Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RedWolf (talk | contribs) at 02:34, 10 September 2005 (→[[Template:Test2c ]]: deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

Template:Sfd-current


Adding a listing

  • Please put new listings under today's date (August 30) 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.

September 9

Template:Mpartprotected

This template should probably be kept, in case it is helpful, for the same reasons I voted to keep the template immediately below this (its sister template). Keeping it won't hurt anything; however, in the Spirit of intellectual honesty, I am listing this template in the {{tfd}} page here ,to get clear community concensus and review.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

Template:ProtectedMainPageArticle

Standard procedure, established after much arguing all over the place, is that articles on the main page, featured or otherwise, are not protected. It is felt that the improvement that results outweighs the brief period of vandalism that results. --Carnildo 00:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It is felt that the improvement that results outweighs the brief period of vandalism that results." Oh? Then, why, pray tell, must you insist on not deleting these "image" templates, displayed here? (and shown below)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mpimgprotected
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ProtectedMainPageImage
Apparently, there is sufficient vandalism. See the template talk page here here please before you act in a way which contradicts your own lack of actions in regards to the image protect templates.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image protection is for images that are actually displayed on the main page not for stuff linked from it. IMO that’s quite a significant difference. Also images are far less likely to receive constructive updates than articles. Plugwash 00:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world, Plugwash, that would be OK, but tell that to the editor (only one, who shall remain nameless) at Schiavo who keeps opposing documented past consensus and throwing a perfectly good Featured Article candidate into instability.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see any policy to support this template. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I commented or asked clarification of most or all the others who voted below, and I don't want to cheat you, lol, Evil Monkey: So, I would like to point out contra, I see neither policy nor logical reasoning to delete this template (nor its sister template above). I could be wrong here, but what would it hurt to keep these templates?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template would only protect the article for 24-hours while it basked in the light of main page. Besides, we protect images.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The use of this template is a violation of the protection policy. →Raul654 00:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Clarification sought: I just got finished looking at both Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace and Wikipedia:Template_namespace, Mark, and I see no such "policy." Where is policy on this located? Even if I am out-voted here (and I may be wrong??), there should be a page on policy, and if there isn't one, it should be incorperated in policy -if indeed it is a good idea and concept.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the Protection policy does allow for highly visible pages to be protected, this has never been extended to include pages link from visible pages (e.g, pages linked from the main page) - hence by above comment. When others have suggested protecting main page featured articles in the past (and it's been suggested quite often) I have repeatedly scolded them for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are the fact that (A) Featured articles almost without exception are improved by their time on the main page, and (B) featured articles are (by definition) supposed to exemplify what makes wikipedia unique, and this means it is unprotected and editable by anyone. →Raul654 03:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I'll be a Monkey's Uncle, Mark, you are right: Thank you for the link above. Policy here does say: "When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself." I don't agree with this policy, at all!! However, you may keep it --and proceed at your own risk. My personal pages (non-wiki, that is), are ALL protected, and VERY, very stable.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • (quoting Mark here) "When others have suggested protecting main page featured articles in the past (and it's been suggested quite often)..." Oh... It has been suggested "quite often," no less, eh..., as I suspected: I wonder why... Maybe because it has merit, eh? Therefore, I ask that you at least think about my suggestions, whether or not you vote in my favour, OK? Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the template, per the existing consensus to discontinue the practice to which it applies; the prudence of this decision should not be debated here. —Lifeisunfair 01:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question, Life Is Unfair: (quoting you) "per the existing consensus to discontinue the practice..."Do you mean to say that you are voting "delete" simply because of other concensus -and not providing a reason? "the prudence of this decision should not be debated here." Why not? Is this not the proper page for that -and, if not, then what page? Please justify your reasoning to not debate it here.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you mean to say that you are voting 'delete' simply because of other concensus -and not providing a reason?"
No. That consensus is my reason. It was formally determined that pages are not to be protected simply because they're linked to from the main page, so this template serves no valid purpose. —Lifeisunfair 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, Life; I had not seen the link to the policy before Mark showed it to me; still ,I disagree with this policy.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Why [shouldn't the prudence of this decision be debated here]? Is this not the proper page for that"
No, it isn't. This project page is used to discuss the proposed deletion of templates. It isn't used to establish or challenge Wikipedia policy. —Lifeisunfair 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I apologize: Since it was concensus from the past (and not just here), you're right: It should not be debated here (or at least to a large extent, but I want to make one more comment to Mark: It has OFTEN been discussed because it IS an idea with merit.)--GordonWattsDotCom 03:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"-and, if not, then what page?"
How about this one or this one? —Lifeisunfair 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been around, but on this, I'm a "newbie." May I'll check it out; Thx 4 the heads up.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles listed on the main page generally improve. - SimonP 01:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment.You might be right, SimonP, and for that reason, I believe that the Schiavo article (which has had all the problems identified by the Fac editor finally removed) would have improved had it been featured, but it wasn't and an edit war resulted. If you are so sure of this logic, Simon, then ask Mark (AKA →Raul654), the Fac editor, to list this article as a Featured Article. My Logic: If it's true that "Articles listed on the main page generally improve," then I want to see this article improve.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because featured articles are to advertise Wikipedia's best articles. That these articles could still use some tweaks does not imply that they are not of high quality. - SimonP 19:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per article improvement and keeping faith in readers/editors. This has nothing to do with protecting from image vandalism on the Main Page.--Pharos 02:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Pharos, I made a comment to Simon above, and, since you share his view on the influence to improve the article, without repeating them -for brevity, I direct these comments/question above to Simon also to you.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy — while established consensus states that pages should not be protected just because of being linked from the main page, I don't think anyone would have a problem with this being used for user pages linked from the main page. --Corvun 05:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Question: Does "userfy" mean to place it in my user or talk pages? Also, whether or not the templae is there, does it make it work any different? Lastly, why would we expect user names to be on the main page?--GordonWattsDotCom 06:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your first question - yes, he means put it on your user page. To answer your last question - user pages are occasionally linked from the main page on the weekends, when we run a featured picture (in place of Did You Know). The featured picture section lists the photographer, which means it often links to a user's page. →Raul654 06:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Articles on the main page should not be protected, and for user pages linked from the main page for the featured picture, it's badly worded. Lupo 08:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. When necessary, main page articles can be protected, and have been, using the standard WP:RfPP. Usually it's not necessary. This template is useless in both cases. Septentrionalis 18:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Franz Ferdinand

Don't get me wrong, I love this band. But do we need a giant 3x5 template for every band, esp. those with only one or two albums? Categories and links are more than sufficient. Gamaliel 18:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

Template:IR

No benefits to having this be a template instead of a category, a lot of redlinks, only sets up precedent clutter people like Kant with a horde of boxes. Also, organized uselessly - it spans such a vast historical period (Thucydides to Woodrow Wilson), and yet is in alphabetical order. At once too broad and too idiosyncratic - no useful overall picture is given by reading this particular sequence of articles. Snowspinner 16:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Categorify, leaning more towards delete, as I'm not sure of the usefulness of such a category. Too broad, introduces clutter. android79 19:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite. The vast historical period is purposeful: IR has been evolving for long, and many authors (specially English School ones) agree that the IR may be said to begin with Thucydides. The template´s purpose is to include 1) foundation political theorists used to label schools, such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Grotius, Kant and Marx; 2) actual IR theorists, be they realist (Mearsheimer, Waltz); liberal (Martin, Keohane); or constructivist (Wendt, Onuf); 3) men of action that influenced IR academic tought (Kissinger, Wilson, Lenin). In this sense, Template experts may want to create labels inside the template so as to make it in sections. As for red links, they are a mere invitation to create new articles that Wikipedia craves for - it lacks info on contemporary IR tought and in IR theory as a whole, a lack that only recently is being filled by the efforts mostly of Mintchocicecream. Cheers. Doidimais Brasil 04:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This list cannot possibly be complete, and so the selection must be PoV. This is much better handled by a list of links in the main article, or a separate list article. Such a list could certianly include redlinks. It would also be much easier to expand without space issues. DES (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Replace by {{Otherarticles-alph}} which will Categorefy; all of which will make it much easier to revise, which this very badly needs. What is the imagined justification for including Hobbes??? or Marx, for that matter? Are the redlinks contributors to a particular textbook? Septentrionalis 18:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Answering: English School IR theorists (such as Hedley Bull and Martin Wight) recongize three ample schools of tought in IR. They are labeled Hobbesian, Grotian and Kantian. As for Marx, he´s the inspirer of (tcham) Marxist tought in IR, including Fernando Henrique Cardoso´s, for instance. As for the redlinks: they are not simply contributors to a particular textbook, they are major 20th and 21th century IR thinkers and the main actors in the Realism x Liberalism x Constructivism debate.
Doidimais Brasil 01:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Template:AfricanAmericanL and Template:AfricanAmericanR

OB and redundant to Template:AfricanAmerican. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     20:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Verifieduse

From February to May 2004, we had an experimental process for determining "fair use". Wikipedia:Fair use was used as a discussion forum to determine whether a particular image could be used under the "fair use" clause, and if so, tagged by this template. However, there are a number of problems: first, the template is badly worded as it neither indicates which uses were considered "fair", nor gives any link to the discussion that presumably took place. I've just gone through all the about 60 images tagged as "verifieduse": all of them were tagged as such without any discussion, and even after that old process had been discontinued on June 1, 2004. The template is no longer used now (most were {{albumcover}}s anyway) and should be deleted to simplify our tagging and also to avoid intentional or unintentional mistagging. The associated Category:Verified fair use images should also be deleted. Lupo 09:10, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and rewrite. One problem that I keep running into is that many Wikipedia editors, both newbies and regular editors, use the {{fairuse}} template when they really, really want to use an image, but when it really doesn't fit any of the criteria for fair use. Remember that each fair use claim must be evaluated on its own merits and it is best to give the specific reasons that you are claiming fair use. My personal opinion is that we should keep the more specialized fair use templates such as {{albumcover}}, but the general fairuse template should be deleted because it is abuse way too often. If that doesn't happen, then this template, or something like it, is going to have to be used. BlankVerse ∅ 10:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know about fair use. The problem with this template is that the whole process for which it was intended doesn't exist anymore, no images use it, and the large majority of the 60 or so that did use it until this morning should have used another one like e.g. {{albumcover}} or {{screenshot}}. The "fair use discussion" process was discontinued in early 2004. Any uses of this template since then were just plain wrong. In fact, it seems as if all images that were indeed discussed at Wikipedia:Fair use had already been retagged when the process was abandoned, as all of the aforementioned ~60 images were uploaded after that. Instead of rewriting the template, you could just turn it into a redirect to {{fairuse}}, but then why keep it (and its category) at all? Lupo 10:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A new system of marking "approved" usage should be created, but this one isn't it and should't be encouraged -- it is a vestige of an older, now defunct, system. The current text of Wikipedia:Fair use seems to imply that one should just add this template in exchange for a normal "fair use" template if you, the uploader, think it is "verified", but there is no verification system with the exception of knowing to use the template. It isn't being used in an effective manner, and the paltry number of things tagged with it (60 out of some 20,000 fair use images) makes that quite clear. --Fastfission 12:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a new one when Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use creates a new system. JYolkowski // talk 22:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the procedure was never used anyway - this only confuses matters. Secretlondon 13:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

Template:Disambig-cleanup

Delete: this is supposed to be {{cleanup}} for disambig pages, and is redundant with the combination. However, the real reason to dispose of this is that is a temptation for the bossy and lazy to put this, instead of fixing the page themselves. ({{cleanup}} may be justified for those who find a page badly written but have no knowledge of the subject; but a dab page doesn't need knowledge. Anything which requires knowledge to rewrite should be changed anyway.) Septentrionalis 16:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (full disclosure: I created the template). There has been discussion about this on the disambiguation project talk page. There was a suggestion that we needed a way to keep track of dab pages that needed cleanup, and this seemed the most obvious way. May I suggest that before people weigh in, they at least read the (extensive) discussion that's been going on for weeks on the project page. --RoySmith 17:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although for some reason I keep on seeing that template at the bottom of a page... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a template designed by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation (I'm one) for use both by members of the project and any others who find it useful. Cleaning up a dab page requires knowledge and is not robot work; part of the cleaning is to fix all the incoming links, which can be many. Cleaning up a dab page is a distinct activity from cleaning up a standard article; such a distinction is reinforced by the application of this template. Courtland 23:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment ...and considering that fixing a dab page is just idle no-brainer work, please feel free to while away a moment at Enlightenment, and don't forget the >100 incoming links that need to be redirected to their proper destinations. Courtland 23:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and now that it's been fixed it should work even better. Much more sensible to have one template rather than two, especially since the cleanup of disambiguation pages is a different type of job to the cleanup of general articles. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Uncategorized

Unnecessary clutter. Avoid self references. 24ip | lolol 22:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

 
Articles need cats!
FYI, your edits to the template constitute silly vandalism. —Lifeisunfair 07:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I knew there'd be someone w/o a sense of humor. :-p Tomer TALK 15:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
It's a pun, not vandalism. Guettarda 16:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's vandalism. Kidding around is fine, but not when it disrupts articles and creates unnecessary work for other editors. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground. —Lifeisunfair 17:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's an image on a template. You could argue that adding an image to a template is bad because it adds to server loads, but a template in the article space saying that this needs categorisation does nothing to add to our credibility as an encyclopaedia - it looks amateurish. Adding a picture of a cat to the template actually gives it some value - it's an amusing pun. While puns are the lowest form of humour (well, they beat aristocrat jokes) adding a cat to the template does not harm the project. For one, it does not belong in the article space. It does nothing to help users of the encyclopaedia. If you want to look something up, you don't want to know that the page needs a cat. If used on the Talk page though, it's a useful tool - and every Talk page needs (a) cats, and (b) humour. As angry as some Talk pages get, puns would be a huge benefit. I do appeal to users to consider moving this template to Talk pages - it's no harder to find (you can always just check Category:Category needed - anyone who can't figure out where to put the category probably shouldn't be inserting categories). Guettarda 22:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Actually it's an image on a template. You could argue that adding an image to a template is bad because it adds to server loads, but a template in the article space saying that this needs categorisation does nothing to add to our credibility as an encyclopaedia - it looks amateurish."
Do you believe that all of the cleanup tags look amateurish?
"Adding a picture of a cat to the template actually gives it some value - it's an amusing pun."
I'm not amused by vandalism.
"While puns are the lowest form of humour (well, they beat aristocrat jokes) adding a cat to the template does not harm the project."
You don't believe that inserting a contextually nonsensical image into random articles has an adverse effect? I'm not implying that the walls came tumbling down, but it was vandalism.
"For one, it does not belong in the article space."
That's your opinion. It's a perfectly valid one, but disliking a template or the manner in which it's used is not a rational reason to condone vandalism.
"It does nothing to help users of the encyclopaedia."
On the contrary, it helps by facilitating a simple process through which they can find other articles on the same and/or similar topics (simultaneously extending this benefit to future readers).
"If used on the Talk page though, it's a useful tool - and every Talk page needs (a) cats, and (b) humour."
I'm quite fond of both, but not in this context.
"As angry as some Talk pages get, puns would be a huge benefit."
By all means, post some puns on talk pages. How does this pertain to Tomer's decision to deface an actively used template?
"I do appeal to users to consider moving this template to Talk pages - it's no harder to find (you can always just check Category:Category needed - anyone who can't figure out where to put the category probably shouldn't be inserting categories)."
This template doesn't merely target editors who seek to categorize articles; it also targets readers who are knowledgeable enough on specific topics to select the appropriate categories. —Lifeisunfair 00:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lifeisunfair, I don't mean to undermine Guettarda's defense of my insertion of the image into the template. I wasn't attempting to engage in "vandalism", silly or otherwise. I thought that the template was fine with its previous name, and the text of the template explained perfectly well what the purpose was thereof. I do take mild offense at the vehemence with which you defend your classification of my action as "vandalism", but at the same time, I see no harm whatsoever, in adding an image of a cat to the template. While the "average user" (i.e., one who arrives at any given article as a result of a google search) may not understand the pun, nothing is harmed by my having put an image of a cat into the template. At the same time, such an "average user" will long since have become familiar with the WP "cat=category" shorthand to have understood the pun before they can add any useful categories to any given article. There is no harm in humor, a claim I maintain, despite your attempts to squelch any evidence thereof. Most of us edit WP because we enjoy doing so, not because we feel any particular need to uphold ridiculous standards of decorum based on your view(s), nor because we're looking to maintain the dryest possible text ever read. If that were the case, we'd go to Encyclopædia Brittanica and ask to be paid for our work. What, in truth, do you feel was bad about having an image of a cat in a template called "catneeded"? In what way do you feel the template was less useful because of my insertion thereof thereinto? At this point, I'm on the verge of having to cast aside the assumption of good faith, pending a sensible rebuttal, and assume, instead, that you're miserable and lacking humor, and trying to spread it around. Tomer TALK 09:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I hate to spoil your fun, but I've moved the template to a more descriptive title. —Lifeisunfair 17:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Useful. — RJH 19:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful, though usage on talk pages might be a better idea. Silly Comment: adding this template to an article places it in a category, making it not uncategorized, but categorized; therefore, the template should be removed. But now we have an uncategorized article, and we should reapply the template... let's hear it for infinite loops! android79 20:04, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Reinyday, 20:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it belongs on the talk page. - SimonP 01:26, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Super strong keep in a bottle and preserve for ever :) sorry, I use these all the time, being one who does massive cat moves, these are very helpful when I dont have the time to find a suitable cat. I prefer to fix the small errors and at least notify others that a cat is needed rather than leaving it orphaned for some undisclosed amount of time. ∞Who?¿? 02:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is quite useful. I've just categorized several articles after looking at this discussion, and will probably help with more as they are added. It's not "amateurish" to suggest that we are a working encyclopedia, rather than a finished product.--Pharos 02:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I may be nearly the only one who feels this way, but I think there is enough cleanup template pollution in article space already. This template puts a little blue box on the article and adds it to Category:Category needed. Surely the latter is more than enough to identify and distinguish pages needing categorization. As such I suggest keeping the category and using that, but ditching the blue box. Dragons flight 19:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sometimes there’s need for some rethinking before finding the most suitable categories, and it’s practical to mark the article in some way so they can be found again. If there isn’t any place to put them they have a tendency to be forgotten. Special:Uncategorizedpages is only frequently updated. -- Sunny256|✎ 23:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

September 5

Template:MikeWatt

ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a posting on maximumwattage.com told you to come and vote, please don't. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a TfD discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The TfD process is designed to draw on the judgement of experienced Wikipedians who understand what they are voting on and how it fits in with Wikipedia's overall policies; for this reason votes from users whose histories do not show that experience, including those who sign up for accounts after the vote started, are traditionally discounted.
You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be. However, unless you have a point to make in the discussion that no one before you touched upon, it may not be worth it; merely saying "me too" or reiterating an already-raised point is unlikely to sway anyone. Please remember, if you comment, that the article Mike Watt is not at risk for deletion; this discussion is over whether this template should exist on Wikipedia.

While I'm sure this template was made for the right reasons, I don't think it's a good idea. Mike Watt is the bassist from The Minutemen, but the template has been plonked on the page of every band that he has some connection with; for instance on Sonic Youth: Watt has appeared, if I'm not mistaken, in precisely three of their songs; and on The Stooges: if you were even thinking about putting a template at the bottom, you'd want Iggy Pop to get a mention, but Mike Watt? Who's he? In general, I think templates for individuals are bad; just think how messy The Beatles would be with {{John}} {{Paul}} {{George}} and {{Ringo}} at the bottom. Delete. Flowerparty 21:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DO NOT DELETE. I'm the creator of this template. Why wasn't I asked to just edit it? I can see where some items don't belong in the template. However, Watt is a full member of the Stooges and has been for the past two years. I will fight this deletion with every fiber of my being. Cjmarsicano 22:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've edited the template down. I have also mentioned on the maximumwattage.com board that the item is in danger of being deleted and am thus encouraging fellow Watt fans to vote against the template's deletion. Cjmarsicano 23:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, I don't think it's a good idea to create templates for individuals. The template is unnecessary because everything in it is included in the Mike Watt article. If you want to create Template:The Stooges and put a link to that article there, I'd have no objection. Flowerparty 23:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy the argument proposed by Mr.Flowerparty at all. Mr. Watt is a very influential individual in the modern musical world and for him to not have a template would be an insult. Why not just reduce his article to a half-assed stub while you're at it if that is the case? Cjmarsicano 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - policies should not be violated for fear of offending people. No offense, but there are many, many more notable musicians than Watt, and if this template continues to exist, many, many more musician templates will have to be created. If the bottom of every article on a band or albun contains templates for all the musicians involved in it, that would be a lot of needless clutter. ~~ N (t/c) 23:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already aware of the Neutral point of view and have stuck to it (believe it or not) in everything I have ever posted. As for your statement: ...there are many, many more notable musicians than Watt, and if this template continues to exist, many, many more musician templates will have to be created, I say, "So be it." Cjmarsicano 00:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Civil aircraft infobox

An orphaned template meant to be used for aircraft articles. It has been removed from those articles, because it was redundant with the standard formatting previously agreed upon at WP:Air. Ingoolemo talk 06:28, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

September 4

Template:Scope creep

Redundant with {{proposed}}. --cesarb 21:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

*sigh*... --Titoxd 04:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Military-divisions

Delete. An admirable attempt created today, but just a counting of all the numbers from 1-410. The overwhelming majority of the links are red, and per WP:CSL having simple numerical (alphabetical) order is not enough to warrant an article series box. Better served by List of military divisions, or, possibly, a category. -Splash 21:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still think, that this template is a good thing, because on the same page can user see information on how many division are already listen and which aren't. This is specially useful, because other option is going back to list... Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 19:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you've said is that the template is a very useful tool for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military Divisions, so that's where it should go is to a list for that WikiProject (after it gets created). On the other hand, the template is practically useless for anyone else. BlankVerse ∅ 15:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-present

This template is no longer relevant nor usable due to the death of William Rehnquist. It has been replaced by Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-2005. OCNative 04:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wouldn't it have easier to have simply moved the template, fixed the links, and then have done an RfD than a TfD ? Caerwine 08:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created this template from Phil Welch's templates to allow for row-specific insertion. As Caerwine noted, the ideal would be to modify and move this template, but that option has sadly been foreclosed, so it's best to just eliminate this template. — DLJessup (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Delete but I wish to comment upon DLJessup's remarks: I disagree that 'improperly' is the correct term to my making the new templates. Last week I created the two new ones, Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-2005 to cover the court's makeup ending with O'Connor and having someone new, while the next one Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2005-present is for new entries and subject to the nomination of what's-his-face, the new right-winger Bush just appointed as I figure in view of the makeup of the Senate he'll be approved as long as he isn't "somewhere to the right of Anthony Comstock." (and maybe even then!). [N.B.: Roberts (21:15 UTC) ] Now, in view of Rehnquist being dead, my opinion to make two different ones was essentially proven correct; those pages that use 1994-present can be broken into two classes: those that involve issues through 2005 and those that involve issues in 2005 and beyond.
    By having a different template than this one, we do not break compatibility on old articles. In order to make sure articles are correct, all articles that use this template have to be visited and changed thus they get the freshest possible information instead of some of them which were only applicable through 2005 now having the wrong information included.

    The articles that reference this template can be updated as appropriate without breaking them until they are updated, because until we get to them, they remain accurate. Once any article (or template) that references this template is corrected, then this template could be deleted as no longer functional. I think doing it that way provides better backwards compatibility to, say, renaming this template as "2005-present" because it makes articles clear as to whether they were referring to the older court format or the newer one. If it wasn't created as a new one and the old one was simply renamed by moving, it could produce errors in referential articles and templates. Paul Robinson 20:59, 4 September 2005 20:59 (UTC) [(RFC1394)]

  • I agree with Rfc1394. Keep it until all the articles it covers are replaced, then delete. One question: What's with accusations of "improperly created" and with the "rebuttals"? It would be nice if those were toned down a bit. --Titoxd 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I made sure all references to this template were switched to Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-2005 before listing this one for deletion. OCNative 05:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chub

Heh. --Joy [shallot] 01:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied - silliness. violet/riga (t) 17:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exactly which one of the WP:CSD authorized this speedy? I didn't recall that "silly" was a criterion. DES (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry but I can't see why we should continue voting on something where there is a unanimous decision after two and a half days. The template is clearly a joke, and there are too many silly joke templates having to go through the TfD process. violet/riga (t) 20:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If people see a clear consensus, they will probably not spend much time on the TfD listing, so once listed it does no harm to let the process finish. If you think it does harm, then do an early close, if the TfD process permits that, or change the process so that it does, if you can get consensus for such a change. Speedy deletion is supposed to be very narrowly confined to specific listed criteria. IMO these whould not be bent or strained. This didn't meet any of that as far as I can see. I will therefore be listing it on WP:VfU. DES (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

Template:Infobox Apskritis

It is replaced by a more elaborate version Template:Infobox apskritis following a discussion about templates proposed on User:Renata3/elderates. I am sorry, I know I should have have updated the old version instead of creating a new template... Stupid me :) Renata3 17:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moveprotect

This seems a totally unnecessary extension to the protection template. By the very fact that they are protected, these pages are fairly stable. Page move protection is by definition a long-term thing. These templates are therefore ugly and unnecessary. [[smoddy]] 17:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:സ്വാഗതം and Template:വിഷയ സൂചിക

Should they be deleted or translated?. CG 09:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • I've never heard of listing templates on WP:TIE. However, delete in this form and by this name. I have the distinct impression that they're translations of copyright or fairuse templates. If someone wants to babelfish them and give them a proper name, great. Radiant_>|< 14:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE or Userfy. 132.205.45.148 18:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first and perhaps translate the second. User:Tintin1107 (not the author) provided this explanation on my talk page after I asked him for a translation. This first is a Malayalam specific welcome message. I can't imagine it will get much use, but there is no harm in welcoming an ML speaker in their own language. The second is a navigation template for things like biology, physics, etc., except that the destinations are untranslated. I'm not sure what the authors' intentions are with that. Dragons flight 18:39, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

September 2

Template:Zap

This template is intended to be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Zap policy proposal. Unless there is a groundswell of new support for the Wikipedia:Zap policy, the proposal is likely to be deleted on Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion. If so, it makes sense to delete this template. NO VOTE. Vacuum c 03:48, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, the Zap proposal says to redirect unwanted articles to the sandbox, not to use a template like this. Radiant_>|< 09:29, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I presume this was created as a way around the no cross-namespace redirect thing to allow templates to be zapped. Xiong also created a silly uesr account for a similar purpose. -Splash 18:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This nomination, and both votes above, are FUD and unnecessarily hostile. Zap is not a policy proposal, nor is it a policy. Wikipedia:Zap is not going to be deleted; it has limited support. Zap does not call for templates to be redirected to Wikipedia:Sandbox -- that would be pretty stupid, eh? Template:Zap exists as a null, dummy redirect target. That's a useful tool whether you like the idea or not. Otherwise, users will redirect templates onto the Sandbox -- or something equally unpredictable! — Xiong熊talk* 22:22, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

September 1

Template:Futuregame

Delete, duplicate of {{Future game}}. No reason for this. Nothing links there. I don't know what the point of this is. Might be candidate for speedy. K1Bond007 19:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

August 31

Template:Philippines-fairuse

Delete: This image copyright template asserts that that the associated image is copyrighted and used under the fair use provisions of the Philippines and the United States. However, since the fair use laws of the Philippines are the same as those of the United States, and the Wikimedia servers are located in the United States, this tag is pretty much redundant with Template:Fairuse. Furthermore, it's only used on one page.}} JYolkowski // talk 23:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This template was clearly created by a user who didn't understand the point of image tagging templates or fair use law. See Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#Philippine_copyright_tags. --Fastfission 00:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The explanation provided suggests this to be an unnecessarily over-specified template. Note that the laws as such might be the same between the two countries, but that does not mean the case precedent or interpretation of those laws is the same; I still maintain it's overspecific. Courtland 03:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless one can point to an example of where US and Philipine interpretation of fair use has proven divergent, it is overly specific. (If such an example can be shown then this might be useful.) Caerwine 05:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this can relate to the story of the articles of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The Inquirer says that other entities (newspapers, tabloids, and the like) use its articles (which are copyrighted), possibly under fair use, and instead steal the articles and make it as their own (which led to the campaign: "Inquirer articles are for sale, not for lifting."). Also, the Philippine interpretation of fair use tends to be somewhat looser than the U.S. interpretation, especially in terms of fair use material for educational purposes. --Akira123323 13:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that I have changed my stance to a strong keep. In addition to my last comments on fair use for educational material, I have classmates in my school who use Wikipedia material, cite it, and submit it under fair use (especially when it is research). If the material is left unchanged, it is generally not considered plagiarism if it is cited. This can probably show how loose the fair use provision of Philippine copyright law is. --Akira123323 13:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you quite understand the copyright issues here -- images can only be kept on Wikipedia if they are safe under U.S. copyright law (because Wikipedia is "published" in the U.S.). If Phillipine "fair use" is "looser" than U.S. law (I'm not convinced that it is, but I don't know the first thing about Phillipine law), that's great, but it doesn't change the status here. In fact, it makes this template even more redundant — you might as well assume anything which is "fair use" on Wikipedia according to U.S. standards is likely to be "fair use" according to Phillipines standards.--Fastfission 23:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - these things are about interpretation and may be useful for Phillipines end users. Also there is no guarantee that the laws will remain the same, even if they are. Secretlondon 13:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the material marked with this template is assumed to be fair use "under Philippine copyright law and United States copyright law", the template overlaps entirely with Template:Fairuse. If the reason behind the template is that Philippine copyright law is looser than U.S. copyright law, as is claimed above, then a) the template shouldn't say that it's fair use under U.S. law as well, and b) the material in question shouldn't be here at all, assuming that it's not considered fair use under U.S. law. I can't imagine where one would want to use this template instead of Template:Fairuse. EldKatt (Talk) 14:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user dz template:user dzl template:user dz-N template:user dzl-N and accompanying categories category:user dzl, category:user dzl-N

Delete: This is a falsified language userpage infobox. Obviously. Patrick Lucas 02:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Schzzl. aka Do Not Delete the Template. Could someone please hip me to what constitutes the existence of a lang when deciding whether a lang template may exist? McVonn 03:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A language is usually spoken by a large amount of people, not as a dialect or slang, but as the sole form of communication. This isn't it. --Titoxd 03:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'r right. A language is usually those things. Spoken by many and natively by someone. Is that enough to delete the template? and you say it's not the only one? can I see the others? have they been deleted yet? McVonn
    • See for example Sango123 who speaks excellent squirrel. That one is a modified local substitution, not a template. Dragons flight 04:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wow. I wish I could speak squirrel. --fvw* 04:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bad imitation of the Babel templates, but it isn't the only one. There are many user pages with one copy or another of it. Userfy and delete redirect. --Titoxd 03:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. --fvw* 03:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'm waiting to hear back from the guy who seems to have nominated the template for deletion. He has not responded yet to my second message. I want to know how he came about it and why he felt it should be deleted. I'v heard from you all, and I know it doesn't look good for my template. let's admit though: judging whether this thing should stay or go seems simple once the object in question is up on this page- that's why I'd like to hear from patrick Lucas. I appreciate everyone's input and help. Ideally I would like to be able to use some kind of lang code/lang template (as Caerwine suggested miiiight be possible) to (at least in some way, unofficially) represent this language on wikipedia. I understand that dzalakha is not even in wikipedia at all, is that correct? dzongkha content only lacks pages in english yet. so I understand the objection to my using User dz. I have mad respect for ISO and all but what does that standard have to do w/ wikipedia right now? I would not mind using dzz.
I admit I'm the only wikipedian who actually knows about this lang first-hand. It is very new and still developing. It does only have a handful of speakers and it is not spoken truly natively by anyone the way that the world's major languages are. I still maintain, though, that it is not a mere dialect of english, but a language unto itself. Any linguist will tell you that the distinction "language" or "dialect" is largely political. McVonn 03:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I first came upon it when I viewed the userpage of someone who had vandalized a page I had worked on, Dzzl, a.k.a. you. Therefore, seeing a feeble attempt at being 'cool' by falsifying a template page, using english, with links that weren't english words linking to userpages, I promptly created this entry on this page. Patrick Lucas 22:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I see. just to be clear- the links weren't to userpages. they were to lang user category pages the way all lang templates work. actually, they weren't set up exactly correctly. I was working on fixing the links to match other lang templates exactly when I learned that dzl was brought up for deletion as well, as part of this same vote. I should mention I do not plan to make an article in the main space about dzzl language.The english template (user en) links to the english language. Mine would link to a name space page (user:dzzl/Dzzl language). Above you said I "falsified a template page using english"? with links that "weren't english words". by the by, one non-english word was not a link. well, the words I think you'r talking about were part of Dzzl speak. just like french lang templates are in french. and, obviously it's under en.wikipedia cuz I def. can't just start dz.wikipedia on a whim. for that, you need lots of true native speakers. So, I'm still kinda confused about what motivated you to nominate it judging by your response above. perhaps your motivation isn't important, but I suspect no one would have minded this template existing for a while if it hadn't popped upon this page, so that's why I persist.

I should note I have a limited explanation of some phrases possible in dzzl speak in my userpage space. THis is not meant to adequately convey the language or it's validity to other wikpedia users. it was a personal project. It also doesn't reflect the dynamism of actual use and grows stale quickly as I have not had time to keep up with the creative new constructions made up contiuously by various speakers; I am not an anthropologist, ethnographer or linguist by trade. I can tell you, though, that like any lang, first-hand exposure to people using it in a social context is needed to begin to see how it works.

Also, for the record, category:user dzl and category:user dzl-N were deleted very recently and I was not notified. I'll look over at categories for deletion. I think they should be restored at least until this vote closes. I at least advise any admins involved to take a look. I just want it to be shown since dz is gone that I was working towards making the links work exactly as all other lang templates work.

so, who closes this thing? dz is already gone. who can tell me if I can use dzl or dzz or any code at all? who makes the ruling that this lang, though not known first-hand to other wikipedians, doesn't meet criteria "x" to warrant a template? how many original template users would be enough? Is there another page or place or process where I can look into those possibilites? this is the delete stuff page. sometimes stuff is saved from deletion, here, but I suspect this isn't the place to make my case. can anyone point me in the right direction now? thanks to those who'v contributed positively at this vote. McVonn 04:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can use code from the Wikipedia:Babel templates for anything, as long as it is in your user space. I gave you an example in your user page. I doubt that it will be permitted in the main template namespace until you assert the notability of the language. As for who closes, it just takes someone who moves the whole discussion to the holding cell below, and admins to delete templates, but if you ask for the delisting of this as a speedy delete, someone will get to it. I have no clue who decides whether the language is known enough to warrant a template, but I believe Babel is a good place to ask. --Titoxd 04:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have made it more clear that I was seeking a template in the template space. I want it to link to a real category like real lang templates do. I would not have written a short story outlining my concerns and what I feel to be relevant issues about language if I wanted to make a fakey one on my user space. it's possible I don't understand all the possibilities of translusion, but I think it's kinda different. I don't think I could set up a category that looks and functions like a category in my user space. and thanks for the babel tip- I'll check it out. McVonn 04:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I listed the two categories in question to show that they've been deleted without this vote being closed. either they were not actually part of this vote or they deleted with out "due process" if you will. someone please acknowledge this. thank you. Yameen? 02:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even though these templates are fun, and a great way to express individuality, templates should be available for all users. It would be easy enough to put in on your userpage so it looks like a template. For example, see my userpage to see how I used the POV check template as a starting point for my own variant. --Merovingian (t) (c) 17:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

August 30

Template:An Irish Guide to Furniture (Blackwater Press)

Created today by an anonymous user that also has been vandalizing a VfD (see Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Adam connon on the only page that has a connection to this template. Template is poorly formed, and in no way helpful or noteworthy in my opinion. --Durin 19:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LosAngelesInfoBox

Seems redundant to all of the other city infobox templates, and it is currently used on only one article: Los Angeles, California. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. You can just have the code in the actual article. This just makes it harder for people to edit the infobox. --Hottentot
    • Note: The vote on the talk page is not about keeping the template, it is about having the picture inside or outside the infobox. --Hottentot
  • I support Deletion of the Template:LosAngelesInfoBox and moving the code into the main article. While at first, I was opposed to this, due to the fact that it would probably boost the size of the page with more text, we're not really changing the size anyway, since the page is bringing in the text from the template anyways ... so it's a wash (on that note, the wikipedia recommendation on page size needs to be boosted a bit, due to advances in technology & download speeds). As Hottentot said, the code can be placed into the main article itself (which he has already taken the liberty to do on several other city articles).
I do like the placement of the city skyline image in the infobox template. It greatly increases the quality of the page, and also prevents some weird things from happening, like paragraph text from inserting between the skyline image and the template, which has happened in other articles. The statement about this infobox format being used on only one article is inaccurate - this format is currently used by Chicago, Illinois, Louisville, Kentucky (a featured article), Washington, D.C., Richmond, Virginia, Atlanta, Georgia, Norfolk, Virginia, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Phoenix, Arizona, and probably several other city articles. Dr. Cash 15:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are several city articles doing the same thing (Chicago for example, has {{ChicagoInfoBox}}, It would be best to create one single template that could be used on any city article that wanted to include an image at the top of their infobox. That's the reason that I said generalize and rename. BlankVerse ∅ 16:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCities has a general article template for cities. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. They also have a Template:Infobox City. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generalize and rename. -- Reinyday, 20:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Second Rise of Lord Voldemort

all French Region infobox templates

Template:Aquitaine infobox
Template:Auvergne infobox
Template:Bourgogne infobox
Template:Bretagne infobox
Template:Centre infobox
Template:ChA infobox
Template:Corse infobox
Template:Franche-Comté infobox
Template:Île-de-France infobox
Template:Languedoc-Roussillon infobox
Template:Limousin infobox
Template:Lorraine infobox
Template:Midi-Pyrénées infobox
Template:Nord-Pas-de-Calais infobox
Template:PACA infobox
Template:Pays-de-la-Loire infobox
Template:Picardie infobox
Template:Poitou-Charentes infobox
Template:Rhône-Alpes infobox
Redundant single use templates. Remplacements based on an expanded Template:Infobox French Région are now available for all regions (please add the ones I missed to the list above). Template:Infobox French Région can be added directly to the articles. -- User:Docu

August 29

Template: Uncyclopedia

Delete: Promotional in nature, unnecessary and like-minded Templates previously voted for deletion. Template author contends template is not Speedy Delete since its a different style and wording than the previous one that was delete. Stbalbach 22:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

archived TFD comment stream from July 2005 → deletion — Courtland 04:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Err I'm not the author, I just felt that is was suffiently different to be considered a "new" template, and speedy deletion was inappropriate.--ElvisThePrince 23:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I really liked McDonalds hamburgers and told all my friends that Wendy's hamburgers aren't McDonalds hamburgers, it would still be advertising, although McDonalds didn't sanction me to do so. (btw I hate McD's hamburgers :) ). ∞Who?¿? 03:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If telling people that Wendy's burgers aren't MacDonalds burgers is advertising, I'm not quite sure what isn't....--64.170.153.127 03:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, uncyc admins did not create this template. Please don't be under the impression we're constantly trying to promote our site on wikipedia, that is not our goal. We take no stance on this template, but will not officially support it. (uncyc admin) --Chronarion 13:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and restrict usage to talk pages only. Comments Doubt that {{vfd}} and {{cleanup}} are direct equivalents (cleanup is vague, vfd is an invitation to go vote) - not sure if there are other templates out there that might be a closer match, comments? In any case, am surprised to see Stbalbach attempting to pass this off as a duplicate of some previous template in order to bypass normal voting procedure - if he was the one who originated the previous VFD (different template, same name) he must be familiar enough with both affected templates to know better? --carlb 03:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See its use at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monsterism where it is obvious from the talk page that the article has had all sorts of nonsense added to it that is clearly unencyclopedic (and possibly Uncyclopedia inspired). Or I would also support the alternative of renaming it to template:Encyclopedic, and rewording the beginning to "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia..." Either way, the template should be changed to one of the talk page classes that use the CoffeeRoll formatting. BlankVerse ∅ 10:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, not a sisterproject. Radiant_>|< 12:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you even look at the template? It not a article page template that links to articles at the Unencyclopedia, like the old template did, its a talk page template that tells editors that the Wikipedia is not the Unencyclopedia and so they shouldn't edit Wikipedia articles like they would articles on the Unencyclopedia. BlankVerse ∅ 16:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I've seen that, but I still consider it linkspam. Radiant_>|< 09:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, talk:Uncyclopedia claims it's a first-cousin project, and an adopted one at that. ;) --carlb 15:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This just seems to be promoting Uncyclopedia more. Not needed.  Thorpe talk 16:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thsi doen't seem advertising any more than a google test tempalte is advertising google -- indeed not so much, as it contians no internal links. if anything it is a slander against Uncyclopedia. Possibly useful, but should only be used on talk pages IMO, and should be documentd to that effect. DES (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a variant on {{pov}}, not an advertisement for Uncyclopedia. Making this into another redirect to PoV would be fine too. In any case, clearly not a speedy, as the existence of DES's post should show. 02:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I concur with User:BlankVerse. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 06:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per user DES above. --Misza13 17:14:51, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
  • Delete. It should be obvious that Wikipedia is not a different encyclopedia website. Other than stating that, it just says that Wikipedia has NPOV policies, which is what other templates are used for saying, if it needs to be said. If it really needs to be said, it should just be said -- there is no need for a silly template. --Fastfission 19:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Coment So your saying that peolle can't write content thats NPOV and in a non-encyclopedia style???? e.g. "Billy Shakespear was a geezer who wrote a lot of plays in Elizabethan England", NPOV (as far as I can tell) but certainly not encyclopedic....--ElvisThePrince 11:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless, it applies to all articles. We can make a template of each policy and put it in each article to remind users of these policies. CG 20:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    Yer while we're at it may as well get rid of {{Advertisement}} and {{{Vanity}}} as you say these apply to all articles as well.....--ElvisThePrince 10:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uneccesary, poorly worded.Voice of All(MTG) 04:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some articles quite need this sort of template.
  • Strong delete. In my opinion, this template has no legitimate application. It's true that Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia, but there's absolutely no need to convey such a statement (especially one that singles out a specific parody site, given the fact that it's far from unique). Whether intentional or not, this comes across as a sneaky, backdoor method of advertising Uncyclopedia. — Lifeisunfair 07:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Application would appear to be to respond to one specific issue: the insertion of pointless silliness into non-humour articles. As such, not the same as {{NPOV}} or other existing templates. --carlb 22:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transwikied and Deleted

I don't think we need to keep this log at talk pages of transwikied (and deleted) pages. We already have the transwiki log, and often the individual VFD discussions. Note that all pages containing the template are speediable as CSD#G8, or CSD#A5. Some of the (non-existent) article pages that could accompany those talk pages could be replaced by redirects, or soft interwiki links. Radiant_>|< 11:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stillman-Allen-Four Lads

This template seems to be an attempt to automatically generate entire articles. See it in use at Who Needs You?. The articles it produces are pretty useless, and because their format is hard coded into the template, they are impossible to expand. Moreover if all the information that it is possible to add are name, date recorded, and date released simply creating a list would be more useful than these pseudo-articles. - SimonP 01:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

August 28

Delete: This is misleading and makes LISWiki look like a sister project of Wikipedia (see the {{wikibooks}} template etc.), or at least priveliges it over other external links, which is not appropriate. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just like Template:Musicbrainz wiki box below. Sisterproject box for nonsisterproject. They should all be speedyable as recreations, really; all of the past consensuses have been quite strong, and since they haven't seemed to care what the external site is, pasting a different link in doesn't make the template not be "substantially identical" to the deleted ones. —Cryptic (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, modified per Template:Uncyclopedia discussion to conform to the Template:Memoryalpha style of third party wiki links --John Hubbard 13:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. External site templates are promotional in nature. Need a more formal acceptance process to avoid cluttering up articles with pseudo-advertising. Stbalbach 22:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete promo for a non-sister site. -Splash 00:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't understand. The modified version is identical to the approved Memoryalpha link syntax. It goes in the "External links" section of articles. Why are you guys saying that a "pseudo-advertising" "promo" like this shouldn't deserve a (formatted) link? --John Hubbard 00:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, as a recreation in substance of the Uncyclopedia templates. No templates for non-sibling projects should be a CSD rule, in my view. By the way, when is the next CSD expansion poll, for that matter? --Titoxd 03:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There probably needs to be some standard on the formatting and types of template links that are used in the External links sections of articles. I think that both LISWiki and Memoryalpha are appropriate wikis to link to when their articles are much more detailed that the comparable Wikipedia articles (compare Digital Library to LSIWiki Digital Library] article). One change should be that ALL such templates should begin with an asterisk to emphasize that they are for the External links sections only. BlankVerse ∅ 10:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the previous debate on {{Sh}} and the usage of {{isfdb name}} and the like. Standardized tempaltes for linking to commonly cited external sources are (IMO) a Good ThingTM in general. DES (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I disagree with this view that boilerplate templates for external links are a good idea. I suspect it raises the possibility that someone will go round tagging our articles on any subject covered on their site, regardless of whether or not their page is informative and useful. The text "<whatever> article at LISWiki, a Library and information science wiki" still seems a little bit advert-like to me. — Trilobite 15:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. So your VFD is based on (a) envisioning potential problems, and (b) the definition of an abbreviation, then? I don't have any comments on spelling out initialisms, but your point about the realm of possibilities is interesting. How often are counterfactual conditions considered when restricting content and editing (i.e., are pages protected because of potential vandalism, or because of historical evidence)? Couldn't the "possibility" of causing problems be put on most anything? Wouldn't it be better to focus on real ones, if and when they occur? /$.02 --John Hubbard 17:46, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply Why is it any more likely that a link spamer will link-spam via template than via a non-=template link? If a template link is put on an article where it does not add value, it can be removed just as esily and in the same way as if a non-template link had been placed, plus using "what links here" on the template allows anyone to see exactly where it has been used, making it easier (not harder) to find and remove inmappropriate uses. And, of course, if a site moves or is systematically reconstructed, lots of broken links may be fixed at once by editing the template. The ISFDB has already moved twice, and while its current ___location is probably stable, there is no certianty on the web. DES (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; to Trilobite: be bold and rephrase, but the present wording spells out initials, just like {{isfdb}}. Septentrionalis 15:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template: Editors

  • Delete: Redundant, does not provide much information and is quite big, creating clutter. --Sn0wflake 17:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you see this as being redundant with? It looks to me as if the intent was to use "what links here" to create a list of reference pages for fairly new editors. That doesn't strike me as a bad idea. Tentative keep pending furhter discussion. DES (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have a few templates of this kind already, but most importantly, for its large size, it does not provide enough information. This is not a very effective solution to a not so existant problem, as nowadays all users are greeted with an appropriate template anyway. The Help:Contents is also quite accesible. In resume, what I am trying to say is: it's not needed. --Sn0wflake 20:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi - I created the template. The uses are legitimate, and I think good. See the template talk page for more information; but I truly think that this is a good idea. It only appears "redundant" because it is new and hasn't been implemented on many pages yet. --Heebiejeebieclub 18:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's definitely a good idea, but we have several dozen toolbox templates already, and I think that what you're looking for actually already exists. But I see no harm in helping n00bs - might I also direct you to {{welcome}} for adding links? Radiant_>|< 19:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Heebiejeebieclub, I am in no way questioning your good faith. I just believe this will unecessarily increase template stacking. --Sn0wflake 20:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good grief nominated 30 minutes after creation and part of an ongoing proposal on the Village Pump. I made some changes to its format that should reduce its size to something less objectionable and let those who have an interest in the pages it is intended for decide whether this template is useful. Caerwine 20:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In use, undergoing revision. -- Visviva 01:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So can I summarize from this that I had the right idea, but just not the right template? That it will be kept but redesigned? Anyway, the template was not meant as a welcome message, it was intennded to be put at the top of articles that helped with editing.--Heebiejeebieclub 12:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and delete. Simply putting that message at the top doesn't go anyplace, but putting them in a category would be possibly useful. -Splash 00:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless someone can point out at least one other template that makes this one redundant. -- Reinyday, 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • del, self evident message is not useful --MarSch 11:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as insufficient time for discussion so far. But, at least as of now, it seems like a bad idea, and I would support deleting it in a few weeks, unless things change. JesseW 05:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep'' May or may not be a great idea, but it is a tool that does no harm. Improve it or leave it alone. — Xiong熊talk* 17:06, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Template: Abu Ghraib

Delete: Redundant. There's already a category for this purpose. /Jebur 16:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otherarticles-alph

Courtland 01:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italian prime minister

Unused --MarSch 15:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPA fonts

Only used in {IPA} and I substituted it there. Contains a list of fonts. --MarSch 14:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it's also used on its own in the CSS code of a few tables scattered around Wikipedia. Without this template, there's no way those tables will get their font specifications updated. —Michael Z. 2005-08-28 15:36 Z
I looked a little more and found {IPA2} which now uses {IPA}. Which tables? --MarSch 15:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It, {{Unicode fonts}} and others are supposed to be a single point to edit the list of fonts needed to show some special characters on MSIE. The list of fonts is kept separate from the template on purpose. --cesarb 19:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


August 27

Template:Space1, et al.

Other similar templates (more at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:PostScript_name):


August 26

Template:Blank

Delete: The template doesn't create a blank space.  Thorpe talk 19:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

August 25

Template:Macedonian naming dispute

  • Delete: there's a naming dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece. The text of this template was written by the Greek nationalists to be used in every article that included the name of "Republic of Macedonia". This is not the Wikipedia way to settle dispute. See Talk:Macedonian denar / Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote / Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute for discussions and Republic of China for a similar case. bogdan | Talk 21:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia must be clean. Actually there is no problem with "Republic of Macedonia". Only these ultra-POV-pushers are doing problems here. -- Darwinek 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur wholeheartedly with Bogdan and Darwinek. If interested, see extensive comments at Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute. – Friejose 21:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just use the most common name. Superm401 | Talk 22:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This template resulted after many contributions and talks on Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia. Before being a template, it was a notice on the relevant subjects. Instead of talking on how it could be improved, see also Talk:Macedonia, they set it as a VfD candidate. I can agree on one thing, for sure this is not how wikipedia works. MATIA 23:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The present text of the despute is supporting the Greek side. Even if it stays, it should be changed and made neutral. The naming despute is reality, but the official goverment information show that at least 70% of the countries that recognized Macedonia use its constitutional name: "Republic of Macedonia". In the direct goverment contacts, only Greece and Cyprus use another name. Everyone else uses "Republic of Macedonia". In the same time, the text does not say anything about the proposals from the Macedonian side (Macedonia for the world, but Greece can use any inoffensive name they pick, a proposal that Greece rejected) and that Macedonia already made drawbacks by changing its flag and its constitution (like Greece insisted). Also the text does not include information that the 3 of the 5 members of the security council of UN recognize Macedonia under the constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" and the parlament of the 4th member already recomended its goverment to do the same. 62.162.198.232 00:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So what the fuck (please read WP:CIV, REX 14:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)) is going on. I thought we would wait for the vote to close (has it closed? did it even have a time-limit? it should have) before deleting anything. If the vote is closed already, the disclaimer clearly lost, and the template should be deleted. We don't need a template for a note in one article (Republic of Macedonia). ---Alex 00:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the template as it is is silly, and there can be a footnote in the Macedonia article without need for a template. dab (ᛏ) 06:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree. The naming dispute should not be ignored or covered up, as this kind of censorship would undermine Wikipedia's stated principles of pluralism and neutrality.--Theathenae 08:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is entirely the wrong way of solving the dispute (see Template:Carfuel). Radiant_>|< 08:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and keep out of articles in the meantime. Susvolans ⇔ 08:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete on formal grounds. All the template says is that the use of certain names "is not meant to imply an official position on the naming dispute with Greece." Anyone who knows the most basic thing about Wikipedia -- that anyone can edit any article at any time, so there's no such thing as an official position on matters of fact -- knows that much already. Dell Adams 09:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken a look at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, I regret the overbearing tone of my comment, but the vote and the reasoning stand. Dell Adams 10:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there are people here who want any mention of the dispute gagged. They will not succeed.--Theathenae 10:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This voting should be considered invalid. People should really check a better alternative as Dell Adams mentioned, Talk:Macedonia and other related pages. bogdan is trying to force his personal point of view and erase any opposing views. If you check the contributions of the first voters, you can see that some of them instead of talking how the text can change to reflect the facts, they engaged edit-wars removing or messing the template. One of the facts is that the word Macedonia and all related terms are subjects of negotiations between Greece and FYROM on UN. MATIA 11:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Gene Nygaard 12:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I agree completely. This is a ridiculous reason for a template. It's too broad in its applicability. 'By definition, Wikipedia does not endorse a point of view on any such dispute. It's mention is irrelevant.--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said at Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute, and as it has been repeated by one user above already, before being a template, this was an already existing notice on the articles. Hence, TFD is the wrong method of handling this issue - it is not syntactic, it is semantic, and highly controversial at that. The decision should be deferred to Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote which has precedence. --Joy [shallot] 14:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly my position, Joy. This is to be settled by Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote since it was already started there and people took the time to actually vote there. If that voting is over, and if the results of that vote are accepted as final (at least for now), then we should delete the template. Am I missing something here? ---Alex 14:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither a semantic (wording) nor syntactic (grammar) issue, this is an issue of policy. A template is not the appropriate way to deal with this issue and hence, should be deleted. Plus, the very fact that you have to argue "precedence" and "voting" is troublesome; it shows that the template attempts to circumvent article-specific discussion and attempts to abrogate the principle that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Friejose 14:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much a semantic issue, because the controversy stems from the meaning of the word "Macedonia" &co. within "Republic of Macedonia" &co. Why is the template not a good way to deal with it? You haven't provided an actual reason for this statement. I do not see any real reason for it to be removed per Wikipedia:Template messages or #Deletion criteria. Perhaps on POV grounds - but how do we define POV without expressing opinions and votes on this, and thereby implicitly involving the rule that Wikipedia is not a democracy? Besides, the whole notion of discouraging an existing vote process on a page where voting is done is ludicrous.
Sure, we may all consider it as one in a long line of pro-Greek attempts to modify the name of the republic to their north, but have you actually watched how horrible some of the previous attempts were, and do you really think that removing this template on the grounds that this is not a great template will prevent the discontents from complaining about the relevant articles in some other manner, which will tend to cause more mess because we're not using the useful template mechanism?
Let's not beat around the bush. This is not an issue that's going to be settled by a single vote on TFD or even at the voting on that linked page. However, trying to kill off the very notion that a problem exists can only exacerbate the problem, it certainly won't do anything to help solve it. --Joy [shallot] 14:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly because Wikipedia is not a democracy this voting is invalid. A tyrany of the majority is not the way to go. Talk about it and explore alternative wording. Check the RFC procedure. Disputed are not included in the official deletion policy. MATIA 15:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seemain

Delete: Redirect to {{main}} after TfD not needed. Orphaned other than in Talk pages (including hidden WLH:main). SEWilco 21:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (Extend vote an extra day; notification begun now. SEWilco 17:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

note the survival of this and Template:SeeMain @ Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/August_2005#Template:Seemain_and_Template:SeeMain
Firstly, you've yet to explain why Main article: Example is "less civil" (your description from the TfD talk page) than See main article: Example. Secondly, what if someone prefers Please see main article: Example, For main article: Example, or another of the countless possibilities? Should we have a separate template for every conceivable variation? —Lifeisunfair 22:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Once again, the template was not orphaned (due to a software bug that causes some articles to be omitted from the "whatlinkshere" list until they're edited). The article Suicide methods was using {{seemain}} until I removed the two remaining instances. (An additional instance was removed by another user, triggering the article's inclusion on the aforementioned list). —Lifeisunfair 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tibetan people just appeared on the "whatlinkshere" list. I performed another template replacement, but there probably are more articles where that came from. —Lifeisunfair 22:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually WLH is showing articles, they're just elsewhere. WLH:seemain was only showing articles not edited before the redirect. Articles which use seemain through the redirect show in WLH:main. To find those articles one has to search WLH:main for articles whose source actually contains seemain (there were 240 such articles). The orphaning bot had trouble because it silently encountered a WLH limit due to the number of WLH:main articles. (SEWilco 17:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Retain the redirect to {{main}}. As demonstrated above, {{seemain}} might still be present in some articles, and it probably will be added to other articles from time to time. While the template's use certainly shouldn't be encouraged, there's no reason why it needs to be deleted. —Lifeisunfair 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect. Radiant_>|< 08:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: What does "Delete and redirect" mean? When an unwanted article is deleted we don't redirect them someplace. "September 6th 1988", "Prevention of Travelers Diarrhea", "US Government Simulator". and "Snack time" were just deleted, but there is no redirect because someone might refer to them in the future. Unwanted terms become redlinks. (SEWilco 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • "Delete then redirect" means to first delete the template, and then put a redirect in its place. The first step is optional, I suppose. Most things that are deleted become redlinks. Some are more suitable as bluelinks to a related topic. Radiant_>|< 19:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I dont like to be told what to do, tell me its there, Ill decide to see it or not. If you must see it, then somthing is wrong with the article. Stbalbach 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then don't use {{seemain}}, and change it when you come across it. If enough people dislike See X, which is the traditional English (and Latin) way of indicating cross-reference, it will fall out of use; if not, not. That would seem to be the wiki method. Septentrionalis 18:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Getting bored of this debate. This isn't a bureaucracy. -Splash 17:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{Main}} should be ok for the vast majority of uses. All other variants can be enabled using ad hoc text without the need to resort to a new template. Courtland 01:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Holding cell

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

To orphan

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

(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.

(none at this time)

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.

Listings

Template:Sfd-current


Adding a listing

  • Please put new listings under today's date (August 30) 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.

September 9

Template:Mpartprotected

This template should probably be kept, in case it is helpful, for the same reasons I voted to keep the template immediately below this (its sister template). Keeping it won't hurt anything; however, in the Spirit of intellectual honesty, I am listing this template in the {{tfd}} page here ,to get clear community concensus and review.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

Template:ProtectedMainPageArticle

Standard procedure, established after much arguing all over the place, is that articles on the main page, featured or otherwise, are not protected. It is felt that the improvement that results outweighs the brief period of vandalism that results. --Carnildo 00:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It is felt that the improvement that results outweighs the brief period of vandalism that results." Oh? Then, why, pray tell, must you insist on not deleting these "image" templates, displayed here? (and shown below)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mpimgprotected
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ProtectedMainPageImage
Apparently, there is sufficient vandalism. See the template talk page here here please before you act in a way which contradicts your own lack of actions in regards to the image protect templates.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image protection is for images that are actually displayed on the main page not for stuff linked from it. IMO that’s quite a significant difference. Also images are far less likely to receive constructive updates than articles. Plugwash 00:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world, Plugwash, that would be OK, but tell that to the editor (only one, who shall remain nameless) at Schiavo who keeps opposing documented past consensus and throwing a perfectly good Featured Article candidate into instability.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see any policy to support this template. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I commented or asked clarification of most or all the others who voted below, and I don't want to cheat you, lol, Evil Monkey: So, I would like to point out contra, I see neither policy nor logical reasoning to delete this template (nor its sister template above). I could be wrong here, but what would it hurt to keep these templates?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template would only protect the article for 24-hours while it basked in the light of main page. Besides, we protect images.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The use of this template is a violation of the protection policy. →Raul654 00:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Clarification sought: I just got finished looking at both Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace and Wikipedia:Template_namespace, Mark, and I see no such "policy." Where is policy on this located? Even if I am out-voted here (and I may be wrong??), there should be a page on policy, and if there isn't one, it should be incorperated in policy -if indeed it is a good idea and concept.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the Protection policy does allow for highly visible pages to be protected, this has never been extended to include pages link from visible pages (e.g, pages linked from the main page) - hence by above comment. When others have suggested protecting main page featured articles in the past (and it's been suggested quite often) I have repeatedly scolded them for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are the fact that (A) Featured articles almost without exception are improved by their time on the main page, and (B) featured articles are (by definition) supposed to exemplify what makes wikipedia unique, and this means it is unprotected and editable by anyone. →Raul654 03:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I'll be a Monkey's Uncle, Mark, you are right: Thank you for the link above. Policy here does say: "When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself." I don't agree with this policy, at all!! However, you may keep it --and proceed at your own risk. My personal pages (non-wiki, that is), are ALL protected, and VERY, very stable.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • (quoting Mark here) "When others have suggested protecting main page featured articles in the past (and it's been suggested quite often)..." Oh... It has been suggested "quite often," no less, eh..., as I suspected: I wonder why... Maybe because it has merit, eh? Therefore, I ask that you at least think about my suggestions, whether or not you vote in my favour, OK? Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the template, per the existing consensus to discontinue the practice to which it applies; the prudence of this decision should not be debated here. —Lifeisunfair 01:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question, Life Is Unfair: (quoting you) "per the existing consensus to discontinue the practice..."Do you mean to say that you are voting "delete" simply because of other concensus -and not providing a reason? "the prudence of this decision should not be debated here." Why not? Is this not the proper page for that -and, if not, then what page? Please justify your reasoning to not debate it here.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you mean to say that you are voting 'delete' simply because of other concensus -and not providing a reason?"
No. That consensus is my reason. It was formally determined that pages are not to be protected simply because they're linked to from the main page, so this template serves no valid purpose. —Lifeisunfair 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, Life; I had not seen the link to the policy before Mark showed it to me; still ,I disagree with this policy.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Why [shouldn't the prudence of this decision be debated here]? Is this not the proper page for that"
No, it isn't. This project page is used to discuss the proposed deletion of templates. It isn't used to establish or challenge Wikipedia policy. —Lifeisunfair 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I apologize: Since it was concensus from the past (and not just here), you're right: It should not be debated here (or at least to a large extent, but I want to make one more comment to Mark: It has OFTEN been discussed because it IS an idea with merit.)--GordonWattsDotCom 03:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"-and, if not, then what page?"
How about this one or this one? —Lifeisunfair 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been around, but on this, I'm a "newbie." May I'll check it out; Thx 4 the heads up.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles listed on the main page generally improve. - SimonP 01:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment.You might be right, SimonP, and for that reason, I believe that the Schiavo article (which has had all the problems identified by the Fac editor finally removed) would have improved had it been featured, but it wasn't and an edit war resulted. If you are so sure of this logic, Simon, then ask Mark (AKA →Raul654), the Fac editor, to list this article as a Featured Article. My Logic: If it's true that "Articles listed on the main page generally improve," then I want to see this article improve.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because featured articles are to advertise Wikipedia's best articles. That these articles could still use some tweaks does not imply that they are not of high quality. - SimonP 19:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per article improvement and keeping faith in readers/editors. This has nothing to do with protecting from image vandalism on the Main Page.--Pharos 02:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Pharos, I made a comment to Simon above, and, since you share his view on the influence to improve the article, without repeating them -for brevity, I direct these comments/question above to Simon also to you.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy — while established consensus states that pages should not be protected just because of being linked from the main page, I don't think anyone would have a problem with this being used for user pages linked from the main page. --Corvun 05:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Question: Does "userfy" mean to place it in my user or talk pages? Also, whether or not the templae is there, does it make it work any different? Lastly, why would we expect user names to be on the main page?--GordonWattsDotCom 06:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your first question - yes, he means put it on your user page. To answer your last question - user pages are occasionally linked from the main page on the weekends, when we run a featured picture (in place of Did You Know). The featured picture section lists the photographer, which means it often links to a user's page. →Raul654 06:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Articles on the main page should not be protected, and for user pages linked from the main page for the featured picture, it's badly worded. Lupo 08:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. When necessary, main page articles can be protected, and have been, using the standard WP:RfPP. Usually it's not necessary. This template is useless in both cases. Septentrionalis 18:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Franz Ferdinand

Don't get me wrong, I love this band. But do we need a giant 3x5 template for every band, esp. those with only one or two albums? Categories and links are more than sufficient. Gamaliel 18:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

Template:IR

No benefits to having this be a template instead of a category, a lot of redlinks, only sets up precedent clutter people like Kant with a horde of boxes. Also, organized uselessly - it spans such a vast historical period (Thucydides to Woodrow Wilson), and yet is in alphabetical order. At once too broad and too idiosyncratic - no useful overall picture is given by reading this particular sequence of articles. Snowspinner 16:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Categorify, leaning more towards delete, as I'm not sure of the usefulness of such a category. Too broad, introduces clutter. android79 19:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite. The vast historical period is purposeful: IR has been evolving for long, and many authors (specially English School ones) agree that the IR may be said to begin with Thucydides. The template´s purpose is to include 1) foundation political theorists used to label schools, such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Grotius, Kant and Marx; 2) actual IR theorists, be they realist (Mearsheimer, Waltz); liberal (Martin, Keohane); or constructivist (Wendt, Onuf); 3) men of action that influenced IR academic tought (Kissinger, Wilson, Lenin). In this sense, Template experts may want to create labels inside the template so as to make it in sections. As for red links, they are a mere invitation to create new articles that Wikipedia craves for - it lacks info on contemporary IR tought and in IR theory as a whole, a lack that only recently is being filled by the efforts mostly of Mintchocicecream. Cheers. Doidimais Brasil 04:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This list cannot possibly be complete, and so the selection must be PoV. This is much better handled by a list of links in the main article, or a separate list article. Such a list could certianly include redlinks. It would also be much easier to expand without space issues. DES (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Replace by {{Otherarticles-alph}} which will Categorefy; all of which will make it much easier to revise, which this very badly needs. What is the imagined justification for including Hobbes??? or Marx, for that matter? Are the redlinks contributors to a particular textbook? Septentrionalis 18:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Answering: English School IR theorists (such as Hedley Bull and Martin Wight) recongize three ample schools of tought in IR. They are labeled Hobbesian, Grotian and Kantian. As for Marx, he´s the inspirer of (tcham) Marxist tought in IR, including Fernando Henrique Cardoso´s, for instance. As for the redlinks: they are not simply contributors to a particular textbook, they are major 20th and 21th century IR thinkers and the main actors in the Realism x Liberalism x Constructivism debate.
Doidimais Brasil 01:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Template:AfricanAmericanL and Template:AfricanAmericanR

OB and redundant to Template:AfricanAmerican. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     20:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Verifieduse

From February to May 2004, we had an experimental process for determining "fair use". Wikipedia:Fair use was used as a discussion forum to determine whether a particular image could be used under the "fair use" clause, and if so, tagged by this template. However, there are a number of problems: first, the template is badly worded as it neither indicates which uses were considered "fair", nor gives any link to the discussion that presumably took place. I've just gone through all the about 60 images tagged as "verifieduse": all of them were tagged as such without any discussion, and even after that old process had been discontinued on June 1, 2004. The template is no longer used now (most were {{albumcover}}s anyway) and should be deleted to simplify our tagging and also to avoid intentional or unintentional mistagging. The associated Category:Verified fair use images should also be deleted. Lupo 09:10, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and rewrite. One problem that I keep running into is that many Wikipedia editors, both newbies and regular editors, use the {{fairuse}} template when they really, really want to use an image, but when it really doesn't fit any of the criteria for fair use. Remember that each fair use claim must be evaluated on its own merits and it is best to give the specific reasons that you are claiming fair use. My personal opinion is that we should keep the more specialized fair use templates such as {{albumcover}}, but the general fairuse template should be deleted because it is abuse way too often. If that doesn't happen, then this template, or something like it, is going to have to be used. BlankVerse ∅ 10:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know about fair use. The problem with this template is that the whole process for which it was intended doesn't exist anymore, no images use it, and the large majority of the 60 or so that did use it until this morning should have used another one like e.g. {{albumcover}} or {{screenshot}}. The "fair use discussion" process was discontinued in early 2004. Any uses of this template since then were just plain wrong. In fact, it seems as if all images that were indeed discussed at Wikipedia:Fair use had already been retagged when the process was abandoned, as all of the aforementioned ~60 images were uploaded after that. Instead of rewriting the template, you could just turn it into a redirect to {{fairuse}}, but then why keep it (and its category) at all? Lupo 10:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A new system of marking "approved" usage should be created, but this one isn't it and should't be encouraged -- it is a vestige of an older, now defunct, system. The current text of Wikipedia:Fair use seems to imply that one should just add this template in exchange for a normal "fair use" template if you, the uploader, think it is "verified", but there is no verification system with the exception of knowing to use the template. It isn't being used in an effective manner, and the paltry number of things tagged with it (60 out of some 20,000 fair use images) makes that quite clear. --Fastfission 12:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a new one when Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use creates a new system. JYolkowski // talk 22:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the procedure was never used anyway - this only confuses matters. Secretlondon 13:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

Template:Disambig-cleanup

Delete: this is supposed to be {{cleanup}} for disambig pages, and is redundant with the combination. However, the real reason to dispose of this is that is a temptation for the bossy and lazy to put this, instead of fixing the page themselves. ({{cleanup}} may be justified for those who find a page badly written but have no knowledge of the subject; but a dab page doesn't need knowledge. Anything which requires knowledge to rewrite should be changed anyway.) Septentrionalis 16:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (full disclosure: I created the template). There has been discussion about this on the disambiguation project talk page. There was a suggestion that we needed a way to keep track of dab pages that needed cleanup, and this seemed the most obvious way. May I suggest that before people weigh in, they at least read the (extensive) discussion that's been going on for weeks on the project page. --RoySmith 17:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although for some reason I keep on seeing that template at the bottom of a page... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a template designed by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation (I'm one) for use both by members of the project and any others who find it useful. Cleaning up a dab page requires knowledge and is not robot work; part of the cleaning is to fix all the incoming links, which can be many. Cleaning up a dab page is a distinct activity from cleaning up a standard article; such a distinction is reinforced by the application of this template. Courtland 23:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment ...and considering that fixing a dab page is just idle no-brainer work, please feel free to while away a moment at Enlightenment, and don't forget the >100 incoming links that need to be redirected to their proper destinations. Courtland 23:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and now that it's been fixed it should work even better. Much more sensible to have one template rather than two, especially since the cleanup of disambiguation pages is a different type of job to the cleanup of general articles. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Uncategorized

Unnecessary clutter. Avoid self references. 24ip | lolol 22:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

 
Articles need cats!
FYI, your edits to the template constitute silly vandalism. —Lifeisunfair 07:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I knew there'd be someone w/o a sense of humor. :-p Tomer TALK 15:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
It's a pun, not vandalism. Guettarda 16:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's vandalism. Kidding around is fine, but not when it disrupts articles and creates unnecessary work for other editors. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground. —Lifeisunfair 17:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's an image on a template. You could argue that adding an image to a template is bad because it adds to server loads, but a template in the article space saying that this needs categorisation does nothing to add to our credibility as an encyclopaedia - it looks amateurish. Adding a picture of a cat to the template actually gives it some value - it's an amusing pun. While puns are the lowest form of humour (well, they beat aristocrat jokes) adding a cat to the template does not harm the project. For one, it does not belong in the article space. It does nothing to help users of the encyclopaedia. If you want to look something up, you don't want to know that the page needs a cat. If used on the Talk page though, it's a useful tool - and every Talk page needs (a) cats, and (b) humour. As angry as some Talk pages get, puns would be a huge benefit. I do appeal to users to consider moving this template to Talk pages - it's no harder to find (you can always just check Category:Category needed - anyone who can't figure out where to put the category probably shouldn't be inserting categories). Guettarda 22:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Actually it's an image on a template. You could argue that adding an image to a template is bad because it adds to server loads, but a template in the article space saying that this needs categorisation does nothing to add to our credibility as an encyclopaedia - it looks amateurish."
Do you believe that all of the cleanup tags look amateurish?
"Adding a picture of a cat to the template actually gives it some value - it's an amusing pun."
I'm not amused by vandalism.
"While puns are the lowest form of humour (well, they beat aristocrat jokes) adding a cat to the template does not harm the project."
You don't believe that inserting a contextually nonsensical image into random articles has an adverse effect? I'm not implying that the walls came tumbling down, but it was vandalism.
"For one, it does not belong in the article space."
That's your opinion. It's a perfectly valid one, but disliking a template or the manner in which it's used is not a rational reason to condone vandalism.
"It does nothing to help users of the encyclopaedia."
On the contrary, it helps by facilitating a simple process through which they can find other articles on the same and/or similar topics (simultaneously extending this benefit to future readers).
"If used on the Talk page though, it's a useful tool - and every Talk page needs (a) cats, and (b) humour."
I'm quite fond of both, but not in this context.
"As angry as some Talk pages get, puns would be a huge benefit."
By all means, post some puns on talk pages. How does this pertain to Tomer's decision to deface an actively used template?
"I do appeal to users to consider moving this template to Talk pages - it's no harder to find (you can always just check Category:Category needed - anyone who can't figure out where to put the category probably shouldn't be inserting categories)."
This template doesn't merely target editors who seek to categorize articles; it also targets readers who are knowledgeable enough on specific topics to select the appropriate categories. —Lifeisunfair 00:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lifeisunfair, I don't mean to undermine Guettarda's defense of my insertion of the image into the template. I wasn't attempting to engage in "vandalism", silly or otherwise. I thought that the template was fine with its previous name, and the text of the template explained perfectly well what the purpose was thereof. I do take mild offense at the vehemence with which you defend your classification of my action as "vandalism", but at the same time, I see no harm whatsoever, in adding an image of a cat to the template. While the "average user" (i.e., one who arrives at any given article as a result of a google search) may not understand the pun, nothing is harmed by my having put an image of a cat into the template. At the same time, such an "average user" will long since have become familiar with the WP "cat=category" shorthand to have understood the pun before they can add any useful categories to any given article. There is no harm in humor, a claim I maintain, despite your attempts to squelch any evidence thereof. Most of us edit WP because we enjoy doing so, not because we feel any particular need to uphold ridiculous standards of decorum based on your view(s), nor because we're looking to maintain the dryest possible text ever read. If that were the case, we'd go to Encyclopædia Brittanica and ask to be paid for our work. What, in truth, do you feel was bad about having an image of a cat in a template called "catneeded"? In what way do you feel the template was less useful because of my insertion thereof thereinto? At this point, I'm on the verge of having to cast aside the assumption of good faith, pending a sensible rebuttal, and assume, instead, that you're miserable and lacking humor, and trying to spread it around. Tomer TALK 09:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I hate to spoil your fun, but I've moved the template to a more descriptive title. —Lifeisunfair 17:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Useful. — RJH 19:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful, though usage on talk pages might be a better idea. Silly Comment: adding this template to an article places it in a category, making it not uncategorized, but categorized; therefore, the template should be removed. But now we have an uncategorized article, and we should reapply the template... let's hear it for infinite loops! android79 20:04, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Reinyday, 20:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it belongs on the talk page. - SimonP 01:26, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Super strong keep in a bottle and preserve for ever :) sorry, I use these all the time, being one who does massive cat moves, these are very helpful when I dont have the time to find a suitable cat. I prefer to fix the small errors and at least notify others that a cat is needed rather than leaving it orphaned for some undisclosed amount of time. ∞Who?¿? 02:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is quite useful. I've just categorized several articles after looking at this discussion, and will probably help with more as they are added. It's not "amateurish" to suggest that we are a working encyclopedia, rather than a finished product.--Pharos 02:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I may be nearly the only one who feels this way, but I think there is enough cleanup template pollution in article space already. This template puts a little blue box on the article and adds it to Category:Category needed. Surely the latter is more than enough to identify and distinguish pages needing categorization. As such I suggest keeping the category and using that, but ditching the blue box. Dragons flight 19:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sometimes there’s need for some rethinking before finding the most suitable categories, and it’s practical to mark the article in some way so they can be found again. If there isn’t any place to put them they have a tendency to be forgotten. Special:Uncategorizedpages is only frequently updated. -- Sunny256|✎ 23:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

September 5

Template:MikeWatt

ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a posting on maximumwattage.com told you to come and vote, please don't. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a TfD discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The TfD process is designed to draw on the judgement of experienced Wikipedians who understand what they are voting on and how it fits in with Wikipedia's overall policies; for this reason votes from users whose histories do not show that experience, including those who sign up for accounts after the vote started, are traditionally discounted.
You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be. However, unless you have a point to make in the discussion that no one before you touched upon, it may not be worth it; merely saying "me too" or reiterating an already-raised point is unlikely to sway anyone. Please remember, if you comment, that the article Mike Watt is not at risk for deletion; this discussion is over whether this template should exist on Wikipedia.

While I'm sure this template was made for the right reasons, I don't think it's a good idea. Mike Watt is the bassist from The Minutemen, but the template has been plonked on the page of every band that he has some connection with; for instance on Sonic Youth: Watt has appeared, if I'm not mistaken, in precisely three of their songs; and on The Stooges: if you were even thinking about putting a template at the bottom, you'd want Iggy Pop to get a mention, but Mike Watt? Who's he? In general, I think templates for individuals are bad; just think how messy The Beatles would be with {{John}} {{Paul}} {{George}} and {{Ringo}} at the bottom. Delete. Flowerparty 21:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DO NOT DELETE. I'm the creator of this template. Why wasn't I asked to just edit it? I can see where some items don't belong in the template. However, Watt is a full member of the Stooges and has been for the past two years. I will fight this deletion with every fiber of my being. Cjmarsicano 22:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've edited the template down. I have also mentioned on the maximumwattage.com board that the item is in danger of being deleted and am thus encouraging fellow Watt fans to vote against the template's deletion. Cjmarsicano 23:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, I don't think it's a good idea to create templates for individuals. The template is unnecessary because everything in it is included in the Mike Watt article. If you want to create Template:The Stooges and put a link to that article there, I'd have no objection. Flowerparty 23:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy the argument proposed by Mr.Flowerparty at all. Mr. Watt is a very influential individual in the modern musical world and for him to not have a template would be an insult. Why not just reduce his article to a half-assed stub while you're at it if that is the case? Cjmarsicano 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - policies should not be violated for fear of offending people. No offense, but there are many, many more notable musicians than Watt, and if this template continues to exist, many, many more musician templates will have to be created. If the bottom of every article on a band or albun contains templates for all the musicians involved in it, that would be a lot of needless clutter. ~~ N (t/c) 23:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already aware of the Neutral point of view and have stuck to it (believe it or not) in everything I have ever posted. As for your statement: ...there are many, many more notable musicians than Watt, and if this template continues to exist, many, many more musician templates will have to be created, I say, "So be it." Cjmarsicano 00:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Civil aircraft infobox

An orphaned template meant to be used for aircraft articles. It has been removed from those articles, because it was redundant with the standard formatting previously agreed upon at WP:Air. Ingoolemo talk 06:28, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

September 4

Template:Scope creep

Redundant with {{proposed}}. --cesarb 21:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

*sigh*... --Titoxd 04:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Military-divisions

Delete. An admirable attempt created today, but just a counting of all the numbers from 1-410. The overwhelming majority of the links are red, and per WP:CSL having simple numerical (alphabetical) order is not enough to warrant an article series box. Better served by List of military divisions, or, possibly, a category. -Splash 21:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still think, that this template is a good thing, because on the same page can user see information on how many division are already listen and which aren't. This is specially useful, because other option is going back to list... Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 19:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you've said is that the template is a very useful tool for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military Divisions, so that's where it should go is to a list for that WikiProject (after it gets created). On the other hand, the template is practically useless for anyone else. BlankVerse ∅ 15:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-present

This template is no longer relevant nor usable due to the death of William Rehnquist. It has been replaced by Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-2005. OCNative 04:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wouldn't it have easier to have simply moved the template, fixed the links, and then have done an RfD than a TfD ? Caerwine 08:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created this template from Phil Welch's templates to allow for row-specific insertion. As Caerwine noted, the ideal would be to modify and move this template, but that option has sadly been foreclosed, so it's best to just eliminate this template. — DLJessup (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Delete but I wish to comment upon DLJessup's remarks: I disagree that 'improperly' is the correct term to my making the new templates. Last week I created the two new ones, Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-2005 to cover the court's makeup ending with O'Connor and having someone new, while the next one Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2005-present is for new entries and subject to the nomination of what's-his-face, the new right-winger Bush just appointed as I figure in view of the makeup of the Senate he'll be approved as long as he isn't "somewhere to the right of Anthony Comstock." (and maybe even then!). [N.B.: Roberts (21:15 UTC) ] Now, in view of Rehnquist being dead, my opinion to make two different ones was essentially proven correct; those pages that use 1994-present can be broken into two classes: those that involve issues through 2005 and those that involve issues in 2005 and beyond.
    By having a different template than this one, we do not break compatibility on old articles. In order to make sure articles are correct, all articles that use this template have to be visited and changed thus they get the freshest possible information instead of some of them which were only applicable through 2005 now having the wrong information included.

    The articles that reference this template can be updated as appropriate without breaking them until they are updated, because until we get to them, they remain accurate. Once any article (or template) that references this template is corrected, then this template could be deleted as no longer functional. I think doing it that way provides better backwards compatibility to, say, renaming this template as "2005-present" because it makes articles clear as to whether they were referring to the older court format or the newer one. If it wasn't created as a new one and the old one was simply renamed by moving, it could produce errors in referential articles and templates. Paul Robinson 20:59, 4 September 2005 20:59 (UTC) [(RFC1394)]

  • I agree with Rfc1394. Keep it until all the articles it covers are replaced, then delete. One question: What's with accusations of "improperly created" and with the "rebuttals"? It would be nice if those were toned down a bit. --Titoxd 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I made sure all references to this template were switched to Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-2005 before listing this one for deletion. OCNative 05:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chub

Heh. --Joy [shallot] 01:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied - silliness. violet/riga (t) 17:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exactly which one of the WP:CSD authorized this speedy? I didn't recall that "silly" was a criterion. DES (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry but I can't see why we should continue voting on something where there is a unanimous decision after two and a half days. The template is clearly a joke, and there are too many silly joke templates having to go through the TfD process. violet/riga (t) 20:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If people see a clear consensus, they will probably not spend much time on the TfD listing, so once listed it does no harm to let the process finish. If you think it does harm, then do an early close, if the TfD process permits that, or change the process so that it does, if you can get consensus for such a change. Speedy deletion is supposed to be very narrowly confined to specific listed criteria. IMO these whould not be bent or strained. This didn't meet any of that as far as I can see. I will therefore be listing it on WP:VfU. DES (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

Template:Infobox Apskritis

It is replaced by a more elaborate version Template:Infobox apskritis following a discussion about templates proposed on User:Renata3/elderates. I am sorry, I know I should have have updated the old version instead of creating a new template... Stupid me :) Renata3 17:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moveprotect

This seems a totally unnecessary extension to the protection template. By the very fact that they are protected, these pages are fairly stable. Page move protection is by definition a long-term thing. These templates are therefore ugly and unnecessary. [[smoddy]] 17:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:സ്വാഗതം and Template:വിഷയ സൂചിക

Should they be deleted or translated?. CG 09:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • I've never heard of listing templates on WP:TIE. However, delete in this form and by this name. I have the distinct impression that they're translations of copyright or fairuse templates. If someone wants to babelfish them and give them a proper name, great. Radiant_>|< 14:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE or Userfy. 132.205.45.148 18:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first and perhaps translate the second. User:Tintin1107 (not the author) provided this explanation on my talk page after I asked him for a translation. This first is a Malayalam specific welcome message. I can't imagine it will get much use, but there is no harm in welcoming an ML speaker in their own language. The second is a navigation template for things like biology, physics, etc., except that the destinations are untranslated. I'm not sure what the authors' intentions are with that. Dragons flight 18:39, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

September 2

Template:Zap

This template is intended to be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Zap policy proposal. Unless there is a groundswell of new support for the Wikipedia:Zap policy, the proposal is likely to be deleted on Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion. If so, it makes sense to delete this template. NO VOTE. Vacuum c 03:48, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, the Zap proposal says to redirect unwanted articles to the sandbox, not to use a template like this. Radiant_>|< 09:29, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I presume this was created as a way around the no cross-namespace redirect thing to allow templates to be zapped. Xiong also created a silly uesr account for a similar purpose. -Splash 18:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This nomination, and both votes above, are FUD and unnecessarily hostile. Zap is not a policy proposal, nor is it a policy. Wikipedia:Zap is not going to be deleted; it has limited support. Zap does not call for templates to be redirected to Wikipedia:Sandbox -- that would be pretty stupid, eh? Template:Zap exists as a null, dummy redirect target. That's a useful tool whether you like the idea or not. Otherwise, users will redirect templates onto the Sandbox -- or something equally unpredictable! — Xiong熊talk* 22:22, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

September 1

Template:Futuregame

Delete, duplicate of {{Future game}}. No reason for this. Nothing links there. I don't know what the point of this is. Might be candidate for speedy. K1Bond007 19:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

August 31

Template:Philippines-fairuse

Delete: This image copyright template asserts that that the associated image is copyrighted and used under the fair use provisions of the Philippines and the United States. However, since the fair use laws of the Philippines are the same as those of the United States, and the Wikimedia servers are located in the United States, this tag is pretty much redundant with Template:Fairuse. Furthermore, it's only used on one page.}} JYolkowski // talk 23:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This template was clearly created by a user who didn't understand the point of image tagging templates or fair use law. See Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#Philippine_copyright_tags. --Fastfission 00:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The explanation provided suggests this to be an unnecessarily over-specified template. Note that the laws as such might be the same between the two countries, but that does not mean the case precedent or interpretation of those laws is the same; I still maintain it's overspecific. Courtland 03:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless one can point to an example of where US and Philipine interpretation of fair use has proven divergent, it is overly specific. (If such an example can be shown then this might be useful.) Caerwine 05:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this can relate to the story of the articles of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The Inquirer says that other entities (newspapers, tabloids, and the like) use its articles (which are copyrighted), possibly under fair use, and instead steal the articles and make it as their own (which led to the campaign: "Inquirer articles are for sale, not for lifting."). Also, the Philippine interpretation of fair use tends to be somewhat looser than the U.S. interpretation, especially in terms of fair use material for educational purposes. --Akira123323 13:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that I have changed my stance to a strong keep. In addition to my last comments on fair use for educational material, I have classmates in my school who use Wikipedia material, cite it, and submit it under fair use (especially when it is research). If the material is left unchanged, it is generally not considered plagiarism if it is cited. This can probably show how loose the fair use provision of Philippine copyright law is. --Akira123323 13:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you quite understand the copyright issues here -- images can only be kept on Wikipedia if they are safe under U.S. copyright law (because Wikipedia is "published" in the U.S.). If Phillipine "fair use" is "looser" than U.S. law (I'm not convinced that it is, but I don't know the first thing about Phillipine law), that's great, but it doesn't change the status here. In fact, it makes this template even more redundant — you might as well assume anything which is "fair use" on Wikipedia according to U.S. standards is likely to be "fair use" according to Phillipines standards.--Fastfission 23:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - these things are about interpretation and may be useful for Phillipines end users. Also there is no guarantee that the laws will remain the same, even if they are. Secretlondon 13:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the material marked with this template is assumed to be fair use "under Philippine copyright law and United States copyright law", the template overlaps entirely with Template:Fairuse. If the reason behind the template is that Philippine copyright law is looser than U.S. copyright law, as is claimed above, then a) the template shouldn't say that it's fair use under U.S. law as well, and b) the material in question shouldn't be here at all, assuming that it's not considered fair use under U.S. law. I can't imagine where one would want to use this template instead of Template:Fairuse. EldKatt (Talk) 14:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user dz template:user dzl template:user dz-N template:user dzl-N and accompanying categories category:user dzl, category:user dzl-N

Delete: This is a falsified language userpage infobox. Obviously. Patrick Lucas 02:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Schzzl. aka Do Not Delete the Template. Could someone please hip me to what constitutes the existence of a lang when deciding whether a lang template may exist? McVonn 03:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A language is usually spoken by a large amount of people, not as a dialect or slang, but as the sole form of communication. This isn't it. --Titoxd 03:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'r right. A language is usually those things. Spoken by many and natively by someone. Is that enough to delete the template? and you say it's not the only one? can I see the others? have they been deleted yet? McVonn
    • See for example Sango123 who speaks excellent squirrel. That one is a modified local substitution, not a template. Dragons flight 04:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wow. I wish I could speak squirrel. --fvw* 04:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bad imitation of the Babel templates, but it isn't the only one. There are many user pages with one copy or another of it. Userfy and delete redirect. --Titoxd 03:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. --fvw* 03:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'm waiting to hear back from the guy who seems to have nominated the template for deletion. He has not responded yet to my second message. I want to know how he came about it and why he felt it should be deleted. I'v heard from you all, and I know it doesn't look good for my template. let's admit though: judging whether this thing should stay or go seems simple once the object in question is up on this page- that's why I'd like to hear from patrick Lucas. I appreciate everyone's input and help. Ideally I would like to be able to use some kind of lang code/lang template (as Caerwine suggested miiiight be possible) to (at least in some way, unofficially) represent this language on wikipedia. I understand that dzalakha is not even in wikipedia at all, is that correct? dzongkha content only lacks pages in english yet. so I understand the objection to my using User dz. I have mad respect for ISO and all but what does that standard have to do w/ wikipedia right now? I would not mind using dzz.
I admit I'm the only wikipedian who actually knows about this lang first-hand. It is very new and still developing. It does only have a handful of speakers and it is not spoken truly natively by anyone the way that the world's major languages are. I still maintain, though, that it is not a mere dialect of english, but a language unto itself. Any linguist will tell you that the distinction "language" or "dialect" is largely political. McVonn 03:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I first came upon it when I viewed the userpage of someone who had vandalized a page I had worked on, Dzzl, a.k.a. you. Therefore, seeing a feeble attempt at being 'cool' by falsifying a template page, using english, with links that weren't english words linking to userpages, I promptly created this entry on this page. Patrick Lucas 22:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I see. just to be clear- the links weren't to userpages. they were to lang user category pages the way all lang templates work. actually, they weren't set up exactly correctly. I was working on fixing the links to match other lang templates exactly when I learned that dzl was brought up for deletion as well, as part of this same vote. I should mention I do not plan to make an article in the main space about dzzl language.The english template (user en) links to the english language. Mine would link to a name space page (user:dzzl/Dzzl language). Above you said I "falsified a template page using english"? with links that "weren't english words". by the by, one non-english word was not a link. well, the words I think you'r talking about were part of Dzzl speak. just like french lang templates are in french. and, obviously it's under en.wikipedia cuz I def. can't just start dz.wikipedia on a whim. for that, you need lots of true native speakers. So, I'm still kinda confused about what motivated you to nominate it judging by your response above. perhaps your motivation isn't important, but I suspect no one would have minded this template existing for a while if it hadn't popped upon this page, so that's why I persist.

I should note I have a limited explanation of some phrases possible in dzzl speak in my userpage space. THis is not meant to adequately convey the language or it's validity to other wikpedia users. it was a personal project. It also doesn't reflect the dynamism of actual use and grows stale quickly as I have not had time to keep up with the creative new constructions made up contiuously by various speakers; I am not an anthropologist, ethnographer or linguist by trade. I can tell you, though, that like any lang, first-hand exposure to people using it in a social context is needed to begin to see how it works.

Also, for the record, category:user dzl and category:user dzl-N were deleted very recently and I was not notified. I'll look over at categories for deletion. I think they should be restored at least until this vote closes. I at least advise any admins involved to take a look. I just want it to be shown since dz is gone that I was working towards making the links work exactly as all other lang templates work.

so, who closes this thing? dz is already gone. who can tell me if I can use dzl or dzz or any code at all? who makes the ruling that this lang, though not known first-hand to other wikipedians, doesn't meet criteria "x" to warrant a template? how many original template users would be enough? Is there another page or place or process where I can look into those possibilites? this is the delete stuff page. sometimes stuff is saved from deletion, here, but I suspect this isn't the place to make my case. can anyone point me in the right direction now? thanks to those who'v contributed positively at this vote. McVonn 04:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can use code from the Wikipedia:Babel templates for anything, as long as it is in your user space. I gave you an example in your user page. I doubt that it will be permitted in the main template namespace until you assert the notability of the language. As for who closes, it just takes someone who moves the whole discussion to the holding cell below, and admins to delete templates, but if you ask for the delisting of this as a speedy delete, someone will get to it. I have no clue who decides whether the language is known enough to warrant a template, but I believe Babel is a good place to ask. --Titoxd 04:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have made it more clear that I was seeking a template in the template space. I want it to link to a real category like real lang templates do. I would not have written a short story outlining my concerns and what I feel to be relevant issues about language if I wanted to make a fakey one on my user space. it's possible I don't understand all the possibilities of translusion, but I think it's kinda different. I don't think I could set up a category that looks and functions like a category in my user space. and thanks for the babel tip- I'll check it out. McVonn 04:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I listed the two categories in question to show that they've been deleted without this vote being closed. either they were not actually part of this vote or they deleted with out "due process" if you will. someone please acknowledge this. thank you. Yameen? 02:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even though these templates are fun, and a great way to express individuality, templates should be available for all users. It would be easy enough to put in on your userpage so it looks like a template. For example, see my userpage to see how I used the POV check template as a starting point for my own variant. --Merovingian (t) (c) 17:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

August 30

Template:An Irish Guide to Furniture (Blackwater Press)

Created today by an anonymous user that also has been vandalizing a VfD (see Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Adam connon on the only page that has a connection to this template. Template is poorly formed, and in no way helpful or noteworthy in my opinion. --Durin 19:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LosAngelesInfoBox

Seems redundant to all of the other city infobox templates, and it is currently used on only one article: Los Angeles, California. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. You can just have the code in the actual article. This just makes it harder for people to edit the infobox. --Hottentot
    • Note: The vote on the talk page is not about keeping the template, it is about having the picture inside or outside the infobox. --Hottentot
  • I support Deletion of the Template:LosAngelesInfoBox and moving the code into the main article. While at first, I was opposed to this, due to the fact that it would probably boost the size of the page with more text, we're not really changing the size anyway, since the page is bringing in the text from the template anyways ... so it's a wash (on that note, the wikipedia recommendation on page size needs to be boosted a bit, due to advances in technology & download speeds). As Hottentot said, the code can be placed into the main article itself (which he has already taken the liberty to do on several other city articles).
I do like the placement of the city skyline image in the infobox template. It greatly increases the quality of the page, and also prevents some weird things from happening, like paragraph text from inserting between the skyline image and the template, which has happened in other articles. The statement about this infobox format being used on only one article is inaccurate - this format is currently used by Chicago, Illinois, Louisville, Kentucky (a featured article), Washington, D.C., Richmond, Virginia, Atlanta, Georgia, Norfolk, Virginia, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Phoenix, Arizona, and probably several other city articles. Dr. Cash 15:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are several city articles doing the same thing (Chicago for example, has {{ChicagoInfoBox}}, It would be best to create one single template that could be used on any city article that wanted to include an image at the top of their infobox. That's the reason that I said generalize and rename. BlankVerse ∅ 16:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCities has a general article template for cities. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. They also have a Template:Infobox City. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generalize and rename. -- Reinyday, 20:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Second Rise of Lord Voldemort

all French Region infobox templates

Template:Aquitaine infobox
Template:Auvergne infobox
Template:Bourgogne infobox
Template:Bretagne infobox
Template:Centre infobox
Template:ChA infobox
Template:Corse infobox
Template:Franche-Comté infobox
Template:Île-de-France infobox
Template:Languedoc-Roussillon infobox
Template:Limousin infobox
Template:Lorraine infobox
Template:Midi-Pyrénées infobox
Template:Nord-Pas-de-Calais infobox
Template:PACA infobox
Template:Pays-de-la-Loire infobox
Template:Picardie infobox
Template:Poitou-Charentes infobox
Template:Rhône-Alpes infobox
Redundant single use templates. Remplacements based on an expanded Template:Infobox French Région are now available for all regions (please add the ones I missed to the list above). Template:Infobox French Région can be added directly to the articles. -- User:Docu

August 29

Template: Uncyclopedia

Delete: Promotional in nature, unnecessary and like-minded Templates previously voted for deletion. Template author contends template is not Speedy Delete since its a different style and wording than the previous one that was delete. Stbalbach 22:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

archived TFD comment stream from July 2005 → deletion — Courtland 04:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Err I'm not the author, I just felt that is was suffiently different to be considered a "new" template, and speedy deletion was inappropriate.--ElvisThePrince 23:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I really liked McDonalds hamburgers and told all my friends that Wendy's hamburgers aren't McDonalds hamburgers, it would still be advertising, although McDonalds didn't sanction me to do so. (btw I hate McD's hamburgers :) ). ∞Who?¿? 03:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If telling people that Wendy's burgers aren't MacDonalds burgers is advertising, I'm not quite sure what isn't....--64.170.153.127 03:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, uncyc admins did not create this template. Please don't be under the impression we're constantly trying to promote our site on wikipedia, that is not our goal. We take no stance on this template, but will not officially support it. (uncyc admin) --Chronarion 13:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and restrict usage to talk pages only. Comments Doubt that {{vfd}} and {{cleanup}} are direct equivalents (cleanup is vague, vfd is an invitation to go vote) - not sure if there are other templates out there that might be a closer match, comments? In any case, am surprised to see Stbalbach attempting to pass this off as a duplicate of some previous template in order to bypass normal voting procedure - if he was the one who originated the previous VFD (different template, same name) he must be familiar enough with both affected templates to know better? --carlb 03:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See its use at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monsterism where it is obvious from the talk page that the article has had all sorts of nonsense added to it that is clearly unencyclopedic (and possibly Uncyclopedia inspired). Or I would also support the alternative of renaming it to template:Encyclopedic, and rewording the beginning to "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia..." Either way, the template should be changed to one of the talk page classes that use the CoffeeRoll formatting. BlankVerse ∅ 10:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, not a sisterproject. Radiant_>|< 12:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you even look at the template? It not a article page template that links to articles at the Unencyclopedia, like the old template did, its a talk page template that tells editors that the Wikipedia is not the Unencyclopedia and so they shouldn't edit Wikipedia articles like they would articles on the Unencyclopedia. BlankVerse ∅ 16:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I've seen that, but I still consider it linkspam. Radiant_>|< 09:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, talk:Uncyclopedia claims it's a first-cousin project, and an adopted one at that. ;) --carlb 15:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This just seems to be promoting Uncyclopedia more. Not needed.  Thorpe talk 16:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thsi doen't seem advertising any more than a google test tempalte is advertising google -- indeed not so much, as it contians no internal links. if anything it is a slander against Uncyclopedia. Possibly useful, but should only be used on talk pages IMO, and should be documentd to that effect. DES (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a variant on {{pov}}, not an advertisement for Uncyclopedia. Making this into another redirect to PoV would be fine too. In any case, clearly not a speedy, as the existence of DES's post should show. 02:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I concur with User:BlankVerse. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 06:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per user DES above. --Misza13 17:14:51, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
  • Delete. It should be obvious that Wikipedia is not a different encyclopedia website. Other than stating that, it just says that Wikipedia has NPOV policies, which is what other templates are used for saying, if it needs to be said. If it really needs to be said, it should just be said -- there is no need for a silly template. --Fastfission 19:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Coment So your saying that peolle can't write content thats NPOV and in a non-encyclopedia style???? e.g. "Billy Shakespear was a geezer who wrote a lot of plays in Elizabethan England", NPOV (as far as I can tell) but certainly not encyclopedic....--ElvisThePrince 11:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless, it applies to all articles. We can make a template of each policy and put it in each article to remind users of these policies. CG 20:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    Yer while we're at it may as well get rid of {{Advertisement}} and {{{Vanity}}} as you say these apply to all articles as well.....--ElvisThePrince 10:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uneccesary, poorly worded.Voice of All(MTG) 04:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some articles quite need this sort of template.
  • Strong delete. In my opinion, this template has no legitimate application. It's true that Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia, but there's absolutely no need to convey such a statement (especially one that singles out a specific parody site, given the fact that it's far from unique). Whether intentional or not, this comes across as a sneaky, backdoor method of advertising Uncyclopedia. — Lifeisunfair 07:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Application would appear to be to respond to one specific issue: the insertion of pointless silliness into non-humour articles. As such, not the same as {{NPOV}} or other existing templates. --carlb 22:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transwikied and Deleted

I don't think we need to keep this log at talk pages of transwikied (and deleted) pages. We already have the transwiki log, and often the individual VFD discussions. Note that all pages containing the template are speediable as CSD#G8, or CSD#A5. Some of the (non-existent) article pages that could accompany those talk pages could be replaced by redirects, or soft interwiki links. Radiant_>|< 11:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stillman-Allen-Four Lads

This template seems to be an attempt to automatically generate entire articles. See it in use at Who Needs You?. The articles it produces are pretty useless, and because their format is hard coded into the template, they are impossible to expand. Moreover if all the information that it is possible to add are name, date recorded, and date released simply creating a list would be more useful than these pseudo-articles. - SimonP 01:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

August 28

Delete: This is misleading and makes LISWiki look like a sister project of Wikipedia (see the {{wikibooks}} template etc.), or at least priveliges it over other external links, which is not appropriate. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just like Template:Musicbrainz wiki box below. Sisterproject box for nonsisterproject. They should all be speedyable as recreations, really; all of the past consensuses have been quite strong, and since they haven't seemed to care what the external site is, pasting a different link in doesn't make the template not be "substantially identical" to the deleted ones. —Cryptic (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, modified per Template:Uncyclopedia discussion to conform to the Template:Memoryalpha style of third party wiki links --John Hubbard 13:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. External site templates are promotional in nature. Need a more formal acceptance process to avoid cluttering up articles with pseudo-advertising. Stbalbach 22:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete promo for a non-sister site. -Splash 00:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't understand. The modified version is identical to the approved Memoryalpha link syntax. It goes in the "External links" section of articles. Why are you guys saying that a "pseudo-advertising" "promo" like this shouldn't deserve a (formatted) link? --John Hubbard 00:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, as a recreation in substance of the Uncyclopedia templates. No templates for non-sibling projects should be a CSD rule, in my view. By the way, when is the next CSD expansion poll, for that matter? --Titoxd 03:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There probably needs to be some standard on the formatting and types of template links that are used in the External links sections of articles. I think that both LISWiki and Memoryalpha are appropriate wikis to link to when their articles are much more detailed that the comparable Wikipedia articles (compare Digital Library to LSIWiki Digital Library] article). One change should be that ALL such templates should begin with an asterisk to emphasize that they are for the External links sections only. BlankVerse ∅ 10:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the previous debate on {{Sh}} and the usage of {{isfdb name}} and the like. Standardized tempaltes for linking to commonly cited external sources are (IMO) a Good ThingTM in general. DES (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I disagree with this view that boilerplate templates for external links are a good idea. I suspect it raises the possibility that someone will go round tagging our articles on any subject covered on their site, regardless of whether or not their page is informative and useful. The text "<whatever> article at LISWiki, a Library and information science wiki" still seems a little bit advert-like to me. — Trilobite 15:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. So your VFD is based on (a) envisioning potential problems, and (b) the definition of an abbreviation, then? I don't have any comments on spelling out initialisms, but your point about the realm of possibilities is interesting. How often are counterfactual conditions considered when restricting content and editing (i.e., are pages protected because of potential vandalism, or because of historical evidence)? Couldn't the "possibility" of causing problems be put on most anything? Wouldn't it be better to focus on real ones, if and when they occur? /$.02 --John Hubbard 17:46, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply Why is it any more likely that a link spamer will link-spam via template than via a non-=template link? If a template link is put on an article where it does not add value, it can be removed just as esily and in the same way as if a non-template link had been placed, plus using "what links here" on the template allows anyone to see exactly where it has been used, making it easier (not harder) to find and remove inmappropriate uses. And, of course, if a site moves or is systematically reconstructed, lots of broken links may be fixed at once by editing the template. The ISFDB has already moved twice, and while its current ___location is probably stable, there is no certianty on the web. DES (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; to Trilobite: be bold and rephrase, but the present wording spells out initials, just like {{isfdb}}. Septentrionalis 15:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template: Editors

  • Delete: Redundant, does not provide much information and is quite big, creating clutter. --Sn0wflake 17:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you see this as being redundant with? It looks to me as if the intent was to use "what links here" to create a list of reference pages for fairly new editors. That doesn't strike me as a bad idea. Tentative keep pending furhter discussion. DES (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have a few templates of this kind already, but most importantly, for its large size, it does not provide enough information. This is not a very effective solution to a not so existant problem, as nowadays all users are greeted with an appropriate template anyway. The Help:Contents is also quite accesible. In resume, what I am trying to say is: it's not needed. --Sn0wflake 20:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi - I created the template. The uses are legitimate, and I think good. See the template talk page for more information; but I truly think that this is a good idea. It only appears "redundant" because it is new and hasn't been implemented on many pages yet. --Heebiejeebieclub 18:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's definitely a good idea, but we have several dozen toolbox templates already, and I think that what you're looking for actually already exists. But I see no harm in helping n00bs - might I also direct you to {{welcome}} for adding links? Radiant_>|< 19:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Heebiejeebieclub, I am in no way questioning your good faith. I just believe this will unecessarily increase template stacking. --Sn0wflake 20:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good grief nominated 30 minutes after creation and part of an ongoing proposal on the Village Pump. I made some changes to its format that should reduce its size to something less objectionable and let those who have an interest in the pages it is intended for decide whether this template is useful. Caerwine 20:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In use, undergoing revision. -- Visviva 01:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So can I summarize from this that I had the right idea, but just not the right template? That it will be kept but redesigned? Anyway, the template was not meant as a welcome message, it was intennded to be put at the top of articles that helped with editing.--Heebiejeebieclub 12:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and delete. Simply putting that message at the top doesn't go anyplace, but putting them in a category would be possibly useful. -Splash 00:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless someone can point out at least one other template that makes this one redundant. -- Reinyday, 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • del, self evident message is not useful --MarSch 11:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as insufficient time for discussion so far. But, at least as of now, it seems like a bad idea, and I would support deleting it in a few weeks, unless things change. JesseW 05:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep'' May or may not be a great idea, but it is a tool that does no harm. Improve it or leave it alone. — Xiong熊talk* 17:06, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Template: Abu Ghraib

Delete: Redundant. There's already a category for this purpose. /Jebur 16:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otherarticles-alph

Courtland 01:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italian prime minister

Unused --MarSch 15:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPA fonts

Only used in {IPA} and I substituted it there. Contains a list of fonts. --MarSch 14:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it's also used on its own in the CSS code of a few tables scattered around Wikipedia. Without this template, there's no way those tables will get their font specifications updated. —Michael Z. 2005-08-28 15:36 Z
I looked a little more and found {IPA2} which now uses {IPA}. Which tables? --MarSch 15:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It, {{Unicode fonts}} and others are supposed to be a single point to edit the list of fonts needed to show some special characters on MSIE. The list of fonts is kept separate from the template on purpose. --cesarb 19:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


August 27

Template:Space1, et al.

Other similar templates (more at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:PostScript_name):


August 26

Template:Blank

Delete: The template doesn't create a blank space.  Thorpe talk 19:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

August 25

Template:Macedonian naming dispute

  • Delete: there's a naming dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece. The text of this template was written by the Greek nationalists to be used in every article that included the name of "Republic of Macedonia". This is not the Wikipedia way to settle dispute. See Talk:Macedonian denar / Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote / Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute for discussions and Republic of China for a similar case. bogdan | Talk 21:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia must be clean. Actually there is no problem with "Republic of Macedonia". Only these ultra-POV-pushers are doing problems here. -- Darwinek 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur wholeheartedly with Bogdan and Darwinek. If interested, see extensive comments at Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute. – Friejose 21:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just use the most common name. Superm401 | Talk 22:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This template resulted after many contributions and talks on Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia. Before being a template, it was a notice on the relevant subjects. Instead of talking on how it could be improved, see also Talk:Macedonia, they set it as a VfD candidate. I can agree on one thing, for sure this is not how wikipedia works. MATIA 23:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The present text of the despute is supporting the Greek side. Even if it stays, it should be changed and made neutral. The naming despute is reality, but the official goverment information show that at least 70% of the countries that recognized Macedonia use its constitutional name: "Republic of Macedonia". In the direct goverment contacts, only Greece and Cyprus use another name. Everyone else uses "Republic of Macedonia". In the same time, the text does not say anything about the proposals from the Macedonian side (Macedonia for the world, but Greece can use any inoffensive name they pick, a proposal that Greece rejected) and that Macedonia already made drawbacks by changing its flag and its constitution (like Greece insisted). Also the text does not include information that the 3 of the 5 members of the security council of UN recognize Macedonia under the constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" and the parlament of the 4th member already recomended its goverment to do the same. 62.162.198.232 00:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So what the fuck (please read WP:CIV, REX 14:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)) is going on. I thought we would wait for the vote to close (has it closed? did it even have a time-limit? it should have) before deleting anything. If the vote is closed already, the disclaimer clearly lost, and the template should be deleted. We don't need a template for a note in one article (Republic of Macedonia). ---Alex 00:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the template as it is is silly, and there can be a footnote in the Macedonia article without need for a template. dab (ᛏ) 06:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree. The naming dispute should not be ignored or covered up, as this kind of censorship would undermine Wikipedia's stated principles of pluralism and neutrality.--Theathenae 08:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is entirely the wrong way of solving the dispute (see Template:Carfuel). Radiant_>|< 08:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and keep out of articles in the meantime. Susvolans ⇔ 08:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete on formal grounds. All the template says is that the use of certain names "is not meant to imply an official position on the naming dispute with Greece." Anyone who knows the most basic thing about Wikipedia -- that anyone can edit any article at any time, so there's no such thing as an official position on matters of fact -- knows that much already. Dell Adams 09:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken a look at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, I regret the overbearing tone of my comment, but the vote and the reasoning stand. Dell Adams 10:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there are people here who want any mention of the dispute gagged. They will not succeed.--Theathenae 10:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This voting should be considered invalid. People should really check a better alternative as Dell Adams mentioned, Talk:Macedonia and other related pages. bogdan is trying to force his personal point of view and erase any opposing views. If you check the contributions of the first voters, you can see that some of them instead of talking how the text can change to reflect the facts, they engaged edit-wars removing or messing the template. One of the facts is that the word Macedonia and all related terms are subjects of negotiations between Greece and FYROM on UN. MATIA 11:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Gene Nygaard 12:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I agree completely. This is a ridiculous reason for a template. It's too broad in its applicability. 'By definition, Wikipedia does not endorse a point of view on any such dispute. It's mention is irrelevant.--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said at Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute, and as it has been repeated by one user above already, before being a template, this was an already existing notice on the articles. Hence, TFD is the wrong method of handling this issue - it is not syntactic, it is semantic, and highly controversial at that. The decision should be deferred to Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote which has precedence. --Joy [shallot] 14:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly my position, Joy. This is to be settled by Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote since it was already started there and people took the time to actually vote there. If that voting is over, and if the results of that vote are accepted as final (at least for now), then we should delete the template. Am I missing something here? ---Alex 14:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither a semantic (wording) nor syntactic (grammar) issue, this is an issue of policy. A template is not the appropriate way to deal with this issue and hence, should be deleted. Plus, the very fact that you have to argue "precedence" and "voting" is troublesome; it shows that the template attempts to circumvent article-specific discussion and attempts to abrogate the principle that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Friejose 14:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much a semantic issue, because the controversy stems from the meaning of the word "Macedonia" &co. within "Republic of Macedonia" &co. Why is the template not a good way to deal with it? You haven't provided an actual reason for this statement. I do not see any real reason for it to be removed per Wikipedia:Template messages or #Deletion criteria. Perhaps on POV grounds - but how do we define POV without expressing opinions and votes on this, and thereby implicitly involving the rule that Wikipedia is not a democracy? Besides, the whole notion of discouraging an existing vote process on a page where voting is done is ludicrous.
Sure, we may all consider it as one in a long line of pro-Greek attempts to modify the name of the republic to their north, but have you actually watched how horrible some of the previous attempts were, and do you really think that removing this template on the grounds that this is not a great template will prevent the discontents from complaining about the relevant articles in some other manner, which will tend to cause more mess because we're not using the useful template mechanism?
Let's not beat around the bush. This is not an issue that's going to be settled by a single vote on TFD or even at the voting on that linked page. However, trying to kill off the very notion that a problem exists can only exacerbate the problem, it certainly won't do anything to help solve it. --Joy [shallot] 14:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly because Wikipedia is not a democracy this voting is invalid. A tyrany of the majority is not the way to go. Talk about it and explore alternative wording. Check the RFC procedure. Disputed are not included in the official deletion policy. MATIA 15:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seemain

Delete: Redirect to {{main}} after TfD not needed. Orphaned other than in Talk pages (including hidden WLH:main). SEWilco 21:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (Extend vote an extra day; notification begun now. SEWilco 17:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

note the survival of this and Template:SeeMain @ Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/August_2005#Template:Seemain_and_Template:SeeMain
Firstly, you've yet to explain why Main article: Example is "less civil" (your description from the TfD talk page) than See main article: Example. Secondly, what if someone prefers Please see main article: Example, For main article: Example, or another of the countless possibilities? Should we have a separate template for every conceivable variation? —Lifeisunfair 22:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Once again, the template was not orphaned (due to a software bug that causes some articles to be omitted from the "whatlinkshere" list until they're edited). The article Suicide methods was using {{seemain}} until I removed the two remaining instances. (An additional instance was removed by another user, triggering the article's inclusion on the aforementioned list). —Lifeisunfair 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tibetan people just appeared on the "whatlinkshere" list. I performed another template replacement, but there probably are more articles where that came from. —Lifeisunfair 22:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually WLH is showing articles, they're just elsewhere. WLH:seemain was only showing articles not edited before the redirect. Articles which use seemain through the redirect show in WLH:main. To find those articles one has to search WLH:main for articles whose source actually contains seemain (there were 240 such articles). The orphaning bot had trouble because it silently encountered a WLH limit due to the number of WLH:main articles. (SEWilco 17:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Retain the redirect to {{main}}. As demonstrated above, {{seemain}} might still be present in some articles, and it probably will be added to other articles from time to time. While the template's use certainly shouldn't be encouraged, there's no reason why it needs to be deleted. —Lifeisunfair 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect. Radiant_>|< 08:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: What does "Delete and redirect" mean? When an unwanted article is deleted we don't redirect them someplace. "September 6th 1988", "Prevention of Travelers Diarrhea", "US Government Simulator". and "Snack time" were just deleted, but there is no redirect because someone might refer to them in the future. Unwanted terms become redlinks. (SEWilco 16:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • "Delete then redirect" means to first delete the template, and then put a redirect in its place. The first step is optional, I suppose. Most things that are deleted become redlinks. Some are more suitable as bluelinks to a related topic. Radiant_>|< 19:48, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I dont like to be told what to do, tell me its there, Ill decide to see it or not. If you must see it, then somthing is wrong with the article. Stbalbach 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then don't use {{seemain}}, and change it when you come across it. If enough people dislike See X, which is the traditional English (and Latin) way of indicating cross-reference, it will fall out of use; if not, not. That would seem to be the wiki method. Septentrionalis 18:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Getting bored of this debate. This isn't a bureaucracy. -Splash 17:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{Main}} should be ok for the vast majority of uses. All other variants can be enabled using ad hoc text without the need to resort to a new template. Courtland 01:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Holding cell

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

To orphan

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

(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.

(none at this time)

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=22949546"