Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Frazzydee (talk | contribs) at 06:15, 19 March 2005 (→[[Wikipedia:VfD criteria templates]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is in need of admin attention to resolve old requests. Please remove this notice once this has been done.

Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

This page is for deleting things in the Template namespace, which is used for reusable boilerplate messages and article series boxes. Deletion of these may be appropriate if the template:

  • is not helpful or noteworthy;
  • is redundant with categories, lists, or other mechanisms;
  • or is simply unused.

For guidelines on acceptable boilerplate messages, see Wikipedia:Template namespace.
For guidelines on acceptable article series boxes, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes.


Terms

Templates are somewhat of a Wikibackwater and template editors employ certain unusual terms:

  • A Template is a piece of reusable text in the "Template" namespace.
  • A tfd is a template proposed for deletion, or the proposal for deletion itself. This is analagous to a vfd for an ordinary main namespace article.
  • A blank template is one that contains no text; that is, Somebody has deleted its content. However, the template still exists; it is merely blank, or empty of content.
  • TheTemplate (for example) is instanced or included in other templates or articles when, in their sources, the wiki markup {{TheTemplate}} appears. Conventional wikilinks of the form [[Template:TheTemplate]] are generally unused, but never constitute an instance of TheTemplate.
  • An orphan is a template which is never instanced (outside of any debate about itself, or on its own Talk page).
  • "Orphaning" is the process of removing all instances of a given template -- that is, its wiki markup is removed wherever it appears.
  • Fully orphaned is a rhetorical intensifier of orphaned, with no semantic value. Links to a template from this page or any Talk page are usually not removed during orphaning.
  • A deleted template no longer exists. All references to it, including instances (as do references to any non-existent page), become redlinks. Note that only orphaned templates should ever be deleted.

Process (stages)

Templates proposed for deletion go through a multistage process. This process is reflected in the following main sections on this page:

  • Discussion
  • Holding cell
  • Deletions to log

Each stage is explained under this section. Please don't list any templates under this section.

Discussion (stage)

Subsections are organized:

  • By date
    • By template-proposed-for-deletion name

{{tfd}} (substage)

To propose that a template be deleted, insert the text {{tfd}} to the top of the template. This adds the following message:

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

The message should be placed inside the box when adding it to series box templates, to make clear what is being proposed for deletion.

Do not blank templates to list them here; but if the template is already blank, then don't add {{tfd}} to the already-blank template; add it to the blank template's Talk page instead.

Templates should not be orphaned prior to listing.

New listing (substage)

Templates newly proposed for deletion should be put under today's date at the bottom of the "Discussion" section.

A suggested format for new listings is available with the template Template:New TFD. This will insert a new subsection with predefined areas for discussion and voting on the proposed deletion. Usage:

{{subst:New TFD|TemplateProposedForDeletion|InitialComment}}

Discussion and vote (substage)

The following votes are permissible; add under the appropriate section: "Keep", "Delete", or "Other".

  • Keep.
  • Delete.
  • If you are not voting "Delete" or "Keep", add your comment under the template's "Other" subsection. "Convert to category" is an example of another vote. A template for which consensus prevails to "Convert to category" will be deleted and all pages which reference the template will be added to an appropriately-named category.
  • If you comment at all, please give a reason how the template under consideration either does or does not meet Wikipedia standards, as referenced at the top of this page. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement.

Outcome (substage)

Seven days after a template has been listed on this page, an outcome of the discussion-and-vote stage may have been reached.

  • If a consensus has been reached in favor of deletion, the template is eligible for deletion. Also, if the proposal has been made without objection, the template is eligible for deletion. Action: Remove to "To orphan".
  • If a consensus has been reached that the template be kept, the process is over. There is much of this sort of work to be done in the depths of the Wikimachinery; let's expend our efforts wisely. Action: Remove
  • If a consensus has been reached in favor of "conversion to a category", the template will be deleted and all pages which reference the template will be added to an appropriately-named category. Action: Remove to "convert to category".
  • It is also possible that no concensus has been reached. Action: Remove the template from this page entirely. Copy the entire discussion to the template's Talk page. ("Disputed" subsection deprecated.) Absent concensus, the disputed template is kept.

In any case, template subsections are removed from the Discussions section, by date, when they are 7 days old.

Holding cell (stage)

Depending on the outcome of the discussion and voting period, templates are removed from Discussions to an appropriate subsection of the Holding cell. Once here, specific maintenance tasks must be performed. Unless otherwise noted, any member can do this necessary work.

  • To orphan: Templates in this section must be orphaned. This entails examination of the "What links here" page for the template, visiting each listed page, and editing it to remove the soon-to-be-deleted template. When this is complete, the template should be moved to "Ready to delete".
  • To convert to category: The content of such templates must be "poured out" into a category and all pages which reference it altered. This requires an understanding of both templates and Wikipedia categories. When this is complete, the template should be moved to "Ready to delete".
  • Ready to delete: Templates in this subsection await the attention of an admin, who will perform the actual deletion. Note that only fully orphaned templates belong here.
  • On hold for technical reasons: This is a temporary subsection needed because of a bug in the Wikipedia software; if it is discovered that a fully orphaned template cannot be deleted, it is temporarily placed here.

Deletions to log (stage)

An admin who performs an actual template deletion may move the deleted template to the Deletions to log section.

Archived discussions are logged per the instructions at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log, and are located at /Log/Deleted and /Log/Not deleted.

This is the final point in this process. (Whew!)

Reintroduction

If a template survives a proposal for deletion, please do not reintroduce it for a period of one month, unless it has been substantially edited in the interval (and probably not then). We have enough work to do and must move on, avoiding dead-end controversy. Template:01


Discussion

Add new proposals for template deletion at the bottom of this section.

March 3

Template:Great little trains Wales

This template is redundant and can be replaced with the more complete Template:British heritage railways. (Our Phellap 01:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC))


Template:British heritage railways

A monstrosity. Convert to category. Neutralitytalk 02:53, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 02:53, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - quite hideous, and would work equally well as a category. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 02:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • OW MY EYES. Snowspinner 02:55, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete or totally rework to have links to lists of them. --SPUI (talk) 02:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Which I've done; keep in its revised form. --SPUI (talk) 03:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately all the links on the template now link to different sections of the same page, which defeats the purpose of using a template in the first place. silsor 03:06, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • When someone gets around to splitting it (as has already been done for two links), the links can be changed. In theory those pages should include more than just a list, but also some text about the commons features. --SPUI (talk) 09:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Convert to several categories, for the reason given in the discussion of Template:Great little trains Wales. Uncle G 11:47, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
  • Keep - although the template is large it is very useful. It allows you to go any any other article on a british heritage railway immediately, whereas using several different categories makes this a major hassle. (Our Phellap 17:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC))
    • A mere two mouse clicks (click on the category name to go to the English/Welsh/Scottish/Manx/whatever category page, click on the railway article name in the list there to go to the article) instead of one. I find the assertion that that is a "major hassle" unpersuasive. Uncle G 11:21, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
      • May I suggest then that if the template is deleted, a link to List of British heritage and private railways etc. be added under a "See also" section (Our Phellap 02:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC))
      • Or four clicks: e.g. one to go to the Welsh category, one to the British category, one to the English category and then one to the railway. --Henrygb 15:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - my version is at [1] - it's been made big again. --SPUI (talk) 02:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Far too big for a sensible navigation template; it dwarfs most of the articles it is applied to. -- Chris j wood 01:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Large templates are always more useful than categories. Categories only list in alphabetical order; templates can list in chronological order or in order of priority, etc. The longer the list, the more important it is got the it in the right order. So huge lists like this are better served by templates. And having all the links on every page is more convenient than having to go to another page to find them. The bigger the template, the more useful it is. Miss Pippa 09:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • My response is the same to this copy&paste-in vote here as it was above. Uncle G 16:37, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  • Keep G-Man 21:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Could this template be made smaller by using smaller text? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Ive tried compressing the text, what do you think? G-Man 23:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes that looks better. In defence of the comment above that the template dwarfs most articles - that is only because they are stubs at the moment. Once they are all expanded this will not be the case. (Our Phellap 23:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC))
  • Convert to Category — Xiong (talk) 03:31, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Our Phellap's comment above on the matter of stubs. In addition, to split it up among its constituent parts would complicate the issue: XXX is a United Kingdom heritage railway, part of a national network. Many publications list them all as tourist attractions. Peter Shearan 08:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Convert to Category Not pretty... 80.42.43.168 12:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This template is a useful navigational aid. Deleting it will not aid navigation. 217.43.150.43 00:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/convert to category or reduce to a usable size. 900px+ width widens page even at 1024x768. Mrwojo 20:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The width parameter can easily be removed so that its maximum width will be limited by the screen resolution a person uses. (Our Phellap 22:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC))
      • This has now been done. (Our Phellap 22:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC))

March 4

Wikipedia:VfD criteria templates

Template:Vfd-or, Template:Vfd-vp, Template:Vfd-sp, Template:Vfd-int, Template:Vfd-pov, Template:Vfd-pe, Template:Vfd-list, Template:Vfd-tg, Template:Vfd-dir, Template:Vfd-uv, Template:Vfd-pn, Template:Vfd-vn, Template:Vfd-rec, Template:Vfd-dd, Template:Vfd-band
  • All related deletion templates are currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Deletion criterion boxes. Specifically, that page discusses whether said templates should be used on VfD discussions. If the outcome of that discussion is that they should not, it would only make sense if all these templates are deleted.
  • In a week time, 31 people have expressed strong opinions against using these criteria boxes on VfD, and not a single person has spoken up in their support. Consensus seems to be that they are annoying, diverting from the real discussion, and responsible for substantial page size increase. Since they are not going to be used on VfD, and by design cannot be used anywhere else, they should probably all be deleted. Radiant! 18:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete them all! BlankVerse ∅ 07:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Deletion criterion boxes. Note that {{tfd}} has only just now been applied to the templates. —Korath (Talk) 07:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, looking at the votes, it looks like consensus is overwhelmingly against these boxes. If they're not allowed to be used on VFD, then it only makes sense to just get rid of them completely. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I will "dustbin" these in a couple of days; I'd do it now, but the notice has only been on them since Mar 16. Noel (talk) 13:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: These boxes should be subst'd to the pages they were on. The VFD folks can remove them from there if necessary (I believe they can remove them on sight), but we shouldn't interfere with VFD. -Frazzydee|✍ 06:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 11

Template:Picneed

This misguided template was created in conjunction with Category:Articles that need pictures. Created by User:SamuraiClinton, a user who is creating a significant amount of cleanup work for other editors. We already have Wikipedia:Requested pictures, which makes this template/category combo redundant. Rhobite 02:36, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I see nothing wrong with having 2 alternate templates for the same request. I also like this template too.
    • According to the History, the entry above ("Keep. I see nothing wrong...") was added by User:SamuraiClinton. Courtland 03:14, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  • Entirely redundant, given {{reqimage}}. Delete. Uncle G 10:49, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

This template has been redirected to reqimg; so don't vote anymore. Problem has been solved. --GoofyGuy 23:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • That solved nothing. reqimg is as bad as picneed. It has something or other in it that is broken (the {{{1}}} doesn't do whatever it is supposed to do). The template as is is too chatty and self-refernential. If there is any appropriate use, it belongs on the talk page not cluttering up the article with meta-instructions to editors. Delete both. older≠wiser 02:33, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree; reqimg is unnecessary. I add tfd to that template and start new thread for its deletion. — Xiong (talk) 03:58, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
  • Keep, and redirect to {{reqimage}}. . -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

A short update to last month's hotly contended debate about China-geo-stub and Taiwan-geo-stub. After considerable discussion here, at cfd, and at WP:WSS, the following compromise was reached on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting as regards the geo-stub categories relating to the two entities referred to as China. The former China-geo-stub template has been kept, but considerably altered to reflect its new destination category, and a new template Template:Taiwan-geo-stub has been created.

China-related and Taiwan-related stubs are still to be dealt with. Grutness|hello?   07:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • Don't move - quite clearly no adjustment is required unless we wish to take a stance against China's recent non-secession act - which as we are NPOV, we don't, jguk 13:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Erm... don't move what? If you mean the geo-stubs, it's too late - that's all been dealt with. If you mean the non-geographic items, politics are just part of the problem. The histories of the two, erm, places are so intertwined that it's often difficult to work out which is the better reference category. Another problem is that removing the geo-stubs from Taiwan-stub has left the category nearly empty. As far as the politics is concerned, personally I'd prefer no move, too, but the use of the word "Taiwan" upsets and/or unnerves some people. For the time being, as-is/where-is seems to be good, but nsooner or later someone is bound to start kicking up a fuss. Grutness|hello?   01:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


March 12

Template:SevenLiberalArtsAndAstrology, Template:AstrologyAndAlchemy, Template:NumerologyAndAstrology, Template:AstrologyAndClassicalElements, Template:AstrologicalSignKeywords

These five templates were being used to create "shared sections" on multiple articles with the same content. In the case of SevenLiberalArtsAndAstrology, I felt the contents were small enough and generic enough that I simply pasted it directly into the articles in question (liberal arts and astrology). AstrologyAndAlchemy, NumerologyAndAstrology and AstrologyAndClassicalElements I turned into articles in their own right (astrology and alchemy, Astrology and numerology and astrology and the classical elements), with stub sections and links to them in the articles that they formerly appeared in. And finally, I just moved the content of AstrologicalSignKeywords into astrological sign, since it seemed less appropriate in the other articles it was appearing in (zodiac and astrology). Now all of the content is held in article pages rather than templates, which IMO aren't appropriate for this sort of thing. Bryan 07:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - No indeed. Templates aren't supposed to be used to masquerade as article content in the main article space - David Gerard 00:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ditto Fawcett5 23:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


March 14

Template:CAMInfobox

Not an infobox at all. This amounts to providing four links to definitions and classifies articles, only without the interlinking offered by a category system. The "infobox" just needlessly clutters the articles. Snowspinner 14:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • This nomination is in bad faith. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 15:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, I really don't see that it is. What it is is nominating a blight of a template, one whose lone supporter has a habit of also reinserting it in articles as the HTML. Could you please explain why you think this nomination is disruption to make a point? - David Gerard 17:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether it's a template or written out by hand in HTML, it (1) fails the criteria for the reasons given (2) has precisely one fan on the entire wiki, who obsessively reinserts it and claims that removing it is a personal attack on him (despite the "no article ownership" policy). - David Gerard 17:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Provides useful information. Pwqn 19:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • What information is provided that cannot be provided less intrusively by a category system? Snowspinner 19:57, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • This is an infoboxnot an article series. Infoboxes are not redundant with categories. Pwqn 20:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • In general, yes. This is because infoboxes usually contain information such as the length of an album, or the genus of a species. This infobox, however, just contains category information. What aspect of this infobox, to your mind, would not be just as well served by a category? Snowspinner 00:17, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The information presented by the template can be better presented through categories and/or plain article text. -Sean Curtin 00:46, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

March 15

Template:Reqimg

This template tries to make a general need specific. Many pages need images; these are, almost universally, the ones that have few images. Readers like to look at pictures, even avid bookworms. Even gratuitous graphics help to relieve the eye and are not superfluous.

No template is required on pages that contain insufficient images; the lack of images is immediately and glaringly obvious to all editors with any skill in graphics arts or any inclination to add such images. It is redundant and distracting to call attention to any one individual article by means of this template.

I have marked this template for deletion. — Xiong (talk) 07:22, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

  • delete. There should only be one template for pages listed at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. The most commonly used one is Template:Reqimage (which also has the most appropriate name as well). Even that template should be rewritten it so that it is designed to go on the article's talk page instead of the article's main page, and then all the current uses of the template should be moved to talk pages. BlankVerse ∅ 08:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • For the same reasons given to delete the accompanying Category:Articles that need pictures (namely, it's painfully redundant), this template should go away. --iMb~Mw 07:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (except as outlined below). There are two reasons listed above for deleting: (1) it's obvious which articles need pictures, so no template is necessary (Xiong, iMeowbot); (2) a template is necessary, but only one, and we already have {{reqimage}} (BlankVerse). (1) As to reason 1, I agree, but I think that this discussion should be about {{reqimage}} also; as long as {{reqimage}} isn't listed here, I'm voting "keep" on {{reqimg}}. (For that matter, the stub templates would also belong on tfd by the logic of reason 1.) (2) I absolutely disagree with reason 2, though: (a) There's nothing wrong with two templates; what does it hurt? And (b) this one serves a different purpose from {{reqimage}}, as is obvious from reading their text. —msh210 14:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and redirect to {{reqimage}}. -- Netoholic @ 19:07, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. The template is broken as is. And redundant even if it did work. older≠wiser 01:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Photo-request

Here is yet another template for Wikipedia articles missing pictures. BlankVerse ∅ 08:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Of course. BlankVerse ∅ 08:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We only need one such template. This one's a little better than some, but others already do the job this has been aimed at. It feeds into a stub category too (which it shouldn't - these articles aren't stubs). Grutness|hello?   11:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Xiong (talk) 15:18, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{reqimage}}. -- Netoholic @ 19:05, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:23, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

March 17

Template:Verylarge

Perhaps a worthy attempt by an anonymous user to move out a bit of text that is used on two different categories (Category:Stub and Category:Substubs), however, those two bits are actually different and they can't really be merged and genericized. I've moved the content back and so Template:Verylarge is obsolete.

Namespace pollution ("very large") notwithstanding, even...

--Joy [shallot] 11:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've edited it quite a bit, so it applies to any too large or too rapidly growing category. Votes should be on the template as emended; Joy, do you still vote to delete? —msh210 14:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. —msh210 14:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's okay now, but you still don't have a cause for it, there are no pages using it. :) Please don't change the aforementioned two categories, they're better as they are now. And the name is still too generic for this narrow purpose (it should be named "catverylarge" if it's just for categories). --Joy [shallot] 17:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, no one's used it yet, of course; in effect, I've just created it. But I've added it now to WP:TM, so people migt start using it now. —msh210 22:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! Brilliant! This is exactly what I was looking for. I'm glad someone's made this. Don't worry - it will be used very soon! Grutness|hello?   00:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks good. It would be helpful to include a link to some discussion or article about very large categories if there is one that touches on the technical problems, human problems, and multiple solutions related to very large categories. You've included one solution, re-categorizing to existing sub-categories; another is the creation of new sub-categories where the existing ones do not suffice, and the splitting of the large category into two or more sub-categories of the parent category. Too much to put on a template message, but fodder for discussion on a guidelines page. Thank you for your effort in making this. Courtland 00:42, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
  • Keep. Surprised that a template like this didn't already exist. -Sean Curtin 01:25, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

March 18

Template:Stanford

In the Stanford University article, I replaced the reference to this template with the general university template Template:Infobox University2. Seeing as how that article was the only one using this template (doesn't seem like a good idea to have a template for just one article), I propose the deletion of this template. MementoVivere 12:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not needed--Jiang 23:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Holding Cell

Move templates here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should remove them from pages so that they can be deleted.

Template:Sejm Marshals

  • Is this really to be deleted? It has no {TfD] tag, and a large number of pages link to it. Noel (talk) 20:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, so whoever moved it to the holding cell needs a spanking. I've put the discussion on the template talk page. (The Divide has been done already) — MikeX (talk) 20:51, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the "divide" in effect created other templates, this one is no longer needed. orphan and delete it.--Jiang 06:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • actually, the divide has not been done already. it needs to be done. --Jiang 02:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:1, Template:2, Template:3, Template:4, Template:5, Template:6

These are no longer necessary in MediaWiki 1.4, since it doesn't interpret the {{1}} inside {{{1}}} as a template. Goplat 07:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Delete all -- Patrick 10:24, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all --Evice 00:11, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • I went to delete these, and a zillion things use them (well, I only checked 1, 2, and 6, but even 6 has a good number, so I'm sure the rest must too). So, waiting for them to be depopulated. Noel (talk) 17:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Those are false-positives. Those pages/templates haven't been edited since the MediaWiki upgrade, so there is a leftover "link" to these templates. -- Netoholic @ 18:47, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
      • Ah, got it. I wonder if doing a cache flush (with "&action=purge") will update the links table. I wonder if any pages use these templates for other reasons, or are we sure that all the link entries are these false-positives? Noel (talk) 16:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • No, you have to do a "null-edit" to each article (open it, then save without making changes) to refresh the links. I used to have a bot that could do that... :) -- Netoholic @ 17:45, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
        • Right, that bug (and all the related ones - categories have a similar set) is really a PITA. The right fix is that extra links table, though, so until someone tackles adding that we'll have to live with the consequences. I did look idly through part of the lists of linked articles (ignoring templates), and all the handful I found using any of these templates were the results of errors, so I'd guess it is safe to go ahead and delete them. Certainly, anything that is using them for real will blow up, because the TfD notice will screw up the syntax. So, I'd say, let's just be lazy and take the easiest way of all out - just wait a while and see if anyone reports any errors, and if not, zap. There's no urgency to get rid of them, I don't think. Noel (talk) 20:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To convert to category

empty

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, been orphaned, and the discussion logged, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

On hold for technical reasons

This is a temporary subsection needed because of a bug in the Wikipedia software; fully orphaned templates which cannot be deleted are collected here.

Disputed (deprecated)

This subsection is deprecated. If the outcome of a proposal for deletion does not result in a clear concensus, the debate may continue on the template's Talk page -- not here.

Template:Deletebecauseoncommons

(and redirect at Template:dbc)

Summary: 2 Delete, 1 Keep ~ Courtland 8 March

(Logged at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/Archive/Feb05)

We already have two templates which handle both aspects of this one. Template:NowCommons documents that the image is at Commons, and Template:ifd marks those images which are up for deletion. Compare here where I replaced use of this template with the appropriate ones. There is no special reason to combine these two ideas into a single template. -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

  • Keep - it should be encouraged to upload files to commons under the same name, to avoid having to change the articles. And there's no reason {{NowCommons}} shouldn't be like this one (which I created not knowing of NowCommons's existence, if it existed at the time). --SPUI (talk) 22:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, but we already have templates to handle this. This one is redundant with those established ones. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
    • Why should we encourage people to keep the same name? A lot of images here are titled in CamelCase; and there's no reason not to fix it when the opportunity arises. I always replace bad names with good when pushing to the Commons. dbenbenn | talk 14:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't care - I just wanted to mention that there's a category associated with these which ought to go away too if the template does. Noel (talk) 05:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Replace it with {{NowCommons}} <br/> {{ifd}} or redirect to NowCommons. User:Alphax/sig 01:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have several images I've uploaded to en, and now reuploaded to Commons. I want to delete the en versions so the Commons versions show through, but I hate having that {{ifd}} on there. It's just temporary, but there's no reason that viewers should see that notice. (I also find it a bit silly that even when I am the creator and uploader of the en image, then upload to Commons, I still can't request speedy deletion even though no images in articles will be broken.) Adding {{NowCommons}} doesn't help much because unless someone knows what Commons is, it doesn't really explain. If I were a random visitor and clicked on an image to get the larger one, I would not understand why this apparently good image was up for deletion, and even a casual editor might not understand. If I can't get my images deleted speedily, I would at least like the deletion notice to clearly explain that it is because there is now a redundant copy and there is no problem with the image per se. User:SPUI saw me struggling and was kind enough to point this out to me. This is not just a combination of those two templates, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that this is not a problem for images which are uploaded under different names to Commons; in that case, the other templates work fine. A casual viewer to the article would see the new Commons image if he followed the link and would be unaware of the old local version which was up for deletion. Anyone who came to the old image would have come specifically seeking that image, and the {{NowCommons}} and {{ifd}} would be more than sufficient. But in the event that you actually think the original name is perfectly adequate and want to move to Commons, while the image is in IFD the article viewers will see the deletion notice, and I don't think the two-template combination is adequate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deletions to log

Deleted templates which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged.

March 2

Template:A, CapA, E, I, O, U, Shravakayana

(and redirects MediaWiki:A, CapA, E, I, O, U, Shravakayana) More unused accented character templates. In September most of these were replaced with a notice saying they're deprecated. Goplat 00:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Sorry folks, you all had your days of glory. I miss you being there to share my joy as I put in those accented characters, but it's time to let go. It's time to move on. You, brother templates, will always have a special place in my heart; but now it's time to let your children take over. It's time for the circle of life to perform its rituals, and us to cherish the memories. You have brought such prettiness to articles throughout wikipedia, and for that, I am grateful. It is now time for you to officially pass the torch on to your children, and hope to be remembered lovingly by Wikipedians worldwide. I love you all!!! -Frazzydee|✍ 14:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 3

Template:GDFL

Clearly a malicious template created for people who list their images as GFDL but make a typo. The anon's only edit was to create this. The trouble is, there are a selection of pages ([2]) which appear to, effectively, licence their images under this mythical GFDL. Much as I would like to be bold, in this instance, I feel a little cautious about the legal basis for such a move. Smoddy (t) (e) 20:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • The legal implications of adding text to this template, or of turning it into a redirect to {{GFDL}}, are unclear. I think that the only safe course of action is to Delete. Uncle G 11:34, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  • If What Links Here is complete and accurate for templates these days, subst it into the places where it's currently used and then redirect. Talk messages to the uploaders would probably well-received, too. —Korath (Talk) 13:21, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Leave it as a redirect, perhaps with a note pointing out the typo. Chamaeleon 13:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect - if redirected, protect it so that this can't happen again. -Sean Curtin 02:30, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I have made this typo myself; it's natural. A protected redirect is correct. However, the legal status of pages licensed using this template before the redirect was put in place is uncertain.
In general, licensing templates should be protected as soon as they are created, and never again edited for any reason. Or, if such is possible, the engine should automatically protect every licensing template upon the first use. This leads naturally to the (very sensible IMHO) idea of a Licensing template: namespace.
  • A Licensing template is functionally different from all other templates in that it has legal effect at the moment in which it is first included by reference in a text. It can never be changed thereafter except:
    • via the arduous process of manually pasting in the complete, original template text in place of every such citation (which is just plain silly); or
    • by unanimous consent of every person who ever used it (which is sillier).
Where do I go to create a new namespace (and automatic protection rule)? — Xiong (talk) 03:45, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

I see that this template has been redirected to GFDL, and the redirect has been protected, so I think that wraps it up. Noel (talk) 23:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 11

Template:WGS84

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template_talk:Coor_dms family. -- Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wgs NW

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template_talk:Coor_dms family. -- Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wgs NE

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template_talk:Coor_dms family. -- Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wgs SW

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template_talk:Coor_dms family. -- Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wgs SE

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template_talk:Coor_dms family. -- Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Coordinate d

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template_talk:Coor_dms family. -- Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Coordinate dm

Obsolete and unused, replaced by Template_talk:Coor_dms family. -- Egil 12:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all (from WGS84, ending here). -Frazzydee|✍ 04:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=11277098"