to an RFC. Courtland 23:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all template forks. —Cryptic (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one spoiler tag is enough.--Sean|Black 04:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one template will certainly do Borisblue 07:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, forking is evil. —Locke Cole 01:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spoiler warnings are evil. Forked spoiler warnings are hell. --Stbalbach 02:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, standard spoiler warning is intrusive visible enough. Kusma (討論) 02:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having multiple spoiler notes that do the same thing will just be confusing for editors, as the spoiler notes themselves are not encylopedic themselves, they would be canidates to be entirely removed if a published version of wikipedia were to be made. If you think the current spoiler warning isn't any good, bring it to it's talk page. xaosflux Talk/CVU   05:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please see Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning#A more visible spoiler warning. I'm coming to terms with {{spoiler2}}'s likely deletion, but I still contend that in special cases when it's not just the normal spoiler warning (like I outline in the link) a more visible spoiler warning needs to be used. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 12:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please. — Dan | talk 23:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and discuss any spoiler template changes at Template talk:Spoiler -Mike5904 02:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't the visibility aspects be solved with user styles? 66.167.138.184 20:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per Lifeisunfair --Qirex 09:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 12 edit

Template:GFW edit

Why is wikipedia commanding the people from mainland China not read its article? This template is completely pointless and inapproriate. --Jiang 00:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely useless. -- Dpark 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history said "translated from Chinese", so I guess this comes from zh:Template:BlockByGFW, which is used in "External links" sections to warn that some links might be inaccessible to mainland readers due to censorship (and links to proxy server etc. so people learn how to possibly evade the block). Even assuming that that is the intent, I don't think we need this here. Delete. Kusma (討論) 05:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it actually means that PRC people may not be able to view the article, rather than saying that they aren't allowed to view the article. I'll change the wording to make it more clear. Borisblue 07:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a minute, how are Chinese users going to see this template if the article is blocked? D'oh. Striked out keep vote. Borisblue 07:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, some discussion at zhwiki about the template. This template is useful to notify readers and editors that not everyone can view it, and if possible, prevent to use some "keyword" filtered by the Great Firewall to prevent to blocking. This is not "commanding the people from..." — Yaohua2000 12:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dubious whether this can be very accurately placed, and pretty useless regardless. Lord Bob 23:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. My insecure self think that this is more of a "hey eat this ChiCom, we're gonna announce to the world how evil you are" template than a truly informative one. People blocked by the GFW won't be able to see this template at all, and those who can prove this template wrong. Also, the GFW blocks the entire wikimedia site and all its sister sites (and I must imagine all the leechers too) so there doesn't exist a solution of not using certain "keywords" to bypass the GFW. If this template should survive deletion it should be pasted without fail to every single nook and cranny of Wikipedia. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: That sounds funny. But it is technically incorrect. Because Chinese government only block those wikimedia server in Korea, wikimedia DNS replies the IP of Korea server to those users in China, so people are not able to view wikimedia site. But if a user modify his DNS configuration, add some custom lines to /etc/hosts and redirect all requests to Korean servers to those servers in North America or Europe, it will be bypass the blocking. You can whois my current IP, it is from mainland China. This is so called third blocking of Wikipedia from China. But it is not the all of Great Firewall. Great Firewall uses keyword filter to prevent user view sensitive sites for normal websites, even if you modify hosts file and redirect the web request to servers not blocked, you have to face the keyword check. Unless you are over a secured connection. This software official named "金盾", it is reported that the techinical and hardware for the keyword filtering is from Cisco. —221.196.188.187 01:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Chinese to whom this warning applies won't be able to see it anyway, and those who can see it probably won't care as it doesn't affect them. —Psychonaut 00:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To the user(s) above saying this is meant to tell people not to use certain keywords on certain articles... the whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. Nobody is going to tell me what words I can and cannot use. If the Chinese government doesn't like that, tough - maybe the Chinese people should get a new government. But that's not my problem, and it's not anyone else's problem on Wikipedia. Kafziel 13:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valuable to chinese readers and other interested parties. Sam Spade 00:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only article this template is currently in use on appears to be Falun Gong, and the Chinese government's attitude toward Falun Gong is clearly described in that article already. However, any Wikipedia article might be inaccessible to users in China (see Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China), so I don't see what the point of this template is. --Metropolitan90 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 66.167.138.184 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per Psychonaut. Andrew Levine 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should be used on every page. Also has a NPOV tone. Stevage 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anything is blocked for users in mainland China, it's all of Wikipedia, never individual articles--read our own articles on the relevant subjects. So, even all the other arguments aside, this serves no purpose whatsoever. EldKatt (Talk) 08:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's just anti-Chinese govt propaganda. Dan100 (Talk) 18:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future game/yearcvg edit

No idea what is this template. CG 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not used, impossibly unwieldy name, and seems useless. -- Dpark 00:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Dpark, the / makes it look like a sub template. xaosflux Talk/CVU   17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current Holiday edit

This template implicates that every ongoing holiday should be tagged with a Current event template, which is not the case. On every Christmas holiday or Ramadan month the respective articles don't become current events. In addition, this template is not used. CG 21:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This thing's just silly. -- Dpark 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. 66.167.138.184 20:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Thelb4 18:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Capitalist edit

Delete: Created this by accident and miscommunication. Kross | Talk 08:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you are the creator and sole contributor to this template I have speedily deleted this, see WP:CSD specifically item number 7 under "General".--Sean|Black 08:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference edit

Delete Not used anywhere, seems to be redundant with {{Heartland Conference}}. --Sherool (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CHSUB edit

Delete: Template does nothing more than add article to a category (Category:Subdivisions of Switzerland) and add irrelevant text to the article page Mike5904 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; useless, noise only. Schutz 06:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC
  • Delete per nomination. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2004 edit

Delete seems to be created by mistake, reads like the opening of a bio. Not used and not edited since December 2004. --Sherool (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PC edit

Delete: Do we really need templates for four articles relating to one brand that is only sold in one country? The name is ambiguous, since it could just as well be about personal computers or political correctness, and the template is unused. (Note: A template with the same name was deleted in July, but that template seems to have been about political correctness) Aecis praatpaal 20:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to {{PresChoice}} or something that removes the ambiguity (I don't think that an apostrophe can be used in the title, right?). Courtland 01:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we really don't need this- agree with Aecis' arguments. --G Rutter 11:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think there's too many templates out there anyway. -^demon 15:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename. Useful template. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fancruft edit

Unused, does not warn of something that actually violates any written policies, is generally just a very dumb idea. Phil Sandifer 17:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the following reasons: (1) orphan (2) silly (3) don't put self-references on article pages unless they're REALLY important! Ashibaka tock 22:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. There's no such thing as fancruft, it's just a buzzword for people to use when they want to convince other people that a topic isn't noteworthy. Concerns like this should be brought up on the Talk page, where civil discussion is possible, not introduced with something as hostile as a buub (big ugly useless box) stamped on the page. -Silence 17:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV, bordering on nonsense outside AfD CanadianCaesar 00:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you believe there is such a thing as fancruft, as I do, the solution to that is to remove it from the article, not to add this ugly-ass notice to the top. android79 01:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subsumed by Template:Cleanup et al. —Psychonaut 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and delete - David Gerard 19:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as well as Android79. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete take it to the talk page. QQ 22:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps it should be replaced by this? Chris talk back 17:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless warning template. Keep those warning templates to things like original research, NPOV and accuracy. We do not need to warn people that what they're about to read is fiction which someone else doesn't like. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baleet, possible cowbell candidate as per Chris. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Silence and Psychonaut. jareha 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for every reason stated above, even the ones I don't agree with. Cernen 11:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fictional animals cat edit

Delete: First, this template is large and almost all of the entries are in alphabetical order. Second, it is currenty only used on category pages, no articles – thus redundant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question: redundant with what? What else already exists that does the job of this template? Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and then delete. BlankVerse 20:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question; where would you put this list? —Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. 66.167.138.184 20:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Listify and delete I agree with BlankVerse Arturus 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete, per above. BD2412 T 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am somewhat mystified as to the actual problem with this template. It provides navigation between a huge number of related categories: how would this be made any easier by forcing users to navigate via some other separate list? —Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails at life. Delete it. Cernen 11:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UKUSA Community edit

Delete: This template was used only on the UKUSA Community article, and I've subst'ed it there already. It has no potential to be used elsewhere. NormanEinstein 21:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BostonInfoBox edit

Delete: It's a template used for only one article, namely Boston, Massachusetts. Furthermore, it's sufficiently the same as Template:Infobox City. Plus, Infobox City is nicely standard. --Mark Adler (Markles) 12:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - It was probably made by a user who didn't quite know what they're doing. The page that linked to it has been fixed to use Infobox City, so there's no need for this thing to be around any longer. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Afd-noconsensus edit

Delete. An article is either deleted or kept. The failure to reach a consensus does not reduce an article to a lower status, and we already place notices on the corresponding talk pages. —Lifeisunfair 12:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Why would an AFD result of "no consensus" have any bearing on whether or not someone would want to read an article? → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Exposes too much of the workings of Wikipedia to the casual reader. Also, as per nom and the guy with the big sig above me. :) FreplySpang (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gives the false impression that "no consensus" is not functionally "keep", which it is. Other templates already allow one to note that the result was "no consensus". Also, the "You may wish to take this into consideration when deciding whether or not to read this article." is horrifyingly POVed and presumptive. -Silence 14:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perplexed by the link to the deleted page notice, which invites the reader to pretend that the page has been deleted and protected. —Lifeisunfair 14:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, boxcruft. AfD conclusions belong on talk pages, not in big ugly boxes at the top of the article. If there is doubt about factual accuracy, use {{disputed}}. In any case, AfD is not for deciding whether the content is accurate or not, but merely whether the subject is worth including in Wikipedia at all. The two issues are orthogonal, and should not be confused like this template does. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. android79 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme predjudice against further attempts to suggest that articles need 2/3 consensus to exist in the first place. Phil Sandifer 19:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per everybody.--Sean|Black 19:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also per everybody. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. Delete borderline nonsense with the link to the deleted page; it does indeed show malice to articles kept by no consensus. CanadianCaesar 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template was created by Firebug because he doesn't like the result of an Afd that he participated in. He's been trying all sorts of desperate measures including redirecting the article without consensus (and without even seeking a conensus). Here he is placing it on the article: [3] RJII 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per reasons above. gtdp 18:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and delete. Deletion policy needs a dynamite enema in general, but we can start by unpicking things like this that are used for assumption of bad faith - David Gerard 19:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is a difference between a consensus keep and a technical keep. One means that there was agreement to keep the article, the other means that there wasn't agreement to delete. The existing template allows the closing admin to specify the result, be it "keep" or "no consensus", we don't need another template for this specific case when the general one will do. Chris talk back 02:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. "Consensus" that there is no consensus is somewhat of a misnomer, and that's one of the many problems that needs to be fixed in AfD (although, as was already pointed out, AfD needs much more work than just that). Regarding the second paragraph of that template: do people need instructions on where to go in order to read an article that's right below this big, ugly notice? Other deletion debates are just linked to on talk pages; that should suffice for no-consensus cases too. --Idont Havaname 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Readers can decide for themselves if they want to read articles or not. We do not need to have huge ugly warning templates about previous AFD discussions for that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Jbamb 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Place Subject Here-footer edit

Delete: Unused template with no apparent use. BD2412 T 02:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It looks like a "template for making templates". Just copying the syntax from another template is usually enough, and this is neither special nor educational. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Correction edit

Delete. From the newbie that brought us {{spoiler3}} comes {{correction}}, a template used to sign articles (and take credit for specific corrections), as seen here and here. —Lifeisunfair 01:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a template: If there's a mistake, fix it!--Sean|Black 01:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ironic how "corection" is mis-spelled there. BD2412 T 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, per my interpretation of §G1 and §G2 →AzaToth 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible. This style of editing is severely inappropriate, and the creation of a template to edit articles this way is ridiculous:
    1. Article mistakes should be fixed.
    2. Conflicting opinions should be resolved on talk pages.
    3. The template consists of almost zero code, and therefore does not actually make any kind of editing, disruptive or not, easier. This strikes me as a deliberate attempt to legitimise the edits.
    4. The way in which the user signs their name to these corrections runs contrary to Wikipedia policy.
--Qirex 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied. Call me a rouge admin if you like, but these bulletin-board-style posts have no place in any article, ever. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler3 edit

Delete. Another spoiler template. Yuck! It uses the text-hiding method (which is listed on the spoiler warning guideline page as an "unacceptable alternative"). —Lifeisunfair 01:17/01:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We only need one spoiler template. Really.--Sean|Black 01:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if we needed another, this is not it. BD2412 T 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, per my interpretation of §G1 and §G2 →AzaToth 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. Yuck indeed. --Qirex 10:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Okay guys, I'm sorry I ever made {{spoiler2}}, I had no idea it would lead to this ... --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I still think we need a better spoiler template than the one we have, but this one is clearly not acceptable. Kafziel 00:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gerard Foley 06:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't get into the spoiler-template design thing outside of the fact that this is an unneeded, unacceptable template that should be deleted. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not acceptable. -- DS1953 talk 13:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify then Delete Even if people still want to use it, they can get it from my talk page. --Cat lover 16:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It fails at life. Delete it. Cernen 11:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied!: I'm a rogue too I guess? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:25, Dec. 25, 2005
    • Obviously not, since you spell it 'rogue', not 'rouge'. --Wikiacc (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Album_infobox_2 edit

It's time to put this one out of its misery. If the discussion when this deletion was first proposed wasn't (quite) convincing (archived here [4] ), the choices of active editors are now clear. So far this month, for example, it's been used in only 14 new album articles; in contrast, the standard template has been used in more than 750. Overall, this template is currently used in just under 750 articles, while the standard template is used in nearly 10,000. Since nobody's made an argument against a uniform infobox style in album articles, and the preference of active editors is overwhelmingly clear, I can't see any reason not to Delete (with whatever cleanup of the existing use is required). Monicasdude 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about just setting it as a REDIRECT? There wouldn't be need for any cleanup. --Tokle 20:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the preference is not overwhelmingly clear. It takes more effort for people to use this template, and couple this with the fact that it's not as well advertised, I'm not surprised at the disparity in usage. I'll also note that you went through at least five albums and removed this template from them prior to nominating it here. IMO that's bad faith, and I'll be digging further through your contribs to see if you've been violating WP:POINT. —Locke Cole 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. There is a clear infobox recommendation. If you want to try to build consensus for a change to a new template, convince the WikiProject to adopt it. Removing this template is editing to the guidelines of both a WikiProject, WP:FAC standards, and to Wikipedia:Fair use. Jkelly 20:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am well aware of WikiProject Albums and aware of the template promoted there. This template is nearly identical to the template there except for the additional navigational images. In so far as your latter comment: the only way it "edits to the guidelines" of WP:FAC is in so far as it agrees with a WikiProject exactly, and I've made my arguement in the previous sentence for why I think that's irrelevant. This isn't some drastically different template/fork, it's nearly identical to the one used by the WikiProject. As to Fair use, it is my opinion that usage of images in this way is in compliance with fair-use. I liken the relationship between {{Album infobox}} and {{Album infobox 2}} as being the same as {{Afd}} and {{Afdx}}. Very minor, but enough of a difference that it warrants a seperate template. —Locke Cole 01:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My arguments for this are at Template talk:Album infobox 2. Briefly, this template differs from the WikiProject recommendation by adding two more album covers. That means more graphics to d/l, a bigger box, and more overuse of unfree content. Wikipedia:Fair use encourages us to use copyrighted images as little as possible, and WP:FAC examines that use very strictly. The use of this template (and the ensuing edit-wars) means that album articles are often frustrating to work on. Jkelly 20:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - makes additional use of fair use images which should be kept down (and is in my opinion more irritating than helpful as the images link to the image pages, and not to the album's articles). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Template is useful, more presentable and any claims of "fair use" abuse have not been proven. This discussion is a waste of time, as it was in October. BGC 21:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There seems to be a clear consensus against this version and no consensus to use it in place of the pre-existing template. Gamaliel 21:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, both templates seem to be used pretty substantially. No compelling reason to delete has been offered. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnecessary template fork. - Lee (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Encourages the mis-use of non-free images. Also a usability nightmare, as the "next cover" and "previous cover" images don't link to the articles they seem to be linking to. --Carnildo 23:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Argue, don't fork. Fair-use issues, etc. Bad idea. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As it's been covered already: I've seen no convincing argument that this isn't covered by fair use; the "additional images to download" argument is rediculous, even on dial-up, the size of those images is negligble; I see no convincing argument to delete. As an additional note, if someone can point out a statement from the concensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums against the use of this template, I'll change my vote to delete. Their page lists infobox as the standard, which it is. This means that it has the majority of use, not that the other shouldn't be used. Until something more convincing comes along, I will continue to vote keep. Arturus 01:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Carolaman 02:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carnildo.—jiy (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same as my previous vote over this. The "navigational images" direct the user to the image page itself. Fair use issue (i.e., it isn't fair use). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am not convinced that this is in conflict with fair use policy, due to the very small display size (50px) and the fact that the albums displayed are only the preceding, current, and following albums. I have seen numberous instances where editors have created discographies of musicians and displayed 100px+ images for each album ever released by that artist (eg The Beatles discography, U2 discography, Michael Jackson discography, Pink Floyd discography, Led Zeppelin discography etc). That is excessive, not this. I do not necessarily advocate this infobox over the other one, however I personally use album infobox 2 when placing an infobox on an album page where one is not already present. I don't think it is right to change album infobox 2 to album infobox nor visa versa. If people are passionate about which infobox they percieve to be the correct one, I urge those users to place whatever they want at any of the albums listed here, and not to change existing infoboxes as that is far less constructive and far more likely to cause unnecessary conflict. --Qirex 08:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find it more irritating than helpful for navigation, as the images link to the image pages rather than the article pages. I also think it's completely pointless to display the same image for an album twice in an infobox. HarryCane 12:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is it possible to make the pictures link to the album though? ProveIt 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You can say there's a same problem with pictures not linking to the intended page at Wikipedia:Reference desk, but they aren't complaining, are they? Keep because it's harmless. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template forks suck. See my comments on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace for details. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carnildo, and also Mirv's comments on template forking. --NormanEinstein 22:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carnildo, Mirv. android79 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Carnildo and Wikipedia:Fair use. Extraordinary Machine 16:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, think there is an amount of certainty for fair use for such articles. -- Natalinasmpf 21:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nat is right. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Carnildo; also per Mirv, especially as the template fork introduces inconsistency when navigating through a band's albums and different albums use different templates. Nothings 07:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: BTW, for anyone concerned about usability issues (specifically, that when you click on the image you're taken to the image page, not the specific album pictured), please look at {{Click}}. Assuming this survives TfD, someone should look into integrating this into {{Album infobox 2}}. —Locke Cole 08:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made an attempt at integrating "click" into the template at Template:Album infobox test. I can't get it to work right though. Someone with a bit more programing skill should take a look at it. --Tokle 22:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've modified it slightly to get it to work, but there are still (hopefully minor) positioning issues. Please take a look at the example I've provided at Template talk:Album infobox test. —Locke Cole 05:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I quite agee with the infrobox 2 but do appreciate the usability issue raised in the last posting. Click on the image should take the user to the album NOT the image, that can happen on the main album page itself. Kevinalewis 11:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kevinalewis. Album cover ABSOLUTELY should be linked to the article, NOT the picture. --Cjmarsicano 22:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, --Tokle 14:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cassandra Leo 22:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a consistent look across all album pages. This template is not much of an improvement over the other. Also, why two of the same album cover images? --דוד ♣ D Monack 08:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: about the fact that the same cover is displayed twice, this is just an extension of the original which listed the album twice, in effect. It's just to show the current album next to the preceding and following albums; to show it in chronological context. If there is consensus that it shouldn't be shown, it's not a big deal to modify the template to only show the previous and next albums, omitting the current album, and so this argument is not a valid reason to delete in my view. --Qirex 08:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons I mentioned in the earlier nom. I don't think this qualifies as fair use because the album covers are being used solely for decoration. Tuf-Kat 14:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: They are not being used for decoration. Some people actually recognize albums better by their cover artwork than by their names, and this is especially true for people who grew up during the vinyl era (with more importance to cover art). If I ask my parents and many of my friends' parents, they will very easily be able to tell me about cover art, but most of them don't remember the title of the album. "It's the one with the two faces on the cover!" I think we can't overlook this fact. --Comics 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - against template forks. Rhobite 22:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
agreed - but just maybe the new version should superceed the earlier. Kevinalewis 09:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it looks better and is more user friendly to the reader. Once the tag has been altered to link the thumbnails to the actual album entries (rather than the images themselves) it will be even more usable. As far as the 'fair use' image aspect is concerned I can't see any record company objecting to the additional tiny thumbnails used in the box. Ian Dunster 12:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete becuase of copyright, unfair fair use concerns. Personally, I think this should probably be an arbitrary decision by wikimedia based on whether it's legal or not. If this is unquestionably legal my vote becomes an "I don't care". gren グレン 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Surachit 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- hate forks. Per Wikipedia:Fair use#Images: ..."generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith: Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary). 05:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A good template idea, don't see whats wrong with it. Protozoic Waste
  • Keep The fact that it hasn't caught on yet means nothing. The point is that it's just easier to edit and create than the old ones. --Methegreat 22:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- WB 09:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't see anything wrong with it. Lankiveil 13:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, Ditto. I Am Ri¢h! My Rich Contributions/My Wealthy Talk
  • Keep (Ibaranoff24 02:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Elink edit

Not used. – Adrian | Talk 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S edit

Delete: Only used to present a Unicode character. Wikiacc (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Language link; also equivalent Template:Ll edit

Subst and delete: Worse than useless. Doesn't save significant typing; is supposed to be always used with subst, but often isn't; confuses newbie editors; if subst is used then the template doesn't even save any typing. Equivalent Template:Ll is absolutely mystifying to newbie editors when used without subst. - Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the inappropriateness of this template is underlined by the hideous way this is showing up in articles now that I tagged it with {{tfd}}: most of the time it's sitting in the middle of prose. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I changed {{tfd}} to {{tfd-inline}} to fix that issue. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete. Agree with Jmabel. --Khoikhoi 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete --Gareth Hughes 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Language" is a word that is frequently misspelled, whereas "subst:ll" is rather more difficult to get wrong. Chris talk back 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is "subst:ll" easier to get right than "language"? Your argumentation is not immediately convincing. Delete. EldKatt (Talk) 09:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete as overcomplication for little benefit. [[English language|English]] is easy to type and understand. sjorford (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete, this is pointless. Gerrit CUTEDH 16:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wastes server resources. If there was a way to assure it would always be subst-ed then I wouldn't care if it stayed. gren グレン 19:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete. Maybe a bot could do all the substing? CG 21:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone explain to me why this is considered useless, and why it needs the sbst: ? Typing the name of a language once is faster than typing it twice, and ll is easier to type than language (which I end up misspelling as langauge). Cf. [[Kapampangan language|Kapampangan]] vs. {{ll|Kampapangan}}. And it only takes a newbie editor about 2 minutes to figure out what this does. kwami 22:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete. Unnecessary burden on servers when unsubst'ed, saves no typing when subst'ed. --Angr (t·c) 09:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AustraliaGov edit

  • Uninformative and ambigious image copyright tag, there is a very good tag for PD images from Australia {{PD-Australia}}, fair use images that might be tagged with this tag should be tagged within the current fair use structure, delete.--nixie 23:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have {{PD-Australia}} and {{PD-Australia-CC}}. This template doesnt do anything new. Agnte 23:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what do we do with the images that have this tag? If we know the image is 50+ years old, we tag it {{PD-Australia-CC}}, but otherwise, what tag should they have? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already moved everything that could be more accurately tagged, all that remains is some military insignia which I see can be tagged with {{Military-Insignia}}.--nixie 01:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not useful as a copyright tag. JYolkowski // talk 03:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, delete, I guess. I created the tag, and so far as I know I'm the only one who used it. (At the time, I don't think better tags existed. They do now.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 03:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SummersEve edit

  • Delete.: Can we speedy this? Its only purpose is for personal attacks on users. BrianSmithson 22:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: First, there is nothing in the speedy policy to allow this to go fast. Second, anything can be used as personal attacks, that doesn't mean anything. If people are engaging in personal attacks, there is a policy for that. This is valuable in increasing the morale of the wiki editors and provides entertainment if used tastefully. -- Jbamb 22:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete.--nixie 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and sanction creator. Guettarda 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Its an attack template. It shouldn't be used WP:NPA Agnte 23:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleared it, delete it. -- Jbamb 23:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted, at request--Sean|Black 23:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parappa edit

  • Delete: The songs just redirect back to the article that the template is on or are not yet created. Not needed. Thorpe 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There was an AFD about the song articles, and the consensus was to merge and redirect into Parappa the Rapper. This template is all that remains of the pre-AFD version of things. — BrianSmithson 23:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lowercase-Apple edit

Delete, and put all articles with this template back into {{lowercase}}.: This is template-creep. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, we can't be this specific for this type of thing, and the Apple logo is not fair use on this template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above (but perhaps put a noinclude thing around the tfd tag because it's ugly on some pages). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too specific; {{lowercase}} is just fine for this purpose. —Psychonaut 00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Talrias and WCQuidditch. Also, unnecessarily disrupts wikipedia's uniformity of appearance, which I think causes pages to looks bad. --Qirex 10:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the good reasons above. Thanks/wangi 10:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. This has also been disputed at the Macintosh WikiProject between project participants.— Wackymacs 14:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template is absurd. --BigBlueFish 19:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and speedy remove "fair use" logo. gren グレン 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have iTunes, iPhoto, iMac, iBook, iLife, iMovie, iSight, iDVD... a template for 8 pages? When we have another template that suits it pretty well? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even though the logo is pretty. I'd been meaning to do this myself. Mark1 13:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Ste|vertigo 18:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely pointless, fanboi-egotism. --Kiand 19:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep тəzєті 14:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, separate template unnecesary and logo shouldn't be used in a template. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 19:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's another reason Wikipedia needs to address the case sensativity issue. "apple" should be redirected to "Apple" is no lowercase exists.
  • delete please we do not need extra templates for this really Yuckfoo 05:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, templatecruft. Szyslak (  [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 10:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - Stoph 16:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK A edit

This and Template:UK B don't appear to be used. Their function is to convert code such as {{UK A|50}} to [[A50 road|A50]], a saving of 5 characters for a two-digit road (and no saving at all if used with subst:). I'm nominating it for deletion because bulk use of this template (such as this previous version of List of B roads in Great Britain) would seem to be unnecessary server load. sjorford (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Both templates created by User:SPUI - I would have posted a note on his talk page, but I don't think I want to tread in it. ;) sjorford (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've left a note on SPUI's talk page. Thanks/wangi 11:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK B edit

Please see the discussion of Template:UK A above.

Template:ContraSub edit

Delete. Unlike templates such as {{disputed}} and {{pov}}, this tag is intended to permanently reside within "controversial" articles, warning users against editing without prior discussion (a very un-wiki instruction). Thus far, it's been added to Pedophilia and Gay Nigger Association of America. While these obviously are controversial subjects, the same is true of countless other topics (particularly those of a political or religious nature). Should we be branding all such articles with this template? We already have {{controversial}} for talk pages, and it's entirely inappropriate for a similar (actually stricter, because {{controversial}} merely instructs users to read the talk page before editing) tag to encroach upon the actual articles. —Lifeisunfair 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - against longstanding Wikipedia custom not to put tags permanently on article pages. Also, the hand-in-a-stop-sign image is widely (on Wikipedia) used to mean - "you've been blocked, or are in deep trouble in some way" and so is inappropriate for a mere friendly alert that a topic is controversial. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would suggest putting it on the talk pages, but seeing that {{controversial}} already does that, there's no need for this template, as placing them on the article page is quite bad form. Also, it should be {{ControSub}}, not {{ContraSub}}, but that's a different matter. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 06:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Every casual reader will see this and a casual reader doesn't need to have his attention drawn to the talk page; it was added to GNAA because of the AfDs and Featured article nominations, but any editor experienced enough to AfD or nominate things for FA status will probably know to look at talk pages first anyway. CanadianCaesar 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, this goes against BE BOLD. "Discuss changes on the talk page first"? No thank you. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Controversial articles need more editing, not less. -Silence 13:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this thing is pure evil--Anyone who 03:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very anti-wiki. Agnte 12:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above.--nixie 04:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or else more than half of WP could probably be marked with it, I suspect. Xoloz 15:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Church and Template:Vatican edit

  • Image copyright tags, both with ambigious content, both directing the uploader to retag the images with the appropriate copyright tag. These tags should not be used in place of correct copyright tagging and should both be deleted to clear up the copyright issues, delete.--nixie 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but rewrite Seems it deals less with matters of copyright but approval of items from the Vatican. Should be clarified and could be useful. -- Jbamb 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Not useful. --Carnildo 23:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think these templates would confuse people trying to properly tag images. --NormanEinstein 15:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. They are both confusing. --Valentinian 15:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. They are confusing - I almost used these instead the correct template. Kenj0418 14:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or major rewrite. I can't make any sense of either in their current form, and they are no help with copyright tagging (in fact just confuses it). — Eoghanacht talk 14:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. That's confusing. Aye, I dare say, ridiculously overblown. "May or may not be usable on Wikipedia?" If you're not sure, don't post the image. Delete.

Template:Lennonist edit

Delete. As is noted on the talk page, this is just a duplicate of Template:User lennonist. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 19:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - Speaking as the template's creator. I was trying to create {{user lennonist}} and accidentally created this. Daykart 21:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted now. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phnom Penh infobox edit

Already merged: Single-use template, already merged into article. Golbez 09:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Self-rule edit

Doesn't belong in the template namespace. — Dan | talk 06:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it belongs anywhere, but delete because it's completely ridiculous.--Sean|Black 06:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete -- Jbamb 06:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, stat! Raul654 06:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it applies to itself. -Silence 06:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No, on second thought BJAODN. Better obey Raul654, since he stands so high in the cabal and all... ;-) -- SCZenz 06:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copied to BJAODN. All hail Jimbo, the one true creator of the Great Wikipedia. Blessings unto Raul, great saint of Delaware. Dragons flight 20:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Of no obvious use.--Dakota ? e 08:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you don't like it then don't use it. How is it "ridiculous"? Why delete what was designed for the non official WP:0RR guideline? How does it "apply to itself" and how would that be grounds for deletion? zen master T 11:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It applies to itself in that it is not approved by the cabal. -Silence 11:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't belong in the template namespace. Carbonite | Talk 11:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the name of the almighty cabal, who do not tolerate insurrection. "As promoters of self-rule, the users of this page recognize changes made only by those who have adopted and practice the principles herein." I love this part. You're not allowed to edit the page until you renounce the cabal. Obviously members of the cabal could never do so! Fnord. JRM · Talk 19:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, nor in anarchy. android79 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is true. It is an experiment in communism. -- Jbamb 20:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Complete rubbish. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the editors who follow this rule would be creating a cabal by themselves... and then, what to do? See recursion. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been BJAODN so it will be deleted by the Cabal. Hedley 17:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that it has been preserved for posterity in BJAODN and that this has no use. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. Everyone knows there is no cabal. -shifty eyes- Cernen 10:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TINC. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stars edit

Adds an extra three levels of metatemplate cruft to album infoboxes, solely to add alt text to an image (which is already there in many cases, sometimes in superior form). If the alt text is that important, it can be added by a bot. —Cryptic (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm all for getting the proper alt-text but this is not the way (bot?). Using the switch and the template is a needless waste of resources. This template is not likely to change... we are not likely going to get new stars (if we did we'd just change the image anyways) so I see no use to this template. gren グレン 06:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong KEEP!. I've seen this start to be flowed onto Album infoboxes. All it is, is an easier way to flow ratings from AllMusic.com and elsewhere into the infobox. Never throw oout something useful, it would be like replacing the hatch on a submarine with a screen door, or replacing the healthy food in your fridge with junk food. --Cjmarsicano 06:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't actually make it easier; it just makes people have to learn a new syntax. Here's what happens when someone tries to figure it out by trial and error. Alt text is useful. Crippling the servers is not. (And for the user who helpfully moved the tfd notice from the talk page, note that the template has been placed into some 1600 articles (almost all of them by User:ScudLee), all of whose caches you just broke.) —Cryptic (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a problem, glad to help make sure this TfD receives a fair "trial". Next time, please don't try to hide the fact that you're nominating a template for deletion by placing the notice only on the talk page. —Locke Cole 08:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody was trying to hide anything; thanks for your assumption of good faith. Its far-and-away most-frequent user is presumeably watching the talk page (since he created it), and it was noted on Template talk:Album infobox, which will be watched by anyone at all likely to use it. The notice was placed on the talk page because editing a template used on as many pages as this one is will fully occupy the servers for about ten seconds (see WP:AUM). —Cryptic (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was just returning the favor for your assumption of good faith on my part. My concern isn't with server load, it's with ensuring this TfD nomination has a chance to be heard fairly. I'm aware of WP:AUM, I'm also aware that many people don't keep frequently used templates on their watchlist. It makes sense that these people should be notified. —Locke Cole 09:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, please spare our servers the torture, and help fix it instead. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now. In terms of usability, it seems much easier to me, especially the way you type for a half star: {{stars|2.5}} instead of [[Image:2hv stars out of 5.png|2.5 stars out of 5]], which always felt very unintuitive. Very few people bother with typing alternate text, because editing gets done by imitation (for the most part) and no-one else is doing it. Imitation isn't that hard to master, so I'm not very moved by the argument that it is a burden to learn a handful of characters worth of syntax. I'm equally unmoved by the fact that "almost all of them [placed] by User:ScudLee" – he attempted to discuss the idea at Project albums talk page, no one objected or even responded really, and no-one else really bothered about the work as much as he did. However, if there is an extra burdon on servers then that's not good, but I can't really comment on that aspect because I wouldn't know what I'm talking about. Could we use subst: to get around this problem? Having read the talk page for the template, it's quite clear that subst will be much worse than just typing out [[Image:..]] --Qirex 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, shouldn't the TFD notice go on the template talk page so as not to screw up all those infoboxes?? See for example To the Extreme --Qirex 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only way some people will even know this template is up for deletion is if the notice is on the template itself (not the talk page). I moved it from the talk page so it would, hopefully, get a fair shake here at TfD.. (otherwise, it's possible it would get deleted without a proper debate). Yes it makes it ugly, but plenty of other templates face TfD and deal with the ugly factor; it's an effective means of informing editors that a template they might use is being considered for deletion. (Now if only IfD had a way of superimposing a notice over an image when it's up for deletion...) —Locke Cole 08:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The template is one of the best ideas that I've seen in a while, and yet you're considering it for deletion? --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not useful enough to justify the expense.--Sean|Black 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Creator). There is a secondary purpose to this template which I neglected to mention when I created it. My intention from the start was to replace the existing stars with images of my own. These images have a transparent interior, allowing the actual color of the stars to be decided by the background of a surrounding span tag. This is only really feasible if it is handled within a template. Because they have a different appearance to the current stars, I was going to do the switchover once I'd replaced all usages, to maintain consistency, that, perhaps, was a mistake. - Lee (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and I'd also add that the first switch template will be eliminated by the new images, since their file names match the parameter. The second switch template can be removed by a simple rewording. - Lee (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've uploaded Image:Transparent3.5of5.png as an example, and posted the potential Switch-less code on Template talk:Stars. - Lee (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not just the template, but because it only works on 5 stars. If it were to work for 3/4 or 8/10 it would be a std approach to handling ratings. KittenKlub 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Largely on the strength of the strain on the servers, this becomes "Expense" which should be avoided, except for Real benefit. Tha's not quite the right way to put it, functionally this is a really good idea, but so is KittenKlub's (see last post). Personally the I believe the whole thing should be rethought and the issue of star ratings of different number base's included in the reworking. Ratings out of 10 are very common and should be allowed for, please come up with a more comprehensive solution (i.e. various start ratings) but with minimal server impact. Kevinalewis 10:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be fairly trivial to introduce a second parameter to handle the total number of stars without breaking current usage (it can default to 5). It would mean drawing even more images to handle all the cases, but other than that, that doesn't present a problem. - Lee (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can do all that and remove the need for the metatemplate you would provide the holy grain of star rating templates! Kevinalewis 11:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's easy enough to learn new syntax if it's for the good as far as the servers go. I'm a new user but would be happy to copy others' use of the new (or old) syntax. Crazyale 12:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.—thegreentrilby 14:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This info box is truely a good way to link to AMG, a standard music service. Makenji-san 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um. Nobody's saying we should delete {{Album infobox}}. Or even get rid of the reviews section. Or even the images of stars. Just the template that, very inefficiently, puts the images there. —Cryptic (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, and per WP:AUM. Radiant_>|< 15:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. --NormanEinstein 15:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I have now eliminated the {{switch}} templates. This template no longer includes any other templates. Please consider revising your comments above to reflect the new situation. I have also remove the TfD notice from the template itself to minimize server load (can {{tfd}} be substed?). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a change of vote - although not moving beyond the 5 star basis, this is now NOT a metatemplate. So arguements on that basis have lost all relevance to this template. Purhaps someone will generate the other base star ratings in time. Thanks—Ilmari Karonen - Kevinalewis 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: isn't it still effectively a metatemplate since it gets placed inside a template? Or, is it not a metatemplate now because it doesn't, itself, contain a template? --Qirex 01:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was never a meta-template, as described at WP:AUM (although it used to contain a couple). Meta-templates are templates used within another template, whilst Stars is used directly in articles. The fact that it's usually passed as a parameter in {{Album infobox}} is (AFAIK) neither here nor there. Edits to Stars don't, for example, automatically invalidate the cache of every page that contains Album infobox, just the ones with the stars template in them (like any other template). - Lee (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irish Republicanism edit

Delete: Impossible topic to be actively NPOV with and guaranteed to produce endless edit wars over who is a real republican party and who isn't (Republican Sinn Féiners and Sinn Féiners will fight about each others' true republicanism for a start, while Fine Gael, a pro-Commonwealth party in the 1940s, actually declared the Republic of Ireland some would argue should be in on that basis), what linear links join what organisation (were the Officials marxist or republican), whose analysis is valid/invalid/biased, etc. Also inaccurate in many places - Griffith was a monarchist. Connolly wanted a socialist republic not a nationalist republic. Why is Bobby Sands in but Sean MacBride out in the list of "key figures"? How key is Sands anyway? What about Sean MacStiofáin? Cathal Goulding? Sean Lemass? The topic is far too complicated and already provokes too many edit wars across a range of articles without adding a template full of questionable presumptions and definitions, most of them POV, into the mix. This is one template due an early trip to the wiki-bin.

  • delete FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV magnet, topic is too broad for a template of this type.--Sean|Black 01:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May provoke edit wars, but we can manage with things like fasicsm... -- Jbamb 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: if you want Sean MacStiofain add him, when I made it I made it clear it was just the skeleton of a template and that it should be added to, I didn't want it as my creation, the many pages that relate to Irish Republicanism have no coherent order at all, this Template could go some way to bringing a bit of order. Communism has a Template, with POV issues all the time, why not delete that too eh? How about the Anarchism one, that's a really broad topic too, send it to the wiki-bin? Escobar600ie 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wildly POV part of the provo claim to be the true faith descendents of the War of Independence. --Red King 18:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lapsed Pacifist 18:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV.--File Éireann 19:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change. It makes sense to have a template for Irish Republican organisations. Other political ideologies have one, so why not Irish republicanism? However, it should definitely be removed from articles on the war of independence, civil war, the troubles and other historical events. These have a much wider importance in Irish history than merely the activities of one strain of Irish political thought. If no one objects, I'm going to do this. Also, the content of the template needs to be changed. Earlier organisations like the United Irishmen should go in for example, so should Clann na Phoblachta, the Republican Congress etc. Also, the list of people should be removed, because it will be impossible for people who agree on who goes in. Jdorney 19:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had some misgivings of this when it appeared first. As pointed out previously I could see this turning into a pov quagmire of who is the one, true faith. Djegan 19:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. The idea that this could become a quagmire isn't the most compelling reason to delete. I also take issue with some of the alleged inaccuracies. Griffith started out as a monarchist, but can you really argue that when he took his seat in Dail Eireann he was still one then? Likewise whether Connolly was a socalist republican or a nationalist one, he was still a republican. But I do see issues arising as to who gets into the template. Why not Tom Clarke or John Devoy? It could certainly be problematical, but I'm not entirely convinced it doesn't deserve a chance. -R. fiend 20:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Considering the pov-warriors and clear out lunatics we get editing the articles under this template to serve their own POV, or in some cases, completely fantastical alternate histories, there isn't a chance in hell that such a template could be NPOV, ever. --Kiand 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any non-POV version of this template would have to be so broadly inclusive as to be meaningless. --Ryano 20:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hideous, doesn't add anything. -- Daily 22: 38, 23 December

2005 Keep it in, if it upsets the book burners, it must be a good thing.

    • Please sign your vote if you want it considered. Djegan 20:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-crystalball edit

Used for speedy deletion on grounds that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". But that is not in fact a criterion for speedy deletion. Radiant_>|< 15:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Owen× ☎ 15:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crush by elephant (delete) Templates giving speedy delete reasons not supported by WP:CSD] are very pernicious. Indeed perhaps they should be speedy deleted? (Grin). DES (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, {{Crystalball}} which is a redirect to this template should be deleted for the same reasons. DES (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, to avoid CSD-creep. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Squishy squishy. -- Jbamb 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a CSD reasoning (these are all cases for AfD). BTW, the {{Crystalball}} redirect was created by a move for consistency reasons by me, {{Crystalball}} was the original name of the template. Just wanted to note this. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not all "crystal ball" articles are even good AfD candidates, never mind CSD, despite the rabid imaginings of some. Phil | Talk 10:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to discourage speedy deletes out of process. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 14:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just because Wikipedia is the only place where people can openly contradict their actions and not get stuff thrown at them. Also, it's bad for the environment. Cernen 10:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 24 edit

Template:Early Muslim conflicts edit

Listing for Zora. gren グレン 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands this template really gets in the way. If it's kept, which I think right now is a bad idea, it should be made much smaller and so it is put at the bottom of articles. We have battle boxes which are supposed to go where Striver has put it. gren グレン 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • i also agree that it should be deleted. at the very least, someone needs to edit it, as it has numerous grammar and spelling errors (why are there no apostrophes?!). but moreover, i'm just not sure how the template really adds anything. Dgl 11:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really know much about the topic, but if it makes sense to group them together, I don't see why not have it. Further, the complaint about the apostrophes is trivial, I have just fixed that. –Andyluciano 19:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "them" that are being grouped are highly heterogeneous. They aren't all "conflicts", for one thing. The Hijra was not a conflict. Succession to Muhammad was a political struggle, but not a battle. Treaties aren't conflicts! The timeline is also undefined. After complaining to the creator of the template, who is a Shi'a Muslim, that ending the template with the Battle of Karbala was POV, he added one other revolt. But why stop there? Why not everything that happened during the Umayyad caliphate? Also, even with the punctuation problems fixed, there are still red links, mispellings, etc. We have one editor weighing in here, Dgl, who has a master's degree in Islamic studies. He wrote the article on the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah. If he thinks this template is useless, it's useless. We already have extensive interlinking between Islamic history articles, plus an article on Islamic history, plus a timeline of Islamic history. That's enough to orient readers. Zora 20:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very well, I stand corrected. I made my post because no one explained why it ought to be deleted, and now you have done that. Thanks. –Andyluciano 08:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your openmindedness and willingness to listen. Zora 09:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If all that is needed is a chronological list of battles, the proper way to do it is via a campaignbox template. —Kirill Lokshin 21:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zora. Pepsidrinka 04:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Use the campaignbox, Luke. Ashibaka tock 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Warbox or Campaignbox can replace it. Roy Al Blue 02:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Police Officer edit

Seems a tad too specific. Only used on two articles, which are themselves up for deletion. -- Netoholic @ 09:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant delete, yes it does seem too specific, and prone to encourage memorials which are unencyclopediatic. — Eoghanacht talk 10:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the idea is not to encourage memorials. It is to pay tribute to those warriors who are living today and those who have left this world. I see that Wikipedia is being infiltrated by editors who wish to bring politics into these situations. A few rogue Vandalizers should not be able to wield power in such a negative way.CelebritySecurity 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not the place for memorials. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a memorial. It part of an ongoing effort to encourage information about living and deceased warriors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_law_enforcement_officers Please respect the hard work of others and the political implications of your actions. Reminder: This is "free" encyclopedia. The overhwleming effort by certain individuals/admins here on wikipedia to both vandalize and eliminate those parts of the encyclopedia that include a broader focus on law enforcement issues is alarming and should be of concern to those who believe in freedom of information. CelebritySecurity 18:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Prone to encourage" memorials can be said about ANY of the biographical infoboxes here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebritySecurity (talk • contribs)
    • That's not right; that's not even wrong. --Calton | Talk 01:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "Only used on two articles, which are themselves up for deletion". Adrian Buehlmann 21:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the idea is not to encourage memorials. It is to pay tribute... Guy, you contradict yourself almost immediately. Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor a soapbox. Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overly specific. --Wikiacc (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. DES (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it lends credence to the idea that memorials should be part of the 'pedia. --NormanEinstein 14:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the standard is if the template has any legitimate use, not whether it "might" be abused, or whether newbies have a mistaken idea about what Wikipedia is for. Firebug 16:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.--Srleffler 19:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (template, not idea): I disagree with the arguement its just for memorials, or encourages them. At least one of two uses, Mark Bourque is clearly not a memorial, but is somebody who's been written about in the media long before he died. Also, it's worth reading WP:NOT carefully. It's against people who's only claim to fame is being fondly remembered by friends and family. This is analogous to why we give bio articles to people with hit singles (even short term) but not those who just sing to the locals. National media attention *may* indicate concern beyond the friends and family. The only reason I'm not voting keep, is I find the this particular template, as it stands now rather useless. It's rather oversimpliefied, and I would rather people actually write out the information in paragraphs. Officers with lengthy and varied careers would not fit neatly in this box, and those are the very people I want articles on. --Rob 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not useful, encourages bad articles. --Improv 09:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Rob's comments.--SarekOfVulcan 19:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gren グレン 07:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox BridgeSpecificWithMap edit

Duplicates main Template:Infobox Bridge now that support for the map was made optional. Was only used on four articles, so I moved them to Infobox Bridge. -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Thanks for making the changes to make the parameters optional by the way! ++Lar 20:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Adrian Buehlmann 21:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant. - Bobet 14:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 25 edit

Template:PureStates edit

Delete: "Pure" states? Anyway, not used. dbenbenn | talk 03:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It looks like this was created for a user page, but the user doesn't have it on his user page anymore, so it can be deleted without affecting anyone or anything. --Metropolitan90 04:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recommend creator to use user page subpages for this purpose in the future. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. -- Jbamb 17:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Equatorial Guinea infobox edit

Delete: This template seems to be a copy of the infobox in article Equatorial Guinea and is apparently not used anywhere. Thuresson 18:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flensburg infobox edit

Delete unused and redundant with {{Infobox Town DE}} --Sherool (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Proprietary Software edit

Delete: Obsolete by {{Infobox Software}}. - David Björklund (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Wikiacc (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless someone can provide a way to properly hide the license field of Template:Infobox Software in *all* browsers (including lynx). None of the methods proposed so far do this. The template was introduced to solve a specific problem see Template_talk:Infobox Software. - Motor (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Direct consequence from WP:AUM. Splitting templates does not harm the servers. CSS trick does not work for lynx and most probably also not for screen readers. See also Template talk:Taxobox#Eliminating meta-templates and especially this example of the CSS trick in lynx (Updated) Adrian Buehlmann 21:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing my vote to delete per Netoholic. Non-working lynx argument does hurt, but we have no other option than breaking lynx anyway (see my argument), so it's not resonable to fork Infobox Software into Infobox Proprietary Software just for the sake of an optional field. Adrian Buehlmann 12:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and bring back meta-template on {{Infobox Software}} until such time as a solution is developed that doesn't break some browsers. Firebug 16:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as we don't need templates that are so similar. --minghong 07:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see no field in this infobox that's specific to proprietary software, and don't see how Wikipedia specifically supported Lynx. -- Jugalator 23:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 26 edit

Template:User UT-Austin edit

Delete: This template is redundant; one serving the same purpose already exists at Template:User_longhorn. -Rebelguys2 09:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. -Scm83x 09:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created in error, unaware of existing template. Mea Culpa.1001001 10:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Gigem Aggies! I mean uhm, yeah ...its a duplicate, thats it! --Naha|(talk) 05:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attack on population center edit

Delete: It is a redundant template - the only two articles that used it now use the Template:Infobox Military Conflict. Loopy 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Kirill Lokshin 06:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Jbamb 13:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep template users ought to have a choice to display whether the conflict involved civilian as opposed to strictly military casualties. --James S. 20:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely nothing preventing you from adding civilian casualties to {{Infobox Military Conflict}}; see Battle of Stalingrad, for example. —Kirill Lokshin 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I speak for vast majority of the world's civilians when I say that the most important thing about any military conflict is whether civilians were vicitims of it. Therefore it is just and proper that the template heading display that information. Plus, Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict provides much less detailed information. I can't believe that Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is being suggested as a serious alternative to Template:Attack on population center --James S. 21:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into philosophical issues here, I still don't see how the older template is better; it has the exact same casualties fields as the new one. —Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between the two templates is the design. Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is a flexible infobox that can be used to represent anything from a war, to a battle, to a mass slaughter of military or civilians, to any kind of conflict you would like to put in. I'm not really sure how you can argue that Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is much less detailed than Template:Attack on population center when, as Kirill Lokshin pointed out above, they're precisely the same... --Loopy 23:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mos4 edit

  • Delete: This template contradicts principle 2.2 from the jguk 2 case. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with Mos2-3, and half of its category. Phil Sandifer 17:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Jbamb 17:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Srleffler 19:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly valid. More Wikipedia Deletionism Gone Mad. With nominations like this is it no wonder so many top quality Wikipedians are quitting the site in frustration. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 18:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedians are leaving because templates threatening them are being deleted? What a load of bollocks, Jtdirl! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well put. Rob Church Talk 07:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. violet/riga (t) 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but re-word to align with Mos3, and re-word to make intention clearer, and note that this template applies only to changes that do nothing except deliberately deviate from MoS. Any edit that adds content does not count. Neonumbers 23:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- after all, the MoS itself contradicts this template in the first paragraph. Neonumbers has a point, though...--SarekOfVulcan 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't block good editors over style issues. Firebug 19:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, or Fix and Rename. "Those rules are mandatory" it says, in direct contradiction to the MoS itself (see Template:Mosblock discussion above). If it said "Those guidelines are optional, but should only be altered for good reason, with consensus. Edits deliberately against consensus may be considered vandalism, and result in you being blocked." then I might support keeping it under the name Mos2, so long as it was never used as a substitute for discussion, and never used in contradiction to WP:AGF. There is absolutely no need for Mos3 or Mos4, just use the vandalism templates. Aumakua 14:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtdirl The arbitration ruling makes sense if one takes principle 2.2 to mean that the contents of the MoS are changeable and not set in stone. Kelly Martin is correct in alluding to the instances in which MoS guidelines are contradictory and thus may have to be ignored and/or modified with good reason. Her comments are well-reasoned as usual. However, principle 2.2 does not negate the possibility of violations of the MoS guidelines that do reach the level of vandalism. For example, if an editor goes against consensus on a universally accepted principle of the MoS in order to push a POV or to harass other editors, it is clear vandalism, and the user should be blocked. 172 23:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template is blatantly incorrect, and would not be necessary if 'twere correct. This is legalism gone mad. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Along with its bretheren, contradicts the MoS. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plumed Basilisk1 edit

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plumed Basilisk2 edit

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pulmed Basilisk edit

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 27 edit

Template:Battlebox no campaign edit

Delete: No longer used, deprecated by Template:Infobox Military Conflict. —Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. -- Jbamb 13:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no point to have a template that is no longer used --Jaranda wat's sup 07:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Loopy 21:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 28 edit

Template:Footer UN Secretary-General edit

Compelety unused. The infobox provides predecessor/sucessor links. -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, since succession boxes should be used, if they are used. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Jbamb 13:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UNSecGen edit

Too specific. There are only seven of them, and I've moved them to use the more generic Template:Infobox Person. -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dichotomouskey edit

Redundant with the very flexible Template:Wikibookspar. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 6 edit

Possibly unused redirect (I do not know how to check that for shure, due to the possibly incomplete "what links here" list) to Template:Web reference 3, which is barely used either (I intend to nominated that later too, needs some work first). Adrian Buehlmann 11:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I thought we'd got all of those pesky varmints. —Phil | Talk 08:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Language/Malayalam edit

See below - identical template.

Template:MalayalamScript edit

Performs the exact same function as the existing {{IndicText}}. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks?? The Malayalam template was presumably created after being vetted by the usual long process, now somebody summarily empties the category without so much as a by-your-leave?? I am speechless. ImpuMozhi 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I hope this is sarcasm. What vetting process do you speak of? This template was used on at most four pages. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Best practice, and best intention is served by keeping the categorgy intact durign this process. wangi 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is what I previously said really unclear? Template creation requires a long vetting process. So does deletion. When the process is defined, and debate here is ongoing, why did you (Sukh) take it upon yourself to empty the category? ImpuMozhi 18:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm being blind, but I certainly don't see the 'long vetting process' that this template went into. And I merely changed the existing four uses of the template BACK to the original Indic template. It is a wiki after all... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Having that warning in Devnagiri script will not serve the purpose. The 'Kerala' written in the page is in Malayalam script, which is no where close to the Devnagiri script. The people who can read 'Kerala' written in Malayalam script(and if that person doesn't know devnagiri script) will readily go and modyfying it(assuming his/her browser is not indic script compliant). Even with that warning some people try to correct it. I hope i have made my point clear.--Raghu 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The picture in the current template is not in Devanagari, it is in Gurmukhi and it isn't meant to show every single possible Indic script (there could very well be hundreds of Brahmi descended scripts that the Indic text template is useful for). It's merely a VERY SIMPLE representative example and does not indicate that the script on the page must be Gurmukhi. What should we do for pages that contain, Malayalam, Devanagari and Gurmukhi? List three identical templates with different pictures!? How about pages that might list even more Indian languages and scripts?
The template talks about the technology to enable support for Indic scripts in general which applies just as much to Malayalam as it does to Gurmukhi, Devanagari, Bengali, Tamil etc. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the same principle to apply to all Indic scripts (which is only fair of course), we'd need at least 23 to account for all the ones currently encoded in Unicode. This does not include scripts YET to be encoded in Unicode. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My Answers
  • The difference between scripts of Devanagari and Gurumukhi is minor. Even i was able to understand Gurumukhi with a knowledge of Devanagari only.
  • Your point that it will necessitate 100's of template is not correct beacause all North Indian languages scripts are similar and most people who speak other north Indian languages like Punjabi, Gujarathi, Marathi and Bengali have a good knowlege of Hindi (and consequently Devanagari or the very similar gurumukhi script). So we are left with four South Indian langauges. Telugu and Kannada script are mutually intelligible. Tamil and Malayalam are pretty close but if needed we can have separate one for Tamil. so totally we need 4 templates.
  • If a page has more than one indic script? There are few pages like that. In case it is there use the generic Gurumukhi Template as more people will understand that.
  • If there exists a template which does the needed function in a better way. Why delete?
Regards--Raghu 16:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 - The scripts are similar yes, but there is no way you would be able to decipher Gurmukhi characters when you know just Devanagari. Some characters are deceptively similar (e.g. Devanagari प /pa/ looks like Gurmukhi ਧ /dha/) while I do admit, some are similar in appearance. Also Gurmukhi has a special nasal sign called Tippi, it uses Adhak for geminates and it does not employ half forms. Gurmukhi departs in greater ways from Devanagari (from which it didn't descend) than some South Indian scripts do.
Point 2 - The picture is merely representative of the rendering technology (I picked it because it was the most simple representation of complex rendering). You can consider it to be a bit of a 'logo' and it could be replaced with a star, an asterisk or anything else to grab attention. You also fail to realise that Brahmic (Indic) scripts are not just the preserve of India, and Mongolian, Lao, Tibetan, Thai and others are visually very distinct and don't correspond to similarities in North/South Indian scripts. So how do you propose adding templates for these? Indeed what about many older scripts that come under the umbrella of complex text rendering?
Point 3 - But then what to do about all the people who in your opinion won't recognise it because it's in Gurmukhi? Surely the same problem occurs. Multiple Indic scripts are used on many pages already on Wikipedia, and this will only increase as time goes by.
Point 4 - This isn't in my opinion any better than the existing template. Indeed, the only reason I think it was made was because someone saw the Gurmukhi (or, Devanagari-esque) characters and deduced it may be some latent means of promoting North Indian scripts or languages. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 - You are missing the point. The alphabet shown in the image on the template 'Vi' to explain the concept is similar (I was able to decipher)to the one in Devanagari. Leave alone the rest of the difference you say there exist between the two.
Point 2 - I agree with you. It would need hard labour to do that in all Languages. If somebody is going to do that for some other languages, it would be really useful.
Point 3 - The 'many' pages you are talking about will be less than 2% of all pages containing indic texts. I already told what can be done about those pages.
Point 4 - that seems to be your POV. I can't help with that.
Regards --Raghu 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Gurmukhi one actually says 'ki' not 'vi'! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for both the templates as per above. Indic script warning is good enough and if the person knows Malayalam, he will be able to see if it has downloaded correctly or not. While the idea of creating the template is indeed noteworthy, I feel that the creator did not understand about the redundancy of the template. --Gurubrahma 16:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't understand why we need more than one template for this, since the instructions for setting up your system for indic doesn't differ that much. If you have any issues with the Image:Example.of.complex.text.rendering.(small-white).png, you should probably discuss it on the template's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics. (Personally, I feel, an image in devanagari showing a vattu, ie., half-consonant being rendered with & without unicode is more suitable). --Pamri • Talk 13:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instructions are not the only thing provided my that. It also warns the innocent newbie users to not go ahead and try editing to make it look correct (this warning is provided inside the edit section as a comment but has proved to be not good enough, check the Chennai page to see how many corrections have taken place in the lst 200 edits or so. Atleast 5-6). This warning will be best when it is given in the native script of each language. The alphabet should also be chosen carefully like 'ka' for Kerala. 'Ma' for Tamil Nadu etc. It would simply be great if User:Sukh could design a template that would take an alphabet as the input and display it!!--Raghu 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the image with something neutral. The template could also be changed to take the language of the page and display it, in place of IndicText. See {{user wikipedia}} for an example. --Pamri • Talk 04:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having a separate malayalam template doesn't hurt anyone, and to assume that Devanagari alone is the best symbol of Indic scripts is essentially Aryanocentric. --Soman 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to do with Devanagari on the entire IndicText template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I mistook it for a Devanagari 'vi'. Anyways, it hardly doesn't make my argument less valid. Why should Gurkmukhi get to represent all Indic scripts? Isn't that one of the latest inventions, out of which none of the other major scripts have emerged? --Soman 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Isn't that one of the latest inventions" - more of a gradual evolution, but yes, maybe that is the reason? :D No, but seriously, we could replace it with a star, or something that doesn't show a particular script if that is the only reason people don't want to use this template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It could even be replaced with an image of a Brahmi character. That is, after all, the mother script ;) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't give a damn. Guys, you are arguing about a warning template that will hopefully be obsolete in half a year, or whenever MS decides to fix their browser. Maybe we should delete both templates, and leave it to people to figure out their own browser instead of plastering templates about browser issues all over Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 22:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first point at which Microsoft will automatically enable complex text support is in Vista - so you're looking at at least six years before we see the trickle down effect. Indeed, in some of the pages that the template is listed, it not only ruins the flow of the page, but is obtrusive (this can be fixed on a page-by-page basis by repositioning it and other boxes). Indeed, I hope to prevent the proliferation of lots of different script boxes that will become harder to maintain and will have no advantage over the current template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where exactly is the problem. I have WinXP with service Pack 1 and 2. My IE shows the indic scripts properly!!! My problem is with the Firefox browser. --Raghu 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well for starters, Malayalam was only added on SP2. The reason IE works and Firefox doesn't is because IE calls the international text API (Uniscribe) directly whereas Firefox doesn't. You need to physically enable complex text support on your computer for it to work. See the link on the IndicText template for full instructions for ALL Indian scripts: Wikipedia:Enabling complex text support for Indic scripts. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However, a suggestion: two syllables are featured on the "Indic" template; need they both be Gurmukhi? Perhaps if one were Malayalam, it would serve to mollify all concerned. The choice of these two scripts as representative would also be "nice" in the sense that both of them are, to coin a word, "non-rampant" in India and do not elicit strong emotions (script-evolution theories, 'aryanocentrism', all find mention in the day-long discussion above). ImpuMozhi 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the two pictures indicate what complex rendering does. In that example, it's repositioning vowel sign i. So it shows a 'before complex text rendering' and an 'after complex text rendering' image. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: wangi 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The term "Indic" and its subsequent direction to the appropriate page is sufficient. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With all due respect to Malayalam script, the function this template is supposed to provide - "help" steps - remains the same irrespective of if its Malayalam or other Indian scripts. Hence, one template can do. However, replacing the original image of {{IndicText}} with a kind of crooked India flag seems inappropriate. Suggestion - you may want to consider CDAC illustration where one character each from many Indian languages is indicated. (This may defeat the purpose of showing the change in rendering though). --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 08:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The IndicText tag is far less obvious than the MalayalamScript. Tintin Talk 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Indic scripts (including Tibetian and some SE Asian) require the same browser fix, and are covered by the same template. India flag is thus inappropriate. Fighting over which script to use in the template to illustrate the point is a waste of time. deeptrivia (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What would be better, have 20 or so different templates for scripts of all the major languages in India, or one. If the Malayalam template is kept, then others such as Tamil, Bengali and Gujarati would have to be made. DaGizza Chat (c) 05:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indic Script is an all inclusive term hence there is no need for separate Malyalam script warning! अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indic Script seems to serve the purpose. I don't really care if it is Gurumukhi or Devanagari, as long as it serves the purpose of alerting the user that an Indic Script is in use. Like Sukh said, we could perhaps even use another symbol, like a star, or even a brahmi symbol (I liked that suggestion!) --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്) 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Security Risk edit

This template reads "this article poses a risk to international security and should be edited." If one of our articles actually poses a risk to international security it needs far more than a template, and any such issues should be brought directly to the board. However, since all Wikipedia articles merely repeat already verifiable information this should not be a concern. - SimonP 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See British Embassy in Washington, D.C. and its talk page for an example of this template in action. - SimonP 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this template serves no purpose, delete per nom's arguments. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lol what. --Golbez 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:SimonP is using logo of the incorporated City of Ottawa as an identifying mark. Said user is involved in a Wikiproject that is posting addresses of diplomatic embassies without providing mechanism to trace users requesting such information. Wikipedia is not an addressbook. PeterZed 19:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's rather simple to find the addresses of diplomatic embassies... I mean, they kinda want people to come find them usually. That .001% of people want to bomb them doesn't mean we have to request the names, addresses, and social security numbers of everyone. I'm very confused by this comment. --Golbez 19:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there was some reason for not putting embassy addresses on Wiki articles, why the spod do the embassies themselves put them on their websites? Why do regional authorities list the addresses of embassies on their websites? Why are they in the yellow pages fer crissakes? Grutness...wha? 06:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The squirrels are coming to get me. -- Jbamb 19:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "However, since all Wikipedia articles merely repeat already verifiable information this should not be a concern" - This is simply not the case as the board is already clearly aware of. Posting the addresses of diplomatic embassies on a website that provides no mechanism to identify those making such requests is a security risk. If User:SimonP is actually a representative of the government body that his identifying mark represents, perhaps said user should co-ordinate with members of the RCMP or Canadian Security Intelligence Service.PeterZed 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — As per PeterZed. It seems SimonP only wants this template deleted so he can carry on giving addresses and telephone numbers of embassies for psychotic murders. -__
This is akin to those who publish other peoples' personal information on Wikipedia and is just as bad. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, a person's information is private and even if it weren't it would be hard for it to be verifiable, an information on an embassy or other government building on the other hand is verifiable and publicly available and therefore eligible for inclusion. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per my argument above and the fact that these so called claims to national security are just straw man arguments. Information about embassies and other governmenmt agencies is publicly available and verifiable so it's eligible for inclusion and therefore having an article to tell people to remove it is flawed. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since terrorists would much rather attack world leaders, can I trust that the addresses for the residences of the leaders of the US and UK will be purged from Wikipedia? --Golbez 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAgain: Wikipedia IS NOT an addressbook and has no mechanism to trace those individuals looking for the address information of diplomatic missions. Other websites have this ability. Since the only medium we can compare this issue is to the Internet, it is important that we remain vigilant in the war on terrorism and the ability to track those that would cause harm to others. The strong will and desire of others to continue to delete these security templates is itself a matter of concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterZed (talk • contribs) 19:55, December 28, 2005
Bullshit, A) it's impossible for us to know who's viewing this information and it's not our job to police information, we are a free encyclopedia that consists of verifiable and factual information, what you want is censorship due to a percieved threat which is baseless. WP:NOT should be expanded to state that Wikipedia is not censored at the behest of people who have irrational national security fears. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Addresses of international embassies are trivially easy to find in an untraceable manner, usually from things like "phone books". We may furthermore presume that any organization which can acquire the tools necessary to blow up an embassy or otherwise commit terrorist action against it will probably not have much difficulty finding out the target address in any case. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 20:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Extreme Unction and JTKiefer; utterly bizarre template, also appears to categorise articles into non-existent category. Palmiro | Talk 20:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Simply put, these embassies WANT to be found. What use is the embassy to a Brit in America if they can't go there for needed assistance? --Golbez 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Delete utter rubbish (besides which, with what nations' security is Wikipedia supposed to be concerned with - without infringing NPOV? An article on the North Korean nuclear programme could endanger N.Korea's national security.) --Doc ask? 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - I say this quite a lot but this time I mean it. This is the stupidest counter-proposition I have ever heard. Part of me is inclined to believe that it is an elaborate hoax that several of us have been drawn into... but we're nowhere near April. Just google "British embassy, Washington DC"... what do you find? A damn sight more information than is contained on Wikipedia. Absolute claptrap. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another disclaimer template. --cesarb 20:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly. android79 20:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete — per Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer →AzaToth 22:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just plain retarded. Even if these are really "security threats," then this really isn't the way to deal with these "dangers to our nation's security." This info is easy to find elsewhere anyhow. Any real terrorist knows how to use Google. --Chris 22:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is quite silly, this is public information. And even if the template is used and the "offending" information is removed, it is still there in the history! Waste of space. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please be WP:CIVIL and remember to WP:AGF Some of the comments on this template ("just plain retarded", "stupidest template ever", "bullshit" and the like) may be going too far. Is it possible the creator meant well? ++Lar
    • That said... delete. It does seem unnecessary and not likely to be an effective deterrent. ++Lar 23:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did he mean well? Sure, probably. Is he himself engaging in personal attacks and incivility? See for yourself. android79 01:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All information on Wikipedia must be supported with publically available sources. As a corollary of that, anything that can be included in Wikipedia under WP:CITE must be available from other sources. So the template is useless. In the particular case cited, the addresses of embassy's are trivial to find (it wouldn't be much of an embassy if you couldn't find it), so this is a plainly nonsensical argument. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently, "security specialist" Peter Zed is unaware of that huge security risk known as the Washington, DC, telephone directory -- which ANYONE can just use without being traced. Ludicrous. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, maybe the British Embassy could use PeterZed's security advice, since they have foolishly put their street address at the top of their home page. The naive fools! When will they ever learn? --Calton | Talk 01:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV and patent nonsense. Firebug 01:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense.   ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Hopefully, the debacle that has unfolded here demonstrates to Wikipedia editors, adminstrators and arbitrators the need to KEEP important templates such as these. Rather than deal with the case in a fair and polite manner, this IP was banned from WIKI to prevent further comment. Irregardless of the fact that the 3 Revert Rule was not adequately and fairly re-inforced when it came to the original vandalizer User:SimonP, and irregardless of the fact that two seperate admins banned my IP twice within a minute for the same infraction (how is that even possible?) When real security matters arise here on WP, what are the mechanisms Jimbo Wales et al have implemented to ensure that there is a secure method to report users to police/security/proper authorities when material of a sensitive nature continues to be posted? I hope none of the long-time admins here who have ignored this issue would suggest that this template does not have a place here on Wikipedia. PeterZed 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors, administrators and arbitrators are all watching you make a fool out of yourself. The addresses and locations of foreign embassies are as sensitive and vital to national security as my shoe size. FCYTravis 05:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have you as a size 10EE. If this information is in error, please let us know so we can update our records. Thank you. - National Security Agency Helpdesk 07:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very silly. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AnnH (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My aluminum-foil hat isn't working; the mind-control rays telling me we should delete this are getting through. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to BJAODN and delete. Raul654 23:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Let's see... Editors of the Animal Liberation Front use the term target to describe current operations here on Wikipedia. How is this not a candidate to be tagged as an international security risk when they are possibly identifying post-secondary institutions as potential locations for terrorist activity? yet Wikipedians suggest that there is noneed for a security template? PeterZed 23:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that Peter Zed has been a little too zealous and failed to actually read the article. It lists universities that have been attacked in the past by groups claiming to be the Animal Liberation Front. By the same logic, you may as well add that template to the Al Qaeda article if it mentions the US embassy in Nigeria or the Twin Towers.--BobBobtheBob 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think it's up to any of us to determine what constitutes a "national security threat". And we certainly shouldn't be censoring content. Private spying on citizens is bad enough already ... we don't need Wikipedians going around throwing Orwellian "violates national security" tags on article. What's next, is this going to be put on nuclear physics because it might describe how North Koreans could build a nuclear bomb? Ugh. --Cyde Weys votetalk 23:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's difficult to elabourate any further on previous comments, so I guess I'll repeat: who would have the authority to say what constitutes a national security risk? Which country's national security is an international project meant to protect? BobBobtheBob 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. This is entirely too ludicrous. I'm sure the world is in grave danger from Wikipedia articles. Radiant_>|< 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. We're a national threat because we're providing information that is in the public domain. BJAODN and nuke with a WMD. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN, per Radiant. Ambi 00:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke this template. FCYTravis 01:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tinfoil hat template. Bishonen | talk 01:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is so BJAODN that I must vote. Delete? Sure.--Jyril 01:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN this is such overblown tripe that this needs to go.  ALKIVAR™  02:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per Tito. Pepsidrinka 02:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Strong Evil Terrorist Cabal Delete of Doom per above. -- SCZenz 03:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 04:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete and speedy if any arguably criteria can be found. DES (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT The matter has now been referred to Mr. Jimmy Wales himself. PeterZed 04:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Great. Now he can tell you personally to please remove your tin foil hat. FCYTravis 05:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with Cyde. --Improv 05:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or WP:) - this is, how do you say... too much of a self-reference. :) Concur with the others. Beware the fnords. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong, Speedy Delete in the name of freedom - only fascists would consider censoring information of an article because of fear of security risks. Even if one of us took a photograph inside Area 51 and uploaded it to the commons, and put it on an article, that would still be not a legitimate excuse to edit it out of fear of "security risk" - we are a free encyclopedia dedicated to representing the total sum of human knowledge. Plus, it doesn't account for the fact that whether it would pose a risk or not would be disputed, anyhow. Template:NPOV, for example cites "the neutrality is disputed", and doesn't immediately jump to conclusions about the certainty of the neutrality. -- Natalinasmpf 05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The names of all those who have voted delete have been noted and the list of names will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities. (Ah well, better add myself to that list, then... delete) Grutness...wha? 06:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ... I would hope that national authorities have sufficient cyber wisdom to see if anything is posted on the Internet that is inappropriate from a National Security perspective, be it in the news media, blogs, terrorist web sites, or Wikipedia, and WHEREVER it is, they contact the ISP, registered owner of the site, and do their thing to get the stuff they not want removed. This is only my hope. I have various reasons to believe that cyber wisdom is, and has been, lacking in high places. Also if any of us Wikipedians see something that we think is a threat to our respective nations security, I would hope that we know how to bring this to the attention of some important personage in the Wiki community who can get an admin or sysop to block it pending resolution of our suspicions. There have been some questions raised on the Reference Desk of an explosive nature, that I have been careful not to give an explicit answer to, that in my opinion, is not a real good idea to be posting, such as how to smuggle weapons on board a commercial airliner, of the kind that can be used by hijackers. User:AlMac|(talk) 06:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree what was said above. Zach (Smack Back) 06:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Well the latest from Jimbo Wales himself is "I am not supportive of your template." I am confused by this comment. Is that to mean he is not supportive of the template in its current form and would advocate for its total exclusion or simply a modification? Or is he suggesting that the idea of allowing editors to flag certain articles as security risks be completely disallowed here on WP...Can somebody from Wikipedia please clarify this? PeterZed 07:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Seems pretty plain to me what he means. If you want it clarified for sure, you must ask him, but I'm pretty sure he means the same thing that all of us who voted delete do. --Chris 07:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- **I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that he is, politely, saying that the template is bound for the bit bucket, whatever tortured reading you give to that post. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not even funny --Jaranda wat's sup 07:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant with {{unreferenced}}, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE. --Carnildo 08:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, hilarity! —Locke Cole • t • c 09:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep. Very tough to decide what would qualify as a security risk.... you should find another way to handle the address issue :-) Anthere
  • Because I've been feeling bold today, I have speedy deleted this. There is an overwhelimg consensus here, and the word has come down from on high, so I no purpose in keeping this around any longer.--Sean|Black 09:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lolling pin! - FrancisTyers 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I see this has been deleted already, but wouldn't having a convient tag marking all of the good stuff have made it easier on the bad guys? I mean, why go searching for stuff when you can just go straight to everything marked Security Risk.
  • COMMENT

The admins here have recently elected to begin deleting my userboxes and targeting my templates in what seems like a political message that may give the impression that Wikipedia is anti-American. User box templates of User:PeterZed were deleted without warning and commented upon by an administrator that indicates a very anti-US bias on the part of Wikipedia.

Also, I hardly believe calling US-themed user boxes "stupid" is civil behaviour for a citizen of Wikipedia who is supposedly striving to keep the application of policies uniform. Are you also going to delete those user boxes found here also: User:Knowledge_Seeker??? I suppose it is okay to be a fan of Star Trek on Wikipedia, but NOT a supporter of the United States? What gives? Why do some people have the right to freedom of belief and expression here but others do not? Why is it okay to identify yourself through a userbox as a user of the Firefox browser but it is not okay to identify yourself as a drinker of Coca-Cola or as a user of Taco Bell?

Please clarify this matter with other admins or, in fairness, delete all userboxes. If equality of adminship is what is being sought, than Wikipedia executives should seriously consider what message they are sending by deleting the contributions of some individuals who wish to express an affinity for a particular organization while keeping the submissions of other questionable organizations - I'm specifically pointing to contributions of supporters of the Animal Liberation Front, a known terrorist organization.

It is becoming clear that Wikipedia itself is becoming an international security risk and should be blocked from some legal jurisdictions before these matters in question can be settled. You have users User:SimonP posting addresses of North American embassies and identifying themselves with the logo of the incorporated city of Ottawa, Canada when they may or may not be affiliated with said organization. Please clarify and comment. PeterZed 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

  • Is that a legal threat I smell? We have nothing more to clarify to you, you are the one who is being deliberately vague and mysterious. --Golbez 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT There is nothing vague and mysterious about the clear security risk that posting photographs and addresses of diplomatic missions on this website poses. Supporters of known terrorist groups are permitted to freely edit, distribute and create materials here. The template itself was deleted before due process granted. I am suggesting that traffic emanating from and directed to this website be blocked from the servers of certain legal jurisdictions in order to prevent the further spread of misinformation as well as tools that may allow terrorists to create havoc.PeterZed 22:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You have yet to explain why it's a security risk to have the British Embassy's address on Wikipedia, when it's plainly visible on their webpage. Since you have not even bothered to answer this, which has been asked multiple times, I am forced to disregard you as a minor, but persistent, troll, someone who has absolutely no desire to assist international security and is just poking and prodding us for what I must assume to be your own amusement. --Golbez 23:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only think that letting this TFD finish would do is lower the percentage of votes in favor of it. Unless you got some of your "security proffesional" colleagues to come and vote. --Chris 04:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atlanta conventions edit

Unused nav template. All links in the template are red. - TexasAndroid 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 29 edit

Template:Freenet links edit

A template dependent upon Freenet/Ways to view a freesite (AFD discussion). Doesn't seem at all useful without it. —Cryptic (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If a large number of pages (like more than ten) use this template then obviously there is a need for it and it shouldn't be deleted. If there is enough need to warrant keeping it, then I think the original article should be moved to a more appropriate space, as the AfD debate can be summed up as "I thought that Wikipeida was not a place for tutorials. Maybe Wikisource or something?"
I forget how to check template usage, but obviously if this template is deleted we lose some external links which will need to be removed or otherwise fixed. --TexasDex 21:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NRL Grounds edit

Template:NRL Grounds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, only a couple of categories no other content. MeltBanana 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WIP edit

Template:WIP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template poorly duplicates a couple we already have, as well as utomatically feeding any article its marked with into the general stubs category (to give an example of why this is a bad thing, it's currently in use on only one article, and that is clearly not a stub). Unnecessary. 210.54.198.105 01:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (um, that's Grutness...wha?. Damn computer logged me out).[reply]

  • Strong Delete. No Wikipedia article is a "work in progress by one author", and nobody needs "permission to edit this page". Useless at best, fundamentally anti-Wiki at worst.--Sean|Black 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, instructions are blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Firebug 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed it from the one article it was attached to. Any objections to a speedy? This violates so many Wikipedia fundamentals that there's no chance it will be kept. android79 01:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above, people can't own articles. {{inuse}} can be used if someone really needs to do a major edit. And having non-stub templates add pages to Category:Stubs hurts too. (I wouldn't be against a speedy, and since this has gotten 4 votes in 10 minutes on tfd, it looks like people really don't like it.) - Bobet 01:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:Inuse. Very logical name for it. —Cryptic (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Cryptic.   ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not make template forks. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, covered by inuse and incorrectly implies ownership.--SarekOfVulcan 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Template:Inuse already exists and appears to be better designed. --BenjaminTsai Talk 06:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 13:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unacceptable template, violating numerous wikipedia policies. Note that I object to the {{inuse}} template as well. —gorgan_almighty 12:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 17:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ai kago-5 edit

Template:User ai kago-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Master race? Hello? A userbox announcing to the world one's intention to create a master race? Is this Wikipedia or Fuehrerpedia? We don't need this crap here. Contributes nothing to Wikipedia, and it offends people. Like me. On second thought, maybe delete everything in the series except one. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete everything in the series and all associated categories. Usercruft. android79 06:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is orphaned and unlikely to be used; note that I'm principally against deleting it just because it is usercruft.   ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete two of them, specifically Ai Kago-4 and Ai Kago-5. Those two clearly crosses the line on appropriateness. Ai Kago-1 and Ai Kago-2 looks fine, Ai Kago-3 is a little disturbing and somewhat of a border case in my opinion, but hey, if that's what float's the person's boat. ;-) --BenjaminTsai Talk 06:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all in series: unused, unlikely to be used (some things are even too esoteric for Wikipedia). But for the record, I'm not sure "appropriateness" is a proper standard for deleting userboxes. However, utility -- or at least the likelihood of being used -- is. If someone wants to express this opinion on their userpage, they can use the {{Userbox}} template without having to create a new template. -- Tetraminoe 06:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Okay, this one is just too bad. Ian13ID:540053 12:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I usually think these deltion proposals are becsue people are touchy, but this userbox is just.....wrong -   Bourbons3Talk 17:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd prefer leniency on userboxes, and this one seems to be in good fun, but how many others explicitly state a desire to have sex with underaged people? I'd rather not start seeing Emma Watson userboxes, that's just edging up against the line of creepy. Night Gyr
    Oh, I has equilivent to Emma Watson userboxes on my french book at some stage. It a good idea really :D Ian13ID:540053 17:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I made this series of userboxes in fun, with my personal intention being that they could be changed on the user's userpage as the mood arose. Can we please userfy them instead of deletion? As for the age issue... not that I ever intended anything, but it'll be moot on February 7th, 2006 anyway as she'll be legal then ; --Cjmarsicano 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment. If you'll all excuse me for being bold, since I initially made these userboxes for myself and would hate for them to be bounced, I'm going to userfy them all. Happy new year. :) --Cjmarsicano 06:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't like the master race comment. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 20:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nationality law edit

Template:Nationality law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Redundant with Wikipedia:legal disclaimer. It is established community policy not to use additional disclaimers in articles. Jiang 07:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Delete per nom DaGizza Chat 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tuberculosis edit

Not really a candidate for an article series, given that the top two in this list will be merged. JFW | T@lk 12:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incomplete license edit

Redundant with Template:No license. --Puzzlet Chung 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, do not make template forks. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Infobox University5 edit

Template:Infobox University5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used. In fact all of Infobox University4-6 are used very sparingly and could probably be fixed not to be used at all. --platypeanArchcow 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC) platypeanArchcow 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, do not make template forks. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 4 edit

Was an unused redirect to Template:Web reference 2 which I intend to nominate later too (needs some work first). Adrian Buehlmann 19:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, do not make template forks. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 2 edit

Not used. Replacement: template:web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC). Amend: It's really not used. At the present situation the compatible template:web reference can be used without breaking articles if somebody finds a leftover call of web reference 2 (I think I got them all converted to web reference). To Neto: you can act on template:web reference then at one strike. Or do you want to convert an old fork of web reference, too? Adrian Buehlmann 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, do not make template forks. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • These templates were made over a year ago. Uncle G 06:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We may need this because eventually the citation templates will have to stop using meta-templates. Multiple similar templates may have to be re-implemented as the solution. -- Netoholic @ 07:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: kill it with a stick. A lot of work has gone into reducing the absurd number of forks of these reference templates: please do not let us revert back to the old situation (certain people want to deprecate the use of templates for references entirely: don't give them any leverage by making endless forks like there were before). —Phil | Talk 11:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ROT13 edit

Template:ROT13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete — Failed experiment to ROT13 old talk page archives. Was used on the Talk:Elvis Presley archives. cesarb 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, everyone knows double ROT13 is more secure. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And I agree with Locke Cole; in-fact we should encrypt all of wikipedia with 2ROT13 and then use the DMCA to prohibit unauthorized decryption. Kenj0418 17:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • qryrgr, jung n fvyyl vqrn! -- grm_wnr Esc 18:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • V jbaqre, jvyy lbhe ibgr or pbhagrq yvxr guvf? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • bzt, vg'f abg n ibgr!!!1 -- grm_wnr Esc 19:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This was cute the first time, but enough, please. While I'm sure there's a Firefox rot13 extension, it still leaves the rest of us scratching our heads. —Cryptic (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless. Now, if the template could actually be made to encode the text... naw, let's not go there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 30 edit

PD-USGov-Congress-Bio edit

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete — Template creates a false assertion of copyright status, the Biographical Directory of the United States copyright details clearly state that not all images on the site are in the public domain, template needs to be explicitly rewritten or deleted and images taken from the site tagged within the existing tagging structure --nixie 14:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite. - 99% of Biographical Directory of Congress images are PD. "copyright information is provided whenever possible". This states all US Federal Government sites such as Library of Congress or NARA. So, if you want to delete it, nominate also other US-Gov templates. - Darwinek 14:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rewrite. as Darwinek above - we seem to be delete crazy all of a sudden - this is a prefectly good template. The direct objection should be addressed which is the wording of the template - not the template itself. Kevinalewis 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Deleted/December_2005&oldid=1110843904"