Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grutness (talk | contribs) at 11:35, 28 May 2005 (→[[Template:Star stub]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

This page deals only with deleting templates (anything in the Template namespace). Templates are used, for example, to create reusable boilerplate messages and article series boxes. Please see Wikipedia:Template namespace.

On this page, templates that are nominated for deletion are discussed and voted on, preferably to reach consensus.

Deletion of templates may be appropriate if the template does not conform to the following.

  • Templates should be helpful and noteworthy;
  • Templated should not be redundant;
  • Templates should be used;
  • Templates should not be POV;
  • Templates should not generally be used within other templates - see Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates.

Templates that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised (disputed- see talk). Such templates should be dealt with as soon as possible.

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

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

Voting and discussion

Anyone can vote, but please give a reason when doing so. Please explain how, in your opinion, the Template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual vote (i.e. Keep or Delete).

Nominating stub templates for deletion is perfectly valid here - the votes at WP:WSS do not have deletion priviliges.

Examples of votes

  • Keep
  • Delete
  • Convert to category (categorify); to indicate that you feel that all pages containing this (article series box) template should be moved into a single category. The template can then be deleted.
  • Convert to list (listify); to indicate that you feel that all pages containing this (article series box) template should be moved into a single list. The template can then be deleted.
  • Redirect; redirect to more popular or fitting title.
  • Rewrite; suggests that the template serves a purpose, and that it could do this more elegantly.
  • Retitle / rename / move; usually for offensive or otherwise poorly chosen titles.
  • Userfy; suggests that the template should be moved to a user's subpage. Used for personal templates.
  • Subst:; single-use templates can be replaced by the template values by using the subst: parameter in the template (e.g. {{subst:templatename}}). Then the template can be deleted.

Nominating a template

Templates listed on this page do not need to be orphans prior to listing, and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing. However, templates must be removed from all pages prior to deletion. Currently, this can only be done manually.

  • Step 1: To nominate a template, leave it as it is. Do not blank it, as this looks confusing on any pages on which the template is used and may be considered vandalism.
  • Step 2: Place {{tfd}} in the top of the Template. For clarity, this message should be added inside the box where applicable. This adds the following message: This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.
  • Step 3: Link to the template on this page. Create a header under today's date at the top of the section, linking to the template, such as ====[[Template:Toiletpaper]]====, and put your comments beneath it.
  • Step 4: Give due notice to interested parties by substituting {{subst:tfdnotice|nominatedtemplate}} on relevant talk.

Listings

Please put new listings under today's date at the top of the section.

May 27

Template:VfD-Page name

(and redirect MediaWiki:VfD-Page name)

This was at one time part of the old VfD instructions as an empty link in the sample VFD entry. I couldn't think of a way to make it a speedy deletion candidate, but it's completely pointless. The history shows the only edits were votes made due to mistakes when someone forgot to change the link after they created a VFD entry, prompting the final revision as seen. -- Netoholic @ 19:06, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Template:12345

Currently completely empty. Originally a personal infobox. BlankVerse ∅ 13:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy -- Why nominate it here? Just tag it for speedy. Done. — Xiong熊talk* 14:08, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Template:Star stub

I know what you're thinking, but no - this isn't a stub template. When WP:WSS was looking for undiscovered stub templates a few weeks ago, we discovered {{star stub}}, a stubby infobox used by the Astronomical WikiProject. WP:WSS had star-stub (for articles on stars), and thought the names were too easily confused. With the great cooperation of WikiProject Astronomical objects, {{Star stub}} has become {{Starbox short}} (to which Star stub currently redirects. It's also been deprecated - all the articles which used it have had the new template name put on them. To remove potential confusion, then, Star stub should now be deleted. Grutness...wha? 12:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a few people now think "stub" is a general term for any template :| Joe D (t) 12:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WPAO called this one star stub because it was a shorter version of their normal star template. Grutness...wha?

Template:PD-Germany

The template is severely misleading/plain wrong: normal photographs are copyright until 70 years after the death of the creator (as agreed on the template talk page). There should be some PD-Germany template, but a corrected template would not necessarily apply to the images which currently are tagged with this template. I therefore suggest deleting and starting again rather than rewriting this template. (Note: the template is protected; I hope it was OK to add the tfd tag). Mark1 06:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, delete this, and check and re-tag all images where it is used. German copyright law is complicated: whether something is PD (i.e., copyright expired) depends on a whole lot of factors, including which version(s) of the law was/were in effect while something was still under copyright protection and the question of who (if anybody) holds the copyright on WWII images. And the newest version of the copyright law, intended to make it compliant with EU law, even retroactively puts previously "copyright expired" stuff under copyright protection again because suddenly Spain's longer 80-year term is said to apply. It's a mess. To be on the safe side, just assume there are no German PD images post-1905. Lupo 08:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We could definetly use a clear explanation about the copyright of Nazi-made WIII images, I find a lot of arguments 'it was done by Nazis so it is not copyrighted', and I don't know what to respond. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was done by Nazis so it is not copyrighted" is fallacious. As a rule of thumb, everything is copyrighted unless past its expiration date (varies by country, generally 70-100 years), or explicitly released by the author. Radiant_* 10:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This template was TfDd a few weeks ago, see here. There were complications and no consensus was reached. Joe D (t) 12:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

Template:Otheruses5

Unnecessary over complication of disambiguation, we have enough disambiguation templates to do everything we could possibly want to do, the only thing this one does as well is give a short introduction to what page is about. Which the introduction will do anyway. Joe D (t) 23:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otheruses4

Though the code is slightly different, as far as I can tell this does exactly the same thing as {{Dablink}}, except that the creator of dablink bothered to list it on WP:TM, so that one actually gets used. Joe D (t) 23:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Obsolete SI prefixes

Converted to article, at Obsolete SI prefixes. Template now obsolete. Radiant_* 11:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Memoryalpha

Nominated by User:Metaeducation, who didn't list it here. Request deletion presumably on the same grounds as Template:Hrwiki discussed below, i.e. Advertising for a non-Wikipedia partner. Why should Memory Alpha get such extravagant publicity? Add the link to the Wiki in the External Links. I'm abstaining for now. Radiant_* 10:22, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's not more extravagant than ("advertising" {D'oh!} for) Wikispecies... --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same purpose as {{Hrwiki}}. Leave this to the trekkies to orphan. Then we could delete it, but I see no reason to do so now. --MarSch 12:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See my comments under the deletion nomination for Template:Hrwiki. BlankVerse ∅
    • Also: To User:Metaeducation: This nomination is counterproductive. If you really wanted us to consider keeping Template:Hrwiki you should not have nominated this template. Now TFD voters are going to be much more likely to say "delete both", rather than carefully consider the points that I brought up in the Template:Hrwiki discussion. BlankVerse ∅ 13:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A good point, and if I thought a template was the right solution, this would certainly fall under Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. But as it happens, I am not too interested in the survival of either template. I'm just interested in the creation of a policy page which helps meet the need that the templates were trying to fill. What you're pointing out is that VfD may not be the right venue for developing a solution; you're probably right there. User:metaeducation
  • Delete unless Hrwiki is kept. Consistency. Grue 13:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but much smaller, more along the lines of {{imdb name}}: should be used for making good links to Memory Alpha without the advertising. --Phil | Talk 13:44, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's no "advertising" because no one wants to sell something... --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually agree with that; if it is kept, it should be trimmed a bit, it's too much of an eye-catcher (considering that Template:Wiktionary is pretty small). Radiant_* 13:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I don't accept that a project like Wikispecies has the right for such a template and the MA not. And the Wiktionary template is not smaller, not on my screen. And yes, it is an eye-catcher, because it shall be one - imo, many Trek-articles that use it belong only to the MA because Wikipedia is not a Wiki for (all) fictive terms. (Or only for well-known like Ork or Darth Vader e.g.) If an eye-catcher can contribute to less specific Trek articles here and redirect them to MA, it's better for WP and MA. --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, see above. Memoryalpha article will be changed too, I just had a lack of time. --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; allowing this would allow everyone to advertise here. -- Ec5618 13:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's no advertise... --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the material on Memory Alpha is significantly better and really adds something, just use the external links section, that's what it's there for. --W(t) 15:26, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
MA must not be better, it shall redirect the contributors to the responsible Wiki for Trek-terms, and that's not Wikipedia. --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the other reasons mentioned here, for aesthetic reasons. We already had a number of External links to Memory Alpha, which have been replaced with this template, so now we have External link sections that only contain this box hanging off the right side. The External links were fine as they were, the template is ugly. AlistairMcMillan 16:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not uglier than the Wikispecies template. (Maybe you viewed it on Andorian e.g. - then you are right, but thats the guilt of "*" in front of the template...) The problem with placement concerns also other templates, and in the articles where I added it, I placed it better (on the top) - unfortunately some people changed this... --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Trek is iconic to pop culture in a manner which few others can claim. Advertising can't be a concern when including items in an encyclopedia, or the extreme result would be no entries for any branded products. We have Tolkien stubs, etc. Are they next? Ayeroxor 05:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: A highly valuable indiciator that additional info exists on science fiction Star Trek articles. Should stay in all Star Trek articles. -Husnock 06:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but downsize -- Useful to have a template for consistent linking. Good to put the link under External Links. Better to reduce its overall importance. Best to move 90% of Trek-related fancruft to Wikipedia:Wikifan — Xiong熊talk* 14:16, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
Consent to the idea of bringing Trek articles to an own platform, but the ("bigsize") temp shall do exactly this by redirecting the contributors to MA and "keep them away" ;-) from here. --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but downsize to original single-line (non box, no graphic) version. I am the original author of this template, and as is explained on Template talk:Memoryalpha I think this template should be used for several reasons. Most importantly, this is preferable to using simple hyperlinks because this creates an easy-to-detect explicit connection between two databases that could potentially be used in a JOIN operation at some point in the future. This is hardly "advertising" for Memory Alpha; MA is a non-profit wiki site that provides the kind of information people reading Star Trek articles on wikipedia are looking for. Template:imdb_name could more credibly be said to be "advertising", because IMDB is an ad-supported Amazon company (whereas the ads on MA are placed there by their wikicities host afaik). But obviously imdb_name is good too, because it gives readers the information they want. This template was only recently expanded (by someone else) to be a big box like the wikimedia sister projects' templates all use. I am now going to revert that change to make this more like the imdb template, so that it only takes up one line of text. ~leif ☺ (talk) 20:24, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
You're right, IMDB is commercial, MA not, and MA is a kind of sister of the WP, that's why I changed it (and other things, see above). --Memory 21:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General: I won't accept a deletion because all Wiki projects have the same right to be mentioned (and linked) here, not only "official partners" like Wikispecies. That's not the Wiki idea. --Memory 21:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ha, Template:Hc-list, Template:Hc-ref and Template:Hac

Delete as a matter of cleanup. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Half-decent articles. (The idea behind this is to have a system similar to WP:FAC, to determine when an article is 'half-decent' and label it as such. This system has not been advertised, discussed or even used, and frankly I fail to see the point. Is it by itself half-decent? I don't think we should bother archiving this since it isn't even a failed proposal.) Radiant_* 09:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete. I guess they won't be needed. --MarSch 12:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The VfD nomination is inappropriate. VfD does not concern itself with Wikipedia-namespace pages. — Xiong熊talk* 14:27, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
    • You are wrong. Read VFD policy. Radiant_* 15:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

May 25

Template:Special

Only used in one place, and redundant with Template:Specialpageslist. Radiant_* 10:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:semi-policy

Deprecated. Use Template:Guideline instead. Radiant_* 14:08, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

      • Had no consensus earlier, but I'm relisting it on grounds that Category:Semi-policy has been deleted, and the keep voters hadn't been aware of the fact that semi-pol has simply been renamed to guideline, which was created about a month ago. Radiant_* 09:06, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - semi-policy concept said that there are unwritten, common sense rules to which people can be held accountable. Well, if they're unwritten, how can pages on the wiki be so-marked? -- Netoholic @ 15:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Netoholic's right. James F. (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--Mrfixter 16:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect template:proposed -SV|t 21:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though in these deprication matters I think we do need to accept the need for some "ambiguously policy" tag. Redirect to Template:Ambiguous Keep - BlankVerse is right. Don't depricate terms legislatively. Snowspinner 04:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Disagree with both redirects - a 'semi-policy' is not usually 'proposed', nor is it 'ambiguous'. Radiant_* 09:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Semi-policy has been "Deprecated" without adequate discussion. Thus deleting this template is setting policy which shouldn't happen here. BlankVerse ∅ 11:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons explained on Wikipedia talk:Semi-policy. Zocky 16:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - To join the majority -SV|t 19:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other existing classifications are sufficient, and adding more just adds confusion. -- Beland 01:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not not adding one classification, it's deleting one. BlankVerse ∅ 15:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: agree with BlankVerse. Jonathunder 13:47, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Keep --- agree with BlankVerse. This is a sneaky way to undermine the policy process. — Xiong熊talk* 07:37, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
    • In response to the above two votes, please read BlankVerse's talk page; I do believe I have convinced him. Semi-pol hasn't been deprecated, it's been renamed to 'guideline'. Radiant_* 09:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • WRONG! I am still convinced that you and the small group of people that have been organizing the Wikipedia policy pages have not just been organizing them so that they are easier to understand (which was a very good thing and was desperately needed), but you have been "reorganizing" them and have been making major changes in Wikipedia policy. I am still convinced that originally there was Policy, Guidelines, and Semi-Policy, and that one entire category of Wikipedia rules and procedures has been eliminated because the group doing the reorganization did not like or understand the ambiguity of the Semi-Policy category. I also find it disturbing that these changes have been made without any major discussions, or any announcements at WP:RFC, or Wikipedia:Current surveys. It's okay to Be Bold! on non-controversial Wikipedia articles, but the watchwords for Wikipedia policy should be "Be cautious", and "Seek consensus". BlankVerse ∅ 10:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • So respond to your talkpage already. CATEGORY:GUIDELINES was created ONE MONTH AGO [1]. Radiant_* 10:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep -- This is a sneaky, underhanded way to undermine policy for private ends. — Xiong熊talk* 10:18, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • Keep I've seen it used Falphin 17:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read up on what has happened lately - it is no longer used. Radiant_* 07:04, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep semi-policy~=guideline. Template:Guideline on something like Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks is simply misleading. I'm sure most of editors don't endorse censorship on Wikipedia. Grue 10:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some pages may be miscategorized - Wikipedia:Sofixit. Most editors do endorse RPA. Radiant_* 10:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Look at the survey on the Talk page or WP:RPA. It has, at most, a bare majority of votes for making it policy, so there is certainly no consensus. I've seen editors who regularly use the page as policy, but I've seen it mostly used as part of a suggestion—that is, remove your personal attack or I will do it for you. I've also seen editors who have become very irate when something that they have written was removed based upon RPA, and I've seen editors who absolutely do not like having any attacks removed from their Talk pages. I don't think NPA "fits" as a Guideline, but it did "fit" as Semi-Policy. BlankVerse ∅ 11:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This really belongs on RPA:Talk. Note that 1) consensus is not determined by voting; 2) RPA has seen regular use for the past years and thus is de facto accepted, and 3) this is only true by your definition of semi-policy, which (unlike guideline) is not a term found in any dictionary. You consider semi-pol weaker than guideline, but lots of people think the exact opposite. Radiant_* 11:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • I've archived old stuff from RPA:Talk and advertised the discussion on WP:W, RFC etc, in an attempt to get consensus (not vote) on whether this should be policy, guideline, discouraged or forbidden. Radiant_* 11:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, in a lot of cases semi-policy makes more sense than guideline. --W(t) 15:37, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've looked through some of the contents of Category:Guideline and all of the articles there appear to have had their {{Semi-policy}} replaced with {{Guideline}} unilaterally by the people supporting the current deletion with no discussion on any of the pages. In fact ... Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Maintenance was moved from Category:Wikipedia_official_policy to Category:Wikipedia_guidelines, unilaterally and without discussion on the page, 2 days ago. There is definitely likely (or it smells like) a revisionist agenda in play here. Courtland 17:25, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
    • Revised Vote = Delete. I've been told by an admin @ WP:VFD that the page I pointed at wasn't really policy even though it was labeled policy. In that case, I question now whether policy of any kind can be maintained in the face of determined editors. All this policy/nonpolicy talk has now taken on a different light ... much of it just prattle interfering with building an encyclopedia. So, bottom line is there really isn't any such thing as policy - it's all just suggestions of conduct; and consensus - what's that in the face of being bold? Therefore, just delete away, folks. Courtland 02:12, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't understand why semi-policy has been disposed of. It was slightly confusing, yes, but I think it was an important distinction. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - SoM 17:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olditalic

Yesterday's entry seems to be gone away somewhat. This template was only for the article Old Italic alphabet, to which I merged the template. --Puzzlet Chung 05:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weirdness

Just because the person listing an article for deletion thinks it's weird doesn't make it unencyclopedic. "Weird" and "strange" are going to appear insulting to newbies. "It is not necessarily nonsense" seems unnecessary. Weirdness should not be a criteria for speedy deletion. Angela. 04:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Bxscience

Template which was created for use on one article and can only ever be used on one article. I have since removed it and put the template code directly in the article. CryptoDerk 03:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

May 24

Template:GC

This "general complaint" tag does not make any sense to me, and it appears to be unused. Tempshill 23:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've never seen the point of this template from the beginning; it's useless, uninformative and confusing. I've had the idea of TFD'ing it in the back of my mind for months now. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 03:11, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unused --MarSch 15:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User en-!

This was apparently lost in VfD since 10 May 2005.--Nabla 23:00, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

(begin text moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User en-!)

If no one links to this page or uses the template, why is it here? --BradBeattie 13:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(end text moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User en-!)

Template:Limitedgeographicscope

Offensive POV. For a new user to come and see this slapped on their article would be a major turnoff. It also perpetuates an unsupported contention that there is systemic bias in Wikipedia. RickK 23:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. We can find ways to bridge the various geographical divides on Wikipedia, but this is not the way. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is phrased in a non-offensive way and it serves to make clear that an article can be limited in scope. I don't see what's POV here, let alone what's offensive. I've never seen it being slapped on brand new articles; it has done good work in making editors aware of the fact that many seemingly well-developed articles still can have large gaps. Just an hour ago (before this TFD nomination) I added it to Beekeeping, which is actually a rather nice article, but which unfortunately overlooks the history of bee-keeping and the phenomenon of bee-keeping in the non-Western world. Also, I fail to see why the inherent systemic bias of Wikipedia would be an 'unsupported contention'. I'm working in the field of African languages and linguistics. I could create and expand lots of articles every day, week after week, on subjects in that area that absolutely need to be covered by any encyclopedia. What is that, other than the clear result of systemic bias? — mark ✎ 23:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been claims by users on here that there is some type of geographical bias on here, that many articles are slanted in a American/English/Aussie/Canadian point of view. What Rick is saying that by slapping this template on various pages, it is saying that this idea is very true, thus turning off users who might come from areas where they might not have our viewpoint, so they will go away. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you really saying that users having a different viewpoint or coming from a different part of the world would go away because of this template? To the contrary, I think it encourages them to contribute to make the article more comprehensive in scope. — mark ✎ 00:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template should be used more often. For one, it warns readers that the article they are reading is centred on, well, usually the Western world. If anything, another template should be created, to allow for explanatory text. -- Ec5618 00:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, we don't need templates for everything. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 03:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bad idea. We already have too many cleanup-related mechanisms, and that means that something tagged for some-kind-of-cleanup is unlikely to become noticed. That is a bad thing. Radiant_* 09:02, May 25, 2005 (UTC) Convinced by the below, so keep. Radiant_* 13:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments
  1. Note that this template is tied to WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias; articles tagged for this are noticed by participants of this project. In other words, unlike some comments here suggest, this template is not floating around in space or going unnoticed.
  2. I also want to point out that there is a subtle difference from cleanup here: articles like Shopping cart, Water resources, or Sociology of clothing wouldn't seem in need to be tagged for cleanup. In fact, the articles look generally well written, properly wikified, referenced even — but the limitedgeographicscope tag is there to point out that the articles give the impression that the subject only occurs in, or is only relevant to, the United States or the Western world. This is important to point out, because sometimes editors are not sufficiently aware that they are writing for a much larger audience than the States or the broader Western world (cf. what Jimbo said about our goal). — mark ✎ 09:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV, and this can be slapped on half of Wikipedia articles. Grue 10:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to elaborate on how this is POV? Did you look at the three examples I gave above? Is it just a point of view that they are geographically limited in scope, or is it simply a matter of fact? Also, I don't think the fact that many articles are limited in scope is a valid reason to delete this template. (It might even be a reason to use it more widely.) — mark ✎ 11:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, helps to build NPOV. Kappa 10:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep! "Unsupported contention"???? Although I can't remember where they are, I've seen several notes on Wikipedia User pages where the users have compared Wikipedia coverage of various international topics to those in other encyclopedias, or have used other ways of measuring the Systemic Bias present on the Wikipedia. The template absolutely should be kept. I can think of dozens of more articles where the template needs to be added, where the text is only about the Western world (or sometimes only about the US and/or UK), but the topic itself is applicable to many places or cultures around the world. This template is only put onto an article's talk page, where it will only be seen by regular Wikipedia editors. BlankVerse ∅ 10:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a very useful template. In the same way that having several types of stub, having several types of cleanup tag help things get fixed - this is very different to wikification, for example. The articles its placed on can be very high quality with regard to the topic in one part of the world (and not necessarily just the western world, it could be anywhere) but signifcantly less so elsewhere. Thryduulf 11:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if you look at the pages it's applied to you'll see that Wikipedia has loads of pages full of systemic bias: I slapped it on gay rights (well, the talk page) yesterday because it hardly discusses anything outside the English speaking world. Joe D (t) 11:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Particularly useful as far as cleanup templates go and actively watched; trying to delete this is madness. Ambi 12:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only if its is placed on the talk page. - SimonP 12:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • The delete arguments are mostly bogus:
    • Those saying "delete, POV" - this is bogus - NPOV does not apply on talk pages, where this template should be used.
    • The other deletion reasons tend to be some vague notion about too many templates. I partly agree - but that doesn't mean this particular one is delete-worthy.
  • Finally, I think there is a small amount of deliberately disrupting WP to make a point in this nomination. Anyone who's interacted with RickK is likely to know that his attitude is not likely to sit comfortably with CSB project members attitudes. Part of the reason for this nomination was to take a pop at those people. Pcb21| Pete 13:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't have listed it, if the "limited worldview" POV weren't attached to it. This is a deliberate slap in the face to those editors who don't kowtow to the idea that everything American and/or Western is inherently bad. RickK 21:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • WP:NPOV requires that all viewpoints are represented fairly, both western and non-western. Kappa 01:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • RickK, you do realize you can edit templates too? I see nothing wrong with the current wording, but if you disagree, a better solution would be to propose a different one. - Mustafaa 03:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did. It was reverted and I am currently under a barrage of criticism for having done so. RickK 23:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well again, NPOV doesn't apply on talk pages. However the idea that supporters of this template think "everything American and/or Western is inherently bad" says more about you than the template. Pcb21| Pete 07:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense, the template is not saying "delete references to America because there's too many of them", it's saying "add references to the rest of the world because there aren't enough of them". Joe D (t) 10:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and keep on talk pages. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. To take one of many examples, an article which covers the history of circumcision without even mentioning African animist and Australian Aboriginal traditions of circumcision has a problem that needs addressing, even if its coverage of circumcision in parts of the world better known to most Wikipedians were featured-article quality. - Mustafaa 19:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It certainly helps with CSB. --Dmcdevit 19:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and of course only have it on talk pages. Wikiacc 19:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Ojw 23:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deeeeeelete. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 23:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • keepGeni 01:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Potentially very useful. Interpreting this as somehow "anti-western" is perverse. It doesn't even mention "the west". Peregrine981 03:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Encourages an international perspective on articles that may otherwise be any kind of centric (Eurocentric, Afrocentric, etc.) Ziggurat 05:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and strong agreement with Pcb21|. This is bordering on a fatuous listing, IMHO. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:01, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I do not understand how this template is anymore POV than {{cleanup}}. How User:RickK can claim that it "perpetuates an unsupported contention that there is systemic bias in Wikipedia" is beyond completely me. Perhaps he should look at the CSB Wikiproject and also explain why there are 92,100 pages[2] in english Wikipedia mentioning 'United States', only 21,000[3] mentioning China and 17,000[4] mentioning India. Unbelievable. TreveXtalk 19:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The template is not only useful for adding non-Western perspectives to articles, it is also useful for adding non-Northern perspectives. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 02:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't conceive of any good reason to delete this template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Without this, people will slap POV tags on articles that aren't classic POV, but rather needing expansion. This template fits nicely... more accurate than POV, more specific than NeedsExpansion. Feco 23:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

Template:Video Editing

A useless (category already served same purpose) and biased (named as "Video Editing" but only some of the NLEs are listed) navigational template. It also once messed up with the category:lists of software (now fixed). --minghong 11:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, would be better as a category. - SimonP 17:12, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Npovs

Yet another miniature version of an existing template (Template:NPOV) from User:Stevertigo. -- Netoholic @ 20:33, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Template:Protecteds, and also Template:Tfds

Barely in use, and redundant with Template:Protected and Template:Tfd respectively. The creator believes in smaller versions of existing templates. That may or may not be a good idea, but it should be discussed (for instance here, or on the village pump) before xe unilaterally forks off new templates. Radiant_* 19:01, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The creator has put up Wikipedia:Template standardisation/Sizes to discuss the layout of the templates. That sounds good to me, but I hold that we should not have two different templates for the same function. Radiant_* 19:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - The creator split these off because he has been repeatedly reverted (see history of Template:Tfd) and hasn't made a convincing arguement for change. I'm ready to file an RFC if he doesn't stop with this disruption. -- Netoholic @ 20:35, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
  • Keep I think Ive made a convincing argument, and Im glad that both of you have repeated these. I have not heard a convincing counterargument though —just assertions that 'verbosity is inherently superiour,' that 'there should be pre-consensus for anything to exist,' and that anything being Bold only applies if there is consensus —which is somehow best represented by the bottom feeding crew. Perhaps VFD pages serve a function other than giving people the kinky satisfaction of deleting something, but Im not quite sure what that is ATP. -SV|t 21:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dude, "being bold" is fine right up until someone tells you you're doing something wrong. After that, continuing to do the wrong thing and then invoking "being bold" is inappropriate. -- Netoholic @ 21:49, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
      • On the TFD template, there were four people sufficiently opposed to your proposal to revert, and I haven't seen any support as of yet. Being bold is laudable, but consensus appears opposed to this particular suggestion. As a side point, I oppose having two different template forks a lot stronger than I oppose your revision of the TFD template. The latter is a matter of taste, the former of principle. Radiant_* 07:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace for further discussion. -MarSch 14:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well Im glad that the idea of choice is being considered. - Again, the apparent 'there should be pre-consensus for anything to exist' argument is a silly one, particularly if it suggests a process bias where the munch crew is much more keen to delete than make changes, Dude. -SV|t 05:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody claims there should be pre-consensus for anything to exist. Simple fact is that you want the existing template changed, and at present the majority opposes. That has nothing to do with process bias. Radiant_* 16:22, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm relisting this at the top since it doesn't have consensus now, even if most other 'smaller' templates have had consensus to delete. Please disucss. Radiant_* 08:43, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete deliberate template forks. Inline on Template talk:Protected and Template talk:Tfd first, though. —Korath (Talk) 15:30, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We should have one template per administrative purpose. Feel free to discuss on the original template's talk; there's certainly an argument to be made for more concise/less visually obtrusive templates. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all -- it's much wiser to put up variants than to edit war over the template. Let's see how the new versions do. — Xiong熊talk* 10:21, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

All old VFD pages in Template namespace

Listed at [5], [6], and [7]. Maybe they should be all moved somewhere, or archived, but I believe the precedent on this page is to delete individual pages. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Has been mentioned before, and I do think most people support the deletion; however given the sheer amount of work this would be best done by bot. It's been listed at Wikipedia:Bot requests for awhile, but nobody much seems ever to respond to that. Maybe I'll just have to ask someone personally if he has spare time. Radiant_* 06:59, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Revenue

I created this template to expedite the entry of revenue into the company infobox. I did not realize however, that one cannot pass a template as a parameter because the curly braces interfere with the parent template. This template is now useless. — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 16:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Speedied BrokenSegue 23:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Sub-stub and Template:Substubs

Wow...deja vu! These two are currently redirects to Template:Stub, but the first is only used on four articles (soon to be recategorised) and the second isn't used at all. Both invite the risk of someone restoring Template:Substub - which actually happened (and was speedy-deleted) earlier today. Grutness...wha? 11:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Table suffixes

Since it has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetic (nor can I conceive of one) this should be changed to a category instead. Radiant_* 09:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, better served by a category. - SimonP 17:13, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it makes browsing between different lists of suffixes easier. Gerrit CUTEDH 10:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally don't like long template with article series, but this one is fairly concise. Keep. User:Docu
  • Keep for above reasons. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if a category is going to replace it. — Timwi 10:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with the reasons given by Gerritholl and Docu. Lexor|Talk 11:23, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems that most of the articles on this templates are linkfarms and thus really categories. One also redirected to List of English suffixes. I think that each suffix should be a subcategory of . That would then nicely collect all links which are now in this template. Thus it can then be deleted.--MarSch 15:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - English has lots of suffixes. I don't see why these particular ones merit a showcase, or really what they have in common. A category and/or list is the way to go. FreplySpang (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hrwiki

Advertising for a non-Wikipedia partner. Why should Homestar Runner get such extravagant publicity? Add the link to the Wiki in the External Links. RickK 05:58, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: don't mix up Memory Alpha and Homestar Runner Wiki. MA is the biggest Wiki for fictive terms in the world, HRW is much smaller and Homestar Runner Cartoons are not as famous as Star Trek is. And MA is not commercial. --Memory 22:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do support your notion that the MemoryAlpha wiki is a more "pressing" example for helping to set policy than the Homestar Runner wiki. But regarding a "commercial" comparison: (1) Homestar Runner gives away all episodes/content for free (Star Trek doesn't), and (2) the homestar runner wiki has fully transparent accounting and no advertising whatsoever, not even from the host (MA has "Ads by Gooooogle"). Metaeducation 11:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know that... but the name could well have been a template saying something like "This article has been translated approximately from an article in the Croation Wikipedia - please help us by correcting any grammatical errors." Grutness...wha?
  • I (metaeducation) made this template because there's crazy duplication between the homestar runner wiki and the wikipedia. I'd like people to review the outlined issues in [talk page] for the template before commenting. I think that keeping it as a template rather than a simple link is ideal for several reasons, though whether the template renders as a graphical ad is a separate concern. If there is something HRwiki has to do in order to become a sister project, can we investigate that process?
    • If HRWiki wants to become a sister project, I'd suggest they take the matter up with Jimbo, or with the Board. If not, then they really have no business claiming that they are. Delete for now. Radiant_* 14:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although I personally don't think that there should be any templates like this, we already have at least one other in Template:Memoryalpha. There are going to be more and more special topic Wikis on the internet which will have some overlap with the Wikipedia, and so there will probably be more templates created that are similar to this one. Perhaps this is something that needs to be decided by consensus, rather than a vote at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 19:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Deleteth. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 20:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Leave this up to the people working on articles about Homestar Runner. Once they decide to orphan this template we should delete it. --MarSch 12:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless Memoryalpha is deleted. Consistency. Grue 13:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; allowing this would allow everyone to advertise here. -- Ec5618 13:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is what the external links section is for (if the relevant article is good enough). --W(t) 15:27, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  • Keep but downsize. This shouldn't get a special box like Wikimedia sister projects' templates do. It should be a single-line link, just like Template:imdb_name and numerous others. This is obviously useful if the ___domain name or URL scheme for the site were to change. Also, as I have said before about Template:Memoryalpha, this type of template is preferable to using simple hyperlinks because this creates an easy-to-detect explicit connection between two databases that could potentially be used in a JOIN operation at some point in the future. ~leif ☺ (talk) 20:31, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Old Business
Everything from here on down is old business; the current 5-day review period has ended. Everything from this point on should be dealt with and removed from the workflow. Move this marker up as time passes.

Holding Cell

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

To orphan

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

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

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.

  • None at present

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.

Template:Manga

Listings to log

Templates with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=14358445"