Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 4

< January 3	January 5 >

January 4 edit

Template:Cap'n Truman Cloggs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Angela (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — TKD::Talk 10:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is out of contect nonsense. Probably created in error. --Obina 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Danaman5 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; this is not a template. -/- Warren 22:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Lquote edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleteCirceus 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. More importantly, one of the only remaining templates using Template:click. The problem with that is as described in Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Clickable images - it took a great deal of effort to take it out of Template:Cquote. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between Lquote and Cquote? Just the use of {{click}}? Kaldari 21:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The creation comment says (cquote except keep it left-justified;) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) bravely avoiding the temptation to use a quote template to quote that)[reply]

Delete — {{cquote}} and {{Rquote}} are more flexible and are widely used. --surueña 18:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all. Xiner (talk, email) 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Sailor-Moon-stub-section edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename Circeus 02:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had first listed this at WP:SFD due to -stub- being in the name and it had been feeding into a stub cat (discussion here). I since removed the stub cat association and listed it here. This is a non-standard usage of {{sectstub}} for Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailor Moon. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity and the desire to make an informed vote, is it problematic to have nonstandard {{sectstub}}-like templates? --Masamage 18:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still waiting for a response to this... --Masamage 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per What I said on the other Page, Keep Lego3400: The Sage of Time 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but would be better it its name was changed to {{Sailor Moon sectstub}} or similar, to make it clear it is not a stub template. Grutness...wha? 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rework before keeping. Xiner (talk, email) 04:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Grutness. —CComMack (t–c) 22:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Sailor-Moon-stub-List edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus Circeus 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, this is a non-standard usage of {{listdev}} ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, {{expand list}} (I must have missed the move). ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agian as I said on the other Page, KeepLego3400: The Sage of Time 03:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but would be better it its name was changed to {{Sailor Moon expand list}} or similar, to make it clear it is not a stub template. Grutness...wha? 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no problem with this --T-rex 21:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems okay, but the word "chibi" really needs to be changed. This is an English encyclopedia, and people not familiar with Japanese slang will not understand what's being said. -/- Warren 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chibi means Runt and it is not slang. Its slang amoung anime fandom though. Any one familer with sailor Moon knows this defintly and many other fans know this. and remember its for SM only . Also we always use the JP version over the buchery they call a dub at the project. It is staying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lego3400 (talk • contribs)

Um, the problem is that most WP users don't speak Japanese. Just because you look up Sailor Moon in an encyclopedia doesn't mean you already know everything about it, right? Sticking to English is standard WP policy, and for the creator to insist that one word must stay, over the objections of the community, doesn't look good. --Masamage 06:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Grutness. —CComMack (t–c) 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Current subject edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a "current events" template of sorts, but it's very under-used. When I found it, it was used on just 3 articles, and had been on each of them for over a month, so I removed it. The template as worded could apply to basically tens of thousands of topics... "This article documents subject matter currently covered by prominent news source(s)." After reflecting I've decided this template isn't really different than {{current}}, so there's really no need for it. The template was created out of an objection to the wording of the current event template (see the talk page) so I don't know, do we really want to have a seperate hardly-ever-used template? Do we want to change {{current}} slightly? --W.marsh 15:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wimstead 07:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the wording is awkward, and {{current-related}} already addresses those concerns. However, for accuracy I'd recommend pluralizing the language of {{current-related}}, so that it reads "This article is related to current events. Information may change rapidly as events progress." Then editors could be advised to use {{current}} only when the primary subject of the article is itself a "current event." Even so, there will likely continue to be a significant yet tolerable amount of inaccurate use of all of these. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legit. See Template talk:Current news, which was the original location. It certainly seems far more pertinent than {{Future UK channel}} (versus {{Future TV channel}}) or {{Future sport event}} (vs. {{Future sport}}). Actually, while Category:Temporal templates might have been allowed to overgrow, this is not one that should go in my opinion.Circeus 00:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Beta Theta Pi Chapters edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated for deletion a month ago to no consensus (discussion here). However, present discussion at Administrators' Noticeboard seems to suggest a consensus to delete. It is only being used on 3 chapter articles, there are about 7 redirects in there, and the rest are 200+ red links. The template's sole purpose is to encourage the creation of articles on individual chapters of the fraternity which are almost always non-notable outside the national organization. --Metros232 14:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local chapter articles should be the exception (see Zeta Phi) rather than the rule. Accordingly I've added a See also to the main article to reference that chapter—and to explain the notability of the chapter and its history. I see no need to keep this template. —C.Fred (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per C.Fred and the individual chapter articles created already within this template should be deleted also. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the previous TfD I advocated giving leeway if it was trimmed to include only chapters which had an article that asserted notability. Upon closer inspection, must bluelinks are redirects and there are only perhaps two notable chapters; therefore this template is unnecessary and will encourage vanity articles. —Dgies^t c 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and C.Fred. --ImmortalGoddezz 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overkill. >Radiant< 13:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was about to speedily delete this template, as it now consists solely of a few redirects to Beta Theta Pi and about 200 redlinks; the few articles it did have have now been deleted either via AFD or via CSD A7 (failing to assert notability). Then I noticed it was at TFD, so instead will suggest that we close and delete this as soon as is suitable. Proto::► 15:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and close discussion asap per Proto - it's a navigation template with nothing but red links and redirects to the same page. There's no possible use for it. It seems like further discussion would be pointless. delldot | talk 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:User_en-cñ edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy Circeus 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the "language" Konyo/Coño does not exist in ISO 639 and en-cñ is an invented code. { PMGOMEZ } 08:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I'll volunteer to host this. --Howard the Duck 11:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Userfy": I believe Lagalag should be the one to host this as its creator. { PMGOMEZ } 11:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, we could delete it. Besides, that was created during a time when using actual language codes still was not important to WP, seeing that templates for Southern Californian (whose description went something like, “Dude… this user… like… speaks English… dude…”), etc. existed. Which brings me to ask: What about those other templates linking to Hessisch, Runglish, etc. using unofficial codes? —Lagalag 12:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could propose for them to be deleted? { PMGOMEZ } 13:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m all neutral on this issue, what for? —Lagalag 13:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coño is a Spanish swear word. Asterion^talk 16:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic question: Does it have anything to do with being rich? --Howard the Duck 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is slang for vagina. Generally used to express anger, contempt or similar emotions. Asterion^talk 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. (You may remove this conversation if you'd want to.) --Howard the Duck 03:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Asterion^talk 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or userfy. The lack or presence of a code does not necessarily indicate that a particular linguistic phenomenon exists. Coño English is a type of English spoken by upper-class and/or educated Filipinos. --Chris S. 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy if someone really wants it ... if this language doesn't actually exist and is only a profane template, why keep it in template space? --BigDT 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy languange very informal but could be kept by a user if someone really wants it for his own userpage. KathzzZz^{chat | sign here} 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please see Coño. The creator should be warned, unless I'm mistaken. Xiner (talk, email) 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Warned? It wasn't use offensively. In the Philippines it has no offensive context. I mean, Howard's comment above indicated he didn't know about its offensiveness. --Chris S. 08:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - People are getting all upset because this has a swear word. It's really just the hispanophone equivalent of Template:User_en-B. —Dgies^t c 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the language is non-existent; we wouldn't keep a Babal-box for Intermediate Martian speakers would we? Anthony cfc ^{[T • C]} 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - If you look at the amount of users that 'speak' konyo, you'll find that it's not just something the user made out of the blue. It's not offensive in the Philippines and I don't think the user who created the template should be warned. It just refers to the Filipino upper-class and their way of speaking. By the way, I couldn't disagree more with Dgies statement. It's more like the Filipino equivalent of Valley Girl... Well, if the phrase 'Valley Girl' had a swear word in it, at least. Konyo could be considered more of a 'language' than 'bullshit'... Anyways, I say userfy it, pare! Ham let 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Srbox pieces edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Srbox piece edit

Template:Srbox piece 2 edit

Template:Srbox piece 3 edit

These templates were used in the early days of WP:USRD to provide browsing for state highway systems across Interstate and U.S. route pages. They have since been deprecated by a full set of "XX browse" templates ({{ca browse}}, {{ny browse}}...) that perform the same feature, except in a much more cleaner and presentable fashion. As such, the srbox pieces should be deleted. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sr box piece}}, a redirect to Srbox piece, should be deleted as well. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete superseded templates. —Scott5114 ↗ 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and Scott V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above/. ---Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - deprecated • master_son^{Lets talk} 02:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been officially deprecated since February of last year. It is redundant with {{NoRightsReserved}} and to a lesser extent {{PD-release}} or {{PD-self}}. It has been a very problematic template due to vague wording and frequent confusion between the meaning of "free use" and "fair use". The consensus of all discussions of its fate so far have been to dispense with it in favor of better-worded alternatives. Migration of all transclusions was approved in November and finally completed this week. Please see discussion here for more info. I will be very glad to finally see this template go. --Kaldari 05:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The issue of license tagging is hard enough to figure out as it is without superfluous and old templates floating around. -/- Warren 11:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{No rights reserved}} (first choice) or delete (second choice). The name really ought to be kept around ... otherwise, someone is just going to make it again six months from now. --BigDT 02:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, {{No rights reserved}} is actually in discussion to merge into {{PD-release}}, so if we were to redirect, I would prefer that we redirect to {{PD-release}}. Really though, I would prefer to not have any license template named "Free Use" (even as a redirect) since your average Wikipedia editor seems to easily confuse "Free Use" with "Fair Use". I would prefer that we delete it outright. If someone does recreate the template, I would just nominate it for deletion again. The fact that someone might recreate the template is not a very good argument against deletion, IMO. Kaldari 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Public domaining an image, has different legal consequences then a person maintaining the copyright of an image but allowing all free usage of the image. Also changing the copyright status without asking to the author is asking for trouble, particularly when the image permission was obtained from a non-Wikipedian. PPGMD 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a {{NoRightsReserved}} template which is a much better version of the license you are describing. As for the PD v. Free use issue, please see this discussion. Also, switching the template is not an issue. That action has already been debated, approved, and performed. This template is not currently used by any images (as of January 4). Kaldari 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just deleted Image:Blanik 3 a.jpg, which PPGMD had tagged with this template but written was only for noncommercial use. PPGMD, please tag any other images that are actually licensed under a noncommercial license with {{noncommercial}} so that they can be deleted as well, and, if this template is not deleted, do not use it like this in the future. Jkelly 00:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - So you disregarded procedures and deleted an image without notifying the uploader on his talk page. If you took more then 5 minutes to look at the page you would have seen that I am Shawn Clark, and I can changed the license on the image by request when the page it was on came up for FA nomination. You are exactly the type of admins that are ruining Wikipedia. PPGMD 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Nice to meet you too. Noncommercial licensed images, regardless of what boilerplate may be put on the page, meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Please don't expect to receive any warning about media not appropriately licensed being deleted. Jkelly 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read your own link, they can only be speedy deleted if they were uploaded after May 15th, 2005, that image was uploaded in 2004. Images uploaded before then can only be speedy deleted if they aren't used in any article. Don't let anger of someone opposing a deletion get in the way of procedures. PPGMD 04:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Superceded by {{NoRightsReserved}}. Congratulations to Kaldari for this big cleanup job! Jkelly 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High time we got rid of this, copyright issues are confusing enough without this. Some people just see "copyrighted" and use it on everyting, others just see "free" and use it on everyting they didn't pay for, and then there are the free/fair confusion and "with permission" mess mentioned above. --Sherool (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Far too often, "copyrighted free use" is interpreted as meaning "the image is copyrighted, I was able to get my hands on it for free, and I want to use it". --Carnildo 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have no great objection to deletion. But I also see no benefit, to this standard practice of removing "commonly misused" tags, which merely encourages people to misuse other tags, which in-turn, become less reliable. It used to be you could pretty much predict which images were copyvios based on what tag they had (e.g. almost all of certain tags were bad, and the bulk of certain other tags were good). Also, in principal, we should rarely change or remove image copyright tags, as whatever the copyright holder uploaded as, is the legal statement. One should never retroactively changed a legal declaration. If somebody makes a legal declaration of copyright release, then either that release is adequate (leave it alone) or inadequate (delete the image). But anyhow, it seems the tag has already been "unused", and the matter is settled, so I'm mainly just stating my opposition to this approach, rather than this specific deletion. --Rob 06:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree for the most part, although in this case the wording is so vague it seems we must guess as to the uploader's intentions regardless of whether we change the tag or not. Kaldari 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This terminology is far too confusing for new users. Effectively obsoleted by NoRightsReserved anyway, which also has the benefit of being much clearer terminology. "CopyrightedFreeUse" means "I found it on a public internet server" to a very large number of people. - cohesion 12:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:CatDiffuse edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template, and the associated category are a bad idea. They give the impression that all big categories must be diffused into smaller ones. This is not true (though it is very common unquestioned assumption). BIG CATEGORIES ARE NOT BAD. I've specifically asked Brion (who manages the WIkipedia servers) about this and he says there is no technical reason that we have to break up big categories into small ones. We have category table of contents that can help us navigate through big categories {{CategoryTOC}} and huge categories {{LargeCategoryTOC}}. So categories do not necessarily have to be be broken up when they get large. Our categories are like book indexes which list all the articles on a topic in alphabetical order.

There is absolutely nothing in the Categorization guidelines that says you must diffuse large categories into smaller ones. I'm sure of this because I wrote the most recent overhaul of the guidelines. The idea that every large category must be broken down into tiny subcategories is archaic. It is a hold-over from Wikipedia culture from two years ago that has to be put to rest. There is no reason that a category cannot be ANY size. If the topic is big, you can break it down to smaller pieces if those are useful and help people browse through similar articles. However, we should make the decisions about category groupings based solely on utility. The question is What articles will people be looking for and where will they look for it? Many large and huge categories are just fine and do not need to be broken down any smaller. Smaller intersections are also not necessary. Eventually, the software will add the capability of adding category intersections on the fly. If we do want to have smaller subcategories, the larger ones do not necessarily need to be depopulated. If they were useful groupings when they were small they remain useful groupings when they get big. The large category should remain, and the smaller ones should duplicate the categorization. We should decide if the extra categorization is needed. If too many categories are being added, it is often because too many subcategories are being added. We cannot assume that just because we come up with a scheme for subcategorization that this will be useful or helpful to the majority of people who use Wikipedia. This practice has to be reined in. Deleting this template and the associated category would be a start.

Thanks for reading this. --Samuel Wantman 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and create suitable guidelines for use. The fact that this template is applied too much—or in the wrong places—doesn't mean that there aren't cases (particularly top-level categories such as Category:History or Category:Science) where it's quite appropriate. Deletion is an unnecessarily blunt instrument to use here. Kirill Lokshin 02:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to answer all these points. The problem is that this tag gives no indication of what should be in the category and what should be diffused. Take Category:Science. Most of the articles in this category belong in category Science. If some of them belong and some of them don't this tag is no help. Each high level category, like "Science" needs some specific instructions that help people understand what belongs and what doesn't. Slapping these all with "diffuse", which means nothing to the average person, just makes the category look bad while giving no real instruction about what should happen. Also, I think there are two things going on here. There are top level topic categories that are general topics, and there are also articles about the general topics. That is all well and good. But then lower down there are lower level index categories that are perfectly fine categories, worthy of being populated. But whenever they get big they get divided up. What will be the result if we continue in this direction? The only categories that we will be able to browse will be microscopic in their scope. Why do we assume that everyone wants to browse this way? Some people don't know what they are looking for. That is the definition of browsing. In our system the only way to browse is to know what you are looking for first. -- Samuel Wantman 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What we need is more people making an effort to categorize with precision and the benefit of lateral thinking. This is an excellent template. The promise that software intersection on the fly would be added to the software shortly has been around as long as I have known Wikipedia so it is anyone's guess if and when it will actually appear. Sumahoy 02:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating that we stop categorizing with precision. I am just saying that wholesale diffusion of useful categories should not happen. I am making a distinction between a) the diffusion of categories into smaller sub-categories and b) simply creating new sub-categories and populating them while leaving the original category alone.

This conversation is currently also underway at WikiProject Films. I'm proposing that we should populate Category:Films with every film article in Wikipedia. We have oodles of subcategories for subcategorizations of film, we have Films by nationality, by language, by director, by genre, etc... There are dozens of these sub-classificaitons. All of these are just fine categories and they should all be fully populated. At the same time, I'm saying that it is perfectly reasonable to also have a category called "films" where you could browse through all the film articles. In book form, this would be called an INDEX. If you look at a book with film reviews there will be an index of all films.

It is also great that we can offer all the subcategorizations like "films directed by John Ford" and "Australian films". So are these precise enough? The precision involved is putting each film into the subcategories that it belongs. I'm all in favor. On top of that I'd also like it to be in "films". If you don't want to browse through "films", you go over to "films by type" or "films by year" and find the subcategorization you are looking for. You'd have a choice. What we do now is we take a category that is an index of a subject and decide to break it into small pieces and turn the original category (the index) into a navigation category. Instead of that, we could just leave the original index alone and create a new navigation category. This way you could have a choice. Look at the big topic or look at the smaller subdivision.

Continuing with the "film" example. We now have dozens of those subcategories by film type or year, all populated, which is just fine. Over time, some of them have grown quite big. For example "Comedy films" has about 4000 films in it. There's a move to chop this category into small pieces and diffuse it. The stated reason is because it is too big. So there is three ways to go here. 1) You can chop it into pieces and diffuse it, 2) you can chop it into pieces and not diffuse it or 3)you can just leave it as a big category. If you diffuse it (#1), you loose the ability to browse through all comedy films. If you do subcategorizations and not diffuse it, you at least double all the categories for each film. Worse than that, people will start categories like "Comedy films by nationality", "Comedy films by year", "Comedy films by director", etc... You might end up with dozens of "Comedy film" categories for each film. This would add a tremendous amount of category clutter. So I'm advocating option #3. Just leave it alone and avoid category intersections. For every topic, we would designate the index level for the topic, and then (usually) only go one level below the index level. Both the index level and the sub-index level would be fully populated. "Films" would be an index level. Now I'm not advocating that all these films be included at higher "topic" levels. The topic levels are about topics and not about individual instances of the topic. This is the difference between Category:Film and Category:Films. Each article should be put in the most specific topic or index level category that it belongs. I have no problem with that. But for the specific instances, the films, books, people, etc... here's the distinction I'm making: At some point, we will be making sub-categories below the index level and when that happens, we should not diffuse the index category.

If you've followed what I'm saying thus far, I'm saying that the index categories, like "films" should not be diffused. I've already mentioned that the higher level topic categories are not helped by this template either. In those cases some of the articles belong and some don't and the template doesn't help. So the template is not appropriate for ANY category which has articles that are miscategorized. -- Samuel Wantman 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What's the use of sub-categorzing if everything's at the main category? We might as well delete all subcategories. --Howard the Duck 11:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template is necessary on Category:Australian people, which is always being replenished with new articles, when it should ideally contain only categories. ReeseM 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What would be so terrible if we had "Australian people" and all the subcategories as well? It would add a single category to each persons article and you'd be able to see a complete index of Australian people. If navigation to the subcategories is difficult, you could create an additional navigation category that would hold the subcategories currently in "Australian people". -- Samuel Wantman 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the love of mike, keep. This template helps me maintain some semblance of sanity when managing Category:History of the United States and Category:American Civil War. jengod 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that this template is helpful in Category:History of the United States. How is anyone supposed to understand what belongs and what doesn't from reading this template? Can any general purpose template explain which articles belong in this category and which belong in the subcategory? I'm working on a proposal to replace template like this one with more user friendly ones that help people understand what is in the category. I'd be happy if anyone would like to help. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Category types -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This category is very friendly and people can use their own judgement. I trust them to do that, but you seem to feel that we need cast iron rules for the classification each article in a particular field. We don't, Wikipedia is organic and constantly improving. Choalbaton 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Samuel you keep repeating this claim that we only have detailed categories because of a collective memory of a technical issue from two years ago but it is complete and utter rubbish. There must be thousands of people who have contributed to moving towards a more detailed category system and most of us hadn't even heard of Wikipedia two years ago! We do it because we think it improves navigability. You are the one that is living in the past - the first days of the category system when it wasn't detailed because it was immature and frankly just crap. I remember when I first read Wikipedia, before I had an account, one had to use the search box to find most things because the category system was hopeless, and that is what I have been helping to fix. You know as well as I do that you are in a small minority on this matter and as far as I know you are in a minority of one in having such an extreme preference for vast categories. Please drop this hobby horse and move onto something more useful. Chicheley 04:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Chicheley 04:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see this as a black and white issue and that is your right. I may be in a minority, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I am wrong. You seem to think that having large categories will somehow make it impossible to have specific ones, and that is not what I am advocating at all, and it never has been. -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wantman has a point, I suppose. Nevertheless this template seems to be useful for categories that should only contain subcategories that get silted up with articles. Herostratus 04:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What everyone seems to be missing is that many of these categories get "silted up" because people want to have these categories populated. It is the natural inclination to have categories like "Films" populated with films! Why do we keep fighting the masses on this? I am talking about only categories named X where each article Y is an X. This does not include broad topics like Art, Science, American History, etc... Articles about topics should be in the most specific categories. If you look in "American history" all the subcategories and articles should be directly related to the broad topic of American History. It adds information to put a specific Civil War battle in a category about "American Civil War battles" and not in "American History". The article has a "X is a Y" relationship with the "Civil War battles" category. My point again, is that unlike our present situation, all the battles of the Civil war should be in Category:Battles of the American Civil War even if they can also be found in smaller subcategories. -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be your natural inclination to have Category:Films directly populated by films, it is not mine. You do not speak for the masses, but only for yourself, and your views are eccentric as this discussion shows. Wikipedia has far too many films for that to make sense or be useful and in any case the contents of subcategories are the population of the parent category, albeit indirectly. Choalbaton 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they generally get silted up by people who don't realize that we have more specific subcategories for many things. For instance, there's absolutely no reason why any writer should ever be filed directly in Category:Literature, but people do that regularly. Not because it's expected or logical, but because they don't know about the more specific and more appropriate category. Bearcat 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, but do something about the ugly lime green color. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A template doesn't have to be designed to be useful for every situation. This one is for the specific situations described within it. This doesn't mean that every category must be diffused into sub-cats, just ones in which this template is applied. And one can always discuss on the related talk page. - jc37 07:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I really want to have a discussion about this. Even if this is kept, what can be done about it to make this template better, to better explain what should happen and why, to keep it from being applied wholesale to any category that gets large. Please, don't just say "keep" and ignore my concerns. I really think this is a serious problem and it will just get worse unless we address it. Also, I hope people will browse through German Wikipedia. I think they have a much better handle on this than we do. -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The template is useful for marking populous, overly-braod categories. Category:Astronomy has one and needs one; most articles in that category should be diffused into subcategories. However, I agree with some Samuel Wantman's sentiments that the template needs to be edited so that it is simply not applied to any large category but appropriate categories. Dr. Submillimeter 10:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suppose keeping this template because it does it can help us move to better categorization, but its use really needs to be limited to major "parent" categories that routinely collect new articles. Category:Microsoft is an example of where this template makes a lot of sense. If I had to guess, I'd say we have in excess of 1,000 articles related to Microsoft "stuff", spread across dozens of categories. If you have a look at the contents of the category now, it's picked up a number of articles that, while certainly related to Microsoft in some fashion, probably could use a better home. -/- Warren 11:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Samuel Wantman is quite wrong to suggest that this template orders people to remove all articles regardless of the appropriateness of doing so. It is perfectly clear that it actually simply requests that they remove them when appropriate. I am troubled by Samuel's apparent lack of trust in the judgement of this fellow editors. Choalbaton 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with trust. Please assume good faith. I'm trying to make the categorization system easier to use and easier to understand. In practice, many categories often get totally depopulated after this template is added. -- Samuel Wantman 02:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has a great deal to do with trust. I don't doubt that you are acting in good faith so your accusation is out of place. But I think you have misguided ideas about where we need to get to and a lack of trust in the ability of others to make the right decisions about how to get there. Choalbaton 07:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "there is no technical reason that we have to break up big categories into small ones." Perhaps so, and some subcategorization is clearly excessive and would be best kept in the parent... but there is certainly a logical reason for subcategorization that aids readability and navigability. When such a concern exists, this template makes a lot of sense. SnowFire 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template does nothing but encourage excessive overcategorizing, making navigation of categories cumbersome and tedious. - Gilliam (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find this useful to mark large categories when there is a useful logical breakout to be made. This helps point out where there is work to consider. No one is forcing anything to be done, just suggesting the situation should be looked at. Hmains 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wrt to the bolded part of the introduction, I like to be able to look for articles in small and sharp categories. Wimstead 07:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having large categories divided into small, specific categories is one of the strengths of the category system, in my view. --Danaman5 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My impression, as one of the patrollers of category:food and drink and category:foods (among other things), is that a lot of people put articles in the first potentially relevant category they run across, without looking to see if there is already a better, more specific category. That is different than people specifically thinking we don't need the subcategories. I agree that sometimes it would be very useful to see a flat, sorted list of all articles in all subcategories of a given category, or to be able to search all articles in a category and its subcategories -- but those issues ought to be handled by software. Humans ought to concentrate on categorization issues that can't be handled mechanically. :-) Dr.frog 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template encourages people to make necessary refinements. Cloachland 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many above. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization is always better served by filing people in the narrowest appropriate category rather than the general parent. There's a constant need to clean up things like Category:Television presenters or Category:Writers, where people who actually belong in subcategories like Category:British television presenters or Category:American novelists get thrown entirely too far up the tree by editors who don't understand how categorization is normally applied on here. There is, for instance, no practical or navigational benefit to having a single undifferentiated writers category that includes every single person on Wikipedia who ever wrote a book, regardless of their nationality or their literary genre; there is a lot of practical benefit to subclassifying writers by their cultural context and subject matter. Any category that could simultaneously include Margaret Atwood and Hamzah Fansuri, for instance, is defined far too broadly to be of any real encyclopedic value. A lot of categories thus do need regular monitoring for cleanup of this type, and I find it rather tiresome that some people continue to push the idea that duplicate categorization and/or pulling away from differentiating categories would be at all a positive development. If category intersections are in the works, then we can figure out how to revise our category scheme when that is in place; in the meantime, this is not the time to start imposing an as-broad-as-possible categorization scheme that is only effective or valuable when coupled with a technical change that hasn't happened yet. And furthermore, the use of general parents as "index" categories effectively vitiates the point of even having more specific subcategories. Once CI is in place, and subcategorization can be automatically handled by the server automatically searching for set intersections instead of through manual category creation, index categorization will make more sense, but as long as we still have to manually create a separate category for Category:Canadian writers, there isn't a useful reason to also add somebody to Category:Writers at the same time. So until CI is actually in place, keep. Bearcat 01:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you noticed that Category:Canadian writers is no longer populated? It has been diffued into Canadian writers by type. Why can't I browse through all Canadian writers? What if I don't care if they write novels, plays, or poetry? I'm proposing that we pick a general and specific level for all these categories and stick with them. I got frustrated when Film directors got broken up into categories by nationality. To counteract that developement, I created Film Directors by language. At least I'd be able to look at all the English language film directors in one place. Now there is talk of dividing that category up. A question for everyone here: At what point do we say it doesn't matter how big some category gets, whatever size it is we're not going to depopulated it? Are we going to end up with Category:Poetry writers from Nova Scotia and Category:1967 American comedy films? Are these more useful categories for browsing than their parent categories? I don't think they are. -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What if people don't share your view about what level should be chosen? Why should we all go along with whatever happens to suit you when we have perfectly good policies in place already? Wimstead 12:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The acid test has to be how useful a category is to the reader. Some categories contain thousands of articles. In these extreme cases I find it hard to imagine who will browse through the category looking for related information - if useful subcategories can be created then these would be clear candidates for diffusion. Whilst it is possible to over-extend the level of subcategorization, I have yet to see this template applied to a small category which has unjustifiably tiny subcategories. Greenshed 00:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with SW on these matters, and also on leaving duplicate categories on occasion. Category:Anti-communists is another example - all it tells me is that anti-communists are of various nationalities, which I knew already. If the parent category listed all the articles in its subcats automatically (on the top page), that would be fine; or at least gave some idea of how many anti-communists are hiding in the various branches (or is it roots?). In some of these supercats one has dig down about 10 levels before finding an article - I use 'search', or google, not categories, to find anything. I expect to find anti-communists in Category:Anti-communists, not a list of subcats. roundhouse 10:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick, since I last looked an actual anti-communist has appeared. Hide him, he (or she) must have some nationality, or if not we need Category:Stateless anti-communists and possibly Category:Anti-communists whose nationality is open to some doubt. (There is a glaring lack of any Belgian anti-communists.) roundhouse 10:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The national categories can or should enable you to find those articles from the national people, politics and history categories, whereas if Category:Anti-communists was left in isolation far less people would be likely to find it. Wimstead 13:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. I came across Category:Anti-communists because there was a dispute about whether Hastings Banda was one (someone put Category:Anti-communists on his page and someone else removed it - I found a citation for this and put him back). He's now in Category:Malawian anti-communists, by himself. So Banda is not now grouped with anyone else, so I don't find any similar articles. Another example is Category:Malawian people - I would like to see who is included at one glance but I can't (there are only about 20 in there - it needs 20-odd clicks to see all the names - eg suppose I wanted to print out the names of those included). roundhouse 14:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my earlier vote, showing a "flat" view of a category, or your suggestion of adding an annotation to indicate how many pages are children of a category, are software issues. Those are easy to fix mechanically because it requires only one fix to the software which can be applied to every category on Wikipedia. Putting articles in the most specific category possible allows for maximum flexibility of the software in customizing the category display for individual user preferences. But putting articles in subcategories does require human intervention and expertise for each Wikipedia article, and we should encourage contributors to add such information when possible. Dr.frog 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A flat "view" of a category would alter the whole discussion (as would intersections on the fly). I agree that both (essentially unions of subcats or intersections of supercats) are software issues, but have no idea how easy either might be. Many thanks for the terminology - it is exactly what I meant. (The relatively recent 'tree' view of cats was an advance.) Sorry - I missed your earlier comtribution above while glancing through - this is quite a long discussion, amongst many other long discussions. (And is an overwhelming keep, so my own vote is immaterial.) roundhouse 15:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Samuel makes some good points here. At the moment, the category system could go in one of two ways. We could (a) carefully categorise the most relevant points as single tags, and then combine them through intersection, or (b) overcategorise and then rebuild the lists using the category structure and hoping that all articles in subcategories are actually related to the categories several layers up. I favour approach (a), and deleting this category would help prevent overcategorisation. It should, in any case, only be used on genuinely large categories that can be rebuilt from the contents of their subcategories. I suggest using "what links here" on the template, and removing it where it shouldn't be used. That would help. Again, one of the major problems is not being able to point to the 'final' version of what we are talking about. If we could compare the two approaches for a small area, this might help. Carcharoth 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everybody and their brother. As so many write, when, in the by and by, super duper software becomes available to do everything, it may just as easily become available for doing sub-category intersection, not a noticeably harder problem. Meanwhile, having smaller categories is not only more manageable, but more useful. Unmanageable data is just noise. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- But what about here and now? Can you give me a list of all the earthquake articles we have? Can you give me a list of all the hurricane articles we have? If you look at Category Scan for a recent CfD (School massacres), you can select "show all articles" as the filter option, and get a reasonable list there. Category Tree, as that page says, has been implemented on Wikipedia, but "show all articles" hasn't. That funtions would really help, and is probably closer than Category Intersection. Carcharoth 14:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, in fact I can, but I'll need a clarification of the question. Answer me why~~, besides WP:POINT,~~ do you want a list of all the earthquake articles we have? Do you want to read an exhaustive, but necessarily brief, list of all earthquakes known to science? List of earthquakes. Are you interested in detailed coverage of recent earthquakes, that were most likely to be thoroughly covered by modern media, and dealt with by modern methods? Category:Earthquakes by century. Do you want earthquakes that hit the place where you live? Category:Earthquakes by country. Do you want to thoroughly peruse Wikipedia's detailed coverage of all earthquakes known to science? Well, then you're going to have to click around 20 subcategories - but then you're going to want to be reading hundreds of articles anyway, so I'm not going to apologize too much for making you read 20 more category pages in addition. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, as a reader the reasons are that I want to browse an alphabetical index of Wikipedia's earthquake articles. I don't want to read all of them, just look over a contents index and see if anything looks interesting. By the way, if a reader, and not an editor, had asked you this question, would you have said "Answer me why, besides WP:POINT, do you want a list of all the earthquake articles we have?"? As an editor, I would like such a list to help organise editing efforts on earthquake articles. I too can produce such a list, but not everyone knows how to do this. Take a look at how I've handled this at Category:School massacres. I've now done this for earthquakes, just to actually get something done instead of talking about it. See Category:Earthquakes. The edits involved are listed here. Such alphabetical index lists allow us to look at both the big picture (all articles) and the detailed picture (how to organise those articles). My method of generating an alphabetical index list involves using the Category Scan tool I linked too (though as a toolserver tool that suffers from database replication lag), but I'd appreciate it, as a matter of editor-to-editor courtesy, if you would share your methods as well. That way we can both work to improve the encyclopedia, instead of throwing needless WP:POINT accusations about. Carcharoth 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I apologise and withdraw the accusation. I still believe focused subcategories are more generally useful. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank-you for the apology. On my part, I'm sorry if I reacted too strongly to your asking me why I wanted such a list. May I still ask how you generate such lists? Returning to the actual categorisation discussion, surely the ideal is for both methods of browsing to be available to the reader and editor - the alphabetical index of a selected grouping of categories, plus useful subcategorisation schemes? There is no need to force people into choosing one over the other. Carcharoth 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll need to tread carefully to avoid having to apologise again! "...look over a contents index and see if anything looks interesting." is not a tremendously focused goal - can you really tell that much from a long alphabetized list of article titles? Which of these "looks interesting" to you: Balakot, Bhalgran, or Butgram? Personally, all I can tell is that they start with a B. Imagine the category "Earthquakes" with hundreds of titles like that. While I will accept that it would be somehow useful to you, I propose that you are a rara avis. How do I generate such a list? I'm a humble manual mouse, I click through subcategories for what I want. And yet, in 9 cases out of 10, for 99 people (or mice) out of 100, having subcategories is much more useful. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that long contents lists are often uninteresting and uninformative, but they can be useful to help keep a category area under control - "what's that article doing there??" kind of thing. The example here probably was too broad, and it also includes non-Earthquake articles because of the vagaries of the categorisation system, but seriously, any useful encyclopedia should be able to produce, instantly, a list of all its articles on actual earthquakes. That is not an unreasonable request. To be pointed at Category:Earthquakes is a start, but not enough. You also seem to miss the point about how both systems can be useful. Sometimes I think, hmm, I want such-and-such a category, and I go looking and find it. Othertimes I find the category I was looking for has been diffused into numerous subcats, and I have to rebuild the category I wanted by manually generating a list. Do you see the point I am making? People focus their interest at different levels, and we should provide the tools and options to generate categories and alphabetical indices at different levels, and with different levels of discrimination (between details and an overall picture). Ideally, the normal encyclopedia categorisation would be set at a compromise level reached by consensus, and then people can use tools to go beyond that. Either: (a) unify categories to generate a larger view, or (b) intersect categories to find articles common to both. Ultimately, both should be possible. Carcharoth 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have nothing against keeping track of categories that tend to get overpopulated. However, there should be a list on a project page instead of a bunch of ugly tags on the individual categories. Karl Dickman ^talk 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Web browsers edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant, given the pre-existing cats (Category:Web browsers). Aside from contributing to the template-crustification of web browser articles, what purpose does this serve? --AlistairMcMillan 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category should include these articles and only these articles, so I see no use. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. The template also could be percieved as an POV since it only covers browsers which are currently updated. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|^o ^n|it!> 07:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is more suitable as a list article. -/- Warren 11:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Template serves no useful purpose that can't be better covered by a category or list article. Kaldari 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - informative and useful on article for those web browsers. If I'm on the IE article, it would be quite helpful to have a link to Firefox and Opera (browser). As for the POV "only certain browsers" - that's solved fairly simply - only those that are notable enough to have an article ought to be included. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper Amarkov
Delete per nom. Wimstead 08:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - templates and catagories have different uses, this template is appropriate --T-rex 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have enough lists of web browsers in List of web browsers and Comparison of web browsers. -- Schapel 17:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Tnavbar-portal edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House cleaning — Template is completely unused and no edits were ever made Dispenser 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Tnavbar-mini-nodiv/doc edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping (CSD G6). — TKD::Talk 10:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House cleaning — /doc page, base templates was deleted Dispenser 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. NRV. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Tnavbar-mini/doc edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping (CSD G6). — TKD::Talk 10:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House cleaning — /doc page, base templates was deleted Dispenser 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, purely procedural. -/- Warren 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.