Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

Template:Sfd-current Please put new listings under today's date 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, as per the TFD Instructions.

July 22

Template:Quentin Tarantino films

Another directors template, incomplete at that, that should be categorified and deleted. ∞Who ?¿? 18:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for consistency. Although in favour of these in general, if Hitch, Kubrick and Spielberg had to go, then so does this. The JPS 19:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Phoenix2 20:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Categorify and delete per nominator. -Splash 22:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asiamiles

This seems very similar to the WorldPerks template, which reached a consensus of categorize and delete. The same should be done with this. Dbinder 16:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rikondakizoc

Looks like a nonsense template created by an anon IP with a minor history of creating nonsense articles. --Icelight 15:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:WP:RM

I'm not sure I understand the point of this template. It's no less simple than the current procedure at WP:RM, has an obscure name and isn't documented anywhere. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmm. I've tested the template, and it's fairly simple to use. It's a minor shortcut for the current procedure is all. However, it doesn't seem too widely used, unless people are using subst. It's a tough call, but I do think that some documentation somewhere is in order. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 11:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, it's a nice shortcut, and according to the Wikipedia talk:Requested moves page, it's supposed to be used with subst. People forget to place the TALK page onto the listings as it is at WP:RM, so you can't instantly give an opinion right now. 132.205.44.43 14:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and redirect it to template:move. Dunc|☺ 14:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not equivalent to {{move}}. That template is added to talk pages, this is meant to simplify entering move requests on WP:RM.
Keep. Harmless. If people use it, then okay, if not, then also okay. Since it should be used with subst: obviously it is fairly impossible to know whether or not people are using it. Dragons flight 15:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

July 21

Template:Charleston County School of the Arts infobox

Template for a single school article, should be substed, there is no reason for this code to be in a template rather than the article. Joe D (t) 16:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A single use template can be acceptable as a seperate entity if including it into the text of the page directly would interfere with editting the main page because of the size or complexity of the template's content. For example: {{Timeline Geological Timescale}}, {{Planet Infobox/Earth}}. This is fairly marginal on those grounds. No vote yet. Dragons flight 20:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
The size and complexity of this particular template are only a concern because the template is needlessly large and complex. It was originally written in HTML; just by running it through this converter, I trimmed about 200 bytes off, and made it noticably more editable. Why a single school needs its own huge, fancy infobox is beyond me. Subst and Delete. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikt

A keystroke-saving template that doesn't. "{{subst:wikt|whatever}}" is five more characters than "[[wikt:whatever|]]", and this template shouldn't ever be used unsubsted. —Cryptic (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect to {{wiktionary}} (which superceded this) seems to be have been removed. May as well delete, as unused. Pcb21| Pete 16:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately confuses the issue of links into Wiktionary by addition of a cryptically titled template. Further, it is my understanding that even {{wiktionary}} is now considered to be obsolete owing to the switching off of the article-title capitalisation rule in the software implementation for the project; {{wiktionarypar}} is the favored template for use now. On a side note, I would be suprised if the original template does not undergo some change to accomodate this software environment change. Courtland 02:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-school

This is quite a strange one. Firsty somebody added a category totally unrelated to cleanup, somebody else has given it the talk page style, and somebody else has been going around systematically adding it to pages that blatantly have no need for cleanup (this was probabaly just petty vandalism, they've been removing stub templates from stubs as well, but I'm not sure). I've been removing it from all the pages that have no need for it, but by the time I'm done there will be such a tiny number of articles in the category that it will be pointless having it, especially since we can clean them all up in a couple of minutes. Joe D (t) 15:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, serves a useful purpose. JYolkowski // talk 21:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is used to identify school-related articles which need to be improved as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Bahn Mi 22:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but belongs on the talk page. - SimonP 23:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Useful category Klonimus 23:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You know what sounds good right now? A tall glass of refreshing iced tea. I'm firsty. —RaD Man (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to template:vfd and list them on that page. Dunc|☺ 14:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to template:vfd as above. --Carnildo 21:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AD, Template:CE, Template:BCE and Template:BC

Redirect to the below - thus they have all the problems of ADCE and BCEBC, PLUS the fact that they're metatemplates. Strong delete. R adiant _>|< 12:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Point of information: These "metatemplates" cause no more or less problems than the "regular" templates they direct to. It is the number of pages on which a template (perhaps indirectly) appears that is the issue in terms of load. Pcb21| Pete 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly. A template that includes another template (such as these four) causes twice the load of a template that does not. R adiant _>|< 12:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. See below. Pcb21| Pete 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no idea what your templates are trying to achieve, Pete, but, I think, it's time to let this debate rest a while. Agree with Radiant, jguk 12:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ADCE and Template:BCEBC

These templates are very bad for they insert the same information into the text thrice! It doesn't matter that one doesn't see it only once in a CSS-enabled browser, becaused that's just one way of reading Wikipedia.

If such a thing as AD/CE user preference was really needed—there's no consensus about that AFAIK and no preference in the MoS—it would have to be done in the Wikimedia software itself. Christoph Päper 12:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, instruction creep, doesn't save time, confusing, and barely in use. Radiant_>|< 12:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Instruction creep? Where is the instruction?
- Save time? Where the heck did anyone say it saves time? It is a device to implement a user preference.
- Confusing? Delete all templates?
- Barely in use? Well ok this is true, but is not a criteria for deletion.

Keep - if it displayed three times then the CSS sheets have been broken. Fix them. Don't delete a solution to an issue that caused a create deal of debate just a month or two ago. Of course a software solution is preferable, but let's see your code. Pcb21| Pete 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't fix the CSS a) if CSS is not in use b) it's user CSS. --EnSamulili 19:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record - by instruction creep I meant that the AD/CE proposal was voted down as such, and that I believe you can't feasibly expect article writers to adopt to this relatively non-straightforward template. It would make editing those articles containing it more confusing. Radiant_>|< 12:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - It is wrong that we expect to editors to link dates as [[day month]] [[year]] rather than the actually useful [[day month year]] simply to accommodate user preferences and then do not use these - which allow user preference without a similar drawback. Their use is intuitively obvious when you seen them in article, unlike many other templates., so I reject your characterization. Pcb21| Pete 16:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea what your templates are trying to achieve, Pete, but, I think, it's time to let this debate rest a while. Agree with Radiant, jguk 12:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it really a good idea to be advocating the deletion of something that you haven't tried to understand? Pcb21| Pete 16:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless IMO, when you could type it yourself, AND with a wikilink which this does not (in this revision) allow. And if at some point in time we grow so litigious that some users want to see BC/AD and others BCE/CE, we'll make it a preferences option like the date/time rewriting. Garrett^Talk 14:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is unreasonable for editors to be expected to remember and use CSS class names themselves, remembering a template is much easier. Sounds a bit like you also don't understand the purpose (admittedly if you are not using monobook this is understandable). See User:Pcb21/ADCE_testing_page for a little more detail. Pcb21| Pete 16:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleverly implements the preference option Garrett mentions. —Cryptic (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wi

"We don't have an article on this topic but Wiktionary does". While it's a good idea in principle, there are three things wrong with this template (apart from the fact that it isn't widely in use).

Since Wikipedia articles start with a capital and Wiktionary articles do not, the link will generally not work
If we were to add a parameter to this to prevent problem 1, it would be redundant with Template:Wikt.
Any article that consists of only a link to Wiktionary should instead be 1) expanded, or 2) redirected to a similar article that explains it (e.g. redirect a verb to a noun).

R adiant _>|< 10:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with the above reasons. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 13:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Re 1) and 2) Wiktionary redirects from caps to non-caps as a matter of course. Re 3). These aren't articles. These are Wikipedia:Soft redirects. The acceptability of these has been widely discussed and accepted in the past. There are many cases where they are the most natual thing to do. Pcb21| Pete 14:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On top of that, I've just changed the implementation that helps when redirects are not in place. Pcb21| Pete 15:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary does not redirect from either capitalization to the other as a matter of course. Whilst redirects exist for many existing articles, that is merely a side-effect of a conversion script that was run once, just after the switch-over, to move the existing articles at the time to lowercase. Uncle G 16:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've switched the template to point to the search anyway, so the moot is point. Pcb21| Pete 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Point 1 is simply wrong since Wiktionary uses bots to make redirects from a capitalized to a lowercase form, unless a seperate entry exists at the capitalized form. (see below) So in nearly all cases the link should work. For Point 2, {{wi}} is much prettier than {{wikt}} as it should be since it is intended for otherwise blank pages. For point 3, one intended usage is to leave {{wi}} on pages that have been VFDed with the consensus of "move to wiktionary". This allows a useful link to exist at pages that have never been more than a dictdef. I know I have seen this used on a number of pages beyond what appears on "what links here", so I can only assume that it has been being used with subst:, or that many of those pages subsequently grew up into full wikipedia articles. Regardless, this should not be deleted. Dragons flight 15:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
There are no 'bots performing such redirects at Wiktionary, and there never have been any. The redirects that now exist were created by a one-time process that didn't involve a 'bot. To my knowledge, there is only one 'bot running on Wiktionary at the moment, and it is performing interwiki links. (The few other 'bots that used to run were broken by the MediaWiki upgrade.) Also note that there is at least one user who systematically removes this template. Uncle G 16:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who is systematically removing this template? Pcb21| Pete 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that Uncle G, though I dare say I would wonder why they aren't redirecting uppercase to lowercase, and getting a bot to run on 1.5 is not that hard. Regardless, Pcb's change to directing at the search page would still work consistently, yes? Dragons flight 20:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I have long disliked this template as it is so often applied to titles that actually deserve articles or disambig pages. - SimonP 17:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
The template is already worded to encourage users to replace it if a internal-to-Wikipedia solution is better. Educating users about the intended use is much more useful than deleting the genuine uses. Pcb21| Pete 22:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but maybe reword a bit, I think this is the best solution for pages that people keep creating but will never be more than dicdefs. JYolkowski // talk 21:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it cuts down on VFDs for dicdefs. Maybe a future version of mediawiki will have a better soft-redirect solution. Eliot 20:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. If it does cut down on vfd listings, it's because instead of actually deleting a bad, potential-free dicdef, this is just slapped on instead. This was originally meant to prevent recreations of common words, like under and carry. In that regard, I think {{deletedpage}} does the same making this redundant. It has also been misused and abused on pages that should be just delete outright, and aren't common enough to warrant any danger of recreation. I find it very unlikely that Jerrybuild needs this at all. Lastly, since its entire purpose is to be an interwiki link, or redirect, it is effectively no content. This does not make a valid encyclopedia article, in fact, it discourages one if its possible. It's interesting to note that the result of this template is to create an article that perfectly fits the CSD: "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, or rephrasing of the title." --Dmcdevit·t 21:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

~~Template:Religious persecution~~
~~A collection of mainly red links. Article series only indicated by similarity in name, while historically not linked. JFW | T@lk 08:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Keep, because the only effective way to counter bias is to have a systematical treatment of all persecutions perpetrated by and against members of religious denominations. This template seems to be an effective means to come to such a treatment. --Germen 09:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Pending results on VFD for Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews - All in/all out--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not a meaningful ordering for a template. R adiant _>|< 10:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as Radiant. Axon 11:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pending per Irishpunktom, but keep if either of those articles is kept. Note that existing "Persecution of ..." articles could be linked to instead of the non-existant "Religous persecution of ..." articles planned for this abortive series. OTOH, I made this into a navigation bar, and it was not all that much work. Hence my support of deleting if it becomes unpopulated by active articles. --EMS | Talk 15:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have updated the template to activate the "Religous persecution of ..." links. I leave it up to others to decide if that it enough to justify preserving the template. --EMS | Talk 16:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize with the others Septentrionalis 15:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Historically unlinked phenomena. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the idea that religous persecution instances are historically unliked to be an odd view. Often the same event can be listed under a "Perseuction by ..." and a "Persuction of ..." article. There therefore is historical linkage as well as this set of articles (both real and proposed) being intended to form a series.
I find this template useful as both a navigation bar and a way for people to see the proposed breadth of the series. I feel that it should be retained if any part of the "Religous persecution of ..." series is. (Note that I have already voted above.) --EMS | Talk 20:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful template. Agree with Germen. Klonimus 23:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't we have one of these before, and it already got deleted once? --Michael Snow 06:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we did. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Template:Persecution. Reasons still apply, I would say. If the articles survive Votes for deletion, use categories, not a template. --Michael Snow 06:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alternately if it survives VFD, remove the inherently POV "persecuting group" listings, and only include the "persecuted group" articles. Kaibabsquirrel 00:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was created primarily for the persecuting group listings, and has not been integrated into the persecuted group listings.
I am personally coming to wonder about the criteria used to justify the deletion. If its use is accepted by the editors of the listed articles, then it seems to me that the template itself should be retained. After all, I could respond to the deletion by manually creating the navigation bars in the subject pages. Then the function intended for the template would still exist, albeit will all of the headaches inherent in duplicated code.
All in all, I am a little amazed by this part of the process, where this template seems to be as much a victim of its functionality as anything else. At the least, I wonder how fair it is that all of the articles which use this template have big VfD notices on them while the template has a much smaller delete notice that is almost invisible by comparison. The result is that many people who may have an opinion on this matter do not know that it is even an issue. --EMS | Talk 01:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Harry Potter spoiler~~
Delete: This is obselete, even before it was created. We have happily used {{spoiler}} for Episode III and various other big-name books/movies without issue, I don't see why this is any more useful than {{spoiler}} is. Garrett^Talk 03:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
maybe leave it for a couple of weeks, then delete it and revert to {{Spoiler}}. I think there are many people who will be very annoyed if they find out and the {{Spoiler}} warning may be not noticible enough for newbies. As for Episode III, I think everyone knew what was gonna happen in that. Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 03:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I love the Harry Potter series, but the attitude of the people who write about it here is beginning to annoy. The template is needlessly specific. Superm401 | Talk 03:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete and subst. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete a tad too specific. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep for at least another week or so. This formatting popped up independently on multiple pages, and was reverted after being converted to the normal spoiler template. I created it to ease transition to {{spoiler}} once things slow down on these articles, as clearly explained on its talk page. Yes, it's overspecific, and large, and annoying, and redundant, but it's a much better solution than having this code on those pages instead of a template. Absolutely should not be substed in its current form, as TBSDY suggests - when deleted, it should be replaced with {{spoiler}}. —Cryptic (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant. --[[User:JonMoore|—Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 05:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. R adiant _>|< 08:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 13:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep until 1 August, per Cryptic. Then Delete. If we create a Template: New publication spoiler, less visible than this one, but more visible than Template:spoiler, we can avoid this discussion next year. Septentrionalis 15:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess it could be made a bit smaller, but it is very helpful. I had just finished HBP and was looking at the Wizarding World page. It spoils who dies right there! I thought that the regular spoiler template meant it only had spoilers for the first five books.Keep for at least three more weeks. It takes some people a long time to read the books. It can get smaller over that time.Phoenix Song 16:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace all instances of this template with {{spoiler}}. I don't think HBP-specific spoilers require their own templates. --Death phoenix 16:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have our lovely Template:Spoiler! --Neigel von Teighen 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and use {{spoiler-about}} to make it clar that the spoilers are for the new work, where this might not be obvious. DES 18:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Book 6 was spoiled for me when carlessly reading an article that just had a regular spoiler warning. I was not expecting, that the information was updated so soon and that such spoilers would be at places where I did not expect them (of course I would not have read sections that were specific to book 6). Leave it for one or two weeks, that should be enough to warn other careless readers like me. -- 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete - waaaay too specific. We do not need a template just for spoilers in one book series. Find a better way of doing it. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The regular spoiler warning is sufficient. Anyone that claims otherwise is, in my opinion, such a careless reader then they would probably have missed half the plot reading the book anyway. --Colin Angus Mackay 22:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regular spoiler warning sufficient. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:18, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

Keep. The generic spoiler warning is actually insufficient in my interpretation. zen master T 07:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind either way, as long as you remove all the old spoiler warnings for the previous books. 14:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Do we really want or need 5,000 different spoiler templates? If we keep this one, why not create a new one for every article? Makes no sense and defeats the entire purpose of a template. Gblaz 15:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand the point in deleting a template just because it's narrow. We may be only able to use it for an article or two, but is it really taking up space on the site or something? --SeizureDog 16:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least use the {{Spoiler}} format. violet/riga (t) 17:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. {{spoiler}} works fine. -Hmib 17:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed that this is too specific; apologies to the Harry Potter fans but if this template survives then that would be considered tacit support for dozens, neh hundreds of topic-specific spoilers, which I doubt many people would find beneficial. Courtland 01:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Comments: Regarding the concern that this template should be retained until a specified time ... it might be appropriate to use {{Current}} or create a template that deals specifically with time-sensitive spoiler information. With regard to immediate obsolescence, information on the content of works that have not yet been published isn't really something we should encourage for inclusion in an encyclopedia, in my opinion, as it is not descriptive but (in many cases) speculative or (in some cases) ill-gotten (i.e. from a stolen copy of a screenplay published on the internet, for instance .. talking in general terms here and not specifically on the Harry Potter matter). Courtland 02:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
~~July 20~~
~~Template:ImportantLabeledEquation~~
A dotted box style for displaying equations. The mathematicians over here seem to think that an equation is better off without any box around it. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Dotted_framebox_around_formulas (that was discussed in other places too). Oleg Alexandrov 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oleg Alexandrov 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of aesthetic reasons. --R.Koot 18:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete linas 22:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~July 19~~
~~Template:Sopranos~~
~~A very long list of Sopranos character articles, redundant with Category:The Sopranos characters. This template is rather large, obtrusive, and unnecessary. Postdlf 19:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete, category is far more useful. - SimonP 22:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, agree with Postdlf / SimonP. -- Lochaber 13:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Europe~~
Redundant with Category:European countries. The same appearance objections as with Template:UNmembers below. The chief result of this template is an interminable poll over the question of whether Turkey, Armenia, and Kazakhstan are European. (Kazakhstan may never be settled.) m:Polls are evil, but this is more evil than most; the various nationalists have been roused to block voting. Let us be done with it. Septentrionalis 17:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a test vote. The other continents can be discussed if this vote is delete and the grounds are not specifically European. Septentrionalis
Delete [I like Template:Canada ties; but its effect would be to make Template:North America doubly redundant, except perhaps as a merge with North America (which I would not oppose). 19:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)] Septentrionalis 17:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alinor 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) correction of the introduction - the Turkey question is closed since a long time ago. 10 other states/issues are also closed - conclusion reached. There remain only 3 to close. Pools may be unwiki, but the template is usefull on its own and it should not be deleted becouse of a minor issue with 2 remaining unsettled states (and the Flag). The place for the pool/discussion is also not on the template-page (preferable places: pages for each disputable country, and also here), but is already there for a long time. A category or a list (as in the main Europe article) is not the same as a template - the template is visualizing in a much more compact way the whole information and it has other advantages. To summurize: 'keep' the template; eventualy 'move' the discussion and/or the pool; eventualy 'cancel' the pool.[reply]

Delete this is exactly what categories and lists are for. Note that the debate over which countries are part of eutope could just as well take place over a category or a list -- this template would be a bad idea if there were no debate at all -- a similer template for States of the US should likewise be deleted. DES 18:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And the debate might not be taking place. Kazakhstan is in Category:European countries and Category:Asian countries. If the argument did occur, it would be part of writing the article, as it ought to be. Septentrionalis 18:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a more general discussion of a complete overhaul of the country footers underway at Talk:United Kingdom, Talk:Canada, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. This discussion should be finished before any templates are deleted. - SimonP 18:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Perfectly OK template needed in some places. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 22:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete iff other contintent-templates are also deleted. If this nomination has been motivated by the poll precedings, then I might like to point out that the very same problems may be encountered by a category - which to include and exclude. -- Joolz 02:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because concept is reasonable whether it lists all members or only identifies membership. Whether implemented as a template or category, membership indicator is OK. And I won't vote to delete as a "test" of some sort when that should be resolved through other process than deletion through a backwater vote. (SEWilco 05:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: There is no notice on the template, it was removed. (SEWilco 05:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, one template for this purpose is useful but two is not. No forks please. R adiant _>|< 09:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment, where is the second template? -- Joolz 12:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry, I misread the heading. Nevertheless, as this has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetical, I hold that the category is more appropriate. R adiant _>|< 14:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The only problem with the category is it can't explain that some countries are not geographically in Europe, nor that some are only partly in Europe, which the template can do. -- Joolz 18:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But categories are doing this. Turkey is in a subcategory of both Category:European countries and Category:Asian countries; and has Category:bicontinental countries as a warning marker. If this, with the article text, is not specific enough, notes can be added to the category pages, more legibly than to the Template. Septentrionalis 15:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, type-boxes are useful. James F. (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Useful. Nightstallion 07:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replace all similar templates with a single {{Countries}} template (more compact than the present one of that name) listing all countries worldwide. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template is useful --*drew 14:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Templates and categories are not at war. "There can be only one!" is not a truism. Un focused 22:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the countries of Europe are easily found elsewhere and because it clogs up some pages, Sweden has two templates at the bottom besides this. --Fred-Chess 18:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Calculus2~~
Old version of Template:Calculus. I doubt it is worth keeping it. If somebody would really like to see how the calculus template looks like, one could see the page history. Oleg Alexandrov 13:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 13:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obsolete. --R.Koot 01:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Atten and Template:Atten lite~~
Delete created by an anon, and unused; also broken. Look like a suggestion for something to be used over at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, but none of those pages have a table that needs this. I left a message on the anon's talk page just in case.-Splash 00:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Additional note: there are some uses of {{arttalk}} which give a visually similar effect, and so the nominees are also redundant with this. -Splash 01:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Redirect the lot of them to Template:Attention. Or delete for all I care. R adiant _>|< 09:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)~~
~~Template:UNmembers~~
Delete: Something that is much better served as a category. Only used on two articles. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The information in there is useful, but just looking at the behemoth is scary. ~~Categorify or listify~~, then delete. -- Titoxd 05:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already have United Nations member states. Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
If that's done already, then delete. -- Titoxd 23:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Huge template that really doesn't add anything to either of the articles it's found in. Since, with the notable exception of the Holy See, all UN-recognized nations are now full UN members, this template is redundant. Tomer ^TALK 05:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Categorify and Delete: I think there may be an implementation problem (over 200 member states) but we can have subcats for the purpose. Septentrionalis 17:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nearly all countries are UN members, it's almost like having a Template:Countries. I would suggest that it would be better if a template listed countries which aren't UN members, which is considerably fewer. -- Joolz 02:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What's the point in having a category which will include 99.9% of countries? The only places without UN membership are Vatican City and... err, possibly Somaliland/Somalia, I can't think of anywhere else ofhand (maybe Western Sahara too) -- Joolz 18:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~July 18~~
~~Template:USNavyAwards~~
~~Previously only linked to one article. Really no point to keeping it. Actual table has been copied to that article. K1Bond007 22:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)~~
Delete author made good use of the table on article, no furhter need for template. ∞Who ?¿? 23:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:MathematicsCOTW~~
~~This template is obsolete. It is replaced by Template:Wikiportal:Mathematics/Opentask. --R.Koot 18:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Speedy delete. Simple housekeeping rather than a decision on content or display. Pcb21| Pete 21:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete, obsolete. -- Titoxd 05:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:Wikiportal:Mathematics/Opentask. BTW, this template is really ugly, I suggest something like Template:GCOTW. See below: -Hyad 08:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

~~This article is a candidate for Gaming Collaboration of the week. Please visit that page to support or comment on the nomination.~~
Have you looked at the new template? It is already merged :). And it's meant to be put on the WikiPortal, there's a different template for articles (which looks like the one above). --R.Koot 11:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obsolete. R adiant _>|< 11:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I find the new Template:Wikiportal:Mathematics/Opentask ugly like hell though. I prefer something as simple as

This is the current mathematics collaboration of the week! You are encouraged to edit this article, so that it may meet a higher standard of quality.
~~Oleg Alexandrov 12:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Israel and Template:Israel infobox~~
~~Template:Infobox Country is used in the Israel article instead. 500LL 15:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)~~
Speedy delete - there are a lot of these one-use country infoboxes, and we shouldn't delay deleting them as they migrate to Template:Infobox Country. -- Netoholic @ 18:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and netoholic. Tomer ^TALK 05:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Listdev (and Category:Incomplete lists)~~
In the discussion at Wikipedia:Template locations, several people expressed the opinion that there may not be a point to this template, as just about any list in Wikipedia can be expanded and developed. Therefore, I'm listing it here. R adiant _>|< 14:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. according to Template_talk:Listdev, this template was up for deletion previously in March 2005. User:Ceyockey
Keep Useful note to readers. In addition, as Courtland suggested, a Comprehensive List template and category should be added.

Mild Keep There are lists of clearly enumerable items which ought to be complete. A hypothetical "List of all US Presidents" for example, should be complete, and if it isn't, a tag like this should warn the reader not to rely on it and encourage any editor to complete it. On the other hand List of legal terms or a hypothetical "List of Historical Novels" by their nature can't be expected to be complete, and certianly can't be proved compelete at any specific point. This tag should be reserved for soerts of list that a reader would naturally expect to be complete an even definitave, and warn when they fail of this standard. It should not be used on open-ended lists. With this limitation (which should be documeted on a proper talk page) I think the tempalte is of value I assume the category is simply of pages that havbe been tagged with the template. If so, the same remarks would apply. DES 14:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as above. While it shouldn't be used for open-ended lists, it's a useful tool to let people know that a (generally) static list is not complete, such as the list of SkyTeam Destinations. Dbinder 14:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many lists on Wikipedia are enumerable, but incomplete. Kaldari 17:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep--Striver 03:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added a usage note to the template's talk page, and i hav started to remove it from open-ended lists, which seem to be the majority of the places it has been used, of which there are over 2200. DES 18:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An "incomplete list" should be regarded as a list equivalent of a stub. – Kpalion (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep I remember seeing another similar template up for deleteion vote about a month or two ago and the result was to use this one and delete the other. slambo 18:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC) -- I just remembered, the previous vote was over Template:Expand list which is now a redirect to this template. slambo 18:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is a very useful template. --[[User:JonMoore|—Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 19:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is useful when the reader might otherwise be justified in assuming that the list is complete when in reality it is not. Lists which are only of "notable" entries would not necessarily need the template, but it really comes in handy otherwise. --Baron Larf 21:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Currently written as if it should be used on article pages. But this sort of "please expand" information is clearly for editors, so should go on talk page. Second choice: Reword and limit to talk pages only. Pcb21| Pete 21:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By the way, there is the Dynamic list template (see Category:Dynamic lists) for the "incomplete and will never be complete lists". — Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Regardless of whether a list will ever be complete, users can still be informed that the list is incomplete and that they can help expand it. BRIAN0918 23:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Useful for works in progress. Walkerma 23:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful template. Guettarda 23:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The lack of completeness in a list is an important piece of information with respect to interpretation of the context and validity of the list. However, considering the comments about most lists being incomplete (those which are not in the dynamic-class, that is), maybe we should consider making a replacement template ... {{completelist}} => "to the best of our knowledge, this list is exhaustive and complete" ... which would be used on far fewer lists and would have a higher semantic value. Just a thought. Until such a debate has been raised and born fruit, let's keep this template or one of its cousins ({{expand list}}, for instance). Also, I think this template should appear in the article space and not in the discussion space (referring to some comments in an earlier delete vote above). Courtland 23:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep This template is in use by many thousands of articles, justifying it's usefulness. It also welcomes new visitors to add new information to the article. --Alterego 01:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Very useful for many articles. --Arbiteroftruth 03:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful for pointing out lists that are woefully incomplete and encouraging edits. --Kzollman 04:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep I do admit though that almost every list of whatever has the potential for needing further edits.

Keep. extremely useful. Not sure who made the last edit, but it's not strictly true - many lists have a finite number of possible members. A list of 20th century heads of state may be incomplete on Wikipedia (if such a list exists), but it is a finite list. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No need to even justify. (rolling eyes). Nelson Ricardo 08:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Very useful. jni 08:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly. Dmn / Դմն 10:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Brian0918 mentioned, while some lists may never be truly completed, there is a difference between "almost complete" and "woefully incomplete"; despite the wording, I think the template serves to stave off the latter pretty well.--Mitsukai 13:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is useful for lists whose members can be determined with a reasonable amount of effort. Obviously it doesn't apply for open-ended lists. Superm401 | Talk 19:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Very useful. Some lists can be completed. --Locarno 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful for lists that have a finite member count, but where the original author e.g. did not have the knowledge to supply all members. Both useful for readers (as a warning) and editors (as an encouragement). Perhaps even useful for some not-so finite lists. For instance a hypothetical list Norse mythical beings featuring only "Verðandi" could perhaps use this template. Shinobu 22:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sarge Baldy 23:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Kee[ ovbiously. Dunc|☺ 23:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it does serve a useful purpose. --Shawn K. Quinn 01:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Useful. For example, see its use at the article on My System, where it is used to mark a list of book editions. — Bcat (talk | email) 02:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Useful for many of the above reasons. ~ Dpr 05:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all newbies realize they can edit wikipedia, and many lists are incomplete, thus this list is useful for at least two reasons. -JCarriker 12:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. While it is certainly true that almost any article can be updated there are specific lists which are in obvious need of expansion. MadMax 23:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is such a thing as a complete list (czars of Russia), ergo, there is such a thing as an incomplete list. Just because incomplete is in the majority doesn't mean it should be taken for granted that all lists are complete. jengod 18:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Many people might not know all of something, but would at least like to start the list. First, the template alerts other people who visit the article that the list is incomplete; second, the category alerts other people browsing for work that that list is incomplete. For example, if a person knew most of the enemy names from Super Mario RPG, but not all, yet wanted to make a list of them, he/she could make the list of whatever he/she knows and then let someone else finish it. (Whether or not a SMRPG enemy list would be suitable on Wikipedia is another story, but that's just an example.) Glenn Magus Harvey 03:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cburnett 06:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Unprotected~~
This template seems to be well intentioned, but looks like unnecessary clutter for the reader and contains information that could just as well be placed in a comment at the top of the article containing advice for editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I support a delete, but I do think that it may be slightly useful in a few articles. Anyways, it's not worth it. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete slightly useful, but I support a note made by the admin on the talk page, at the time of unprotecting. This template could be userfied for those purposes. ∞Who ?¿? 23:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could actually be harmful. Why bring other users into an edit war that's dying down? If there is still a dispute, {{NPOV}} would be appropriate. Otherwise, drop it. Superm401 | Talk 20:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete pointless. Dunc|☺ 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~July 17~~
~~Template:Begin code and Template:End code~~
Delete: Both are used on a single page: Wikipedia:WikiProject C/Syntax highlighting, an apparently stillborn idea from nearly a year ago. The template's creator, User:Eequor, is the single edit to both the page and the templates. -Splash 20:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not exactly cluttering namespace that might be used for other things, it's not likely to cause trouble if it's used, and it's a good idea. That it is, at present, unused and appears to be part of an abandoned project is not sufficient reason to delete it. It's not hurting anything, so why get rid of it? Kurt Weber 21:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because the deletion criteria say that not being used is a reason to delete. -Splash 21:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm going to propose that that be deleted from the deletion criteria; could we suspend this TfD until a decision is reached on that proposal? If not then I'll just archive them in my userspace, and then if the proposal passes (and "it's not being used" is the only significant argument for deleting these particular templates) Kurt Weber 21:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't really just artbitrarily suspend policy. You might want to make your proposal at either the Village Pump or the instruction page's talk page. -Splash 21:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I already made the proposal...and I wasn't talking about "suspending policy", just suspending this particular vote until a yes or no is reached on the particular proposal I made. Kurt Weber 21:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt, where did you make this proposal? Tomer ^TALK 06:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Found at [1]. Tomer ^TALK 02:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep "Being unused" may be a sufficient reson for deletion, it is not a necessary reson -- in other words although we can delete soemthing unused, we don't have to. i find Kurt Weber's arguments above persuasive. DES 22:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The syntax highlighting proposal doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. In fact, the entire Wikipedia:WikiProject C doesn't seem to be all that active. On top of that, I don't think templates are going to be a good way to bring syntax highlighting to Wikipedia. This is something that (as far as I can see) could only be implemented effectively with new wiki markup. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Any programming code that is used in relation to an article should appear on Wikimedia Commons anyhow. --JB Adder | Talk 01:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - manual syntax highlighting is an exercise in tedium. Better to write an extension to do it. That the templates have sat around utterly unused for a very long time is a bonus. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I share Cyrius's sentiment. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 13:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should just point out, in case the signature is unfamiliar, that the immediately above vote is by User:Eequor, the creator and only editor of the template. -Splash 20:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. Agree with Splash and and Cyrius about the usefulness of this template, but also with Kurt that this vote should be suspended until the ~~(reportedly)~~ proposed policy change is addressed. [2] Tomer ^TALK 06:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, could be useful, let's not eliminate the potential for usage by deleting them. JYolkowski // talk 22:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:20-cen~~
Delete after subst:ing. This effectively is just article text and is redundant with straightforward wikimarkup. It's only used in two articles (despite the bazillion that must refer to the 20thC), and has only been used by its author, who has been notified of this TfD. -Splash 20:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 01:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not useful. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most articles in the Wikipedia would need it, and pretty much none do; this says that this template is a bad idea. -- Titoxd 05:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as "author":
(a) 102 K using "20th" followed by "century" is about a bazillion, i guess, but "most" of 600K is over 300K, and
only 50% of the first ten of those Google hits could use the hyphen in their titles,

none could have used the template, without a construction like
List of {{subst:20-cen}} [[List of 20th century classical composers|classical composers]]

to produce the very odd and probably unhelpful
List of 20^th-century classical composers

and two more randomly chosen sets of 10 hits had 1 that could use a hyphen, and the template,

so 5% of 102K, or 5K is a sounder estimate than 300K,

(b) i may have used it more as (invisible) subst than as transclusion, so you have no idea how much i did,

(c) for reason of the same invisibility, no one else is likely to use it without its being better publicized,

(d) i'd have used it more if i could recall the mnemonic reliably, or could look it up other than in my voluminous watch-list

(e) one of the best reasons for it is to encourage the superscripting, which is never used e.g. within the number one Google hit, 20th century, nor within any of the top 10 hits,

(f) the other best reason for it is encourage the hyphen, which is applicable not to every instance, but only to the adjectivial uses, such as (choosing from those first ten hits) the titles
20th century classical music

List of 20th century classical composers

Category:20th century classical composers

Category:20th century philosophers

20th-century philosophy

of which all 5 call for the hyphen in the title but only the last i've named has it there;

(g) encouragement is needed, not just to overcome ignorance and carelessness, but bcz it's fussy wikimarkup: instead of the usual 16 chars for
[[20th century]]

(with 14 changes of key and two probable keyboard-peeks (one for each non-letter, non-digit, non-shift-key finger positioning), it takes 40 chars to do it right w/o the template, adding (efficiently, with a typo-saving cut&paste, but counting getting onto any shift key as the traditional half-stroke allowed for the case-shift key where the others are absent) not 14 keystrokes, but 29 further keystrokes and 9 further keyboard peeks,

(h) the previously undiscussed hyphen, IMO mandated for adjectivial use, may or not be why this tmplt was not deleted when the no-hyphen one was, much sooner after creation than this one.
--Jerzy·t 23:47, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Keep It ain'o big thang, especially since i have no intention of being the one to do more than this to bring it to anyone else's attention. But here's a vote after all, on the chance that some minds might change in response to the second set of arguments that suggests anything near a thorough look at the question.
--Jerzy·t 23:47, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
~~Template:2004Earthquake~~
Delete after subst:ing. This (badly named) template is just article text (which is forbidden in Wikipedia:Template namespace) about deaths in the tsunami. Only added tfd notice to talk page, but will leave notices on the articles' talks. -Splash 19:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Subst. As far as I know, the outcome of the article text/template debates was that they should be strongly discouraged and used only as a temporary solution, rather than forbidden per se. I assume the point of this was to be able to efficiently update the death toll across multiple pages. But now it's July and I think we can probably be done wiht this. Dragons flight 21:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Delete Useless template. Should have just used plain text --Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 03:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Advert~~
Since advertising is not a speedy criterion, and this template is promoted for usage on several people's toolkit templates, I've reworded it to become a cleanup template instead. If you voted before, please consider if you wish to change your vote now that the template has changed. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

~~The following votes and comments were made before the template was reworded. The votes are, of course, still valid, but the comments may no longer be appropriate to the reworded version.~~
Redundant with more flexible use of {{db|reason}}. We don't need a separate template for each WP:CSD reason. I'm not even sure what "blatant advertising" means, and I see this could be misused. Spamming porn links is vandalism (so already covered), but advertising your band still means a trip to WP:VFD. -- Netoholic @ 13:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to replace this with a cleanup template stating something like "This article reads like an advertisement, which is inappropriate. You can improve Wikipedia by rewording it to be descriptive and NPOV". R adiant _>|< 13:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Quite a few existing cleanup templates would work, along with an explanation on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 13:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd like to note that advertising is NOT listed at WP:CSD, and as such this template is highly misleading. It should be deleted or reworded per Radiant!. Meelar (talk) 13:55, July 15, 2005 (UTC)~~ Keep, now that it has been reworded. Meelar (talk) 18:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete since advertising is, for some reason, not a candidate for CSD (not even under the current proposals). As Netoholic says, there are other cleanup templates that can be used. -Splash 14:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Splash. This tempalte makes an incorrect statemetn, as simply being advertising is not currently a valid reason for speedy deletion under the CSD. DES 21:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is true that we do not need a template for every possible speedy delete reason, however it is very useful to have a short way of entering the common cases that show up in practice: a common case is an article that is clearly spam, i.e. just a link to a commercial website. This is useful for reducing the amount of time it takes to label these advertisements, therefore I think Advert will be useful, and I believe the burden to delete this template should now be on the supporters to show that it is actually not useful, it is new, promising, and that it should be properly noted and given a chance to see if it is a useful template or not. --Mysidia 06:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This template claims that a page to which it has been applied is subject to speedy deletion per WP:CSD. If a page is meaningful spam, even blantent advertising spam, exactly which of the CSD criteria apply to it? As far as i can see, none of them, so such a page must go to VfD under the current rules. This template says otherwise. If this template denounced ads and put them on VfD, that would be another matter. It doesn't. It contains incorrect statements, and might lead to incorrect action under the current rules. It should go. DES 21:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. As Above. Advertising, in and of itself, is not a reason for speedy deletion since some non-trivial fraction of all things that get advertised are in fact notable, in which case the facts provided in the advertisement can be used as the foundation for a real page. I would not object to keeping this if Radiant's suggestion for turning this into a cleanup template specifically targeting pages that read like advertisements is followed. Dragons flight 06:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep new version. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep revised version. DES 08:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dragons flight 08:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Too narrow. Use the other standard, existing cleanup templates, whichever is most fitting (cleanup-importance or cleanup-tone, maybe). Saying it reads like an advertisement does not give specific direction for future work. -- Netoholic @ 08:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new version. --KFP 13:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new version. I think it gives quite a bit of direction, linking as it does to WP:NOT a soapboax, Wikipedia:cleanup, Wikipedia:Style and How-to Directory and Wikipedia:NPOV. -Splash 17:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a myriad of templates like this encourages users to spend time dicking around thinking about what template to put on an article rather than fixing the thing. Second choice: Use only on talk pages. Content for editors goes on the talk page! Pcb21| Pete 21:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems like this issue has been fixed. -- Titoxd 05:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is fine, but I think it is still desirable to separately have a quick way of marking unfixable spam for speedy deletion, particularly since {{Template:d}} by itself seems to have been changed to include a rather unsightly {{1}} as of late when an explicit reason is given; even if "it is spam" is not one of the explicit criteria for speedy deletion, it is no coincidence that an article nominated for such deletion was Spam.. probably the real reason an article get nominated which is what should be shown, the CSD just which one it was (Vfd or Speedy), and probably many such advertisement do in fact get nominated for speedy deletion do not strictly meet the CSD, so the template should make it clear that advertisement itself is not the criteria but the article contains no useful content and is /no spam.. or the article contains a link only, i.e. {{d-link}} --Mysidia 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:TitleDisputed~~
~~Duplicates existing (and more descriptive) "Template:NPOV-title". -- Netoholic @ 06:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Keep. This template has been used on a handful of articles for over 2 months without any complaints. It signifies the dispute is specific to the title whereas "NPOV-title" is overly broad and too general because it mentions subject matter and organization (could be a dispute over anything which lessens the fact to the reader that there is a legitimate neutrality dispute somewhere) and its font is too small. zen master T 06:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~The editor is forgetting my complaints about its use on every page that he added it to. (see my vote and comments below). -Willmcw 10:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)~~
Comment {{TitleDisputed}} seems to be in much more frequent use than {{NPOV-title}} although neither is used all that much, unless they are normally substed, which seems unlikely. DES 06:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there is much practical use for this tag. If there is a dispute on a title, they should be directed to use Wikipedia:Requested moves, by leaving a note on the users talk page. If for some odd reason there is a revert war, then one could use one of these tags. The more useful title should be used, and then placed on the templates page, where {{TitleNPOV}} already exists btw, and redirect to the non-deleted one. It seems that zen master has been in a few 3RR situations, and can only suggest that maybe a nice note on where to find the existing templates Wikipedia:Template messages and how to propose templates would be helpful to them later. ∞Who ?¿? 07:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{TitleDisputed} has been used on articles where there was no consensus for a new title (requested moves failed) and a legitimate neutrality dispute over the title remains. What is the relevance of 3RR as far as the quality of this template is concerned? Would netoholic's infamous history be relevant on this TfD using your logic then too? This template has been used for 2 months without complaint, it is more specific and clearer than {NPOV-title}. zen master T 09:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appologize, I did not mean it in an offensive manner, I merely stated that your history showed that you did not defer to the discussion pages. As far as the title, like I said, I think the one that is used the most often or is easier, should be used, and one of them redirected. I did not mean to belittle your comments, only was trying to make the suggestion to view the discussions and propose template creation first, as I myself am guilty of doing. ∞Who ?¿? 09:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your post once again is inaccurate/suggestive, I defer to the talk page all the time (look at my ratio of talk page edits to article edits on editcount). To what articles are you referring specifically? How does supporting {TitleDisputed} not "defer" to the talk page?? Either there is a legitimate neutrality dispute or there is not. What about the point that {TitleDisputed} actually signifies specifically that the title is disputed whereas {NPOV-title} suggests that any number of multiple nebulous things could be disputed? zen master T 10:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly referring to Template talk:TitleDisputed (note the red link, hence no discussion), may have saved a lot of the conflicts in its history. Wikipedia talk:Template messages, to propose the template and discuss its creation and format. These two places minimum. As for disputed titles, there was the other template, which could have been used. Now we have redundant templates, and I only made the suggestion that you propose the template, before creating it to avoid Tfd. ∞Who ?¿? 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The need arose to signify that just the title of an article was disputed, {NPOV-title} is/was insufficient as it is too generic/nebulous. {TitleDisputed} has been accepted for over 2 months, someone could have suggested a move/merge on the template's talk page to spark a discussion rather than going ahead with a TfD. zen master T 10:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two templates. I can see the use but we don't need two of them, so pick whatever wording/layout is best and redirect the other there. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Other template is sufficient. This template was created simply to address one set of article titles that the community had a full discussion and vote.(Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory) The vote was clearly in favor of existing titles, yet the editor who proposed the original changes added this template to several articles anyway. I complained about it on each of the talk pages. Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories#Title disputed, Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda#Disputed title, Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#Disputed title and Talk:9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories#Disputed title. In each case the discussion tended more towards the suitability of applying the template than to the template itself. Nonetheless, its use has been discussed at some length previously. -Willmcw 10:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:LAME~~
~~We shouldn't advertise our past transgressions. The existence of WP:LAME is more than enough. This will only stir the pot. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Wasn't this nominated last week as well? Delete, irrelevant meta-data. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Almafeta 12:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are getting way too enamored with this sort of thing. I like WP:LAME a lot, but I don't want it advertised on every article it lists. (Would consistency require that it be added to the talk page of the Main Page, for example? Say it isn't so. :-) JRM · Talk 12:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another edit war template!? Template:editwar is sufficient. --JB Adder | Talk 01:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inflaming recently-hurt egos by leaving a notice on the disputed page calling their efforts "lame" sounds like poking a beehive with a stick. -- Titoxd 05:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sadly useful. And some users need a clue-by-four to get thier attention. --Calton | Talk 02:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Neither amusing nor instructive. -Jmh123 15:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~July 16~~
~~Template:AubreyMaturinSeries~~
~~The pages that this navigated among have now all been merged, so this tempalte is no longer needed. DES 21:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Well done! Delete then. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)~~
~~Template:Privileged access~~
~~We have a general disclaimer. Usage not worthy of a template. -- Netoholic @ 21:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete: there's a general disclaimer as Netoholic says, and WP:NOT a FAQ, either, which this has overtones of. Also, WP shouldn't make 'recommendations' in the way this tl does. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pointless. People who can't handle BOFH status in Linux generally aren't given it anyway. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
You forget that linux impementations are not infrequently installed on single-user computers as replacements for/alternatives to Windoes. In such cases the user generally has full rights, but may not know as much as s/he ought to about the dangers of some commands. DES 17:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep this is important info about such commnds, but might be better ingtegrated into the article directly. DES 17:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree to some extent about WP not making recommendations (but weakly, because I think there can be exceptions). More to the point, this template will not make this warning appear where it is most needed. It is currently just linked from chown, because it requires root access. But many commands which don't necessarily require root access are much more dangerous if invoked as root, for example rm. I think the general comment on superuser is enough. 80.229.160.150 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with Splash, Netoholic. Pcb21| Pete 21:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Dangerous~~
~~We have a general disclaimer. Maybe a joke creation? -- Netoholic @ 20:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete, per Netoholic. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea per se but I can't really think of a place to put it, and from its talk page neither can the creator, so delete. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Policysuspended~~
~~I'd say redirect to Template:Notpolicy, but that one was deleted too. -- Netoholic @ 20:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete — there's no page this could apply to. Either it is policy or it is not. I suppose this is intended for a hypothetical current policy which is being repolled with a view to removal. Even then, it would presumably remain policy until consensus decided against it - it wouldn't be 'suspended'. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, m:instruction creep. We don't suspend policy ("hey, I don't like the NPOV policy, how about we suspend it for today?"). We do have disputed guidelines but that's entirely different. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as per Splash above. -- Titoxd 04:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If a policy is suspended, then remove the {{policy}} tag from it to indicate that fact. --Mysidia 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:TPOV~~
~~Since when do we have a problem with POV templates? Redundant with {{tfd}} and the Edit button. :) -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Hmmm. Nothing links here. But POV is not a case for {{tfd}}, it just needs reworking and the tag indicates that (on a talk page, I presume). The nomination argument applies equally well to articles, so we could do away with all the POV templates on that basis, which we clearly can't. I'm inclined to suggest a weak delete, but I'd be interested in other arguments too. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fork. Wow, is it general cleanup day in template land? Not that I mind :) R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I created this because I thought a certain template was non-neutral and I thought a POV notice would be of use. It was a little ad-hoc but I used it at least once. — Phil Welch 08:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --minghong 09:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- or at least it should not be in a box and look more like Template:tfd, so it is clear that it is a dispute about the template and not the article that uses it.. I cannot think of a likely situation where this applies.. the meaning of having many of the templates on an article is inherently POV at a meta level.. take {{cleanup}} it represents the opinion of a few editors who think an article needs to be cleaned up, a vfd tag on an article represents a point of view by as few as 1 persons that an article merits listing for deletion, a POV tag in and of itself is POV. There is the issue of uses of a template and what is expressed by its appearance in a specific spot versus its contents in general. So templates are allowed to be POV, and if someone makes a {{sucks}} template with text "This subject really sucks" or "This is a sucky stub", then the right tag to add to it is {{tfd}} not {{tpov}}, or EDIT and fix the text, since templates are short enough to do this easily -- with long articles, it may be rather difficult to edit them into NPOV. --Mysidia 22:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Long NPOV~~
~~The very subtle text differences seems like it would be something which could be added to Template:POV, rather than forking a whole new template. -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Agree with nom. Maybe a proposal on the talk page to adjust the existing template. ∞Who ?¿? 07:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Netoholic. Have seen this cause large problems on a few pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fork. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete It looks worse and says nothing extra. Hipocrite 16:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the invitation to discuss the problems can be useful in certain cases. JYolkowski // talk 22:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I can see a use for this in some cases. --Shawn K. Quinn 01:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Delete if wording of NPOV template is at least reviewed. Robert McClenon 19:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to POV and maintain the longer text as the better version. Note that the present style of Long NPOV is listed at Template_talk:POV#Style_change_proposal, but for some reason, Template:POV is protected. --Mysidia 22:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More ways to say NPOV are good. Un focused 22:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Cleanuplo~~
(also the generated Category:Cleanup leftovers)
This "leftover" designation seems all-but abandoned. They now use Template:Cleanup-date. -- Netoholic @ 19:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tl and cat, but replace current uses with {{cleanup-date}}. This has been superseded. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, good idea but doesn't actually work. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Cleanupcsh~~
~~Topic-specific cleanup messages are not needed. -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Weak Keep. Since this is part of a wiki project, it might actually serve a purpose since there are specific guidelines for those articles. However not putting these articles into a category seems to be self defeating in getting someone to find and fix them. If that project is producing high quality articles, maybe it should be expanded to all state highways and this template expanded, and renamed, so it is less specific. Vegaswikian 19:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but possibly get a new template "this article is related to that wikiproject" (but it would require rewording and renaming so I'm voting del on this one). R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
A such template exists- {{California State Highway WikiProject}}. It goes on the talk page of each article. --Rschen7754 16:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is part of a WikiProject, and I have used it in the past to mark articles that really need some help. --Rschen7754

Keep. This is part of the ongoing CA highway wikiproject. A full state highway project for all states is too daunting at this time.Gateman1997

Keep. It's easier for the project people [us] to see which project-related articles need cleanup by looking at the 'what links here' as as well as the reasons stated by Gateman1997 and Rschen7754. atanamir 22:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Cleanup-serious~~
(also the generated Category:Wikipedia serious cleanup)
This template is in serious need of deletion. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cleanup seems to do a better job in explaining the work needed. Vegaswikian 19:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:Cleanup-just kidding delete. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I actually physically laughed out loud when I read that! -Splash 18:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Cleanup-s & Template:Cleanuplite~~
~~More miniature versions of an established template. Orphaned, not worth redirecting. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete. Cleanup seems to do a better job in explaining the work needed. Vegaswikian 19:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added Template:Cleanuplite after your vote, please confirm whether you agree with that one's deletion. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cleanup still explains what to do in a better way. Vegaswikian 19:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, cleanup does the job fine. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, oh wait, I mean delete! Agree. --Dmcdevit·t 07:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete forks. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe keep cleanuplight -- it looks slicker for marking just a section for cleanup. --Mysidia 22:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Cleanup-nonsense-serious~~
~~Funny, but not an appropriate template. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per Netoholic. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{delete}}. If something is patent nonsense, there's no point in cleaning it up except with a flamethrower. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not a needed template, as nonsense falls under the criteria for speedy deletion. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible use I can see for this is as a decoy that can be used by sysops so that they can see which articles link to the template so that the articles can be speedy-deleted. Unfortunately, such use will catch articles for five minutes until someone figures out what the admins are doing and the template becomes useless. Then, I vote delete. -- Titoxd 06:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...funny...did anyone bother to look at the choice of image for this template? :-p Tomer ^TALK 06:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:MergeVfD~~
~~Seems a little too specific, and is currently unused. -- Netoholic @ 18:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Weak delete. I didn't know this existed. Having a link to the VfD discussion might quite possibly be useful so that the merging editor can see what particular things people thought. However, nearly all merge votes on VfD are pretty non-specific in what they mean, so there would not be much to gain. Seeing as a link to the VfD ought to be on the talk page and a merging editor ought to read the talk page, that ought to be enough...-Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reluctant delete~~ I agree with Splash. If this were listed on the templates page, it would probably be used more often. I think it is useful to be able to easily access the Vfd discussion, but that can always be annotated on the talk page. ∞Who ?¿? 07:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, change vote, as I fealt it was useful, if other editors are ready to accept it's usage, than it should be kept. It should be added to Template messages after this Tfd. ∞Who ?¿? 23:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one, but reword and relayout to match {{merge}}, and advertise its usage. This is useful because VFD closing admins often don't perform a merge for lack of time, and a regular tl:merge is sometimes removed swiftly by people unaware of the VFD. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep as per Radient. DES 04:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Advertise. Tomer ^TALK 06:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I know of two articles that could use it right now. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Merge-tasks~~
~~Orphaned, no purpose. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete, goodness knows what that was meant for. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If anything would link here, I'd say redir to {{merge}}. Since that isn't the case, delete. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

del, no clear usage --MarSch 07:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:End Spoiler~~
Unused, poorly worded (I read this as "Details of the ending or end of plot"), and redundant to Template:Endspoiler (which is itself undocumented and barely used, but might be worth salvaging). —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del unused camelcase poorly worded fork --MarSch 12:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete' -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:spoiler They are both the same, so having two different templates that talk of the same thing isn't much use. (I think it might be instruction creep, I don't know.) --JB Adder | Talk 01:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is not the same as Template:spoiler, it is more or less the same as Template:Endspoiler. That is, it indicates the end of a an area of text that contains spoilers. Merge with Template:Endspoiler and document. DES 04:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia:Spoiler warning {{Endspoiler}} has now been documented.

Delete -- takagawa-kun 16:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DES. Tomer ^TALK 06:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions spoiler~~
~~Unused, and far, far too specific. —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
del unused --MarSch 12:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Warning: Results of this TFD vote follow. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. way to specific, though i do love Jeopardy!. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. "What is a rake?" Tomer ^TALK 06:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Change~~
(see also Template:Space right below) Not a very useful math template, uniting topics as distinct as arithmetic and calculus (the former is not about change by the way). Calculus is a subset of analysis, so both should not be in that template. I believe this template is not very helpful. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Templates_for_thought seems to confirm that. Oleg Alexandrov 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if the project that would use it thinks it's not wanted. As the nominator says, it groups together things that don't have any particularly convincing relationship. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. linas 17:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dominus 13:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Space~~
(See also Template:Change right above). This template puts together a lot of articles having rather little in common, like Trigonometry, Algebraic topology, and Functional analysis. I doubt the concept of space is so important in trigonometry and also in fractal geometry listed there. In short, I don't think that template is terribly helpful for navigating between articles. Oleg Alexandrov 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oleg Alexandrov 06:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's not really a topic called 'space' in mathematics anyway, is there? -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. linas 17:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reasons as Template:Structure and Template:Quantity. Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Magic-spoiler~~
~~Far too specific. We already have Template:Spoiler and even better Template:Solution. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

Keep. Specific, yes, but I think it feels a meaningful niche. {{spoiler}} clearly isn't appropriate since magic tricks don't really have "plot and/or ending details". {{solution}} is a lot closer, but "Warning: Solution details follow" is really not a strong or specific enough warning to my taste. I would expect to see something like {{solution}} before the answer to a math problem or a riddle, i.e. the kind of problems that one could figure out by logical deduction. In most cases, magic tricks simply can't be figured out merely from a description of their appearance. As such, I favor the stronger warning for magic secrets. Dragons flight 07:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think one more spoiler template is going to kill us, and there is a good case for a difference in phrasing. Note that people are currently getting quite excited about the fact that Wikipedia reveals the secrets to magic tricks. I recently added this template to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. I wonder how many other spoiler templates exist that are not listed there. Bovlb 07:57:41, 2005-07-16 (UTC) rephrased Bovlb 17:43:25, 2005-07-16 (UTC)

Keep at least until the furor that Bovlb mentions dies down. (See Talk:Out of This World (card trick).) —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a very specific and special kind of spoiler, not like the more literary uses for {{spoiler}} and most of the other spoiler templates. A specific warning is very useflu in this case. DES 21:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replace with {{spoiler-about}} or {{spoiler-other}} as appropriate. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Both of those still reference "plot and/or ending details", which is a poor fit for magic secrets, in my opinion. Dragons flight 08:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Neither of the cited alternatives has applicable language. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep I agree, the wording in the suggested alternatives seems quite inapplicable --Johnjosephbachir 18:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unlike Template:spoiler (which is used for novels and movies) and Template:Solution (which is used for common mathematical problems), this spoiler warning actualy goes "behind-the-scenes" with a magic trick; thus, adding this to a magic trick article (eg sleight-of-hand) will tell the reader to steer from it if they do not want to destroy the 'magic' of the illusion. To say plot details follow or solution follows really are out-of-place in an article. --JB Adder | Talk 04:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note There is a discussion now going on at Template talk:Magic-spoiler about whether this template (assuming it is kept, as now seems likely to me) should retain its current image or be just a line of text. Anyone intersted in this matter, please join that discussion, so that a proper consensus can form. So far exactly two people have expressed views, one for and one against the image. DES 18:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of the proposed alternatives seem to appropriately work. -- Krash 15:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons everybody else has cited. — The Storm Surfer 17:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons. --U.U. 08:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This was my first time seeing the template (on billet reading) and it was what I expected. Magic secrets are somewhere between plot spoilers and solutions; the secret is only a "solution" for those who were exclusively looking at it as an unsolved puzzle to begin with. I think the wording makes sense. --Closeapple 10:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Portal skeleton~~
~~This uses an old standard for creating a Wikiportal.A new template has replaced it {{box portal skeleton}} but sometime people still use this old one.Trevor macinnis 03:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Query? Since {{box portal skeleton}} doesn't actually seem to be in use presently, is there some reason why you don't copy the new template contents over the old template? Dragons flight 05:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

copy box portal skeleton to portal skeleton and redirect --MarSch 12:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought that the instructions on Wikipedia:Wikiportal were specific enough that people would use "box portal" instead of "portal" skeleton (several prominent pages now do, including some newly created ones), and these instuctions will probably need to be changed, but I support copy box portal skeleton to portal skeleton and redirect Trevor macinnis 16:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one, Rename the other to not involve the skeleton as the name is misleading. Make it a prototype instead. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
what name do you suggest? --MarSch 07:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Portal prototype. R adiant _>|< 09:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:User la~~
~~I didn't know there were any native speakers of Latin since about 500 years ago? User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 02:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
keep, 2 users apparently do. --MarSch 12:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Uh, no. Not natively, that's not possible. They might be la-3, perhaps. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete impossible. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or reformat Haha... sorry... I updated this this morning and assumed that "naturaliter" implied fluency in written and spoken Latin, since my fluency in German is from years living in Germany, but again I'm not a "Muttersprache" in the strict sense, moving there as a teenager. Yet since vulgar Latin has degenerated into the Romance languages, and I am not fluent in vulgar Latin, I'll change it without complaint!
And just a correction, there have been no native speakers of the Latin we know and write in for probably over 1000 years. Evidence suggests the language was deteriorating even in the second century AD! (And with the Germanic invasions and such, from the 6th to 11th centuries it split into French, Italian, etc.) Amicuspublilius 04:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete post haste; the relevant category was CFD'ed a couple of weeks ago, no point in repeating the debate. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Being able to use it like a native speaker is quite possibile, though difficult. Almafeta 12:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:Babel says to use la "if you're a native speaker or have a grasp of the language comparable to a native speaker", which seems possible to achieve. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Babel seems to be a bit inconsistent. The list gives levels 1, 2, 3 and native but the example given immediately below makes reference to a level 4. {{User en-4}} states "This user speaks English at a near-native level." which would seem to cover the "comparable to a native speaker" sentence currently mentioned in the native level. --TheParanoidOne 18:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Someone whose understanding of the language is NEAR that of a native speaker may know the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary perfectly but may not necessarily get the full meaning of various idioms and cultural references, while a native speaker or someone whose understanding of the languages is that of a native speaker would. Kurt Weber 19:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jitse Niesen is right...it doesn't require that someone be a native speaker, just that he have an understanding of the language equivalent to that of a native speaker. Kurt Weber 18:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Latin is not a dead language. It is spoken in Homilies, and official documents of the Roman Catholic Church. As the official language of the Vatican, a city and independent state - it is possible to be a native speaker of Latin (OK, I can your point, but I still think it should be kept). Oliver Keenan 21:54, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Why bother deleting it? I think that deleting any part of Wikipedia that's obviously "symmetric" will only lead to its re-creation. {{User en}} exists, so {{User la}} should too. If nobody uses it, it will remain unused. But if it's deleted, somebody will come along next week and say, "Aha! {{User la}} doesn't exist yet! I'd better create it," and we'll repeat this whole process. --Quuxplusone 17:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conservamus hunc Tomer ^TALK 06:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment--one we should probably try to get rid of is "Native Speaker of Gothic" ~ Dpr 05:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Utterly harmless. If we accept "native equivalent" for other languages, why not for this one also? There are people in this world who use Latin as a working language; what a boon it would be to us if Wikipedia caught on in .va.--Pharos 06:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. James F. (talk) 02:31, 21 July 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.
Template:Skinheadz (5d, 0k)

Template:Nationalist Movement (5d, 0k)

Template:Richard Barrett (5d, 0k)

Template:Phi Delta Theta infobox (2d, 0k, deprecated for generic frat infobox)

Template:Lame edit war (7d, 2k)

Template:Current sports (4d, 0k)

Template:^ (7d, 0k)

Template:Structure (7d, 1k)

Template:Quantity (9d, 1k)
~~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.
~~(none at this time)~~
~~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.~~
Template:Worldperks (5d, 1k, should be listified)

Template:Sailing ship elements will not be deleted, but it was suggested that a category be also created for the articles listed here.
Created Category:Sailing ship elements, and added all listed items. Not sure what to do with template. Remove from articles? ∞Who ?¿? 09:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~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:Judaism-Attention (6d, 1k)

Template:Kubrick (12 catify/del, 8 keep)

Template:Steven Spielberg's films (12 catify/del, 8 keep)

Template:Alfred Hitchcock's films (12 catify/del, 8 keep)

Template:(disambiguation) (11d, 3k; voting suggests to put this layout on existing {{disambig}})
someone needs to unprotect the latter--MarSch 10:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Layout copied over {{disambig}}. R adiant _>|< June 28, 2005 07:55 (UTC)
And reverted :( --MarSch 28 June 2005 14:15 (UTC)
I've created a poll at Template talk:disambig. Please vote there --MarSch 28 June 2005 15:01 (UTC)
obnoxified --MarSch 1 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)
Template:swwiki (6d, 1k)

Template:WAEduGov (4d, 0k)-Splash 9 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

Template:CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC - please read the talk page discussion before making substantial changes (9d, 1k). Also applies to Template:Controversial note which just transcludes this template. -Splash 17:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sane and Template:SANE (4d, 0k) -Splash 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alert (4d, 2 redir to {{comment}}) -Splash 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parliament Malaysia Seats (3d, 0k) -Splash 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Revertwarinprogress (6d, 1k) -Splash 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RWIP (6d, 1k) -Splash 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sisterprojects (2.5d, 0k) -Splash 17:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Siterprojects (5d, 0k) -Splash 17:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Live (10d, 5k, suggested redirecting to {{current}}) -Splash 17:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Survey (3d, 2u'fy, 0k - consider userfy) —Cryptic (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:0/5 0.5/5 1/5 1.5/5 2/5 2.5/5 3/5 3.5/5 4/5 4.5/5 5/5 (3d, including creator, 0k)
~~Listings~~
Template:Sfd-current Please put new listings under today's date 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, as per the TFD Instructions.
~~July 22~~
~~Template:Quentin Tarantino films~~
~~Another directors template, incomplete at that, that should be categorified and deleted. ∞Who ?¿? 18:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete for consistency. Although in favour of these in general, if Hitch, Kubrick and Spielberg had to go, then so does this. The JPS 19:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. Phoenix2 20:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Categorify and delete per nominator. -Splash 22:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Asiamiles~~
~~This seems very similar to the WorldPerks template, which reached a consensus of categorize and delete. The same should be done with this. Dbinder 16:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Template:Rikondakizoc~~
~~Looks like a nonsense template created by an anon IP with a minor history of creating nonsense articles. --Icelight 15:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)~~
~~Template:WP:RM~~
I'm not sure I understand the point of this template. It's no less simple than the current procedure at WP:RM, has an obscure name and isn't documented anywhere. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmm. I've tested the template, and it's fairly simple to use. It's a minor shortcut for the current procedure is all. However, it doesn't seem too widely used, unless people are using subst. It's a tough call, but I do think that some documentation somewhere is in order. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 11:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, it's a nice shortcut, and according to the Wikipedia talk:Requested moves page, it's supposed to be used with subst. People forget to place the TALK page onto the listings as it is at WP:RM, so you can't instantly give an opinion right now. 132.205.44.43 14:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and redirect it to template:move. Dunc|☺ 14:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not equivalent to {{move}}. That template is added to talk pages, this is meant to simplify entering move requests on WP:RM.

Keep. Harmless. If people use it, then okay, if not, then also okay. Since it should be used with subst: obviously it is fairly impossible to know whether or not people are using it. Dragons flight 15:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
~~July 21~~
~~Template:Charleston County School of the Arts infobox~~
~~Template for a single school article, should be substed, there is no reason for this code to be in a template rather than the article. Joe D (t) 16:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Comment. A single use template can be acceptable as a seperate entity if including it into the text of the page directly would interfere with editting the main page because of the size or complexity of the template's content. For example: {{Timeline Geological Timescale}}, {{Planet Infobox/Earth}}. This is fairly marginal on those grounds. No vote yet. Dragons flight 20:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The size and complexity of this particular template are only a concern because the template is needlessly large and complex. It was originally written in HTML; just by running it through this converter, I trimmed about 200 bytes off, and made it noticably more editable. Why a single school needs its own huge, fancy infobox is beyond me. Subst and Delete. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Wikt~~
A keystroke-saving template that doesn't. "{{subst:wikt|whatever}}" is five more characters than "[[wikt:whatever|]]", and this template shouldn't ever be used unsubsted. —Cryptic (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~The redirect to {{wiktionary}} (which superceded this) seems to be have been removed. May as well delete, as unused. Pcb21| Pete 16:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete. Unfortunately confuses the issue of links into Wiktionary by addition of a cryptically titled template. Further, it is my understanding that even {{wiktionary}} is now considered to be obsolete owing to the switching off of the article-title capitalisation rule in the software implementation for the project; {{wiktionarypar}} is the favored template for use now. On a side note, I would be suprised if the original template does not undergo some change to accomodate this software environment change. Courtland 02:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Cleanup-school~~
This is quite a strange one. Firsty somebody added a category totally unrelated to cleanup, somebody else has given it the talk page style, and somebody else has been going around systematically adding it to pages that blatantly have no need for cleanup (this was probabaly just petty vandalism, they've been removing stub templates from stubs as well, but I'm not sure). I've been removing it from all the pages that have no need for it, but by the time I'm done there will be such a tiny number of articles in the category that it will be pointless having it, especially since we can clean them all up in a couple of minutes. Joe D (t) 15:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, serves a useful purpose. JYolkowski // talk 21:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template is used to identify school-related articles which need to be improved as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Bahn Mi 22:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but belongs on the talk page. - SimonP 23:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Useful category Klonimus 23:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You know what sounds good right now? A tall glass of refreshing iced tea. I'm firsty. —RaD Man (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to template:vfd and list them on that page. Dunc|☺ 14:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to template:vfd as above. --Carnildo 21:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:AD, Template:CE, Template:BCE and Template:BC~~
~~Redirect to the below - thus they have all the problems of ADCE and BCEBC, PLUS the fact that they're metatemplates. Strong delete. R adiant _>|< 12:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)~~
Point of information: These "metatemplates" cause no more or less problems than the "regular" templates they direct to. It is the number of pages on which a template (perhaps indirectly) appears that is the issue in terms of load. Pcb21| Pete 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. A template that includes another template (such as these four) causes twice the load of a template that does not. R adiant _>|< 12:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. See below. Pcb21| Pete 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea what your templates are trying to achieve, Pete, but, I think, it's time to let this debate rest a while. Agree with Radiant, jguk 12:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:ADCE and Template:BCEBC~~
These templates are very bad for they insert the same information into the text thrice! It doesn't matter that one doesn't see it only once in a CSS-enabled browser, becaused that's just one way of reading Wikipedia.
If such a thing as AD/CE user preference was really needed—there's no consensus about that AFAIK and no preference in the MoS—it would have to be done in the Wikimedia software itself. Christoph Päper 12:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, instruction creep, doesn't save time, confusing, and barely in use. R adiant _>|< 12:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Instruction creep? Where is the instruction?

Save time? Where the heck did anyone say it saves time? It is a device to implement a user preference.

Confusing? Delete all templates?

Barely in use? Well ok this is true, but is not a criteria for deletion.
Keep - if it displayed three times then the CSS sheets have been broken. Fix them. Don't delete a solution to an issue that caused a create deal of debate just a month or two ago. Of course a software solution is preferable, but let's see your code. Pcb21| Pete 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can't fix the CSS a) if CSS is not in use b) it's user CSS. --EnSamulili 19:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record - by instruction creep I meant that the AD/CE proposal was voted down as such, and that I believe you can't feasibly expect article writers to adopt to this relatively non-straightforward template. It would make editing those articles containing it more confusing. R adiant _>|< 12:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
It is wrong that we expect to editors to link dates as [[day month]] [[year]] rather than the actually useful [[day month year]] simply to accommodate user preferences and then do not use these - which allow user preference without a similar drawback. Their use is intuitively obvious when you seen them in article, unlike many other templates., so I reject your characterization. Pcb21| Pete 16:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea what your templates are trying to achieve, Pete, but, I think, it's time to let this debate rest a while. Agree with Radiant, jguk 12:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a good idea to be advocating the deletion of something that you haven't tried to understand? Pcb21| Pete 16:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless IMO, when you could type it yourself, AND with a wikilink which this does not (in this revision) allow. And if at some point in time we grow so litigious that some users want to see BC/AD and others BCE/CE, we'll make it a preferences option like the date/time rewriting. Garrett^Talk 14:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is unreasonable for editors to be expected to remember and use CSS class names themselves, remembering a template is much easier. Sounds a bit like you also don't understand the purpose (admittedly if you are not using monobook this is understandable). See User:Pcb21/ADCE_testing_page for a little more detail. Pcb21| Pete 16:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cleverly implements the preference option Garrett mentions. —Cryptic (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Wi~~
~~"We don't have an article on this topic but Wiktionary does". While it's a good idea in principle, there are three things wrong with this template (apart from the fact that it isn't widely in use).~~
Since Wikipedia articles start with a capital and Wiktionary articles do not, the link will generally not work

If we were to add a parameter to this to prevent problem 1, it would be redundant with Template:Wikt.

Any article that consists of only a link to Wiktionary should instead be 1) expanded, or 2) redirected to a similar article that explains it (e.g. redirect a verb to a noun).
R adiant _>|< 10:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with the above reasons. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 13:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Re 1) and 2) Wiktionary redirects from caps to non-caps as a matter of course. Re 3). These aren't articles. These are Wikipedia:Soft redirects. The acceptability of these has been widely discussed and accepted in the past. There are many cases where they are the most natual thing to do. Pcb21| Pete 14:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, I've just changed the implementation that helps when redirects are not in place. Pcb21| Pete 15:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary does not redirect from either capitalization to the other as a matter of course. Whilst redirects exist for many existing articles, that is merely a side-effect of a conversion script that was run once, just after the switch-over, to move the existing articles at the time to lowercase. Uncle G 16:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched the template to point to the search anyway, so the moot is point. Pcb21| Pete 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Point 1 is simply wrong since Wiktionary uses bots to make redirects from a capitalized to a lowercase form, unless a seperate entry exists at the capitalized form. (see below) So in nearly all cases the link should work. For Point 2, {{wi}} is much prettier than {{wikt}} as it should be since it is intended for otherwise blank pages. For point 3, one intended usage is to leave {{wi}} on pages that have been VFDed with the consensus of "move to wiktionary". This allows a useful link to exist at pages that have never been more than a dictdef. I know I have seen this used on a number of pages beyond what appears on "what links here", so I can only assume that it has been being used with subst:, or that many of those pages subsequently grew up into full wikipedia articles. Regardless, this should not be deleted. Dragons flight 15:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
There are no 'bots performing such redirects at Wiktionary, and there never have been any. The redirects that now exist were created by a one-time process that didn't involve a 'bot. To my knowledge, there is only one 'bot running on Wiktionary at the moment, and it is performing interwiki links. (The few other 'bots that used to run were broken by the MediaWiki upgrade.) Also note that there is at least one user who systematically removes this template. Uncle G 16:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who is systematically removing this template? Pcb21| Pete 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that Uncle G, though I dare say I would wonder why they aren't redirecting uppercase to lowercase, and getting a bot to run on 1.5 is not that hard. Regardless, Pcb's change to directing at the search page would still work consistently, yes? Dragons flight 20:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I have long disliked this template as it is so often applied to titles that actually deserve articles or disambig pages. - SimonP 17:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
The template is already worded to encourage users to replace it if a internal-to-Wikipedia solution is better. Educating users about the intended use is much more useful than deleting the genuine uses. Pcb21| Pete 22:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but maybe reword a bit, I think this is the best solution for pages that people keep creating but will never be more than dicdefs. JYolkowski // talk 21:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it cuts down on VFDs for dicdefs. Maybe a future version of mediawiki will have a better soft-redirect solution. Eliot 20:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. If it does cut down on vfd listings, it's because instead of actually deleting a bad, potential-free dicdef, this is just slapped on instead. This was originally meant to prevent recreations of common words, like under and carry. In that regard, I think {{deletedpage}} does the same making this redundant. It has also been misused and abused on pages that should be just delete outright, and aren't common enough to warrant any danger of recreation. I find it very unlikely that Jerrybuild needs this at all. Lastly, since its entire purpose is to be an interwiki link, or redirect, it is effectively no content. This does not make a valid encyclopedia article, in fact, it discourages one if its possible. It's interesting to note that the result of this template is to create an article that perfectly fits the CSD: "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, or rephrasing of the title." --Dmcdevit·t 21:38, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Religious persecution~~
~~A collection of mainly red links. Article series only indicated by similarity in name, while historically not linked. JFW | T@lk 08:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Keep, because the only effective way to counter bias is to have a systematical treatment of all persecutions perpetrated by and against members of religious denominations. This template seems to be an effective means to come to such a treatment. --Germen 09:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Pending results on VFD for Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews - All in/all out--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not a meaningful ordering for a template. R adiant _>|< 10:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as Radiant. Axon 11:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pending per Irishpunktom, but keep if either of those articles is kept. Note that existing "Persecution of ..." articles could be linked to instead of the non-existant "Religous persecution of ..." articles planned for this abortive series. OTOH, I made this into a navigation bar, and it was not all that much work. Hence my support of deleting if it becomes unpopulated by active articles. --EMS | Talk 15:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have updated the template to activate the "Religous persecution of ..." links. I leave it up to others to decide if that it enough to justify preserving the template. --EMS | Talk 16:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize with the others Septentrionalis 15:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Historically unlinked phenomena. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the idea that religous persecution instances are historically unliked to be an odd view. Often the same event can be listed under a "Perseuction by ..." and a "Persuction of ..." article. There therefore is historical linkage as well as this set of articles (both real and proposed) being intended to form a series.
I find this template useful as both a navigation bar and a way for people to see the proposed breadth of the series. I feel that it should be retained if any part of the "Religous persecution of ..." series is. (Note that I have already voted above.) --EMS | Talk 20:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful template. Agree with Germen. Klonimus 23:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't we have one of these before, and it already got deleted once? --Michael Snow 06:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we did. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Template:Persecution. Reasons still apply, I would say. If the articles survive Votes for deletion, use categories, not a template. --Michael Snow 06:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alternately if it survives VFD, remove the inherently POV "persecuting group" listings, and only include the "persecuted group" articles. Kaibabsquirrel 00:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was created primarily for the persecuting group listings, and has not been integrated into the persecuted group listings.
I am personally coming to wonder about the criteria used to justify the deletion. If its use is accepted by the editors of the listed articles, then it seems to me that the template itself should be retained. After all, I could respond to the deletion by manually creating the navigation bars in the subject pages. Then the function intended for the template would still exist, albeit will all of the headaches inherent in duplicated code.
All in all, I am a little amazed by this part of the process, where this template seems to be as much a victim of its functionality as anything else. At the least, I wonder how fair it is that all of the articles which use this template have big VfD notices on them while the template has a much smaller delete notice that is almost invisible by comparison. The result is that many people who may have an opinion on this matter do not know that it is even an issue. --EMS | Talk 01:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Harry Potter spoiler~~
Delete: This is obselete, even before it was created. We have happily used {{spoiler}} for Episode III and various other big-name books/movies without issue, I don't see why this is any more useful than {{spoiler}} is. Garrett^Talk 03:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
maybe leave it for a couple of weeks, then delete it and revert to {{Spoiler}}. I think there are many people who will be very annoyed if they find out and the {{Spoiler}} warning may be not noticible enough for newbies. As for Episode III, I think everyone knew what was gonna happen in that. Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 03:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I love the Harry Potter series, but the attitude of the people who write about it here is beginning to annoy. The template is needlessly specific. Superm401 | Talk 03:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete and subst. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete a tad too specific. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep for at least another week or so. This formatting popped up independently on multiple pages, and was reverted after being converted to the normal spoiler template. I created it to ease transition to {{spoiler}} once things slow down on these articles, as clearly explained on its talk page. Yes, it's overspecific, and large, and annoying, and redundant, but it's a much better solution than having this code on those pages instead of a template. Absolutely should not be substed in its current form, as TBSDY suggests - when deleted, it should be replaced with {{spoiler}}. —Cryptic (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant. --[[User:JonMoore|—Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 05:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. R adiant _>|< 08:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. — Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)} 13:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep until 1 August, per Cryptic. Then Delete. If we create a Template: New publication spoiler, less visible than this one, but more visible than Template:spoiler, we can avoid this discussion next year. Septentrionalis 15:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess it could be made a bit smaller, but it is very helpful. I had just finished HBP and was looking at the Wizarding World page. It spoils who dies right there! I thought that the regular spoiler template meant it only had spoilers for the first five books.Keep for at least three more weeks. It takes some people a long time to read the books. It can get smaller over that time.Phoenix Song 16:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace all instances of this template with {{spoiler}}. I don't think HBP-specific spoilers require their own templates. --Death phoenix 16:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have our lovely Template:Spoiler! --Neigel von Teighen 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and use {{spoiler-about}} to make it clar that the spoilers are for the new work, where this might not be obvious. DES 18:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Book 6 was spoiled for me when carlessly reading an article that just had a regular spoiler warning. I was not expecting, that the information was updated so soon and that such spoilers would be at places where I did not expect them (of course I would not have read sections that were specific to book 6). Leave it for one or two weeks, that should be enough to warn other careless readers like me. -- 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete - waaaay too specific. We do not need a template just for spoilers in one book series. Find a better way of doing it. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The regular spoiler warning is sufficient. Anyone that claims otherwise is, in my opinion, such a careless reader then they would probably have missed half the plot reading the book anyway. --Colin Angus Mackay 22:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regular spoiler warning sufficient. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:18, 2005 July 22 (UTC)

Keep. The generic spoiler warning is actually insufficient in my interpretation. zen master T 07:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind either way, as long as you remove all the old spoiler warnings for the previous books. 14:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Do we really want or need 5,000 different spoiler templates? If we keep this one, why not create a new one for every article? Makes no sense and defeats the entire purpose of a template. Gblaz 15:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand the point in deleting a template just because it's narrow. We may be only able to use it for an article or two, but is it really taking up space on the site or something? --SeizureDog 16:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least use the {{Spoiler}} format. violet/riga (t) 17:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. {{spoiler}} works fine. -Hmib 17:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed that this is too specific; apologies to the Harry Potter fans but if this template survives then that would be considered tacit support for dozens, neh hundreds of topic-specific spoilers, which I doubt many people would find beneficial. Courtland 01:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Comments: Regarding the concern that this template should be retained until a specified time ... it might be appropriate to use {{Current}} or create a template that deals specifically with time-sensitive spoiler information. With regard to immediate obsolescence, information on the content of works that have not yet been published isn't really something we should encourage for inclusion in an encyclopedia, in my opinion, as it is not descriptive but (in many cases) speculative or (in some cases) ill-gotten (i.e. from a stolen copy of a screenplay published on the internet, for instance .. talking in general terms here and not specifically on the Harry Potter matter). Courtland 02:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
~~July 20~~
~~Template:ImportantLabeledEquation~~
A dotted box style for displaying equations. The mathematicians over here seem to think that an equation is better off without any box around it. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Dotted_framebox_around_formulas (that was discussed in other places too). Oleg Alexandrov 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oleg Alexandrov 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of aesthetic reasons. --R.Koot 18:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete linas 22:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~July 19~~
~~Template:Sopranos~~
~~A very long list of Sopranos character articles, redundant with Category:The Sopranos characters. This template is rather large, obtrusive, and unnecessary. Postdlf 19:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete, category is far more useful. - SimonP 22:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, agree with Postdlf / SimonP. -- Lochaber 13:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Europe~~
Redundant with Category:European countries. The same appearance objections as with Template:UNmembers below. The chief result of this template is an interminable poll over the question of whether Turkey, Armenia, and Kazakhstan are European. (Kazakhstan may never be settled.) m:Polls are evil, but this is more evil than most; the various nationalists have been roused to block voting. Let us be done with it. Septentrionalis 17:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a test vote. The other continents can be discussed if this vote is delete and the grounds are not specifically European. Septentrionalis
Delete [I like Template:Canada ties; but its effect would be to make Template:North America doubly redundant, except perhaps as a merge with North America (which I would not oppose). 19:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)] Septentrionalis 17:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alinor 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC) correction of the introduction - the Turkey question is closed since a long time ago. 10 other states/issues are also closed - conclusion reached. There remain only 3 to close. Pools may be unwiki, but the template is usefull on its own and it should not be deleted becouse of a minor issue with 2 remaining unsettled states (and the Flag). The place for the pool/discussion is also not on the template-page (preferable places: pages for each disputable country, and also here), but is already there for a long time. A category or a list (as in the main Europe article) is not the same as a template - the template is visualizing in a much more compact way the whole information and it has other advantages. To summurize: 'keep' the template; eventualy 'move' the discussion and/or the pool; eventualy 'cancel' the pool.[reply]

Delete this is exactly what categories and lists are for. Note that the debate over which countries are part of eutope could just as well take place over a category or a list -- this template would be a bad idea if there were no debate at all -- a similer template for States of the US should likewise be deleted. DES 18:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And the debate might not be taking place. Kazakhstan is in Category:European countries and Category:Asian countries. If the argument did occur, it would be part of writing the article, as it ought to be. Septentrionalis 18:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a more general discussion of a complete overhaul of the country footers underway at Talk:United Kingdom, Talk:Canada, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. This discussion should be finished before any templates are deleted. - SimonP 18:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Perfectly OK template needed in some places. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 22:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete iff other contintent-templates are also deleted. If this nomination has been motivated by the poll precedings, then I might like to point out that the very same problems may be encountered by a category - which to include and exclude. -- Joolz 02:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because concept is reasonable whether it lists all members or only identifies membership. Whether implemented as a template or category, membership indicator is OK. And I won't vote to delete as a "test" of some sort when that should be resolved through other process than deletion through a backwater vote. (SEWilco 05:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: There is no notice on the template, it was removed. (SEWilco 05:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, one template for this purpose is useful but two is not. No forks please. R adiant _>|< 09:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment, where is the second template? -- Joolz 12:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry, I misread the heading. Nevertheless, as this has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetical, I hold that the category is more appropriate. R adiant _>|< 14:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The only problem with the category is it can't explain that some countries are not geographically in Europe, nor that some are only partly in Europe, which the template can do. -- Joolz 18:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But categories are doing this. Turkey is in a subcategory of both Category:European countries and Category:Asian countries; and has Category:bicontinental countries as a warning marker. If this, with the article text, is not specific enough, notes can be added to the category pages, more legibly than to the Template. Septentrionalis 15:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, type-boxes are useful. James F. (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Useful. Nightstallion 07:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replace all similar templates with a single {{Countries}} template (more compact than the present one of that name) listing all countries worldwide. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template is useful --*drew 14:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Templates and categories are not at war. "There can be only one!" is not a truism. Un focused 22:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the countries of Europe are easily found elsewhere and because it clogs up some pages, Sweden has two templates at the bottom besides this. --Fred-Chess 18:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Calculus2~~
Old version of Template:Calculus. I doubt it is worth keeping it. If somebody would really like to see how the calculus template looks like, one could see the page history. Oleg Alexandrov 13:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 13:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obsolete. --R.Koot 01:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Atten and Template:Atten lite~~
Delete created by an anon, and unused; also broken. Look like a suggestion for something to be used over at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, but none of those pages have a table that needs this. I left a message on the anon's talk page just in case.-Splash 00:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Additional note: there are some uses of {{arttalk}} which give a visually similar effect, and so the nominees are also redundant with this. -Splash 01:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Redirect the lot of them to Template:Attention. Or delete for all I care. R adiant _>|< 09:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)~~
~~Template:UNmembers~~
Delete: Something that is much better served as a category. Only used on two articles. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
The information in there is useful, but just looking at the behemoth is scary. ~~Categorify or listify~~, then delete. -- Titoxd 05:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already have United Nations member states. Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
If that's done already, then delete. -- Titoxd 23:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Huge template that really doesn't add anything to either of the articles it's found in. Since, with the notable exception of the Holy See, all UN-recognized nations are now full UN members, this template is redundant. Tomer ^TALK 05:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Categorify and Delete: I think there may be an implementation problem (over 200 member states) but we can have subcats for the purpose. Septentrionalis 17:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nearly all countries are UN members, it's almost like having a Template:Countries. I would suggest that it would be better if a template listed countries which aren't UN members, which is considerably fewer. -- Joolz 02:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What's the point in having a category which will include 99.9% of countries? The only places without UN membership are Vatican City and... err, possibly Somaliland/Somalia, I can't think of anywhere else ofhand (maybe Western Sahara too) -- Joolz 18:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~July 18~~
~~Template:USNavyAwards~~
~~Previously only linked to one article. Really no point to keeping it. Actual table has been copied to that article. K1Bond007 22:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)~~
Delete author made good use of the table on article, no furhter need for template. ∞Who ?¿? 23:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:MathematicsCOTW~~
~~This template is obsolete. It is replaced by Template:Wikiportal:Mathematics/Opentask. --R.Koot 18:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Speedy delete. Simple housekeeping rather than a decision on content or display. Pcb21| Pete 21:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete, obsolete. -- Titoxd 05:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:Wikiportal:Mathematics/Opentask. BTW, this template is really ugly, I suggest something like Template:GCOTW. See below: -Hyad 08:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

~~This article is a candidate for Gaming Collaboration of the week. Please visit that page to support or comment on the nomination.~~
Have you looked at the new template? It is already merged :). And it's meant to be put on the WikiPortal, there's a different template for articles (which looks like the one above). --R.Koot 11:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obsolete. R adiant _>|< 11:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I find the new Template:Wikiportal:Mathematics/Opentask ugly like hell though. I prefer something as simple as

This is the current mathematics collaboration of the week! You are encouraged to edit this article, so that it may meet a higher standard of quality.
~~Oleg Alexandrov 12:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Israel and Template:Israel infobox~~
~~Template:Infobox Country is used in the Israel article instead. 500LL 15:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)~~
Speedy delete - there are a lot of these one-use country infoboxes, and we shouldn't delay deleting them as they migrate to Template:Infobox Country. -- Netoholic @ 18:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and netoholic. Tomer ^TALK 05:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Listdev (and Category:Incomplete lists)~~
In the discussion at Wikipedia:Template locations, several people expressed the opinion that there may not be a point to this template, as just about any list in Wikipedia can be expanded and developed. Therefore, I'm listing it here. R adiant _>|< 14:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. according to Template_talk:Listdev, this template was up for deletion previously in March 2005. User:Ceyockey
Keep Useful note to readers. In addition, as Courtland suggested, a Comprehensive List template and category should be added.

Mild Keep There are lists of clearly enumerable items which ought to be complete. A hypothetical "List of all US Presidents" for example, should be complete, and if it isn't, a tag like this should warn the reader not to rely on it and encourage any editor to complete it. On the other hand List of legal terms or a hypothetical "List of Historical Novels" by their nature can't be expected to be complete, and certianly can't be proved compelete at any specific point. This tag should be reserved for soerts of list that a reader would naturally expect to be complete an even definitave, and warn when they fail of this standard. It should not be used on open-ended lists. With this limitation (which should be documeted on a proper talk page) I think the tempalte is of value I assume the category is simply of pages that havbe been tagged with the template. If so, the same remarks would apply. DES 14:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as above. While it shouldn't be used for open-ended lists, it's a useful tool to let people know that a (generally) static list is not complete, such as the list of SkyTeam Destinations. Dbinder 14:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many lists on Wikipedia are enumerable, but incomplete. Kaldari 17:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep--Striver 03:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added a usage note to the template's talk page, and i hav started to remove it from open-ended lists, which seem to be the majority of the places it has been used, of which there are over 2200. DES 18:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An "incomplete list" should be regarded as a list equivalent of a stub. – Kpalion (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep I remember seeing another similar template up for deleteion vote about a month or two ago and the result was to use this one and delete the other. slambo 18:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC) -- I just remembered, the previous vote was over Template:Expand list which is now a redirect to this template. slambo 18:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is a very useful template. --[[User:JonMoore|—Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 19:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is useful when the reader might otherwise be justified in assuming that the list is complete when in reality it is not. Lists which are only of "notable" entries would not necessarily need the template, but it really comes in handy otherwise. --Baron Larf 21:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Currently written as if it should be used on article pages. But this sort of "please expand" information is clearly for editors, so should go on talk page. Second choice: Reword and limit to talk pages only. Pcb21| Pete 21:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By the way, there is the Dynamic list template (see Category:Dynamic lists) for the "incomplete and will never be complete lists". — Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Regardless of whether a list will ever be complete, users can still be informed that the list is incomplete and that they can help expand it. BRIAN0918 23:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Useful for works in progress. Walkerma 23:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful template. Guettarda 23:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The lack of completeness in a list is an important piece of information with respect to interpretation of the context and validity of the list. However, considering the comments about most lists being incomplete (those which are not in the dynamic-class, that is), maybe we should consider making a replacement template ... {{completelist}} => "to the best of our knowledge, this list is exhaustive and complete" ... which would be used on far fewer lists and would have a higher semantic value. Just a thought. Until such a debate has been raised and born fruit, let's keep this template or one of its cousins ({{expand list}}, for instance). Also, I think this template should appear in the article space and not in the discussion space (referring to some comments in an earlier delete vote above). Courtland 23:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep This template is in use by many thousands of articles, justifying it's usefulness. It also welcomes new visitors to add new information to the article. --Alterego 01:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Very useful for many articles. --Arbiteroftruth 03:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful for pointing out lists that are woefully incomplete and encouraging edits. --Kzollman 04:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep I do admit though that almost every list of whatever has the potential for needing further edits.

Keep. extremely useful. Not sure who made the last edit, but it's not strictly true - many lists have a finite number of possible members. A list of 20th century heads of state may be incomplete on Wikipedia (if such a list exists), but it is a finite list. Grutness...wha? 05:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No need to even justify. (rolling eyes). Nelson Ricardo 08:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Very useful. jni 08:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly. Dmn / Դմն 10:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Brian0918 mentioned, while some lists may never be truly completed, there is a difference between "almost complete" and "woefully incomplete"; despite the wording, I think the template serves to stave off the latter pretty well.--Mitsukai 13:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is useful for lists whose members can be determined with a reasonable amount of effort. Obviously it doesn't apply for open-ended lists. Superm401 | Talk 19:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Very useful. Some lists can be completed. --Locarno 21:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful for lists that have a finite member count, but where the original author e.g. did not have the knowledge to supply all members. Both useful for readers (as a warning) and editors (as an encouragement). Perhaps even useful for some not-so finite lists. For instance a hypothetical list Norse mythical beings featuring only "Verðandi" could perhaps use this template. Shinobu 22:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sarge Baldy 23:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Kee[ ovbiously. Dunc|☺ 23:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it does serve a useful purpose. --Shawn K. Quinn 01:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Useful. For example, see its use at the article on My System, where it is used to mark a list of book editions. — Bcat (talk | email) 02:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Useful for many of the above reasons. ~ Dpr 05:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all newbies realize they can edit wikipedia, and many lists are incomplete, thus this list is useful for at least two reasons. -JCarriker 12:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. While it is certainly true that almost any article can be updated there are specific lists which are in obvious need of expansion. MadMax 23:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is such a thing as a complete list (czars of Russia), ergo, there is such a thing as an incomplete list. Just because incomplete is in the majority doesn't mean it should be taken for granted that all lists are complete. jengod 18:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Many people might not know all of something, but would at least like to start the list. First, the template alerts other people who visit the article that the list is incomplete; second, the category alerts other people browsing for work that that list is incomplete. For example, if a person knew most of the enemy names from Super Mario RPG, but not all, yet wanted to make a list of them, he/she could make the list of whatever he/she knows and then let someone else finish it. (Whether or not a SMRPG enemy list would be suitable on Wikipedia is another story, but that's just an example.) Glenn Magus Harvey 03:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cburnett 06:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Unprotected~~
This template seems to be well intentioned, but looks like unnecessary clutter for the reader and contains information that could just as well be placed in a comment at the top of the article containing advice for editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I support a delete, but I do think that it may be slightly useful in a few articles. Anyways, it's not worth it. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete slightly useful, but I support a note made by the admin on the talk page, at the time of unprotecting. This template could be userfied for those purposes. ∞Who ?¿? 23:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could actually be harmful. Why bring other users into an edit war that's dying down? If there is still a dispute, {{NPOV}} would be appropriate. Otherwise, drop it. Superm401 | Talk 20:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete pointless. Dunc|☺ 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~July 17~~
~~Template:Begin code and Template:End code~~
Delete: Both are used on a single page: Wikipedia:WikiProject C/Syntax highlighting, an apparently stillborn idea from nearly a year ago. The template's creator, User:Eequor, is the single edit to both the page and the templates. -Splash 20:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not exactly cluttering namespace that might be used for other things, it's not likely to cause trouble if it's used, and it's a good idea. That it is, at present, unused and appears to be part of an abandoned project is not sufficient reason to delete it. It's not hurting anything, so why get rid of it? Kurt Weber 21:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because the deletion criteria say that not being used is a reason to delete. -Splash 21:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm going to propose that that be deleted from the deletion criteria; could we suspend this TfD until a decision is reached on that proposal? If not then I'll just archive them in my userspace, and then if the proposal passes (and "it's not being used" is the only significant argument for deleting these particular templates) Kurt Weber 21:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't really just artbitrarily suspend policy. You might want to make your proposal at either the Village Pump or the instruction page's talk page. -Splash 21:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I already made the proposal...and I wasn't talking about "suspending policy", just suspending this particular vote until a yes or no is reached on the particular proposal I made. Kurt Weber 21:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt, where did you make this proposal? Tomer ^TALK 06:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Found at [3]. Tomer ^TALK 02:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep "Being unused" may be a sufficient reson for deletion, it is not a necessary reson -- in other words although we can delete soemthing unused, we don't have to. i find Kurt Weber's arguments above persuasive. DES 22:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The syntax highlighting proposal doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. In fact, the entire Wikipedia:WikiProject C doesn't seem to be all that active. On top of that, I don't think templates are going to be a good way to bring syntax highlighting to Wikipedia. This is something that (as far as I can see) could only be implemented effectively with new wiki markup. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Any programming code that is used in relation to an article should appear on Wikimedia Commons anyhow. --JB Adder | Talk 01:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - manual syntax highlighting is an exercise in tedium. Better to write an extension to do it. That the templates have sat around utterly unused for a very long time is a bonus. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I share Cyrius's sentiment. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 13:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should just point out, in case the signature is unfamiliar, that the immediately above vote is by User:Eequor, the creator and only editor of the template. -Splash 20:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. Agree with Splash and and Cyrius about the usefulness of this template, but also with Kurt that this vote should be suspended until the ~~(reportedly)~~ proposed policy change is addressed. [4] Tomer ^TALK 06:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, could be useful, let's not eliminate the potential for usage by deleting them. JYolkowski // talk 22:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:20-cen~~
Delete after subst:ing. This effectively is just article text and is redundant with straightforward wikimarkup. It's only used in two articles (despite the bazillion that must refer to the 20thC), and has only been used by its author, who has been notified of this TfD. -Splash 20:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 01:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not useful. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most articles in the Wikipedia would need it, and pretty much none do; this says that this template is a bad idea. -- Titoxd 05:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as "author":
(a) 102 K using "20th" followed by "century" is about a bazillion, i guess, but "most" of 600K is over 300K, and
only 50% of the first ten of those Google hits could use the hyphen in their titles,

none could have used the template, without a construction like
List of {{subst:20-cen}} [[List of 20th century classical composers|classical composers]]

to produce the very odd and probably unhelpful
List of 20^th-century classical composers

and two more randomly chosen sets of 10 hits had 1 that could use a hyphen, and the template,

so 5% of 102K, or 5K is a sounder estimate than 300K,

(b) i may have used it more as (invisible) subst than as transclusion, so you have no idea how much i did,

(c) for reason of the same invisibility, no one else is likely to use it without its being better publicized,

(d) i'd have used it more if i could recall the mnemonic reliably, or could look it up other than in my voluminous watch-list

(e) one of the best reasons for it is to encourage the superscripting, which is never used e.g. within the number one Google hit, 20th century, nor within any of the top 10 hits,

(f) the other best reason for it is encourage the hyphen, which is applicable not to every instance, but only to the adjectivial uses, such as (choosing from those first ten hits) the titles
20th century classical music

List of 20th century classical composers

Category:20th century classical composers

Category:20th century philosophers

20th-century philosophy

of which all 5 call for the hyphen in the title but only the last i've named has it there;

(g) encouragement is needed, not just to overcome ignorance and carelessness, but bcz it's fussy wikimarkup: instead of the usual 16 chars for
[[20th century]]

(with 14 changes of key and two probable keyboard-peeks (one for each non-letter, non-digit, non-shift-key finger positioning), it takes 40 chars to do it right w/o the template, adding (efficiently, with a typo-saving cut&paste, but counting getting onto any shift key as the traditional half-stroke allowed for the case-shift key where the others are absent) not 14 keystrokes, but 29 further keystrokes and 9 further keyboard peeks,

(h) the previously undiscussed hyphen, IMO mandated for adjectivial use, may or not be why this tmplt was not deleted when the no-hyphen one was, much sooner after creation than this one.
--Jerzy·t 23:47, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Keep It ain'o big thang, especially since i have no intention of being the one to do more than this to bring it to anyone else's attention. But here's a vote after all, on the chance that some minds might change in response to the second set of arguments that suggests anything near a thorough look at the question.
--Jerzy·t 23:47, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
~~Template:2004Earthquake~~
Delete after subst:ing. This (badly named) template is just article text (which is forbidden in Wikipedia:Template namespace) about deaths in the tsunami. Only added tfd notice to talk page, but will leave notices on the articles' talks. -Splash 19:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Subst. As far as I know, the outcome of the article text/template debates was that they should be strongly discouraged and used only as a temporary solution, rather than forbidden per se. I assume the point of this was to be able to efficiently update the death toll across multiple pages. But now it's July and I think we can probably be done wiht this. Dragons flight 21:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Delete Useless template. Should have just used plain text --Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 03:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Advert~~
Since advertising is not a speedy criterion, and this template is promoted for usage on several people's toolkit templates, I've reworded it to become a cleanup template instead. If you voted before, please consider if you wish to change your vote now that the template has changed. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

~~The following votes and comments were made before the template was reworded. The votes are, of course, still valid, but the comments may no longer be appropriate to the reworded version.~~
Redundant with more flexible use of {{db|reason}}. We don't need a separate template for each WP:CSD reason. I'm not even sure what "blatant advertising" means, and I see this could be misused. Spamming porn links is vandalism (so already covered), but advertising your band still means a trip to WP:VFD. -- Netoholic @ 13:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to replace this with a cleanup template stating something like "This article reads like an advertisement, which is inappropriate. You can improve Wikipedia by rewording it to be descriptive and NPOV". R adiant _>|< 13:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Quite a few existing cleanup templates would work, along with an explanation on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 13:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd like to note that advertising is NOT listed at WP:CSD, and as such this template is highly misleading. It should be deleted or reworded per Radiant!. Meelar (talk) 13:55, July 15, 2005 (UTC)~~ Keep, now that it has been reworded. Meelar (talk) 18:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete since advertising is, for some reason, not a candidate for CSD (not even under the current proposals). As Netoholic says, there are other cleanup templates that can be used. -Splash 14:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Splash. This tempalte makes an incorrect statemetn, as simply being advertising is not currently a valid reason for speedy deletion under the CSD. DES 21:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is true that we do not need a template for every possible speedy delete reason, however it is very useful to have a short way of entering the common cases that show up in practice: a common case is an article that is clearly spam, i.e. just a link to a commercial website. This is useful for reducing the amount of time it takes to label these advertisements, therefore I think Advert will be useful, and I believe the burden to delete this template should now be on the supporters to show that it is actually not useful, it is new, promising, and that it should be properly noted and given a chance to see if it is a useful template or not. --Mysidia 06:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This template claims that a page to which it has been applied is subject to speedy deletion per WP:CSD. If a page is meaningful spam, even blantent advertising spam, exactly which of the CSD criteria apply to it? As far as i can see, none of them, so such a page must go to VfD under the current rules. This template says otherwise. If this template denounced ads and put them on VfD, that would be another matter. It doesn't. It contains incorrect statements, and might lead to incorrect action under the current rules. It should go. DES 21:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. As Above. Advertising, in and of itself, is not a reason for speedy deletion since some non-trivial fraction of all things that get advertised are in fact notable, in which case the facts provided in the advertisement can be used as the foundation for a real page. I would not object to keeping this if Radiant's suggestion for turning this into a cleanup template specifically targeting pages that read like advertisements is followed. Dragons flight 06:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep new version. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep revised version. DES 08:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dragons flight 08:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Too narrow. Use the other standard, existing cleanup templates, whichever is most fitting (cleanup-importance or cleanup-tone, maybe). Saying it reads like an advertisement does not give specific direction for future work. -- Netoholic @ 08:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new version. --KFP 13:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new version. I think it gives quite a bit of direction, linking as it does to WP:NOT a soapboax, Wikipedia:cleanup, Wikipedia:Style and How-to Directory and Wikipedia:NPOV. -Splash 17:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a myriad of templates like this encourages users to spend time dicking around thinking about what template to put on an article rather than fixing the thing. Second choice: Use only on talk pages. Content for editors goes on the talk page! Pcb21| Pete 21:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems like this issue has been fixed. -- Titoxd 05:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is fine, but I think it is still desirable to separately have a quick way of marking unfixable spam for speedy deletion, particularly since {{Template:d}} by itself seems to have been changed to include a rather unsightly {{1}} as of late when an explicit reason is given; even if "it is spam" is not one of the explicit criteria for speedy deletion, it is no coincidence that an article nominated for such deletion was Spam.. probably the real reason an article get nominated which is what should be shown, the CSD just which one it was (Vfd or Speedy), and probably many such advertisement do in fact get nominated for speedy deletion do not strictly meet the CSD, so the template should make it clear that advertisement itself is not the criteria but the article contains no useful content and is /no spam.. or the article contains a link only, i.e. {{d-link}} --Mysidia 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:TitleDisputed~~
~~Duplicates existing (and more descriptive) "Template:NPOV-title". -- Netoholic @ 06:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Keep. This template has been used on a handful of articles for over 2 months without any complaints. It signifies the dispute is specific to the title whereas "NPOV-title" is overly broad and too general because it mentions subject matter and organization (could be a dispute over anything which lessens the fact to the reader that there is a legitimate neutrality dispute somewhere) and its font is too small. zen master T 06:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~The editor is forgetting my complaints about its use on every page that he added it to. (see my vote and comments below). -Willmcw 10:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)~~
Comment {{TitleDisputed}} seems to be in much more frequent use than {{NPOV-title}} although neither is used all that much, unless they are normally substed, which seems unlikely. DES 06:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there is much practical use for this tag. If there is a dispute on a title, they should be directed to use Wikipedia:Requested moves, by leaving a note on the users talk page. If for some odd reason there is a revert war, then one could use one of these tags. The more useful title should be used, and then placed on the templates page, where {{TitleNPOV}} already exists btw, and redirect to the non-deleted one. It seems that zen master has been in a few 3RR situations, and can only suggest that maybe a nice note on where to find the existing templates Wikipedia:Template messages and how to propose templates would be helpful to them later. ∞Who ?¿? 07:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{TitleDisputed} has been used on articles where there was no consensus for a new title (requested moves failed) and a legitimate neutrality dispute over the title remains. What is the relevance of 3RR as far as the quality of this template is concerned? Would netoholic's infamous history be relevant on this TfD using your logic then too? This template has been used for 2 months without complaint, it is more specific and clearer than {NPOV-title}. zen master T 09:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appologize, I did not mean it in an offensive manner, I merely stated that your history showed that you did not defer to the discussion pages. As far as the title, like I said, I think the one that is used the most often or is easier, should be used, and one of them redirected. I did not mean to belittle your comments, only was trying to make the suggestion to view the discussions and propose template creation first, as I myself am guilty of doing. ∞Who ?¿? 09:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your post once again is inaccurate/suggestive, I defer to the talk page all the time (look at my ratio of talk page edits to article edits on editcount). To what articles are you referring specifically? How does supporting {TitleDisputed} not "defer" to the talk page?? Either there is a legitimate neutrality dispute or there is not. What about the point that {TitleDisputed} actually signifies specifically that the title is disputed whereas {NPOV-title} suggests that any number of multiple nebulous things could be disputed? zen master T 10:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly referring to Template talk:TitleDisputed (note the red link, hence no discussion), may have saved a lot of the conflicts in its history. Wikipedia talk:Template messages, to propose the template and discuss its creation and format. These two places minimum. As for disputed titles, there was the other template, which could have been used. Now we have redundant templates, and I only made the suggestion that you propose the template, before creating it to avoid Tfd. ∞Who ?¿? 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The need arose to signify that just the title of an article was disputed, {NPOV-title} is/was insufficient as it is too generic/nebulous. {TitleDisputed} has been accepted for over 2 months, someone could have suggested a move/merge on the template's talk page to spark a discussion rather than going ahead with a TfD. zen master T 10:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two templates. I can see the use but we don't need two of them, so pick whatever wording/layout is best and redirect the other there. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Other template is sufficient. This template was created simply to address one set of article titles that the community had a full discussion and vote.(Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory) The vote was clearly in favor of existing titles, yet the editor who proposed the original changes added this template to several articles anyway. I complained about it on each of the talk pages. Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories#Title disputed, Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda#Disputed title, Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#Disputed title and Talk:9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories#Disputed title. In each case the discussion tended more towards the suitability of applying the template than to the template itself. Nonetheless, its use has been discussed at some length previously. -Willmcw 10:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:LAME~~
~~We shouldn't advertise our past transgressions. The existence of WP:LAME is more than enough. This will only stir the pot. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Wasn't this nominated last week as well? Delete, irrelevant meta-data. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Almafeta 12:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are getting way too enamored with this sort of thing. I like WP:LAME a lot, but I don't want it advertised on every article it lists. (Would consistency require that it be added to the talk page of the Main Page, for example? Say it isn't so. :-) JRM · Talk 12:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another edit war template!? Template:editwar is sufficient. --JB Adder | Talk 01:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inflaming recently-hurt egos by leaving a notice on the disputed page calling their efforts "lame" sounds like poking a beehive with a stick. -- Titoxd 05:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sadly useful. And some users need a clue-by-four to get thier attention. --Calton | Talk 02:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Neither amusing nor instructive. -Jmh123 15:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~July 16~~
~~Template:AubreyMaturinSeries~~
~~The pages that this navigated among have now all been merged, so this tempalte is no longer needed. DES 21:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Well done! Delete then. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)~~
~~Template:Privileged access~~
~~We have a general disclaimer. Usage not worthy of a template. -- Netoholic @ 21:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete: there's a general disclaimer as Netoholic says, and WP:NOT a FAQ, either, which this has overtones of. Also, WP shouldn't make 'recommendations' in the way this tl does. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pointless. People who can't handle BOFH status in Linux generally aren't given it anyway. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
You forget that linux impementations are not infrequently installed on single-user computers as replacements for/alternatives to Windoes. In such cases the user generally has full rights, but may not know as much as s/he ought to about the dangers of some commands. DES 17:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep this is important info about such commnds, but might be better ingtegrated into the article directly. DES 17:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree to some extent about WP not making recommendations (but weakly, because I think there can be exceptions). More to the point, this template will not make this warning appear where it is most needed. It is currently just linked from chown, because it requires root access. But many commands which don't necessarily require root access are much more dangerous if invoked as root, for example rm. I think the general comment on superuser is enough. 80.229.160.150 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with Splash, Netoholic. Pcb21| Pete 21:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Dangerous~~
~~We have a general disclaimer. Maybe a joke creation? -- Netoholic @ 20:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete, per Netoholic. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea per se but I can't really think of a place to put it, and from its talk page neither can the creator, so delete. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Policysuspended~~
~~I'd say redirect to Template:Notpolicy, but that one was deleted too. -- Netoholic @ 20:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete — there's no page this could apply to. Either it is policy or it is not. I suppose this is intended for a hypothetical current policy which is being repolled with a view to removal. Even then, it would presumably remain policy until consensus decided against it - it wouldn't be 'suspended'. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, m:instruction creep. We don't suspend policy ("hey, I don't like the NPOV policy, how about we suspend it for today?"). We do have disputed guidelines but that's entirely different. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as per Splash above. -- Titoxd 04:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If a policy is suspended, then remove the {{policy}} tag from it to indicate that fact. --Mysidia 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:TPOV~~
~~Since when do we have a problem with POV templates? Redundant with {{tfd}} and the Edit button. :) -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Hmmm. Nothing links here. But POV is not a case for {{tfd}}, it just needs reworking and the tag indicates that (on a talk page, I presume). The nomination argument applies equally well to articles, so we could do away with all the POV templates on that basis, which we clearly can't. I'm inclined to suggest a weak delete, but I'd be interested in other arguments too. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fork. Wow, is it general cleanup day in template land? Not that I mind :) R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I created this because I thought a certain template was non-neutral and I thought a POV notice would be of use. It was a little ad-hoc but I used it at least once. — Phil Welch 08:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --minghong 09:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- or at least it should not be in a box and look more like Template:tfd, so it is clear that it is a dispute about the template and not the article that uses it.. I cannot think of a likely situation where this applies.. the meaning of having many of the templates on an article is inherently POV at a meta level.. take {{cleanup}} it represents the opinion of a few editors who think an article needs to be cleaned up, a vfd tag on an article represents a point of view by as few as 1 persons that an article merits listing for deletion, a POV tag in and of itself is POV. There is the issue of uses of a template and what is expressed by its appearance in a specific spot versus its contents in general. So templates are allowed to be POV, and if someone makes a {{sucks}} template with text "This subject really sucks" or "This is a sucky stub", then the right tag to add to it is {{tfd}} not {{tpov}}, or EDIT and fix the text, since templates are short enough to do this easily -- with long articles, it may be rather difficult to edit them into NPOV. --Mysidia 22:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Long NPOV~~
~~The very subtle text differences seems like it would be something which could be added to Template:POV, rather than forking a whole new template. -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Agree with nom. Maybe a proposal on the talk page to adjust the existing template. ∞Who ?¿? 07:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Netoholic. Have seen this cause large problems on a few pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fork. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete It looks worse and says nothing extra. Hipocrite 16:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the invitation to discuss the problems can be useful in certain cases. JYolkowski // talk 22:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I can see a use for this in some cases. --Shawn K. Quinn 01:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Delete if wording of NPOV template is at least reviewed. Robert McClenon 19:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to POV and maintain the longer text as the better version. Note that the present style of Long NPOV is listed at Template_talk:POV#Style_change_proposal, but for some reason, Template:POV is protected. --Mysidia 22:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More ways to say NPOV are good. Un focused 22:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Cleanuplo~~
(also the generated Category:Cleanup leftovers)
This "leftover" designation seems all-but abandoned. They now use Template:Cleanup-date. -- Netoholic @ 19:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tl and cat, but replace current uses with {{cleanup-date}}. This has been superseded. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, good idea but doesn't actually work. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Cleanupcsh~~
~~Topic-specific cleanup messages are not needed. -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Weak Keep. Since this is part of a wiki project, it might actually serve a purpose since there are specific guidelines for those articles. However not putting these articles into a category seems to be self defeating in getting someone to find and fix them. If that project is producing high quality articles, maybe it should be expanded to all state highways and this template expanded, and renamed, so it is less specific. Vegaswikian 19:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but possibly get a new template "this article is related to that wikiproject" (but it would require rewording and renaming so I'm voting del on this one). R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
A such template exists- {{California State Highway WikiProject}}. It goes on the talk page of each article. --Rschen7754 16:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is part of a WikiProject, and I have used it in the past to mark articles that really need some help. --Rschen7754

Keep. This is part of the ongoing CA highway wikiproject. A full state highway project for all states is too daunting at this time.Gateman1997

Keep. It's easier for the project people [us] to see which project-related articles need cleanup by looking at the 'what links here' as as well as the reasons stated by Gateman1997 and Rschen7754. atanamir 22:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Cleanup-serious~~
(also the generated Category:Wikipedia serious cleanup)
This template is in serious need of deletion. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cleanup seems to do a better job in explaining the work needed. Vegaswikian 19:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:Cleanup-just kidding delete. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I actually physically laughed out loud when I read that! -Splash 18:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Cleanup-s & Template:Cleanuplite~~
~~More miniature versions of an established template. Orphaned, not worth redirecting. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete. Cleanup seems to do a better job in explaining the work needed. Vegaswikian 19:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added Template:Cleanuplite after your vote, please confirm whether you agree with that one's deletion. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cleanup still explains what to do in a better way. Vegaswikian 19:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, cleanup does the job fine. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, oh wait, I mean delete! Agree. --Dmcdevit·t 07:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete forks. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe keep cleanuplight -- it looks slicker for marking just a section for cleanup. --Mysidia 22:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Cleanup-nonsense-serious~~
~~Funny, but not an appropriate template. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per Netoholic. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{delete}}. If something is patent nonsense, there's no point in cleaning it up except with a flamethrower. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not a needed template, as nonsense falls under the criteria for speedy deletion. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible use I can see for this is as a decoy that can be used by sysops so that they can see which articles link to the template so that the articles can be speedy-deleted. Unfortunately, such use will catch articles for five minutes until someone figures out what the admins are doing and the template becomes useless. Then, I vote delete. -- Titoxd 06:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...funny...did anyone bother to look at the choice of image for this template? :-p Tomer ^TALK 06:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:MergeVfD~~
~~Seems a little too specific, and is currently unused. -- Netoholic @ 18:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Weak delete. I didn't know this existed. Having a link to the VfD discussion might quite possibly be useful so that the merging editor can see what particular things people thought. However, nearly all merge votes on VfD are pretty non-specific in what they mean, so there would not be much to gain. Seeing as a link to the VfD ought to be on the talk page and a merging editor ought to read the talk page, that ought to be enough...-Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reluctant delete~~ I agree with Splash. If this were listed on the templates page, it would probably be used more often. I think it is useful to be able to easily access the Vfd discussion, but that can always be annotated on the talk page. ∞Who ?¿? 07:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, change vote, as I fealt it was useful, if other editors are ready to accept it's usage, than it should be kept. It should be added to Template messages after this Tfd. ∞Who ?¿? 23:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one, but reword and relayout to match {{merge}}, and advertise its usage. This is useful because VFD closing admins often don't perform a merge for lack of time, and a regular tl:merge is sometimes removed swiftly by people unaware of the VFD. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep as per Radient. DES 04:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Advertise. Tomer ^TALK 06:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I know of two articles that could use it right now. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Merge-tasks~~
~~Orphaned, no purpose. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete, goodness knows what that was meant for. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If anything would link here, I'd say redir to {{merge}}. Since that isn't the case, delete. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

del, no clear usage --MarSch 07:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:End Spoiler~~
Unused, poorly worded (I read this as "Details of the ending or end of plot"), and redundant to Template:Endspoiler (which is itself undocumented and barely used, but might be worth salvaging). —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del unused camelcase poorly worded fork --MarSch 12:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete' -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Template:spoiler They are both the same, so having two different templates that talk of the same thing isn't much use. (I think it might be instruction creep, I don't know.) --JB Adder | Talk 01:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is not the same as Template:spoiler, it is more or less the same as Template:Endspoiler. That is, it indicates the end of a an area of text that contains spoilers. Merge with Template:Endspoiler and document. DES 04:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia:Spoiler warning {{Endspoiler}} has now been documented.

Delete -- takagawa-kun 16:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DES. Tomer ^TALK 06:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions spoiler~~
~~Unused, and far, far too specific. —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
del unused --MarSch 12:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Warning: Results of this TFD vote follow. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. way to specific, though i do love Jeopardy!. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. "What is a rake?" Tomer ^TALK 06:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:Change~~
(see also Template:Space right below) Not a very useful math template, uniting topics as distinct as arithmetic and calculus (the former is not about change by the way). Calculus is a subset of analysis, so both should not be in that template. I believe this template is not very helpful. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Templates_for_thought seems to confirm that. Oleg Alexandrov 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if the project that would use it thinks it's not wanted. As the nominator says, it groups together things that don't have any particularly convincing relationship. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. linas 17:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dominus 13:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Space~~
(See also Template:Change right above). This template puts together a lot of articles having rather little in common, like Trigonometry, Algebraic topology, and Functional analysis. I doubt the concept of space is so important in trigonometry and also in fractal geometry listed there. In short, I don't think that template is terribly helpful for navigating between articles. Oleg Alexandrov 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oleg Alexandrov 06:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's not really a topic called 'space' in mathematics anyway, is there? -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. linas 17:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reasons as Template:Structure and Template:Quantity. Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Magic-spoiler~~
~~Far too specific. We already have Template:Spoiler and even better Template:Solution. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~

Keep. Specific, yes, but I think it feels a meaningful niche. {{spoiler}} clearly isn't appropriate since magic tricks don't really have "plot and/or ending details". {{solution}} is a lot closer, but "Warning: Solution details follow" is really not a strong or specific enough warning to my taste. I would expect to see something like {{solution}} before the answer to a math problem or a riddle, i.e. the kind of problems that one could figure out by logical deduction. In most cases, magic tricks simply can't be figured out merely from a description of their appearance. As such, I favor the stronger warning for magic secrets. Dragons flight 07:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think one more spoiler template is going to kill us, and there is a good case for a difference in phrasing. Note that people are currently getting quite excited about the fact that Wikipedia reveals the secrets to magic tricks. I recently added this template to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. I wonder how many other spoiler templates exist that are not listed there. Bovlb 07:57:41, 2005-07-16 (UTC) rephrased Bovlb 17:43:25, 2005-07-16 (UTC)

Keep at least until the furor that Bovlb mentions dies down. (See Talk:Out of This World (card trick).) —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a very specific and special kind of spoiler, not like the more literary uses for {{spoiler}} and most of the other spoiler templates. A specific warning is very useflu in this case. DES 21:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replace with {{spoiler-about}} or {{spoiler-other}} as appropriate. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Both of those still reference "plot and/or ending details", which is a poor fit for magic secrets, in my opinion. Dragons flight 08:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Neither of the cited alternatives has applicable language. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep I agree, the wording in the suggested alternatives seems quite inapplicable --Johnjosephbachir 18:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unlike Template:spoiler (which is used for novels and movies) and Template:Solution (which is used for common mathematical problems), this spoiler warning actualy goes "behind-the-scenes" with a magic trick; thus, adding this to a magic trick article (eg sleight-of-hand) will tell the reader to steer from it if they do not want to destroy the 'magic' of the illusion. To say plot details follow or solution follows really are out-of-place in an article. --JB Adder | Talk 04:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note There is a discussion now going on at Template talk:Magic-spoiler about whether this template (assuming it is kept, as now seems likely to me) should retain its current image or be just a line of text. Anyone intersted in this matter, please join that discussion, so that a proper consensus can form. So far exactly two people have expressed views, one for and one against the image. DES 18:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of the proposed alternatives seem to appropriately work. -- Krash 15:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons everybody else has cited. — The Storm Surfer 17:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons. --U.U. 08:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This was my first time seeing the template (on billet reading) and it was what I expected. Magic secrets are somewhere between plot spoilers and solutions; the secret is only a "solution" for those who were exclusively looking at it as an unsolved puzzle to begin with. I think the wording makes sense. --Closeapple 10:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:Portal skeleton~~
~~This uses an old standard for creating a Wikiportal.A new template has replaced it {{box portal skeleton}} but sometime people still use this old one.Trevor macinnis 03:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Query? Since {{box portal skeleton}} doesn't actually seem to be in use presently, is there some reason why you don't copy the new template contents over the old template? Dragons flight 05:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

copy box portal skeleton to portal skeleton and redirect --MarSch 12:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought that the instructions on Wikipedia:Wikiportal were specific enough that people would use "box portal" instead of "portal" skeleton (several prominent pages now do, including some newly created ones), and these instuctions will probably need to be changed, but I support copy box portal skeleton to portal skeleton and redirect Trevor macinnis 16:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one, Rename the other to not involve the skeleton as the name is misleading. Make it a prototype instead. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
what name do you suggest? --MarSch 07:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Portal prototype. R adiant _>|< 09:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
~~Template:User la~~
~~I didn't know there were any native speakers of Latin since about 500 years ago? User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 02:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
keep, 2 users apparently do. --MarSch 12:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Uh, no. Not natively, that's not possible. They might be la-3, perhaps. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete impossible. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or reformat Haha... sorry... I updated this this morning and assumed that "naturaliter" implied fluency in written and spoken Latin, since my fluency in German is from years living in Germany, but again I'm not a "Muttersprache" in the strict sense, moving there as a teenager. Yet since vulgar Latin has degenerated into the Romance languages, and I am not fluent in vulgar Latin, I'll change it without complaint!
And just a correction, there have been no native speakers of the Latin we know and write in for probably over 1000 years. Evidence suggests the language was deteriorating even in the second century AD! (And with the Germanic invasions and such, from the 6th to 11th centuries it split into French, Italian, etc.) Amicuspublilius 04:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete post haste; the relevant category was CFD'ed a couple of weeks ago, no point in repeating the debate. R adiant _>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Being able to use it like a native speaker is quite possibile, though difficult. Almafeta 12:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:Babel says to use la "if you're a native speaker or have a grasp of the language comparable to a native speaker", which seems possible to achieve. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Babel seems to be a bit inconsistent. The list gives levels 1, 2, 3 and native but the example given immediately below makes reference to a level 4. {{User en-4}} states "This user speaks English at a near-native level." which would seem to cover the "comparable to a native speaker" sentence currently mentioned in the native level. --TheParanoidOne 18:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Someone whose understanding of the language is NEAR that of a native speaker may know the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary perfectly but may not necessarily get the full meaning of various idioms and cultural references, while a native speaker or someone whose understanding of the languages is that of a native speaker would. Kurt Weber 19:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jitse Niesen is right...it doesn't require that someone be a native speaker, just that he have an understanding of the language equivalent to that of a native speaker. Kurt Weber 18:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Latin is not a dead language. It is spoken in Homilies, and official documents of the Roman Catholic Church. As the official language of the Vatican, a city and independent state - it is possible to be a native speaker of Latin (OK, I can your point, but I still think it should be kept). Oliver Keenan 21:54, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Why bother deleting it? I think that deleting any part of Wikipedia that's obviously "symmetric" will only lead to its re-creation. {{User en}} exists, so {{User la}} should too. If nobody uses it, it will remain unused. But if it's deleted, somebody will come along next week and say, "Aha! {{User la}} doesn't exist yet! I'd better create it," and we'll repeat this whole process. --Quuxplusone 17:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conservamus hunc Tomer ^TALK 06:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comment--one we should probably try to get rid of is "Native Speaker of Gothic" ~ Dpr 05:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Utterly harmless. If we accept "native equivalent" for other languages, why not for this one also? There are people in this world who use Latin as a working language; what a boon it would be to us if Wikipedia caught on in .va.--Pharos 06:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. James F. (talk) 02:31, 21 July 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.
Template:Skinheadz (5d, 0k)

Template:Nationalist Movement (5d, 0k)

Template:Richard Barrett (5d, 0k)

Template:Phi Delta Theta infobox (2d, 0k, deprecated for generic frat infobox)

Template:Lame edit war (7d, 2k)

Template:Current sports (4d, 0k)

Template:^ (7d, 0k)

Template:Structure (7d, 1k)

Template:Quantity (9d, 1k)
~~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.
~~(none at this time)~~
~~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.~~
Template:Worldperks (5d, 1k, should be listified)

Template:Sailing ship elements will not be deleted, but it was suggested that a category be also created for the articles listed here.
Created Category:Sailing ship elements, and added all listed items. Not sure what to do with template. Remove from articles? ∞Who ?¿? 09:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~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:Judaism-Attention (6d, 1k)

Template:Kubrick (12 catify/del, 8 keep)

Template:Steven Spielberg's films (12 catify/del, 8 keep)

Template:Alfred Hitchcock's films (12 catify/del, 8 keep)

Template:(disambiguation) (11d, 3k; voting suggests to put this layout on existing {{disambig}})
someone needs to unprotect the latter--MarSch 10:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Layout copied over {{disambig}}. R adiant _>|< June 28, 2005 07:55 (UTC)
And reverted :( --MarSch 28 June 2005 14:15 (UTC)
I've created a poll at Template talk:disambig. Please vote there --MarSch 28 June 2005 15:01 (UTC)
obnoxified --MarSch 1 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)
Template:swwiki (6d, 1k)

Template:WAEduGov (4d, 0k)-Splash 9 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

Template:CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC - please read the talk page discussion before making substantial changes (9d, 1k). Also applies to Template:Controversial note which just transcludes this template. -Splash 17:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sane and Template:SANE (4d, 0k) -Splash 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alert (4d, 2 redir to {{comment}}) -Splash 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parliament Malaysia Seats (3d, 0k) -Splash 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Revertwarinprogress (6d, 1k) -Splash 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RWIP (6d, 1k) -Splash 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sisterprojects (2.5d, 0k) -Splash 17:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Siterprojects (5d, 0k) -Splash 17:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Live (10d, 5k, suggested redirecting to {{current}}) -Splash 17:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Survey (3d, 2u'fy, 0k - consider userfy) —Cryptic (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:0/5 0.5/5 1/5 1.5/5 2/5 2.5/5 3/5 3.5/5 4/5 4.5/5 5/5 (3d, including creator, 0k)