Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Stub templates for deletion

Main page: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

Template:Sfd-current

Listings

Adding a listing

• Please put new listings under today's date (August 26) at the top of the section.
• When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages.

October 23

Template:MobilePhoneNetworks

I bet we don't need a box bigger than most of the articles in it. Snowspinner 04:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Afdm

Fork of Template:Afd for a non-existent analogue to WP:AFD, Wikipedia:Articles to move. I replaced it on List of sexual slang and Body parts slang with the standard afd template, since the articles to move subpages were redlinks, and the articles for deletion links were hard to spot. An separate articles-to-move process wouldn't be terribly helpful anyway; the volume's too low. (See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Transwiki.) —Cryptic (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as instruction creep. I've seen a few debates over moving content to other WP-related sites and never had any problem with simply using the talk page to mull it over or take a vote. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GoogleCRAWL

The template appears to be a warning similar to Template:AOL, but its creation was misguided - the creator is confusing Google's WAP proxy with Google's web indexing bot. If people are using Google's WAP proxy for vandalism, they should be blocked from editing just like any other vandal. This won't affect the Googlebot, which does not edit Wikipedia. The warning is incorrect and unnecessary. Rhobite 19:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ~~ N (t/c) 19:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dangerous, as it shields vandals for no reason. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Playstation Portable

Delete: It isn't being used by any articles and not really needed for the PlayStation Portable article since the links on the template are already in the relevant sections.  Thorpe ^talk 16:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template: Felonious

'Delete': Highly POV and just plain silly. See also Template:Politician below. SCZenz 09:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, since this one does count as an attack template. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Town noE, Template:Infobox Town noCM, and Template:Infobox Town noC

All three of these templates are now redundant and currently unused in any articles after the recent changes to Template:Infobox Town. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country2

Unused. Found in the main namespace with an incomplete afd stuck to it. Be sure and delete its redirect regardless if it survives. —Cryptic (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This appears to be a customized variant of {{Infobox Country}} intended for countries such as India that have an emblem instead of a coat of arms. Caerwine 14:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox formerband

Unused. Found in the main namespace with an incomplete afd stuck to it. Be sure and delete its redirect regardless if it survives. —Cryptic (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is being used in the Five article. It can be used for other defunct bands. Sarz 06:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USactpresidents

David Rice Atchison cannot be president, as he has been dead for 119 years. (Joke template.) -Silence 04:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Officially, only two Acting President of the United States have ever existed: GHWB and Dick Cheney. Templates for only two articles are extraneous and clutter up important pages; just mentioning it in the text of the article makes more sense.[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps I'm not getting the joke, but I think you have misunderstood the template. See David Rice Atchison#President for a day... or was he?, maybe? —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke based on the longstanding legend that Atchison briefly served as president between two actual presidents' terms. Atchison was never officially president, but the creator of this template decided to have a little ha-ha about the fact that he was never sworn out, therefore one could still consider him president along with George W. Bush, by some elaborate mangling of the way U.S. presidencies work. And then I think he also included "Dick Cheney" to allude to the common joke about Cheney being the president for all practical purposes, the guy "pulling the strings" behind Bush. In both Cheney's and Atchison's cases, it's untrue, and that would leave a whole redundant template for whoever's the current president, which is already covered by the U.S. presidential succession box. Get the joke now? -Silence 04:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps Atchison should be removed, then, but GHWB (which you incorrectly changed to the current Bush) and Dick Cheney were both Acting President briefly, right? (Search for acting in either of those articles.) Both for colon-related reasons, interestingly. :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article from NPR is a good confirmation, if you'd prefer a non-Wikipedia reference. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urk. Confused "acting president" with "current president", assumed bad faith, jumped to huge conclusions, failed to check all relevant links before VfTing. How world-shatteringly mortifying. That, or not a big deal and just a silly mistake. Either way, ignore all my comments about it being a joke. (I think. It still almost reeks of parody.) Though now I have a totally unrelated new justification for TfD: Do we need a template that only relates to two people? There, much better. -Silence 05:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't need a template that big for just two people. :) I'll see if I can trim it down a bit. Maybe this could just be a category instead? —HorsePunchKid→龜 22:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize, a template for only two Vice-Presidents is unnecessary. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is a category or a template (even a small template) necessary for only two people? The whole points of templates and categories of this sort is to easily navigate fairly long lists of links and thus quickly reach the many other people who have something in common with the guy you started from! When there's only two people, the usefulness is very minimal, no matter how small the template is (and it's much more managable now, at least). I'm sure in a few decades we'll probably have a couple more Acting Presidents to add to the template and it'll be somewhat useful then, but until that happens I really don't see the point. -Silence 23:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To boot, there is already a very detailed article, Acting President of the United States, that lists people who have held the title. I believe both (or all three) pages about said people already link to that article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

Template:XGSC image

All images which used this template have been moved to commons, and there is no reason why any future images should be uploaded here instead of in commons. See commons:Template:XGSC image. Thue | talk 21:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Politician

One look at it shows why it should be deleted. POV.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete uncivil nonsense. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV Drdan 21:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although it is very close to being WP:CSD material. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:White Rajah

Delete: Serves no purpose. Technically the content seems like an article. It is re-created (see here). --*drew 08:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, as it falls under CSD G4 (recreation of previously deleted content). Titoxd^(?!?) 08:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Untrustworthy

Delete This template is POV. It states that the contents in the article are not trustworthy and that one should proceed with caution. It is also a borderline Wikipedia:Disclaimer_templates. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 08:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. Speedy deleted and moved to BJAODN.  Denelson83  08:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

Template: welcome5

Delete: We already have more than enough welcoming templates, we don't need every single user to make a seperated welcome-template..it'd be flooding Wikipedia with superfluousness -- SoothingR 07:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or at least make it usable by more than just the one user. — ceejayoz ^{★ .com} 22:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Death to personalized templates!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to a subpage of this user's user page. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 13:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, no need to delete this. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Junior High and Secondary School

Delete:: I created this template as part of the WikiProject Schools because this template allowed a listing for additional administrators (vice principal, guidance counselor, etc.) What I did not realize was that another template, Template:U.S. School, could be modified to allow the extra members of the adminstration to be listed, so as such this template is unnecessary and should be deleted.--D-Day 20:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I would have said speedy delete under CSD G7, but Sasa Stefanovic has modified it, so that won't work. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. *drew 07:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: History of literature

Delete: This template is large and intrusive. It takes up half the screen and is very long and has a giant out-of-focus picture of unrelated books. Examples at Matter of Britain and Latin literature among others. Stbalbach 18:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Delete, or replace with something much smaller. - SimonP 18:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This my first template. I created it a few days ago and have now tweaked it to a smaller width and image. It would be more constructive to post a message to me suggesting changes rather than going straight to the most extreme option available (i.e: deletion) we're all trying to make this encyclopedia the best it can be. Going straight to the deletion option without even discussing the matter with the person who's created it is destructive. I hope the smaller image and slimmer box is an improvement. I can, of course, take a different photo with a new selection of books, or leave out the image altogether. Constructive suggestions please... --wayland 14:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV-AIC

I don't like the idea of specialized POV templates. First, it's instruction creep. Second, shunting articles aside in a subcategory of Category:NPOV disputes might distract attention from articles that need it. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've also nominated the category it populates, Category:Arab-Israeli conflict NPOV disputes, for deletion here. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Whoops, didn't realize the cat would be automatically deleted and the CFD would be unnecessary. Eh, you live and learn. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 07:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You're correct. Also, besides being unnecessary, the template's POV in itself. Why is the Arab-Israeli conflict such an important POV dispute? Superm401 | Talk 00:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete concurring with Superm401. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 00:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If we had content-specific NPOV notices, I would shutter to think the templates we would see.--Pharos 09:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

Template: WorldTagTeamChampions

Delete: This table is huge and it's only going to get larger as new champions are added to it. It restates information available in the in-depth List of World Tag-Team Champions and since the table is so big it's difficult to serve as a useful form of navigation. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ↪Lakes 17:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. McPhail 17:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Take from articles. i guess we should delete it but i think we should keep one copy (just cus alot of effort must have went into that)... also we must remeber all these tables are going to get this size sooner or later -- Paulley 18:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst into List of World Tag-Team Champions (which could actually use it) and replace with {{otherarticles-alph}}. Septentrionalis 19:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 11:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. *drew 07:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete - Anonymous ??:??, 22 October 2005 (UTC) - split it into Tag Team Champions by decade. Eg. Tag Team Champions, 1980-1989.

• Delete. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 20:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Split as per the Anonymous guy above Delete. I don't know what I was thinking (how do you split a template)--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Offensive/StealthVersion

Delete: Sneaky insertion of Category: Wikipedia offensive material. — Davenbelle 07:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-20 T 09:17:44 Z
• Delete, inherently anti-Wiki. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No there is nothing sneaky about it. The category should be renamed or removed. There are other stealth templates such as Template:Interwikiconflict. -- Zondor 09:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC) "Offensive" can be renamed to something else like "objectionable" -- Zondor 09:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This proposal (censorship tagging) has been rejected time and again under many names. --FOo 10:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete {{My usual comments why we should not have these templates}}--Clawed 10:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:POINT. Please stop creating new offensive material templates. Rhobite 12:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, offensiveness marking is POV no matter what. ~~ N (t/c) 14:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Serves no purpose. Kaldari 14:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete Absolutely any attempt to indicate that certian pages are offensive ot contain offensive content is inherently PoV. Who deciedes. The fact that this version is realaitely unobtrusive makes that worse, not better. Please don't create any more versions of this template. DES ^(talk) 15:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am offended being labeled offensive.  ;-) -->: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 16:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a stealth template as it contains a category. JYolkowski // talk 23:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inaccurate, POV. Jkelly 03:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no way this can ever be WP:NPOV. Also, Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of minors. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; same as below {{Offensive}} nominations. Superm401 | Talk 00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: for any number of the reasons above.—Gaff ^ταλκ 07:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User du-0

• Delete: Inherently uncivil. — Davenbelle 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See: m:Incivility; Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and m:Don't be a dick.

Comment: This TFD listing is arguably a violation of an ArbCom ruling against Davenbelle stalking Cool Cat - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. As such, I've removed the TFD notice from the template itself - David Gerard 18:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• So nu, if you find du-0 offensive, what is YOUR ability level in du? If you want to delete du-0 template, it surely must be greater. --Node 23:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not need comments such as this User:Node ue, questioning another user's being a dumbass. That is too close to WP:NPA. That is also not at all what the spirit of this template represents.—Gaff ^ταλκ 00:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• del agree it's uncivil -- (drini's page|☎) 04:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's useless and possibly offensive. And don't forget to delete Category: User du-0 along with it - I placed it on WP:CFD and it was referred here. --Gurch 12:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, used. And it is not uncivil, not even inherently --MarSch 13:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How is it uncivil or offensive? ~~ N (t/c) 14:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you're insulted by this, then...well, really I don't know what to say. Don't be. I think it's a kinda fun template, and I've certainly seen it in use. Lord Bob 15:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 15:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is a joke template, not meant to be uncivil. This one is similar to the {{User 1337-0}} series of templates which have already been discussed and kept, if I recall correctly. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its just a joke. Private Butcher 19:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re joke comments: "jokes" such as this serve the project how? — Davenbelle 08:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see. It points out commets from dumbasses are not welcome. While it is a "joke" it goes along with m:Don't be a dick and m:Bash. It is a joke template given "dumbass" is not a real language. It benefits the project by discourageing dumbass comments which are by nature dumb. --Cool Cat ^Talk 23:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with Internet dumbasses is that warnings like this do more to goad them into action than to discourage them. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 01:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You going to nominate Wikipedia:Department of Fun next? ~~ N (t/c) 23:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not say that comments from dumbasses are not welcome. It says, "This person does not understand dumbass (or understands it with considerable difficulties, or does not want to speak dumbass)". This would imply that dumbass comments be directed elsewhere. This is an important distinction.—Gaff ^ταλκ 03:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Serves no useful function. --Nlu 19:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, why one would find this uncivil (at least in a Wikipedia context) I don't know. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not promote WP:WQT. Jkelly 03:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Associated with an already deleted immature category. -Husnock 05:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Decidely mean-spirited. Philip 05:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Witty but unnecessary. JFW | T@lk 08:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It may be a joke template, but it's not one that's needed. Delete... -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 10:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Template links to a category of the same name, consensus on CFD was to delete category but it was referred here. Template is similarly unnecessary and IMO patent nonsense. Valiantis 12:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: What's wrong with letting people vent their frustration on their own user pages? Rather that than they do it elsewhere (and scare away the newbies). --Taejo | Talk 13:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:The template is ment to be used in peoples user pages. The tfding of this page screwed up my userpage and I am not happy about this. Additionaly I refuse to believe Davenbelle's deletion request of something in my userspace is a coincidence. --Cool Cat ^Talk 20:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume good faith. — Davenbelle 02:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to arbcom you have been hounding me. The case closed and that was one of the results and now you are trying to get a template on my userpage deleted and you come and post random policies. Tell, me how is your continuing hounding benefiting the project? Leave me alone damn it. --Cool Cat ^Talk 02:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be on the pages of at least 9 different users. It is not unique to Cool Cat's user page. DES ^(talk) 03:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. People have the right to use it as a joke on their user pages, but it doesn't deserve the endorsement of template namespace placement. Superm401 | Talk 00:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Its a joke. Its not uncivil. Writing "you are a dumbass" is uncivil. Posting a template that says "this user is a dumbass" on anothers userpage is uncivil. Also, this template is useful in the following way: Some people find a sense of humor to be indicative that a person may be approachable, easy to talk to. This makes it more likely that the user might be asked a question by a newbie, who has this posted next to the smiley face template that says that the user is happy to help out a newbie. (Where I first saw this template in use) Personally, I find the user pages that have like 4 different languages and all other "official" looking templates to be a little cold, sterile and off-putting. As a user with less than a month of experience, I would be more likely to ask a question of somebody with this template on their user page. Just because you do not understand another users method of communication (in this instance, humor) does not mean that their language is invalid.—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that my view above are much in keeping with Wikipedia:Wikiquette.—Gaff ^ταλκ 07:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. — ceejayoz ^{★ .com} 01:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.--Fito 03:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Userfy). I second Superm401 -- users can subst it on their pages. There's no point having it in the template namespace. // Pathoschild 09:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an encyclopedia, and not a place for such childish "jokes". -- Karl Meier 10:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unfunny joke. Radiant_>|< 13:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Uncivil. *drew 13:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. People seem to have forgotten the meaning of fun, which used to be a part of the English Wikipedia but apparently no longer is. I find that in the intervening times when I am less active here, things often change for the worse -- people getting meaner, rules getting stricter to the detriment of the project, people getting too serious, bureaucracy expanding unnessecarily... We've gotten to the point where we even resort to a sort of Newspeak now -- Articles for Deletion is Doubleplusgood, while Votes for Deletion was Doubleplusungood, and they are definitely different things because their names are different. right. Anyhow. Keep. And it seems that today most Wikipedians should have a Template:User du on their upg. --~~(unsigned comment by User:Node ue)
• Keep -Greg Asche (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Condones an uncivil tone, which should be reason enough for it to go or be WP:BJAODN-inated. —HorsePunchKid→龜 01:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep mostly harmless --Doc (?) 01:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I like it so much I just put it on my own user page, but even if I didn't - surely incivility is incivility towards someone specific. I, at least, can't make sense of the notion of something being uncivil simpliciter. Who exactly is this supposed to be uncivil to? Anyone who would see this on someone's user page and take it personally is someone I think the project is likely better off without anyway. PurplePlatypus 23:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

Template:Mallorca infobox

This was created by an anonymous, unregistered user, and is only currently used on Mallorca. Since I cannot see any other page where this template might be used, I think we should "subst" the template code directly into that article, then delete it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per #Country Specific Infoxboxes that only redirect to Template:Infobox Country below; maybe refactor to use Template:Infobox Country. — Davenbelle 03:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  This template is different because it never calls or redirects to {{Infobox_Country}}. All wiki code for the formatting and the tables are hard-coded onto it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete. Single-use template; refactoring turns it into a single-use metatemplate. --Golbez 04:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete, as per Golbez. Superm401 | Talk 00:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move: Why not just move it to Mallorca/infobox? // Pathoschild 09:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Because subpages are even worse than single-use and metatemplates. --Golbez 16:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pointing out the reason on my talk page. I've retracted my vote on this one. // Pathoschild 21:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chocolate and slavery

This type of political campaign is out of place in Wikipedia articles. The template is inherently POV. Tupsharru 19:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As the person who created the template, I object to its characterization as inherently POV -- but even more so that this was a "political campaign". It was created because the various chocolate company pages were getting lots and lots of POV edits regarding slavery. This was an attempt to reduce the POV-ness by reducing the amount of information on it while still permitting those interested in the issue to get to Chocolate and slavery. If template is deleted, expect major edit wars to reerupt (not involving me). Please check the history of the pages that currently link to this template before you accuse me of politicizing the issue or of deliberately introducing POV into the articles. --Nlu 19:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • N1u, if editors have something to say about the involvement of any specific chocolatier in contributing to the mistreatment of plantation workers, they'll have to do so in each individual article and support the claims with more than just circumstancial evidence. I've already pointed this out in Talk:Chocolate_and_slavery#More NPoV?. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insisting on mentioning this in a unified form in every article on a chocolate-related subject is POV. Mentioning particular chocolatiers' human rights records (if they are are documented) would not be POV. ~~ N (t/c) 20:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. violet/riga (t) 23:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. Prove the allegations on an individual basis or keep them in general articles like chocolate or chocolate and slavery. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - feel free to add notes to the relevant talk pages that refer to other discussion, but standardization like this just looks like an attempt to cut off legitimate debate. CDC (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Rogerd 05:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no need for this information to be standardized. If it is relevant and NPOV, include it in the prose of the pages you would have tagged with this template. Philip 05:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and Peter Isotalo. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 10:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Philip, this message is better addressed using specific evidence relevant to each page. Superm401 | Talk 00:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: User_zb

delete: A hoax; the article "Zlatiborian language" is already deleted as a hoax. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• fierce keep. Despite the fact that Zlatiborian isn't a real "language", I feel that we need to allow users to claim whichever native languages they want, no matter how ridiculous. What language people want to claim, we should give to them. --Node 00:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Although most linguists do not consider Zlatiborian to be a language, in the most recent Serbian census about 250 people claimed that their native language was Zlatiborian. I think that is a major blow against the argument that it's a _complete hoax_ (while it may not be a "language" per se, it can still have native speakers -- perhaps it should just say "zlatiborski" and not "zlatiborski jezik").
  • Mark, this is a hoax, unlike Montenegrin. I never heard except on this Wikipedia that some people say that they are talking Zlatiborian. If it is OK to keep it, I would make a box for Belgradian and Zarkovian because I can say that those languages are my native languages. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 08:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realise that. I have followed the previous debate on Zlatiborian. As I said, we should allow users to claim whichever native language they want. If you want to claim you speak Beogradian and Zarkovian, I have no problem with you creating thosie templates. But, if you're NOT actually going to use them on your userpage, you should not create them (dont disrupt wp to make a point). --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made Template:User bel as well as I am starting to make templates for all regions from Serbia. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 08:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's fine with me for you to create templates WHICH YOU ARE GOING TO USE on your own userpage. I doubt you will use any of those templates, and if you do, I think you will only use the Belgrade and Zarkovian ones, so if you create the others you will be disrupting wp to make a point. --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And after regions of Serbia, I would continue with New York streets. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 08:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you going to use any of those templates? IF you are, I don't mind that you create them. But if not, DO not create them because it is disrupting WP to make a point which is a no-no. --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course, I would use it because I know languages of every New York street at level 2, as well as level 4 of every Shtokavian based language. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 08:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Node, else userfy to the one guy who uses it. ~~ N (t/c) 00:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Local dialects are not separate languages, at least not when they're not politically acknowledged. Keeping separate Babel-templates for them serves no purpose. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the debate over this, or for that matter any babel template, should centre around whether or not it's a real language. I think the issue here should be: does a user have a right to claim whichever native language they want, even if it's a ridiculous one, or are we going to force them to conform to our ideas of what is a language and what isn't? --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a user template, not article content. Having Babel templates for every imaginable dialect of every region, city, town, village and hamlet is pointless and clutters up the namespace. Wikipedia is not an anarchy and I'm not about to encourage this kind of dubious language separatism just to please a handful of users. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not advocating for templates for "every imaginable dialect". I think that they should be allowed, where demand exists. If nobody wants to add a Babel template for Newyorkian to their page, then there is no reason for the template to exist. But if more than one person wants to, why not let them? There is obviously the argument that eventually it may become a _real_ problem, with huge demands for astronomical numbers of babel templates. However, I don't see that happening, as MOST people don't claim to speak a "language" like Zlatiborian or Nuyorkian. If it ever _were_ to become a /real/ problem, we could cross that bridge when we came to it. --Node 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE as fiercely as possible. This represents a disgrace, regression, spitefulness, monstrosity, abomination and a serious detriment. There is no reason whatsoever for "languages" like these to have their templates. I might as well create Pančevian language because I live in Pančevo, or better yet, Teslian, because the part of my town I'm living in is named after Nikola Tesla. This is absurd and I highly disagree with Node's comment, because if people want languages based on their absolute geographic ___location, there will be more Babel templates than eligible articles. --Dungo (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the thing is, people don't want to create these. How many people here will claim they speak Belgradian, or Zagrebian, or Krkish? My guess is 0. If somebody wants to claim they speak these "languages", I support them. But so far nobody does. So the thing you say about so many templates is purely fud. --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonexistent language. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the debate over this, or for that matter any babel template, should centre around whether or not it's a real language. I think the issue here should be: does a user have a right to claim whichever native language they want, even if it's a ridiculous one, or are we going to force them to conform to our ideas of what is a language and what isn't? --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so! (from The Simpsons) Seriously, I think that Babel templates should be as clean as possible and that they should contain only true languages, whereas there could be some other templates created for fun purposes, like user fox or user 1337. So, the two should be separated into Babel and something different. Also, if a template like that is going to be used in only one user page, the user can simply, make templates in his own namespace (transclude subpages), or copy/paste the template source and adjust it or simply do what Angela said. --Dungo (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "True languages" is very POV. There is no concrete division between dialect and language, and nowadays many linguists opt for alternative terms so as to avoid the connotations of either term. Thus, they might say "The speech of Zlatibor", "The speech of Bosnia", "The speech of Russia", "The speech of Japan", rather than "Zlatiborian language/dialect", "Bosnian language/dialect", etc. There are basically no differences between the official forms of Moldovan and Romanian, yet for sociolinguistic and politicolinguistic reasons, they are allowed to be considered separate in some situations (30% of Moldovans claim Moldovan as their mother tongue). Now, obviously 250 people is a tiny minority of the population of Zlatibor, but we now have two users who claim that Zlatiborian is their mother tongue. See language, it explains very well that NO MATTER how sure you may be, there is no real line between a language and a dialect. Some people have said things like "well to be a separate language, it must have different grammar", but this is pure b.s because many widely recognised "languages" today are different really only on the bases of pronunciation and vocabulary, with few or no morphosyntactical (morfosintakticki??) differences. Thus, to claim that Zlatiborian, Bosnian, Spanish, or Quechua is a dialect of or a separate language from Serbian, Serbocroatian, Italian, and English respectively is considered by most experts to have been superceeded by the idea that they can be both, depending on what makes a language different from a dialect (most dictionaries describe a dialect as a "regional variant of a language" -- this is unhelpful. one could easily say that Spanish is a regional variant of Portuguese or vc-vrs). To say that we should only have Babel templates for "true languages" is an uninformed and indefensible statement based solely on the fallacious supposition that there really is a distinct division or a set of widely agreed-upon defining differences between what is a "dialect" and what is a "language". --Node 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay. I'm not a linguist, but no one can persuade me that Zlatiborian is a language in the strict sense of the word (which is very important seeing as Babel has to support some conventions). Just because 200 or so people speak in a way ever so similar to the Serbian language, it doesn't automatically make that speech a language. As far as I know, language needs to comply to certain conventions and you can't just arrange a meeting, have a vote and decide that a language is created. If that were the case, I'd stand corrected, but alas it isn't. Why you're on this pursuit is beyond me; nevertheless, I don't see how this speech can be proclaimed a language based on the fact that 200 Zlatiborians speak a variant of the Serbian language. Bottom line, this is all beside the point. I'm no linguist and I don't want to argue over stuff like this. I just what to make a point that not every so called "language" (the loose term) should be included in the Babel, because I see Babel as a place for every language. If you want to goof with things like that, don't make a template and/or use Uncyclopedia or whatever. --Dungo (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonexistent language. --Elephantus 10:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the debate over this, or for that matter any babel template, should centre around whether or not it's a real language. I think the issue here should be: does a user have a right to claim whichever native language they want, even if it's a ridiculous one, or are we going to force them to conform to our ideas of what is a language and what isn't? --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonexistent language, fully agree with Dungo. -- Arwel 13:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the debate over this, or for that matter any babel template, should centre around whether or not it's a real language. I think the issue here should be: does a user have a right to claim whichever native language they want, even if it's a ridiculous one, or are we going to force them to conform to our ideas of what is a language and what isn't? --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I must agree with Alexandra. Language used in Pancevo, Belgrade, and other cities of Serbia is Serbian, but Zlatiborian is different: while a Belgradian or Pancevan would say Lepo vreme, lepi ljudi, lepe face Beograda and Ovde je sahranjen moj deka kojega sam mnogo voleo, а Zlatiboian would say Lijepo vrijeme, lijepi ljudi, lijepa lica Biograda and Vodje je saranjen moj djedo kog sam mnogo volio, etc. It is similar, but many languages are.--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 14:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's iyekavian Serbian standard with one or two ___location-based words that differ from the "Belgradian or Pancevan". What we're talking about here is merely a dialect of Serbian language and BTW, I thought you were over this, Djorđe. --Dungo (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, come on. Remind me why Serbian is a real language separate from Bosnian and Croatian?? That is nearly as much or as hardly ludicrous as the claim that there is a real Zlatiborian language. Serbian language is a nationalist fiction, and its consideration is more one of sociolinguistics than the sort of careful areal linguistic analysis with which we would expect "lang" vs "d.t" to be judged on given the purported existence of "true languages" (this is acc'd to you). --Node 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's really unfair (and you know it) to include Bosnian and Croatian. Those languages (+Serbian) diverge more every second and they were separated strictly because of political reasons. There is no such thing when we're talking about Zlatibor. It's a part of Serbia and the chances are it'll stay there for a long time. --Dungo (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no need for a template used by only one user. Subst it onto the user page and delete it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlatiborian speech for the deletion of the page on this language. Angela. 19:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, it's a hoax, but userfy also works too. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. Given that the language doesn't exist I can't imagine more than one person really wanting to use this, but there's no reason why that one person can't. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right. Userfy is enough good for this case. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Userfy - if someone wants to put this on his userpage, there is no problem with it. It will only be used in the User:-namespace. Who cares? What's the problem? Gerrit ^CUTEDH 08:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. There's absolutely no reason that "we need to allow users to claim whichever native languages they want, no matter how ridiculous". If it doesn't exist, it shouldn't be in template space. It can still be a user template, or someone can just add it to their page manually. However, since it's not a real language, it shouldn't have a real template. It's that simple. Superm401 | Talk 00:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nomination. Userfy if needed, per resons stated above.
• delete: a hoax. I'm typically pro giving anyone a right to do or say stupid things (to the extent of not harming other person's freedoms), but this is an encyclopedia (an encyclopedia people should be able to trust), and this kind of information could easily mislead someone into mistake. So if there are a lot of Non-language Babel entries ({{user fox}} for example), visitors can easily identify them as jokes, but if someone isn't really familiar with European linguistics, he will believe that there really is such thing as Zlatiborian language (and may embarrass himself somewhere and never trust Wikipedia again) -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 12:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonexistent language, fully agree with Dungo and Obradovic Goran --Jovanvb 13:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If you follow 'What links here' on the template page, you'll see that two users, not one, speak the language.
  • Wow! Me and a friend of mine speak English when we hang out, but once in a while we coin a new funny word. I guess we speak Fenglish and I can make a template. Not good enough, I'm afraid. --Dungo (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Offensive/NewVersion

Same reasons as {{Offensive}} below. Inherently PoV, and contradicts WP:NOT policy. DES ^(talk) 17:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. --cesarb 17:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, again.Gateman1997 17:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cesarb. --Idont Havaname 18:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but see my comments at the listing for the original one. JYolkowski // talk 23:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — WP:POINT. — Davenbelle 03:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEEEEEEEP!!!. Just kidding, Delete. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as with Template:Offensive. Rhobite 03:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Look: Template:Offensive/StealthVersion -- Zondor 04:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-20 T 09:17:50 Z
• Delete, inherently anti-Wiki. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete {{My usual comments why we should not have these templates}}--Clawed 10:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per usual. Kaldari 14:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; looks like I'm late to this party, but delete. Almost anything is offensive to someone, and use of the template is impossibly subjective. Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could not hope to be NPOV. Jkelly 03:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 10:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no way this can ever be WP:NPOV. Also, Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of minors. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Thanks for nominating, DES. As per nominator, unacceptable for same reasons {{Offensive}} is. Superm401 | Talk 00:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Irish hills

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been replaced by the generic infobox at WikiProject Mountains Grinner 09:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Irish hills (no image)

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been replaced by the generic infobox at WikiProject Mountains Grinner 09:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Offensive

• Delete: Clearly violates the spirit of Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Proponents claim it is only to protect mirrors; however, the template is visible on Wikipedia, which is unacceptable. They even tried to add it to WP:WWIN to self-justify. I removed it because it had no consensus. Indeed, it wasn't mentioned on talk at all. Superm401 | Talk 05:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Okay, I think this can do good in that it will allow more users including minors, schools, religions and any others to be more accepting of Wikipedia by way of a different, less "offensive" mirror or fork version of Wikipedia. That is, "offending" material can be programatically be removed. There are various opinions of what is or not "offensive". However, it should do no harm in that you can still post up "offensive" images or materials -- Zondor 05:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Again with the "content warning" templates. This is the only content warning we need. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 06:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete. Inherently PoV, violates WP:NOT If we ar to start addign some sort of content warnings to articels or images, ther must be consensus on a policy for when and how we should do this, and who/how a particualr case is to be decided. (A PICS-type system could in theory work, if we agreed on such a thing). Absent such a policy, this template and any similer template is out of line. DES ^(talk) 06:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. This particular bad idea has gone by a few times before. --Carnildo 06:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, biased it is. Then I shall be bold in my editing that I shall start Template:bodypart to link to Category:Images of body parts. -- Zondor 06:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Carnildo. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-19 T 06:43:18 Z
• Speedy delete, prior deleted content.Gateman1997 07:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, anti-Wiki. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete this old issue. — Davenbelle 09:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. The Land 11:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The purpose of creating this template was not to censor material as many people think – I happen to be proud of my First Amendment rights. I created the original template because I felt that some content should simply be marked as potentially inappropriate for younger readers and/or other easily offended persons, for example to help parents keep their kids safe or to provide some sort of warning if anyone accidentally misclicked a link. Obviously the name wasn't the best choice but I wanted something fast and easy to remember.
  My idea for how it would work would be like follows:
  1. Certain pages (such as those relating to certain body parts which we generally do not discuss in public, or things related to really controversial stuff like Grand Theft Auto) could be marked with the template to serve as kind of a warning, like this: "Hey, just so you know this stuff may not be appropriate for all ages, reader discretion advised." The articles would be left otherwise intact, just like inserting any other template.
  2. If someone then opened a page – intentionally or otherwise – they would see the message and be given a chance to decide whether they need to be reading it or not.
• Again, the idea was not at all censorship, just clearly marking content which some may take offense at. multima 11:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way, before you get any more stupid ideas: THIS IS NOT A {{delete}}-TYPE THING. The articles would not at all be deleted, merely marked in such a way as to allow users to decide for themselves whether or not to read it. I don't think it's anti-wiki at all.

OK, re-designed version at Template:Offensive/NewVersion.

• • comment Unless we first establish a policy statign that we will designate particular articles as needing "reader discretion", and establishing a mechanism or process for chosing which items should be so marked, I oppose the creation of any such warning tempalte or tag, or placing any such warnings in any form on any article or image. The choice of which items shall be so lableled and how the label shall be worded is inherently PoV. Al of wikipedia already is a "reader discretion advised' zine, that is what our general disclaimer is for. Warking our particualr ares is invidious and clarly PoV. DES ^(talk) 17:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Even if it were acceptable to have this template (and it isn't), who gets to decide what's potentially offensive? George W. Bush's face makes me want to puke, does that mean I can put {{Offensive}} on his page without being accused of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. bogdan | ^Talk 15:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless we seriously plan to mark all pictures of women who aren't wearing a burqa. The selection of pictures that I've seen has been seriously POV, calling all pictures with nudity offensive.--Prosfilaes 16:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. --cesarb 17:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for reasons already listed. WP:NOT c------d for the protection of minors. --Idont Havaname 18:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever, wiki-assholes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinultima (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. violet/riga (t) 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep iff the actual template text is removed, to make it a stealth template. JYolkowski // talk 23:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the debate on the stealth version, higher up on this page. i have voted delete on all versions. DES ^(talk) 20:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No warnings. Rhobite 03:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Look: Template:Offensive/StealthVersion -- Zondor 04:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Stealth versions are bad because tagging with them is still POV. ~~ N (t/c) 14:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too subjective. Kaldari 14:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could not hope to be NPOV. Jkelly 03:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Joy [shallot] 11:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no way this can ever be WP:NPOV. Also, Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of minors. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Then for the sake of consistency, get rid of the fucking "WARNING: PORNOGRAPHY" links on pages like List of shock sites so users will click here and see something rather undesirable without any warning. Hey, you said yourselves that Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Oh, and please go fuck yourselves.
  
  By the way, all wiki messages on this are now going to be ignored so don't waste your time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinultima (talk • contribs) 20:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant difference between a link to a Wikipedia page and a link to an external site. If that it is not immediately obvious why, you may want to read up on Wikipedia or wikis in general; I'm afraid I don't know a specific section to point you to. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am well aware of that. I have been a Wikipedian for quite a while (some stuff I've written is on my user page, or just look at Vivian Vande Velde, QEMU, etc.) and am also administrator of a wiki for my own project. I do know how wikis display links differently depending on internal or external links and I have read through every last page of the style section.

The point I have been trying to make is that, while Wikipedia should not be censored, advance warning should be provided for certain pages which some may take offense at or otherwise not wish to see. Perhaps instead of a very subjective template there could be a user-controllable filter worked into the MediaWiki software itself that would allow everyone to choose for themselves what type of content can and can be displayed, but the point is there is some content that some people will need to see, and that others will not desire to have appear on their screen. By now I really don't care about how it's implemented, my point is that there should be a system.

By the way, a good deal of negative criticism about the wiki is aimed right at its lack of content control. While the ability to view and post anything is absolutely wonderful I really do think that certain content needs to be labeled properly. Would you like it then if we decided to no longer provide ratings on video games? Oh, wait, I know: Let's just link to the images on the Hot Coffee page and let anyone in the world see them. Graphic depictions of simulated sex for the masses! See how parents, schools, churches, and concerned individuals in general like that. I don't approve of outright censorship at all, but gentle content warnings are sometimes necessary.

So I hope that this helps to clear a few things up for you, seeing as you're just clueless otherwise.

multima 03:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly i do strongly disapprove of ratings for video games, movies, and the like. I cheered when the Comics Code Authority went bust. I won't buy a TV with a "V-chip" inside, and I am far less likely to contribute to a censored wikipedia. Taht said, limited nmon-coercive warnings that are unobtrusive and palced in accordance with an agreed policy, via a PICS or simialr scheme, might be a good idea. But this template isn't even a step in the right direction. DES ^(talk) 03:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listen. The template wasn't the best idea, and I'll admit to it. And I don't like the "V-Chip" either, there's a reason all my TV equipment was made back in the 1980's before that stuff came out. Now, let me make one thing clear.

I'm not aiming for censorship.

What I am aiming for is a Wikipedia which will be much more accessible for a wider range of age groups and beliefs on different topics. I have come up with a basic plan which would outline how the system I've envisioned would work if it had been done the way it was supposed to, and have no problem if anyone wants to contribute or make changes.

The problem is, while I don't want censorship, I also don't want to just click a random link and find myself looking at a picture of a guy's ****, and I don't want to see every third-grader with a modem able to see the Hot Coffee screenshot so conspicuously displayed where the entire world will notice. It's a tricky thing to balance all this but someone's got to do it.

multima

October 18

Template:Donotstealorlinkimages

Delete as a hoax. I should not create bogus templates or articles! RyanCahn

I found this at the bottom of the TfD page, so have moved it up here and formatted it properly. -Splash^talk 20:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary template Soltak | Talk 22:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, orphan template, and I sincerely don't see how this can be useful. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:River

Delete: No longer used; deprecated by Template:Infobox river. Wikiacc (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree with Wikiacc, and confirm that it's no longer in use. —Papayoung ☯ 01:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the new one. In this way, we can keep the history. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 16:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User want admin

Template is somewhat useless. We don't give out administrator status to those users who make a big thing of it, as far as I know. In addition, the creator (User:Adam1213) likely created this after making a big song-and-dance about his two failed Requests for Adminship, and supplemented it all with spamming Jimbo's talk page demanding adminship. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nomination. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom -- (drini's page|☎) 16:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I happened to see this on a user page several days ago and thought "hmm, that definitely shouldn't exist" but forgot about it. Now I happened to see people talking about this TfD so I think it should go. silsor 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a list of non-admins with high edit counts somewhere where you can note your interest in becoming an admin, and I think that's about the extent of advertising one should do about that. android79 16:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we don't give out adminship on basis of "wanting" it. Often, asking for something is the surest way not to get it. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible keep. This nomination is absurd. Let people do what they want with their userspace, so long as it isn't harmful, and this clearly isn't. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then he can subst it. You might be unaware that the template is not in his userspace, so your entire argument is moot. Delete. --Golbez 20:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, I'm totally aware that the template itself is not in the userspace, but the fact that it is being used only in userspace should extend the privilege of userspace to the template. The only reasons to delete a template used in userspace, that I can see, would be (1) if the template is destructive or harmful, or (2) if it is only used by one user, in which case substing or userfying might be a better solution. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to object with the Template: namespace having protections similar to the User: namespace. That defeats the whole purpose of templates, to be able to offer a standarized interface to Wikipedia viewers. However, moving to the userspace is entirely acceptable, so I change my vote to delete or userfy. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think in general that it should. However, when a template are being used in User space or Usertalk, I think it should recieve the same protections as User space in that 90% of users finding the template unattractive or useless shouldn't impose themselves on the 10% of users who like it. A template to be used in userspace should still have the attributes we usually associate with a template -- i.e. it's used in multiple places, it saves space in the wikitext -- but "somewhat useless" is not a good reason to get rid of templates that other people are using in their userspace. If you really want to get rid of something like this then, before you pull the trigger on deletion, talk to the people using it and ask them to drop it (which in this case probably would have worked just fine). Simple politeness to fellow users is a virtue. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. — Dan | Talk 21:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had that template but I thought that was a years old template fot if you have intrest on admin and I thought alot of users have or had that template until admin came but than I found out who the creator is........ --JAranda | watz sup 21:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if a user wants to be an admin she should nominate herself. BL kiss the lizard 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Silly --Rogerd 22:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I currently employ this template, although at the same time I don't really care if it gets deleted. The part I don't like is that Rob Church is taking a non-NPOV in his nomination by saying that "it's likely due to adam1234's song and dance after two failed RfA's. That is completely irrelivant to whether or not the template should be deleted. It makes it seem partially like a grudge match, delete someone's template for spamming Jimbo's page. I know Rob Church to be a good man, and this is nothing personal, but I just don't like the tactics employed in trying to get it deleted. --AppleBoy ^Talk 23:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Christopher Parham. Template not harmful or offensive, and also very unlikely to actually factor into RfAs. Why the fuss? Nobody really speaks leet, but we keep the template that says they do. Almost everybody wants to be an admin, yet we want to delete this template? ~~~~ 23:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It will factor into RfAs. Users with this template will get Oppose votes as they do not believe adminship is "no big deal". Wikiacc (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is harmful to new users who think that it is part of process rather than one user's well-intentioned but misguided attempt at fast-tracking. It implies that the process works very differently than it does. — File:Ontario trillium sig.pngmendel ☎ 23:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oooh, I should put this on my userpage :) Delete. «»Who?¿?^meta 23:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I threw this onto my userpage yesterday. I saw it on somebody elses and thought it was funny. More of a joke than something that should be taken seriously...—Gaff ^ταλκ 00:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This whole debate looks like something that I am seeing a lot of around here: Wikipedians taking wikipedia too seriously.—Gaff ^ταλκ 06:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ignore Rob Church's unfortunate text; I think mendel has hit on the best reason. I have no problem with someone having a template like this in their user space, certainly, but to have it in the Template namespace is to condone it as a method, isn't it? That's certainly how I (a newcomer) would interpret it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, it should be renamed to "user wants admin". "User want admin" has a very "Grog need fire!" sound to it. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, expressing desire to be an admin is condoned. What would lead us to believe that it's not? Christopher Parham (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's tacky and misleading. Users are welcome to use the format, but there's no cause to templatise it. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the argument that the template namespace gets the same protection as userspace would be valid, if only pages in the template namespace could be used like templates(i.e. including or transcluding(subst)). However, this is not true. Any page can be used as a template, just by surrounding it with {{, }} tags. So, leave templates that are inappropriate or opposed by most wikipedians out of the public areas, and put them in userspace. I'm tempted to vote keep on this, as it does provide a nice list of people who should never, under any circumstances, ever become admins, but that's probably a little too harsh, and some innocent newbies might be caught in it, so, *delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tacky and unnecessary. Gamaliel 07:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. — Davenbelle 08:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mainly as per Gaff. It's slightly frivolous, but who cares? The Land 11:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote. It's been userfied now. use {{User:wantadmin}} instead. Thank you.
  • Note that this is unacceptable. That is obviously a role account, and a misunderstanding of the meaning of "userfy". I have listed the page for deletion, as a violation of WP:POINT. Userfy means to make it a subpage of an identified, real wikipedia user, not to create a new user account(sockpuppet) just for this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep harmless.  Grue  17:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tacky. It feels like a political candidate legally changing his name to "President". DS 17:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think I'd use it, but there are some people who do, so there's no harm done in keeping it. --Idont Havaname 18:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have user templates for all sorts of things, why not this? One would think that it applies to a significant number of users, so the problem isn't being too specialized. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 00:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or userfy per everyone else. I agree that its use is silly, but why is that a reason to delete? ~~ N (t/c) 00:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or userfy. Slightly frivolous, but utterly harmless (I mean, it's just a template). Wikipedia is not a black-tie formal gathering where people can't use contractions and speak in absurd upper-class English accents. Plus, I like the title. Say it in your Strong Mad voice. "USER WANT ADMIN! USER WANT ADMIN!!!!" Lord Bob 15:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have RfA for theis kind of thing. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or keep, but everyone who uses it can never me made an admin. Broken S 21:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biovan

Useless fork of Template:Afd. —Cryptic (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded. Most vanity fails also under nnbio, and those who not could well use the standard AfD template and then explain on the discussion page the reasons of nomination. -- (drini's page|☎) 16:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per User:Drini. DES ^(talk) 21:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 22:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Format

Delete: This template is harsh in its request for {{cleanup}} of a section or article or laying down the law. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 00:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was trying to find the comment that sayd "Add sections and format this appropriately", but the obvious one didn't exist so I created it. 68.39.174.238 00:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anon ;-). Thanks for replying. Consider reviewing Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. There are already quite a few message templates for requesting cleanup, copyediting, etc. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 01:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, ax it. 68.39.174.238 00:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per Roby Wayne. — EagleOne\^Talk 17:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then create it as a redirect to {{cleanup}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Destroy all data?" "Laying down the law?" This reads like a cleanup request written for evil supervillains. --Aquillion 04:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no redirect CDC (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I sympathize, but delete per above. Jkelly 03:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

Template:Arab subdivision

Delete: This template contains only four links and it is unlikely that there will ever be significantly more. Furthermore:

• imarah is a redlink;
• mintaqah has only two links on it and may therefore be more suitable as a disambig page;
• muhafazah is a duplication of governorate and should therefore be merged and redirected;
• wilayah appears to be the only one that is a genuine article. Timwi 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

• imarah is not a redlink
• mintaqah has not only two links on it and is not a mere dab page
• muhafazah is not a duplicat of governorate. Furthermore consensus was reached to keep guberniya (russian) seperate from governorate. Are arab governorates worth less? Are they less important than guberniyas? Or french département?
• wilayah is not the only genuine article

Instead of deleting the template it and the articles should be extended. A similiar template could be created for russian subdivision terms. These templates easily bind together related articles. It does not harm anybody. But helps the editors. User:Timwi already deleted this template by abusing his admin rights. He did not ask any involved person before nor did he put up "see also" references, linking the terms together. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC) AND Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Imarah was a red link when Timwi submitted this template for comment. Now it's just a redirect to Emirate, itself just a paragraph of text with a couple of links.
• Mintaqah has more than two links, but that doesn't mean it's not a candidate for being a disambiguation page. See Lincoln, for example. Don't assume that "disambiguation" is somehow a denigration of your work or a demotion of your page.
• Muhafazah clearly duplicates the information in Governorate. The extra information could easily be merged into Governorate, if it is deemed appropriate to do.

Let's keep the discussion civil and factually accurate. I have no opinion (yet) on the deletion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• it seems you speak with me - Tobias. I never thought the number of links is any relevant to decide whether the page is dab-tagable. Anyway, is the dab-tag relevant to template deletion as implied by User:Timwi? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• when I visit governorate I see content that is not on muhafazah. When I visit muhafazah I see content that is not on governorate. The statement that one is a duplicate of the other is therefore wrong for my computer.
• is it any relevant that imarah was a redlink when User:Timwi posted his claimes? I think the template-deletion decision should take into account the most recent status. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. By "duplicates", I did not mean "completely duplicates everything and contains no other information than what is duplicated". I just meant that it is largely redundant. I thought this was fairly clear from my acknowledgement that if necessary, some information would need to be merged into Governorate. It is relevant to point out the timing of the red link because you seem to be using it to discredit Timwi's motivations instead of just pointing out the obvious fact that you have (rightly!) fixed it. Side note: please try not to interleave your comments with mine; it makes things harder to follow in the long run. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

for interleaving: thanks for pointing this out. :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A fairly useful template, IMO, especially to people who are interested in Arab subdivisions but have no clue what other subdivisions exist—for these people the template provides a clean and easy way to review the whole set. Its inclusion into the {{Subnational entity}} template is possible, but it may (and will) make that template cluttered and unwieldy as more national entities are added.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary (much less an Arabic one). The subdivisions may be important, but not the terms themselves. Kirill Lokshin 02:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

??????? do you vote for delete muhafazah? I think this is the wrong place. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm referring to the template. If the terms represent unique types of subdivisions, they should be added to {{Subnational entity}} directly; if they are merely Arabic terms for subdivisions already present in that template, then they do not require a separate template. Kirill Lokshin 10:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

of course they are unique types. But there are maybe 500 unique types around the world (and more). They cannot all go into {{Subnational entity}}. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by the creator. I thought of making series for different languages, like it exists on Template:Subnational entity as far a I can see the latter really has been a success and animated others to add english terms. There are lots of foreign terms around. See List of terms for subnational entities Maybe the terms can be grouped to make the templates bigger, e.g. the slavic terms may have something in common. Arab probably will stay a smaller template for some time. If you merge the content into worldwide translation pages you cannot give easily an overview to the reader about the terms used in one language region. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not the right place for a collection of foreign-language terms used in other languages. If the subdivisions in all Arab countries are referred to in English as either governorates, provinces or anything else already present on {{Subnational entity}}, then the Arab terms should only be redirects to those, and your template becomes redundant as the articles are already linked by {{Subnational entity}}. – Timwi 16:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • since they are as far as i know official terms, translation is not that easy. Same terms are translated different. Furthermore, there are whole article series that use foreign terms and there were heavy discussions on whether to translate the terms or not. Take a look on Subdivisions of Russia. Oblasts are nowhere translated. Same with Ukraine. Maybe dive a little bit more into the subdivisions stuff. As mentioned above for guberniya it was decided not to merge. if template deletion is based on merge and deletion of subnational entity terms, then go through this process first Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "since they are as far as i know official terms, translation is not that easy." -- Well, that's funny; let's see, there's Provinces of Afghanistan, Governorates of Tunisia, Regions of Oman ... where are all the ones with Arab terms? – Timwi 22:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Notvandalism

Delete: Silly-looking box meant to be left at the top of some articles for all time, apparently. There's nothing this template does that can't be done better using HTML comments. Carnildo 06:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you know it's not vandalised? It might have been unlikely to begin with and then vandalised. Delete. --fvw* 06:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From Creator Not a problem with me as long as the average user can avoid an rv double take like I almost did today on Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga regarding the mantra called "Wikipedia". Carnildo, i'm only a so-so HTML editor, so I assume you're talking about a <comment> </comment> tage seen only in the editing page or something like that, which should be fine as long as it isn't inadvertently deleted during re-edits. Also, please avoid low level WP:CIVIL violations such as in the history of Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga [1]. Trust me, i've been down that road, and although you mean well, that tone will cause anger in alot of people which will just add to the exacerbation of pointless shouting matches over wording. Karmafist 06:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I back you 100% on the civility comment. "Stupid-looking" is a phrase that never has any use while editing Wikipedia. I've made that mistake myself, and gotten into long and unnecessarily hostile arguments because of it. -- SCZenz 22:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: potentially misleading, unless the page is protected immediately after applying the tag. Short of that, there' no way to verify whether a page has been re-vadalized after the tag was applied. — EagleOne\^Talk 16:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... or, for that matter, whether the template has been added by a vandal. FreplySpang (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I rather like the thumbs up, but the template is too likely to be misleading. I second the suggestion of using HTML comments; that way at least nobody will complete an edit before they see that it's not vandalism, and the text can be specific to the seemingly-questionable fact. -- SCZenz 22:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Box-templates like this over articles are supposed to be temporary measures, used to encourage the resolution of a dispute... putting one over an article, as the nominator says, "for all time" doesn't strike me as the right thing to do. Additionally, it isn't very informative to place it over the top of a whole article when just one line or word (as in the Shin Megami Tensei article noted above) is really what sparked it. A better way to serve the intended purpose would be to reword the article to make it clear that the 'unlikely-sounding' bit in question is, indeed, true despite sounding unlikely, for instance, by explaining it in greater detail. --Aquillion 04:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wait till a vandal who knows anything about templates discovers this one! --Idont Havaname 18:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It doesn't hurt anything. Octalc0de 21:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holding cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

To convert to category

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories get put here until the conversion is completed.

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.

Stub templates for deletion

Main page: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

Template:Sfd-current

Listings

Adding a listing

• Please put new listings under today's date (August 26) at the top of the section.
• When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages.

October 23

Template:MobilePhoneNetworks

I bet we don't need a box bigger than most of the articles in it. Snowspinner 04:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Afdm

Fork of Template:Afd for a non-existent analogue to WP:AFD, Wikipedia:Articles to move. I replaced it on List of sexual slang and Body parts slang with the standard afd template, since the articles to move subpages were redlinks, and the articles for deletion links were hard to spot. An separate articles-to-move process wouldn't be terribly helpful anyway; the volume's too low. (See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Transwiki.) —Cryptic (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as instruction creep. I've seen a few debates over moving content to other WP-related sites and never had any problem with simply using the talk page to mull it over or take a vote. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GoogleCRAWL

The template appears to be a warning similar to Template:AOL, but its creation was misguided - the creator is confusing Google's WAP proxy with Google's web indexing bot. If people are using Google's WAP proxy for vandalism, they should be blocked from editing just like any other vandal. This won't affect the Googlebot, which does not edit Wikipedia. The warning is incorrect and unnecessary. Rhobite 19:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ~~ N (t/c) 19:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dangerous, as it shields vandals for no reason. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Playstation Portable

Delete: It isn't being used by any articles and not really needed for the PlayStation Portable article since the links on the template are already in the relevant sections.  Thorpe ^talk 16:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template: Felonious

'Delete': Highly POV and just plain silly. See also Template:Politician below. SCZenz 09:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, since this one does count as an attack template. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Town noE, Template:Infobox Town noCM, and Template:Infobox Town noC

All three of these templates are now redundant and currently unused in any articles after the recent changes to Template:Infobox Town. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country2

Unused. Found in the main namespace with an incomplete afd stuck to it. Be sure and delete its redirect regardless if it survives. —Cryptic (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This appears to be a customized variant of {{Infobox Country}} intended for countries such as India that have an emblem instead of a coat of arms. Caerwine 14:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox formerband

Unused. Found in the main namespace with an incomplete afd stuck to it. Be sure and delete its redirect regardless if it survives. —Cryptic (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is being used in the Five article. It can be used for other defunct bands. Sarz 06:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USactpresidents

David Rice Atchison cannot be president, as he has been dead for 119 years. (Joke template.) -Silence 04:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Officially, only two Acting President of the United States have ever existed: GHWB and Dick Cheney. Templates for only two articles are extraneous and clutter up important pages; just mentioning it in the text of the article makes more sense.[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps I'm not getting the joke, but I think you have misunderstood the template. See David Rice Atchison#President for a day... or was he?, maybe? —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke based on the longstanding legend that Atchison briefly served as president between two actual presidents' terms. Atchison was never officially president, but the creator of this template decided to have a little ha-ha about the fact that he was never sworn out, therefore one could still consider him president along with George W. Bush, by some elaborate mangling of the way U.S. presidencies work. And then I think he also included "Dick Cheney" to allude to the common joke about Cheney being the president for all practical purposes, the guy "pulling the strings" behind Bush. In both Cheney's and Atchison's cases, it's untrue, and that would leave a whole redundant template for whoever's the current president, which is already covered by the U.S. presidential succession box. Get the joke now? -Silence 04:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps Atchison should be removed, then, but GHWB (which you incorrectly changed to the current Bush) and Dick Cheney were both Acting President briefly, right? (Search for acting in either of those articles.) Both for colon-related reasons, interestingly. :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article from NPR is a good confirmation, if you'd prefer a non-Wikipedia reference. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urk. Confused "acting president" with "current president", assumed bad faith, jumped to huge conclusions, failed to check all relevant links before VfTing. How world-shatteringly mortifying. That, or not a big deal and just a silly mistake. Either way, ignore all my comments about it being a joke. (I think. It still almost reeks of parody.) Though now I have a totally unrelated new justification for TfD: Do we need a template that only relates to two people? There, much better. -Silence 05:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't need a template that big for just two people. :) I'll see if I can trim it down a bit. Maybe this could just be a category instead? —HorsePunchKid→龜 22:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize, a template for only two Vice-Presidents is unnecessary. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is a category or a template (even a small template) necessary for only two people? The whole points of templates and categories of this sort is to easily navigate fairly long lists of links and thus quickly reach the many other people who have something in common with the guy you started from! When there's only two people, the usefulness is very minimal, no matter how small the template is (and it's much more managable now, at least). I'm sure in a few decades we'll probably have a couple more Acting Presidents to add to the template and it'll be somewhat useful then, but until that happens I really don't see the point. -Silence 23:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To boot, there is already a very detailed article, Acting President of the United States, that lists people who have held the title. I believe both (or all three) pages about said people already link to that article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

Template:XGSC image

All images which used this template have been moved to commons, and there is no reason why any future images should be uploaded here instead of in commons. See commons:Template:XGSC image. Thue | talk 21:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Politician

One look at it shows why it should be deleted. POV.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete uncivil nonsense. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV Drdan 21:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although it is very close to being WP:CSD material. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:White Rajah

Delete: Serves no purpose. Technically the content seems like an article. It is re-created (see here). --*drew 08:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, as it falls under CSD G4 (recreation of previously deleted content). Titoxd^(?!?) 08:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Untrustworthy

Delete This template is POV. It states that the contents in the article are not trustworthy and that one should proceed with caution. It is also a borderline Wikipedia:Disclaimer_templates. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 08:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. Speedy deleted and moved to BJAODN.  Denelson83  08:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

Template: welcome5

Delete: We already have more than enough welcoming templates, we don't need every single user to make a seperated welcome-template..it'd be flooding Wikipedia with superfluousness -- SoothingR 07:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or at least make it usable by more than just the one user. — ceejayoz ^{★ .com} 22:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Death to personalized templates!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to a subpage of this user's user page. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 13:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, no need to delete this. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Junior High and Secondary School

Delete:: I created this template as part of the WikiProject Schools because this template allowed a listing for additional administrators (vice principal, guidance counselor, etc.) What I did not realize was that another template, Template:U.S. School, could be modified to allow the extra members of the adminstration to be listed, so as such this template is unnecessary and should be deleted.--D-Day 20:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I would have said speedy delete under CSD G7, but Sasa Stefanovic has modified it, so that won't work. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. *drew 07:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: History of literature

Delete: This template is large and intrusive. It takes up half the screen and is very long and has a giant out-of-focus picture of unrelated books. Examples at Matter of Britain and Latin literature among others. Stbalbach 18:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Delete, or replace with something much smaller. - SimonP 18:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This my first template. I created it a few days ago and have now tweaked it to a smaller width and image. It would be more constructive to post a message to me suggesting changes rather than going straight to the most extreme option available (i.e: deletion) we're all trying to make this encyclopedia the best it can be. Going straight to the deletion option without even discussing the matter with the person who's created it is destructive. I hope the smaller image and slimmer box is an improvement. I can, of course, take a different photo with a new selection of books, or leave out the image altogether. Constructive suggestions please... --wayland 14:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV-AIC

I don't like the idea of specialized POV templates. First, it's instruction creep. Second, shunting articles aside in a subcategory of Category:NPOV disputes might distract attention from articles that need it. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've also nominated the category it populates, Category:Arab-Israeli conflict NPOV disputes, for deletion here. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Whoops, didn't realize the cat would be automatically deleted and the CFD would be unnecessary. Eh, you live and learn. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 07:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You're correct. Also, besides being unnecessary, the template's POV in itself. Why is the Arab-Israeli conflict such an important POV dispute? Superm401 | Talk 00:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete concurring with Superm401. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 00:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If we had content-specific NPOV notices, I would shutter to think the templates we would see.--Pharos 09:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

Template: WorldTagTeamChampions

Delete: This table is huge and it's only going to get larger as new champions are added to it. It restates information available in the in-depth List of World Tag-Team Champions and since the table is so big it's difficult to serve as a useful form of navigation. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ↪Lakes 17:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. McPhail 17:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Take from articles. i guess we should delete it but i think we should keep one copy (just cus alot of effort must have went into that)... also we must remeber all these tables are going to get this size sooner or later -- Paulley 18:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst into List of World Tag-Team Champions (which could actually use it) and replace with {{otherarticles-alph}}. Septentrionalis 19:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 11:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. *drew 07:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete - Anonymous ??:??, 22 October 2005 (UTC) - split it into Tag Team Champions by decade. Eg. Tag Team Champions, 1980-1989.

• Delete. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 20:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Split as per the Anonymous guy above Delete. I don't know what I was thinking (how do you split a template)--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Offensive/StealthVersion

Delete: Sneaky insertion of Category: Wikipedia offensive material. — Davenbelle 07:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-20 T 09:17:44 Z
• Delete, inherently anti-Wiki. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No there is nothing sneaky about it. The category should be renamed or removed. There are other stealth templates such as Template:Interwikiconflict. -- Zondor 09:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC) "Offensive" can be renamed to something else like "objectionable" -- Zondor 09:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This proposal (censorship tagging) has been rejected time and again under many names. --FOo 10:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete {{My usual comments why we should not have these templates}}--Clawed 10:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:POINT. Please stop creating new offensive material templates. Rhobite 12:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, offensiveness marking is POV no matter what. ~~ N (t/c) 14:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Serves no purpose. Kaldari 14:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete Absolutely any attempt to indicate that certian pages are offensive ot contain offensive content is inherently PoV. Who deciedes. The fact that this version is realaitely unobtrusive makes that worse, not better. Please don't create any more versions of this template. DES ^(talk) 15:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am offended being labeled offensive.  ;-) -->: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 16:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a stealth template as it contains a category. JYolkowski // talk 23:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inaccurate, POV. Jkelly 03:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no way this can ever be WP:NPOV. Also, Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of minors. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; same as below {{Offensive}} nominations. Superm401 | Talk 00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: for any number of the reasons above.—Gaff ^ταλκ 07:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User du-0

• Delete: Inherently uncivil. — Davenbelle 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See: m:Incivility; Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and m:Don't be a dick.

Comment: This TFD listing is arguably a violation of an ArbCom ruling against Davenbelle stalking Cool Cat - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. As such, I've removed the TFD notice from the template itself - David Gerard 18:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• So nu, if you find du-0 offensive, what is YOUR ability level in du? If you want to delete du-0 template, it surely must be greater. --Node 23:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not need comments such as this User:Node ue, questioning another user's being a dumbass. That is too close to WP:NPA. That is also not at all what the spirit of this template represents.—Gaff ^ταλκ 00:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• del agree it's uncivil -- (drini's page|☎) 04:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's useless and possibly offensive. And don't forget to delete Category: User du-0 along with it - I placed it on WP:CFD and it was referred here. --Gurch 12:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, used. And it is not uncivil, not even inherently --MarSch 13:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How is it uncivil or offensive? ~~ N (t/c) 14:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you're insulted by this, then...well, really I don't know what to say. Don't be. I think it's a kinda fun template, and I've certainly seen it in use. Lord Bob 15:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 15:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is a joke template, not meant to be uncivil. This one is similar to the {{User 1337-0}} series of templates which have already been discussed and kept, if I recall correctly. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its just a joke. Private Butcher 19:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re joke comments: "jokes" such as this serve the project how? — Davenbelle 08:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see. It points out commets from dumbasses are not welcome. While it is a "joke" it goes along with m:Don't be a dick and m:Bash. It is a joke template given "dumbass" is not a real language. It benefits the project by discourageing dumbass comments which are by nature dumb. --Cool Cat ^Talk 23:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with Internet dumbasses is that warnings like this do more to goad them into action than to discourage them. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 01:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You going to nominate Wikipedia:Department of Fun next? ~~ N (t/c) 23:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not say that comments from dumbasses are not welcome. It says, "This person does not understand dumbass (or understands it with considerable difficulties, or does not want to speak dumbass)". This would imply that dumbass comments be directed elsewhere. This is an important distinction.—Gaff ^ταλκ 03:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Serves no useful function. --Nlu 19:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, why one would find this uncivil (at least in a Wikipedia context) I don't know. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not promote WP:WQT. Jkelly 03:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Associated with an already deleted immature category. -Husnock 05:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Decidely mean-spirited. Philip 05:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Witty but unnecessary. JFW | T@lk 08:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It may be a joke template, but it's not one that's needed. Delete... -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 10:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Template links to a category of the same name, consensus on CFD was to delete category but it was referred here. Template is similarly unnecessary and IMO patent nonsense. Valiantis 12:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: What's wrong with letting people vent their frustration on their own user pages? Rather that than they do it elsewhere (and scare away the newbies). --Taejo | Talk 13:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:The template is ment to be used in peoples user pages. The tfding of this page screwed up my userpage and I am not happy about this. Additionaly I refuse to believe Davenbelle's deletion request of something in my userspace is a coincidence. --Cool Cat ^Talk 20:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume good faith. — Davenbelle 02:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to arbcom you have been hounding me. The case closed and that was one of the results and now you are trying to get a template on my userpage deleted and you come and post random policies. Tell, me how is your continuing hounding benefiting the project? Leave me alone damn it. --Cool Cat ^Talk 02:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be on the pages of at least 9 different users. It is not unique to Cool Cat's user page. DES ^(talk) 03:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. People have the right to use it as a joke on their user pages, but it doesn't deserve the endorsement of template namespace placement. Superm401 | Talk 00:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Its a joke. Its not uncivil. Writing "you are a dumbass" is uncivil. Posting a template that says "this user is a dumbass" on anothers userpage is uncivil. Also, this template is useful in the following way: Some people find a sense of humor to be indicative that a person may be approachable, easy to talk to. This makes it more likely that the user might be asked a question by a newbie, who has this posted next to the smiley face template that says that the user is happy to help out a newbie. (Where I first saw this template in use) Personally, I find the user pages that have like 4 different languages and all other "official" looking templates to be a little cold, sterile and off-putting. As a user with less than a month of experience, I would be more likely to ask a question of somebody with this template on their user page. Just because you do not understand another users method of communication (in this instance, humor) does not mean that their language is invalid.—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that my view above are much in keeping with Wikipedia:Wikiquette.—Gaff ^ταλκ 07:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. — ceejayoz ^{★ .com} 01:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.--Fito 03:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Userfy). I second Superm401 -- users can subst it on their pages. There's no point having it in the template namespace. // Pathoschild 09:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an encyclopedia, and not a place for such childish "jokes". -- Karl Meier 10:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unfunny joke. Radiant_>|< 13:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Uncivil. *drew 13:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. People seem to have forgotten the meaning of fun, which used to be a part of the English Wikipedia but apparently no longer is. I find that in the intervening times when I am less active here, things often change for the worse -- people getting meaner, rules getting stricter to the detriment of the project, people getting too serious, bureaucracy expanding unnessecarily... We've gotten to the point where we even resort to a sort of Newspeak now -- Articles for Deletion is Doubleplusgood, while Votes for Deletion was Doubleplusungood, and they are definitely different things because their names are different. right. Anyhow. Keep. And it seems that today most Wikipedians should have a Template:User du on their upg. --~~(unsigned comment by User:Node ue)
• Keep -Greg Asche (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Condones an uncivil tone, which should be reason enough for it to go or be WP:BJAODN-inated. —HorsePunchKid→龜 01:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep mostly harmless --Doc (?) 01:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I like it so much I just put it on my own user page, but even if I didn't - surely incivility is incivility towards someone specific. I, at least, can't make sense of the notion of something being uncivil simpliciter. Who exactly is this supposed to be uncivil to? Anyone who would see this on someone's user page and take it personally is someone I think the project is likely better off without anyway. PurplePlatypus 23:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

Template:Mallorca infobox

This was created by an anonymous, unregistered user, and is only currently used on Mallorca. Since I cannot see any other page where this template might be used, I think we should "subst" the template code directly into that article, then delete it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per #Country Specific Infoxboxes that only redirect to Template:Infobox Country below; maybe refactor to use Template:Infobox Country. — Davenbelle 03:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  This template is different because it never calls or redirects to {{Infobox_Country}}. All wiki code for the formatting and the tables are hard-coded onto it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete. Single-use template; refactoring turns it into a single-use metatemplate. --Golbez 04:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete, as per Golbez. Superm401 | Talk 00:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move: Why not just move it to Mallorca/infobox? // Pathoschild 09:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Because subpages are even worse than single-use and metatemplates. --Golbez 16:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pointing out the reason on my talk page. I've retracted my vote on this one. // Pathoschild 21:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chocolate and slavery

This type of political campaign is out of place in Wikipedia articles. The template is inherently POV. Tupsharru 19:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As the person who created the template, I object to its characterization as inherently POV -- but even more so that this was a "political campaign". It was created because the various chocolate company pages were getting lots and lots of POV edits regarding slavery. This was an attempt to reduce the POV-ness by reducing the amount of information on it while still permitting those interested in the issue to get to Chocolate and slavery. If template is deleted, expect major edit wars to reerupt (not involving me). Please check the history of the pages that currently link to this template before you accuse me of politicizing the issue or of deliberately introducing POV into the articles. --Nlu 19:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • N1u, if editors have something to say about the involvement of any specific chocolatier in contributing to the mistreatment of plantation workers, they'll have to do so in each individual article and support the claims with more than just circumstancial evidence. I've already pointed this out in Talk:Chocolate_and_slavery#More NPoV?. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insisting on mentioning this in a unified form in every article on a chocolate-related subject is POV. Mentioning particular chocolatiers' human rights records (if they are are documented) would not be POV. ~~ N (t/c) 20:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. violet/riga (t) 23:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. Prove the allegations on an individual basis or keep them in general articles like chocolate or chocolate and slavery. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - feel free to add notes to the relevant talk pages that refer to other discussion, but standardization like this just looks like an attempt to cut off legitimate debate. CDC (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Rogerd 05:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no need for this information to be standardized. If it is relevant and NPOV, include it in the prose of the pages you would have tagged with this template. Philip 05:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and Peter Isotalo. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 10:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Philip, this message is better addressed using specific evidence relevant to each page. Superm401 | Talk 00:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: User_zb

delete: A hoax; the article "Zlatiborian language" is already deleted as a hoax. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• fierce keep. Despite the fact that Zlatiborian isn't a real "language", I feel that we need to allow users to claim whichever native languages they want, no matter how ridiculous. What language people want to claim, we should give to them. --Node 00:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Although most linguists do not consider Zlatiborian to be a language, in the most recent Serbian census about 250 people claimed that their native language was Zlatiborian. I think that is a major blow against the argument that it's a _complete hoax_ (while it may not be a "language" per se, it can still have native speakers -- perhaps it should just say "zlatiborski" and not "zlatiborski jezik").
  • Mark, this is a hoax, unlike Montenegrin. I never heard except on this Wikipedia that some people say that they are talking Zlatiborian. If it is OK to keep it, I would make a box for Belgradian and Zarkovian because I can say that those languages are my native languages. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 08:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realise that. I have followed the previous debate on Zlatiborian. As I said, we should allow users to claim whichever native language they want. If you want to claim you speak Beogradian and Zarkovian, I have no problem with you creating thosie templates. But, if you're NOT actually going to use them on your userpage, you should not create them (dont disrupt wp to make a point). --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made Template:User bel as well as I am starting to make templates for all regions from Serbia. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 08:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's fine with me for you to create templates WHICH YOU ARE GOING TO USE on your own userpage. I doubt you will use any of those templates, and if you do, I think you will only use the Belgrade and Zarkovian ones, so if you create the others you will be disrupting wp to make a point. --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And after regions of Serbia, I would continue with New York streets. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 08:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you going to use any of those templates? IF you are, I don't mind that you create them. But if not, DO not create them because it is disrupting WP to make a point which is a no-no. --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course, I would use it because I know languages of every New York street at level 2, as well as level 4 of every Shtokavian based language. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 08:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Node, else userfy to the one guy who uses it. ~~ N (t/c) 00:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Local dialects are not separate languages, at least not when they're not politically acknowledged. Keeping separate Babel-templates for them serves no purpose. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the debate over this, or for that matter any babel template, should centre around whether or not it's a real language. I think the issue here should be: does a user have a right to claim whichever native language they want, even if it's a ridiculous one, or are we going to force them to conform to our ideas of what is a language and what isn't? --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a user template, not article content. Having Babel templates for every imaginable dialect of every region, city, town, village and hamlet is pointless and clutters up the namespace. Wikipedia is not an anarchy and I'm not about to encourage this kind of dubious language separatism just to please a handful of users. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not advocating for templates for "every imaginable dialect". I think that they should be allowed, where demand exists. If nobody wants to add a Babel template for Newyorkian to their page, then there is no reason for the template to exist. But if more than one person wants to, why not let them? There is obviously the argument that eventually it may become a _real_ problem, with huge demands for astronomical numbers of babel templates. However, I don't see that happening, as MOST people don't claim to speak a "language" like Zlatiborian or Nuyorkian. If it ever _were_ to become a /real/ problem, we could cross that bridge when we came to it. --Node 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE as fiercely as possible. This represents a disgrace, regression, spitefulness, monstrosity, abomination and a serious detriment. There is no reason whatsoever for "languages" like these to have their templates. I might as well create Pančevian language because I live in Pančevo, or better yet, Teslian, because the part of my town I'm living in is named after Nikola Tesla. This is absurd and I highly disagree with Node's comment, because if people want languages based on their absolute geographic ___location, there will be more Babel templates than eligible articles. --Dungo (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the thing is, people don't want to create these. How many people here will claim they speak Belgradian, or Zagrebian, or Krkish? My guess is 0. If somebody wants to claim they speak these "languages", I support them. But so far nobody does. So the thing you say about so many templates is purely fud. --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonexistent language. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the debate over this, or for that matter any babel template, should centre around whether or not it's a real language. I think the issue here should be: does a user have a right to claim whichever native language they want, even if it's a ridiculous one, or are we going to force them to conform to our ideas of what is a language and what isn't? --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so! (from The Simpsons) Seriously, I think that Babel templates should be as clean as possible and that they should contain only true languages, whereas there could be some other templates created for fun purposes, like user fox or user 1337. So, the two should be separated into Babel and something different. Also, if a template like that is going to be used in only one user page, the user can simply, make templates in his own namespace (transclude subpages), or copy/paste the template source and adjust it or simply do what Angela said. --Dungo (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "True languages" is very POV. There is no concrete division between dialect and language, and nowadays many linguists opt for alternative terms so as to avoid the connotations of either term. Thus, they might say "The speech of Zlatibor", "The speech of Bosnia", "The speech of Russia", "The speech of Japan", rather than "Zlatiborian language/dialect", "Bosnian language/dialect", etc. There are basically no differences between the official forms of Moldovan and Romanian, yet for sociolinguistic and politicolinguistic reasons, they are allowed to be considered separate in some situations (30% of Moldovans claim Moldovan as their mother tongue). Now, obviously 250 people is a tiny minority of the population of Zlatibor, but we now have two users who claim that Zlatiborian is their mother tongue. See language, it explains very well that NO MATTER how sure you may be, there is no real line between a language and a dialect. Some people have said things like "well to be a separate language, it must have different grammar", but this is pure b.s because many widely recognised "languages" today are different really only on the bases of pronunciation and vocabulary, with few or no morphosyntactical (morfosintakticki??) differences. Thus, to claim that Zlatiborian, Bosnian, Spanish, or Quechua is a dialect of or a separate language from Serbian, Serbocroatian, Italian, and English respectively is considered by most experts to have been superceeded by the idea that they can be both, depending on what makes a language different from a dialect (most dictionaries describe a dialect as a "regional variant of a language" -- this is unhelpful. one could easily say that Spanish is a regional variant of Portuguese or vc-vrs). To say that we should only have Babel templates for "true languages" is an uninformed and indefensible statement based solely on the fallacious supposition that there really is a distinct division or a set of widely agreed-upon defining differences between what is a "dialect" and what is a "language". --Node 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay. I'm not a linguist, but no one can persuade me that Zlatiborian is a language in the strict sense of the word (which is very important seeing as Babel has to support some conventions). Just because 200 or so people speak in a way ever so similar to the Serbian language, it doesn't automatically make that speech a language. As far as I know, language needs to comply to certain conventions and you can't just arrange a meeting, have a vote and decide that a language is created. If that were the case, I'd stand corrected, but alas it isn't. Why you're on this pursuit is beyond me; nevertheless, I don't see how this speech can be proclaimed a language based on the fact that 200 Zlatiborians speak a variant of the Serbian language. Bottom line, this is all beside the point. I'm no linguist and I don't want to argue over stuff like this. I just what to make a point that not every so called "language" (the loose term) should be included in the Babel, because I see Babel as a place for every language. If you want to goof with things like that, don't make a template and/or use Uncyclopedia or whatever. --Dungo (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonexistent language. --Elephantus 10:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the debate over this, or for that matter any babel template, should centre around whether or not it's a real language. I think the issue here should be: does a user have a right to claim whichever native language they want, even if it's a ridiculous one, or are we going to force them to conform to our ideas of what is a language and what isn't? --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonexistent language, fully agree with Dungo. -- Arwel 13:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the debate over this, or for that matter any babel template, should centre around whether or not it's a real language. I think the issue here should be: does a user have a right to claim whichever native language they want, even if it's a ridiculous one, or are we going to force them to conform to our ideas of what is a language and what isn't? --Node 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I must agree with Alexandra. Language used in Pancevo, Belgrade, and other cities of Serbia is Serbian, but Zlatiborian is different: while a Belgradian or Pancevan would say Lepo vreme, lepi ljudi, lepe face Beograda and Ovde je sahranjen moj deka kojega sam mnogo voleo, а Zlatiboian would say Lijepo vrijeme, lijepi ljudi, lijepa lica Biograda and Vodje je saranjen moj djedo kog sam mnogo volio, etc. It is similar, but many languages are.--Ђорђе Д. Божовић 14:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's iyekavian Serbian standard with one or two ___location-based words that differ from the "Belgradian or Pancevan". What we're talking about here is merely a dialect of Serbian language and BTW, I thought you were over this, Djorđe. --Dungo (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, come on. Remind me why Serbian is a real language separate from Bosnian and Croatian?? That is nearly as much or as hardly ludicrous as the claim that there is a real Zlatiborian language. Serbian language is a nationalist fiction, and its consideration is more one of sociolinguistics than the sort of careful areal linguistic analysis with which we would expect "lang" vs "d.t" to be judged on given the purported existence of "true languages" (this is acc'd to you). --Node 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's really unfair (and you know it) to include Bosnian and Croatian. Those languages (+Serbian) diverge more every second and they were separated strictly because of political reasons. There is no such thing when we're talking about Zlatibor. It's a part of Serbia and the chances are it'll stay there for a long time. --Dungo (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no need for a template used by only one user. Subst it onto the user page and delete it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlatiborian speech for the deletion of the page on this language. Angela. 19:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, it's a hoax, but userfy also works too. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. Given that the language doesn't exist I can't imagine more than one person really wanting to use this, but there's no reason why that one person can't. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right. Userfy is enough good for this case. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Userfy - if someone wants to put this on his userpage, there is no problem with it. It will only be used in the User:-namespace. Who cares? What's the problem? Gerrit ^CUTEDH 08:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. There's absolutely no reason that "we need to allow users to claim whichever native languages they want, no matter how ridiculous". If it doesn't exist, it shouldn't be in template space. It can still be a user template, or someone can just add it to their page manually. However, since it's not a real language, it shouldn't have a real template. It's that simple. Superm401 | Talk 00:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nomination. Userfy if needed, per resons stated above.
• delete: a hoax. I'm typically pro giving anyone a right to do or say stupid things (to the extent of not harming other person's freedoms), but this is an encyclopedia (an encyclopedia people should be able to trust), and this kind of information could easily mislead someone into mistake. So if there are a lot of Non-language Babel entries ({{user fox}} for example), visitors can easily identify them as jokes, but if someone isn't really familiar with European linguistics, he will believe that there really is such thing as Zlatiborian language (and may embarrass himself somewhere and never trust Wikipedia again) -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 12:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonexistent language, fully agree with Dungo and Obradovic Goran --Jovanvb 13:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If you follow 'What links here' on the template page, you'll see that two users, not one, speak the language.
  • Wow! Me and a friend of mine speak English when we hang out, but once in a while we coin a new funny word. I guess we speak Fenglish and I can make a template. Not good enough, I'm afraid. --Dungo (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Offensive/NewVersion

Same reasons as {{Offensive}} below. Inherently PoV, and contradicts WP:NOT policy. DES ^(talk) 17:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. --cesarb 17:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, again.Gateman1997 17:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cesarb. --Idont Havaname 18:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but see my comments at the listing for the original one. JYolkowski // talk 23:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — WP:POINT. — Davenbelle 03:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEEEEEEEP!!!. Just kidding, Delete. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as with Template:Offensive. Rhobite 03:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Look: Template:Offensive/StealthVersion -- Zondor 04:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-20 T 09:17:50 Z
• Delete, inherently anti-Wiki. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete {{My usual comments why we should not have these templates}}--Clawed 10:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per usual. Kaldari 14:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; looks like I'm late to this party, but delete. Almost anything is offensive to someone, and use of the template is impossibly subjective. Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could not hope to be NPOV. Jkelly 03:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 10:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no way this can ever be WP:NPOV. Also, Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of minors. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Thanks for nominating, DES. As per nominator, unacceptable for same reasons {{Offensive}} is. Superm401 | Talk 00:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Irish hills

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been replaced by the generic infobox at WikiProject Mountains Grinner 09:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Irish hills (no image)

Delete: No pages use this template, it has been replaced by the generic infobox at WikiProject Mountains Grinner 09:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Offensive

• Delete: Clearly violates the spirit of Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Proponents claim it is only to protect mirrors; however, the template is visible on Wikipedia, which is unacceptable. They even tried to add it to WP:WWIN to self-justify. I removed it because it had no consensus. Indeed, it wasn't mentioned on talk at all. Superm401 | Talk 05:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Okay, I think this can do good in that it will allow more users including minors, schools, religions and any others to be more accepting of Wikipedia by way of a different, less "offensive" mirror or fork version of Wikipedia. That is, "offending" material can be programatically be removed. There are various opinions of what is or not "offensive". However, it should do no harm in that you can still post up "offensive" images or materials -- Zondor 05:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Again with the "content warning" templates. This is the only content warning we need. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 06:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete. Inherently PoV, violates WP:NOT If we ar to start addign some sort of content warnings to articels or images, ther must be consensus on a policy for when and how we should do this, and who/how a particualr case is to be decided. (A PICS-type system could in theory work, if we agreed on such a thing). Absent such a policy, this template and any similer template is out of line. DES ^(talk) 06:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. This particular bad idea has gone by a few times before. --Carnildo 06:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, biased it is. Then I shall be bold in my editing that I shall start Template:bodypart to link to Category:Images of body parts. -- Zondor 06:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Carnildo. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-19 T 06:43:18 Z
• Speedy delete, prior deleted content.Gateman1997 07:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, anti-Wiki. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete this old issue. — Davenbelle 09:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. The Land 11:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The purpose of creating this template was not to censor material as many people think – I happen to be proud of my First Amendment rights. I created the original template because I felt that some content should simply be marked as potentially inappropriate for younger readers and/or other easily offended persons, for example to help parents keep their kids safe or to provide some sort of warning if anyone accidentally misclicked a link. Obviously the name wasn't the best choice but I wanted something fast and easy to remember.
  My idea for how it would work would be like follows:
  1. Certain pages (such as those relating to certain body parts which we generally do not discuss in public, or things related to really controversial stuff like Grand Theft Auto) could be marked with the template to serve as kind of a warning, like this: "Hey, just so you know this stuff may not be appropriate for all ages, reader discretion advised." The articles would be left otherwise intact, just like inserting any other template.
  2. If someone then opened a page – intentionally or otherwise – they would see the message and be given a chance to decide whether they need to be reading it or not.
• Again, the idea was not at all censorship, just clearly marking content which some may take offense at. multima 11:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way, before you get any more stupid ideas: THIS IS NOT A {{delete}}-TYPE THING. The articles would not at all be deleted, merely marked in such a way as to allow users to decide for themselves whether or not to read it. I don't think it's anti-wiki at all.

OK, re-designed version at Template:Offensive/NewVersion.

• • comment Unless we first establish a policy statign that we will designate particular articles as needing "reader discretion", and establishing a mechanism or process for chosing which items should be so marked, I oppose the creation of any such warning tempalte or tag, or placing any such warnings in any form on any article or image. The choice of which items shall be so lableled and how the label shall be worded is inherently PoV. Al of wikipedia already is a "reader discretion advised' zine, that is what our general disclaimer is for. Warking our particualr ares is invidious and clarly PoV. DES ^(talk) 17:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Even if it were acceptable to have this template (and it isn't), who gets to decide what's potentially offensive? George W. Bush's face makes me want to puke, does that mean I can put {{Offensive}} on his page without being accused of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. bogdan | ^Talk 15:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless we seriously plan to mark all pictures of women who aren't wearing a burqa. The selection of pictures that I've seen has been seriously POV, calling all pictures with nudity offensive.--Prosfilaes 16:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. --cesarb 17:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for reasons already listed. WP:NOT c------d for the protection of minors. --Idont Havaname 18:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever, wiki-assholes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinultima (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. violet/riga (t) 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep iff the actual template text is removed, to make it a stealth template. JYolkowski // talk 23:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the debate on the stealth version, higher up on this page. i have voted delete on all versions. DES ^(talk) 20:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No warnings. Rhobite 03:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Look: Template:Offensive/StealthVersion -- Zondor 04:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Stealth versions are bad because tagging with them is still POV. ~~ N (t/c) 14:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too subjective. Kaldari 14:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could not hope to be NPOV. Jkelly 03:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Joy [shallot] 11:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no way this can ever be WP:NPOV. Also, Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of minors. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Then for the sake of consistency, get rid of the fucking "WARNING: PORNOGRAPHY" links on pages like List of shock sites so users will click here and see something rather undesirable without any warning. Hey, you said yourselves that Wikipedia is not censored for minors. Oh, and please go fuck yourselves.
  
  By the way, all wiki messages on this are now going to be ignored so don't waste your time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinultima (talk • contribs) 20:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant difference between a link to a Wikipedia page and a link to an external site. If that it is not immediately obvious why, you may want to read up on Wikipedia or wikis in general; I'm afraid I don't know a specific section to point you to. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am well aware of that. I have been a Wikipedian for quite a while (some stuff I've written is on my user page, or just look at Vivian Vande Velde, QEMU, etc.) and am also administrator of a wiki for my own project. I do know how wikis display links differently depending on internal or external links and I have read through every last page of the style section.

The point I have been trying to make is that, while Wikipedia should not be censored, advance warning should be provided for certain pages which some may take offense at or otherwise not wish to see. Perhaps instead of a very subjective template there could be a user-controllable filter worked into the MediaWiki software itself that would allow everyone to choose for themselves what type of content can and can be displayed, but the point is there is some content that some people will need to see, and that others will not desire to have appear on their screen. By now I really don't care about how it's implemented, my point is that there should be a system.

By the way, a good deal of negative criticism about the wiki is aimed right at its lack of content control. While the ability to view and post anything is absolutely wonderful I really do think that certain content needs to be labeled properly. Would you like it then if we decided to no longer provide ratings on video games? Oh, wait, I know: Let's just link to the images on the Hot Coffee page and let anyone in the world see them. Graphic depictions of simulated sex for the masses! See how parents, schools, churches, and concerned individuals in general like that. I don't approve of outright censorship at all, but gentle content warnings are sometimes necessary.

So I hope that this helps to clear a few things up for you, seeing as you're just clueless otherwise.

multima 03:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly i do strongly disapprove of ratings for video games, movies, and the like. I cheered when the Comics Code Authority went bust. I won't buy a TV with a "V-chip" inside, and I am far less likely to contribute to a censored wikipedia. Taht said, limited nmon-coercive warnings that are unobtrusive and palced in accordance with an agreed policy, via a PICS or simialr scheme, might be a good idea. But this template isn't even a step in the right direction. DES ^(talk) 03:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listen. The template wasn't the best idea, and I'll admit to it. And I don't like the "V-Chip" either, there's a reason all my TV equipment was made back in the 1980's before that stuff came out. Now, let me make one thing clear.

I'm not aiming for censorship.

What I am aiming for is a Wikipedia which will be much more accessible for a wider range of age groups and beliefs on different topics. I have come up with a basic plan which would outline how the system I've envisioned would work if it had been done the way it was supposed to, and have no problem if anyone wants to contribute or make changes.

The problem is, while I don't want censorship, I also don't want to just click a random link and find myself looking at a picture of a guy's ****, and I don't want to see every third-grader with a modem able to see the Hot Coffee screenshot so conspicuously displayed where the entire world will notice. It's a tricky thing to balance all this but someone's got to do it.

multima

October 18

Template:Donotstealorlinkimages

Delete as a hoax. I should not create bogus templates or articles! RyanCahn

I found this at the bottom of the TfD page, so have moved it up here and formatted it properly. -Splash^talk 20:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary template Soltak | Talk 22:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, orphan template, and I sincerely don't see how this can be useful. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:River

Delete: No longer used; deprecated by Template:Infobox river. Wikiacc (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree with Wikiacc, and confirm that it's no longer in use. —Papayoung ☯ 01:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the new one. In this way, we can keep the history. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 16:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User want admin

Template is somewhat useless. We don't give out administrator status to those users who make a big thing of it, as far as I know. In addition, the creator (User:Adam1213) likely created this after making a big song-and-dance about his two failed Requests for Adminship, and supplemented it all with spamming Jimbo's talk page demanding adminship. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nomination. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom -- (drini's page|☎) 16:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I happened to see this on a user page several days ago and thought "hmm, that definitely shouldn't exist" but forgot about it. Now I happened to see people talking about this TfD so I think it should go. silsor 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a list of non-admins with high edit counts somewhere where you can note your interest in becoming an admin, and I think that's about the extent of advertising one should do about that. android79 16:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we don't give out adminship on basis of "wanting" it. Often, asking for something is the surest way not to get it. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible keep. This nomination is absurd. Let people do what they want with their userspace, so long as it isn't harmful, and this clearly isn't. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then he can subst it. You might be unaware that the template is not in his userspace, so your entire argument is moot. Delete. --Golbez 20:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, I'm totally aware that the template itself is not in the userspace, but the fact that it is being used only in userspace should extend the privilege of userspace to the template. The only reasons to delete a template used in userspace, that I can see, would be (1) if the template is destructive or harmful, or (2) if it is only used by one user, in which case substing or userfying might be a better solution. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to object with the Template: namespace having protections similar to the User: namespace. That defeats the whole purpose of templates, to be able to offer a standarized interface to Wikipedia viewers. However, moving to the userspace is entirely acceptable, so I change my vote to delete or userfy. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think in general that it should. However, when a template are being used in User space or Usertalk, I think it should recieve the same protections as User space in that 90% of users finding the template unattractive or useless shouldn't impose themselves on the 10% of users who like it. A template to be used in userspace should still have the attributes we usually associate with a template -- i.e. it's used in multiple places, it saves space in the wikitext -- but "somewhat useless" is not a good reason to get rid of templates that other people are using in their userspace. If you really want to get rid of something like this then, before you pull the trigger on deletion, talk to the people using it and ask them to drop it (which in this case probably would have worked just fine). Simple politeness to fellow users is a virtue. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. — Dan | Talk 21:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had that template but I thought that was a years old template fot if you have intrest on admin and I thought alot of users have or had that template until admin came but than I found out who the creator is........ --JAranda | watz sup 21:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if a user wants to be an admin she should nominate herself. BL kiss the lizard 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Silly --Rogerd 22:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I currently employ this template, although at the same time I don't really care if it gets deleted. The part I don't like is that Rob Church is taking a non-NPOV in his nomination by saying that "it's likely due to adam1234's song and dance after two failed RfA's. That is completely irrelivant to whether or not the template should be deleted. It makes it seem partially like a grudge match, delete someone's template for spamming Jimbo's page. I know Rob Church to be a good man, and this is nothing personal, but I just don't like the tactics employed in trying to get it deleted. --AppleBoy ^Talk 23:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Christopher Parham. Template not harmful or offensive, and also very unlikely to actually factor into RfAs. Why the fuss? Nobody really speaks leet, but we keep the template that says they do. Almost everybody wants to be an admin, yet we want to delete this template? ~~~~ 23:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It will factor into RfAs. Users with this template will get Oppose votes as they do not believe adminship is "no big deal". Wikiacc (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is harmful to new users who think that it is part of process rather than one user's well-intentioned but misguided attempt at fast-tracking. It implies that the process works very differently than it does. — File:Ontario trillium sig.pngmendel ☎ 23:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oooh, I should put this on my userpage :) Delete. «»Who?¿?^meta 23:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I threw this onto my userpage yesterday. I saw it on somebody elses and thought it was funny. More of a joke than something that should be taken seriously...—Gaff ^ταλκ 00:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This whole debate looks like something that I am seeing a lot of around here: Wikipedians taking wikipedia too seriously.—Gaff ^ταλκ 06:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ignore Rob Church's unfortunate text; I think mendel has hit on the best reason. I have no problem with someone having a template like this in their user space, certainly, but to have it in the Template namespace is to condone it as a method, isn't it? That's certainly how I (a newcomer) would interpret it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, it should be renamed to "user wants admin". "User want admin" has a very "Grog need fire!" sound to it. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, expressing desire to be an admin is condoned. What would lead us to believe that it's not? Christopher Parham (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's tacky and misleading. Users are welcome to use the format, but there's no cause to templatise it. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the argument that the template namespace gets the same protection as userspace would be valid, if only pages in the template namespace could be used like templates(i.e. including or transcluding(subst)). However, this is not true. Any page can be used as a template, just by surrounding it with {{, }} tags. So, leave templates that are inappropriate or opposed by most wikipedians out of the public areas, and put them in userspace. I'm tempted to vote keep on this, as it does provide a nice list of people who should never, under any circumstances, ever become admins, but that's probably a little too harsh, and some innocent newbies might be caught in it, so, *delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tacky and unnecessary. Gamaliel 07:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. — Davenbelle 08:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mainly as per Gaff. It's slightly frivolous, but who cares? The Land 11:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote. It's been userfied now. use {{User:wantadmin}} instead. Thank you.
  • Note that this is unacceptable. That is obviously a role account, and a misunderstanding of the meaning of "userfy". I have listed the page for deletion, as a violation of WP:POINT. Userfy means to make it a subpage of an identified, real wikipedia user, not to create a new user account(sockpuppet) just for this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep harmless.  Grue  17:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tacky. It feels like a political candidate legally changing his name to "President". DS 17:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think I'd use it, but there are some people who do, so there's no harm done in keeping it. --Idont Havaname 18:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have user templates for all sorts of things, why not this? One would think that it applies to a significant number of users, so the problem isn't being too specialized. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 00:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or userfy per everyone else. I agree that its use is silly, but why is that a reason to delete? ~~ N (t/c) 00:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or userfy. Slightly frivolous, but utterly harmless (I mean, it's just a template). Wikipedia is not a black-tie formal gathering where people can't use contractions and speak in absurd upper-class English accents. Plus, I like the title. Say it in your Strong Mad voice. "USER WANT ADMIN! USER WANT ADMIN!!!!" Lord Bob 15:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have RfA for theis kind of thing. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or keep, but everyone who uses it can never me made an admin. Broken S 21:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biovan

Useless fork of Template:Afd. —Cryptic (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded. Most vanity fails also under nnbio, and those who not could well use the standard AfD template and then explain on the discussion page the reasons of nomination. -- (drini's page|☎) 16:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per User:Drini. DES ^(talk) 21:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 22:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Format

Delete: This template is harsh in its request for {{cleanup}} of a section or article or laying down the law. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 00:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was trying to find the comment that sayd "Add sections and format this appropriately", but the obvious one didn't exist so I created it. 68.39.174.238 00:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anon ;-). Thanks for replying. Consider reviewing Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. There are already quite a few message templates for requesting cleanup, copyediting, etc. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 01:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, ax it. 68.39.174.238 00:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per Roby Wayne. — EagleOne\^Talk 17:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then create it as a redirect to {{cleanup}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Destroy all data?" "Laying down the law?" This reads like a cleanup request written for evil supervillains. --Aquillion 04:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no redirect CDC (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I sympathize, but delete per above. Jkelly 03:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

Template:Arab subdivision

Delete: This template contains only four links and it is unlikely that there will ever be significantly more. Furthermore:

• imarah is a redlink;
• mintaqah has only two links on it and may therefore be more suitable as a disambig page;
• muhafazah is a duplication of governorate and should therefore be merged and redirected;
• wilayah appears to be the only one that is a genuine article. Timwi 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

• imarah is not a redlink
• mintaqah has not only two links on it and is not a mere dab page
• muhafazah is not a duplicat of governorate. Furthermore consensus was reached to keep guberniya (russian) seperate from governorate. Are arab governorates worth less? Are they less important than guberniyas? Or french département?
• wilayah is not the only genuine article

Instead of deleting the template it and the articles should be extended. A similiar template could be created for russian subdivision terms. These templates easily bind together related articles. It does not harm anybody. But helps the editors. User:Timwi already deleted this template by abusing his admin rights. He did not ask any involved person before nor did he put up "see also" references, linking the terms together. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC) AND Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Imarah was a red link when Timwi submitted this template for comment. Now it's just a redirect to Emirate, itself just a paragraph of text with a couple of links.
• Mintaqah has more than two links, but that doesn't mean it's not a candidate for being a disambiguation page. See Lincoln, for example. Don't assume that "disambiguation" is somehow a denigration of your work or a demotion of your page.
• Muhafazah clearly duplicates the information in Governorate. The extra information could easily be merged into Governorate, if it is deemed appropriate to do.

Let's keep the discussion civil and factually accurate. I have no opinion (yet) on the deletion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• it seems you speak with me - Tobias. I never thought the number of links is any relevant to decide whether the page is dab-tagable. Anyway, is the dab-tag relevant to template deletion as implied by User:Timwi? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• when I visit governorate I see content that is not on muhafazah. When I visit muhafazah I see content that is not on governorate. The statement that one is a duplicate of the other is therefore wrong for my computer.
• is it any relevant that imarah was a redlink when User:Timwi posted his claimes? I think the template-deletion decision should take into account the most recent status. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. By "duplicates", I did not mean "completely duplicates everything and contains no other information than what is duplicated". I just meant that it is largely redundant. I thought this was fairly clear from my acknowledgement that if necessary, some information would need to be merged into Governorate. It is relevant to point out the timing of the red link because you seem to be using it to discredit Timwi's motivations instead of just pointing out the obvious fact that you have (rightly!) fixed it. Side note: please try not to interleave your comments with mine; it makes things harder to follow in the long run. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

for interleaving: thanks for pointing this out. :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A fairly useful template, IMO, especially to people who are interested in Arab subdivisions but have no clue what other subdivisions exist—for these people the template provides a clean and easy way to review the whole set. Its inclusion into the {{Subnational entity}} template is possible, but it may (and will) make that template cluttered and unwieldy as more national entities are added.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary (much less an Arabic one). The subdivisions may be important, but not the terms themselves. Kirill Lokshin 02:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

??????? do you vote for delete muhafazah? I think this is the wrong place. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm referring to the template. If the terms represent unique types of subdivisions, they should be added to {{Subnational entity}} directly; if they are merely Arabic terms for subdivisions already present in that template, then they do not require a separate template. Kirill Lokshin 10:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

of course they are unique types. But there are maybe 500 unique types around the world (and more). They cannot all go into {{Subnational entity}}. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by the creator. I thought of making series for different languages, like it exists on Template:Subnational entity as far a I can see the latter really has been a success and animated others to add english terms. There are lots of foreign terms around. See List of terms for subnational entities Maybe the terms can be grouped to make the templates bigger, e.g. the slavic terms may have something in common. Arab probably will stay a smaller template for some time. If you merge the content into worldwide translation pages you cannot give easily an overview to the reader about the terms used in one language region. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not the right place for a collection of foreign-language terms used in other languages. If the subdivisions in all Arab countries are referred to in English as either governorates, provinces or anything else already present on {{Subnational entity}}, then the Arab terms should only be redirects to those, and your template becomes redundant as the articles are already linked by {{Subnational entity}}. – Timwi 16:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • since they are as far as i know official terms, translation is not that easy. Same terms are translated different. Furthermore, there are whole article series that use foreign terms and there were heavy discussions on whether to translate the terms or not. Take a look on Subdivisions of Russia. Oblasts are nowhere translated. Same with Ukraine. Maybe dive a little bit more into the subdivisions stuff. As mentioned above for guberniya it was decided not to merge. if template deletion is based on merge and deletion of subnational entity terms, then go through this process first Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "since they are as far as i know official terms, translation is not that easy." -- Well, that's funny; let's see, there's Provinces of Afghanistan, Governorates of Tunisia, Regions of Oman ... where are all the ones with Arab terms? – Timwi 22:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Notvandalism

Delete: Silly-looking box meant to be left at the top of some articles for all time, apparently. There's nothing this template does that can't be done better using HTML comments. Carnildo 06:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you know it's not vandalised? It might have been unlikely to begin with and then vandalised. Delete. --fvw* 06:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From Creator Not a problem with me as long as the average user can avoid an rv double take like I almost did today on Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga regarding the mantra called "Wikipedia". Carnildo, i'm only a so-so HTML editor, so I assume you're talking about a <comment> </comment> tage seen only in the editing page or something like that, which should be fine as long as it isn't inadvertently deleted during re-edits. Also, please avoid low level WP:CIVIL violations such as in the history of Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga [2]. Trust me, i've been down that road, and although you mean well, that tone will cause anger in alot of people which will just add to the exacerbation of pointless shouting matches over wording. Karmafist 06:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I back you 100% on the civility comment. "Stupid-looking" is a phrase that never has any use while editing Wikipedia. I've made that mistake myself, and gotten into long and unnecessarily hostile arguments because of it. -- SCZenz 22:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: potentially misleading, unless the page is protected immediately after applying the tag. Short of that, there' no way to verify whether a page has been re-vadalized after the tag was applied. — EagleOne\^Talk 16:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... or, for that matter, whether the template has been added by a vandal. FreplySpang (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I rather like the thumbs up, but the template is too likely to be misleading. I second the suggestion of using HTML comments; that way at least nobody will complete an edit before they see that it's not vandalism, and the text can be specific to the seemingly-questionable fact. -- SCZenz 22:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Box-templates like this over articles are supposed to be temporary measures, used to encourage the resolution of a dispute... putting one over an article, as the nominator says, "for all time" doesn't strike me as the right thing to do. Additionally, it isn't very informative to place it over the top of a whole article when just one line or word (as in the Shin Megami Tensei article noted above) is really what sparked it. A better way to serve the intended purpose would be to reword the article to make it clear that the 'unlikely-sounding' bit in question is, indeed, true despite sounding unlikely, for instance, by explaining it in greater detail. --Aquillion 04:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wait till a vandal who knows anything about templates discovers this one! --Idont Havaname 18:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It doesn't hurt anything. Octalc0de 21:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holding cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

To convert to category

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories get put here until the conversion is completed.

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.