Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/May 2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For an index of all TfD archives, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.

Template:Template stub

[edit]

This template is a stub. Feel free to expand it until it has become an acceptable size. Then you may remove this tag and start adding it to template stubs

This has to be some kind of sick joke. —Korath (Talk) 10:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Less of the "sick" please! Maybe I worded it wrong. --Newnoise 21:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. --cesarb 03:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleet -- not a sick joke, just a joke. I laughed. Done. — Xiong熊talk 19:02, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Radiant_* 09:34, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/BJAODN, although the author may have had VERY good reasoning; this deletion page is full of stubs and things, so they probably thought it sensible to have a template stub tag to find them easier! ...or maybe it IS a joke... Master Thief Garrett 11:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't WP:BJAODN—I don't think that it's good enough. BlankVerse ∅ 07:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sexual act

[edit]

I don't understand the point of this. It only appears on image pages after you've already seen the image, so you already know that "This image is a graphical depiction of a sexual act".

Thryduulf 07:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. Radiant_* 07:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{that wasn't chicken}} or {{goggles do nothing}}. Wait, we don't have those? Then delete for being totally pointless. -- grm_wnr Esc 10:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and if you want to put categories on images, use the categories themselves, not some redundant template. The ones should be on WP:CFD as per Radiant!, however. -- grm_wnr Esc 11:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete very good point about the text being there after the image. -- KTC 13:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Call me cynical, but it's like it's just there to make it easier to look for porn. --khaosworks 14:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment Not that I'm suggesting it was created for that purpose, just that it could be abused that way. --khaosworks 14:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No comment. :p Phils 14:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Phils 14:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Convert to category - Omegatron 15:48, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • No point, whoever created this tempate also created a category to go with it, containing exactly the same set of articles. Thryduulf 16:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this reminds me of the warning on goatse ("if you are under the age of 18 or find this photograph offensive, please don't look at it."). If it were created to be put at the top of articles with these images (so you see the message before the image), it would be a different idea, and would warrant a seperate TFD entry. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Davenbelle 00:27, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Game-cleanup

[edit]

Do we need to start a long categorization of wikipedia articles that need cleanup, like in stubs? 500LL 13:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unnecessary as well as Scope creep. This is the sort of thing that should really be handled using a list, such as a To-Do List, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games (see Template:Gamebox). [For 500LL: This is not directly comparable to Stub-sorting WikiProject, because that project serves a dual purpose of classifying miscellaneous stubs into topics where they are much more likely to be unstubbed, and also to reduce the huge size of the stub and substub categories to improve database performance.] BlankVerse ∅ 17:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Previously nominated, in which keep was the result. ✏ OvenFresh2 23:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, let's not get started with sorting cleanup articles...these almost always don't require people with special skills in the field to edit them. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Numbers (360s)

[edit]

Also, Template:Numbers 1 E9 - 1 E10, Template:Numbers 46660s, Template:Numbers 1 E9 - 1 E10, Template:Numbers 7740s, Template:Numbers E0, Template:Numbers E1

  • All of these are not in actual use, and deprecated by other more general number templates. Radiant_* 09:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Adultonly

[edit]

Superfluous, POV. delete --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Doom-stub

[edit]

Do we really need such a specific category for stub sorting? Firebug 06:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many other topics have their own stub category. (e.g. Star Wars stub template). I think we should keep this one since there are several Doom stubs in existance right now and some that might be generated in the future. --SuperDude 06:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for same reasons as SuperDude. Bloodshedder 20:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, for much more practical reasons. 1) Never even mentioned on WP:WSS, let alone cleared by the project; 2) unlikely to ever reach viable level; 3) Unneccessary as it is already covered adequately by other stub categories; 4) stub categories are not created based on possible future need, but on current necessity. If a stub category becomes viable in the future, it should eb recreated. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and that goes for the editing side as much as for the articles. As to "many other topics have their own category", that is, to be frank, a ridiculous argument, by which you could eqqually argue that because there is a separate stub for American history, we need a toenails-stub. Grutness|hello? 00:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there's likely to be a order of magnitude more of these than at present, I think it's way too narrow, just as Grutness says. What about something slightly more general, like "first person shooter" stubs or such like? Alai 01:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because it's too narrow. The computer and videogame stub category should be chopped a little, but by genre, not by game series. Wipe 02:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stubcruft. Snowspinner 02:46, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (stubcruft, lol...) -- Netoholic @ 05:50, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • This template is Doomed. See comments by Wipe. BlankVerse ∅ 09:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (deorphanize items to cvg-stub). Unless there is a WikiProject that encompasses building the representation of Doom in Wikipedia, we generally don't want to encourage stub-templates as thinly populated as this one is. In the case of WikiProjects, this guideline is set aside because the purpose of the stub is more an aid to WikiProject activities than a general resource for the Wikipedian community at large. Courtland 23:41, 2005 May 10 (UTC)


Template:MicrostatesE

[edit]

This is a very small navigational template that hasn't been used for a long time. There are already categories for European microstates and microstates in general (should be combined and expanded). There has been discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries about template clutter. As far as I know, the microstates have little in common and linking them this way is arbitrary. It should be enough to mention in the articles that they are considered microstates (anyone interested could follow the link). Wipe 03:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Quotable

[edit]

This was marked by Stevertigo for deletion, but was not listed here. I suppose the reasons were both lack of helpfulness and it is not used. --Dmcdevit 06:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Template:Clist

[edit]

Not used anywhere, not immediately apparent what it could be used for. --Phil | Talk 13:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not used. (And I am clueless about what it could be used for.) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The template creator is still an active wikipedian. Please ask him what he thought he was doing, and then relist here/keep/speedy as appropriate. Pcb21| Pete 17:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Template:Pieces-solocello-composer

[edit]

As a result of a VfD listing which I have just closed, the articles List of solo cello pieces by composer: J etc have been merged into List of solo cello pieces. This navigation template is now redundant and has been orphaned. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Somebody went to an awful lot of work creating these pages, but then didn't bother to list Brahms, Bach, Prokoffiev, Franck, Chopin, Debussy, Beethoven, and a few other such minor composers of cello works. —Wahoofive (Talk) 15:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Template:Circus-stub

[edit]

Not cleared through WP:WSS first. It has only two articles, and since there are only about a hundred total articles in Category:Circuses and all its subcategories, most of which would be better off in a different stub category even if they were stubs, there's no significant potential for growth. (It was also originally categorizing into Category:Stub. Eagh.) —Korath (Talk) 19:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Useless. Master Thief Garrett 03:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Trivial template, no need to delete it, useful for anyone who wants to improve any reated articles. Klonimus 05:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 07:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - useless to stub-sorters and editors alike. Grutness|hello? 07:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I ran into several circus stubs today that I was wishing for a stub article, but this template needs to go through the paperwork. Linuxbeak 22:57, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


Template:POV Fork

[edit]

Question usefulness for this template, seem to be an opinion based, or could lead to, use with no explanation of what its placement is for, poss redundant with other templates. Also question on the basis that its creator has only had 19 edits prior to creation of template, of which several were edits claming POV, as well as the proposal for the SamuraiClinton RFA. Smells a bit sockish. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) WITHDRAWN

  • I created this template because POV Fork is a very common reason for articles to be listed on WP:VFD. I consider User:Boothy443's actions to be harassment. He had previously claimed that a legitimate WP:RFA nomination was "vandalism" because he personally disagreed with it, and engaged in personal attacks against me on his Talk page (calling me a "moron" and a "spade"). This nomination ought not be taken seriously because it is the product of personal animosity. As for the claims of sockpuppethood, they are too ludicrous for words. I have edited here for quite some times, and as I have stated to several different users, I chose to register so that I would not be treated as a second-class Wikicitizen. (My original choice for a userid was User:AllWikipediansAreEqualButSomeAreMoreEqualThanOthers, but this was rejected as too long.) LevelCheck 03:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is this necessary? If an article is a POV fork, then deal with it. Nominate it for deletion, or merge it back where it should be (or apply the appropriate merge tags so someone else can do it, or start a substantive discussion on the Talk page). If necessary add the appropriate 'disputed' tags. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Template:merge or delete. Pwqn 14:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Template:merge or Template:VfD serve just fine. CDC (talk) 00:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Superfluous. Forks should simply be marked for speedy and listed on CSD. Although it isn't in the deletion policy, article forks are classed along with vandalism and are A Very Bad Thing. Listing them on VfD would be granting them more respect than they deserve. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Template:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Basketball Coaches

[edit]

Revised to simple succession box. MisfitToys 20:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Circus-stub

[edit]

Not cleared through WP:WSS first. It has only two articles, and since there are only about a hundred total articles in Category:Circuses and all its subcategories, most of which would be better off in a different stub category even if they were stubs, there's no significant potential for growth. (It was also originally categorizing into Category:Stub. Eagh.) —Korath (Talk) 19:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Useless. Master Thief Garrett 03:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Trivial template, no need to delete it, useful for anyone who wants to improve any reated articles. Klonimus 05:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 07:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - useless to stub-sorters and editors alike. Grutness|hello? 07:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I ran into several circus stubs today that I was wishing for a stub article, but this template needs to go through the paperwork. Linuxbeak 22:57, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Pieces-solocello-composer

[edit]

As a result of a VfD listing which I have just closed, the articles List of solo cello pieces by composer: J etc have been merged into List of solo cello pieces. This navigation template is now redundant and has been orphaned. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Somebody went to an awful lot of work creating these pages, but then didn't bother to list Brahms, Bach, Prokoffiev, Franck, Chopin, Debussy, Beethoven, and a few other such minor composers of cello works. —Wahoofive (Talk) 15:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Clist

[edit]

Not used anywhere, not immediately apparent what it could be used for. --Phil | Talk 13:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not used. (And I am clueless about what it could be used for.) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The template creator is still an active wikipedian. Please ask him what he thought he was doing, and then relist here/keep/speedy as appropriate. Pcb21| Pete 17:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Quotable

[edit]

This was marked by Stevertigo for deletion, but was not listed here. I suppose the reasons were both lack of helpfulness and it is not used. --Dmcdevit 06:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:MicrostatesE

[edit]

This is a very small navigational template that hasn't been used for a long time. There are already categories for European microstates and microstates in general (should be combined and expanded). There has been discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries about template clutter. As far as I know, the microstates have little in common and linking them this way is arbitrary. It should be enough to mention in the articles that they are considered microstates (anyone interested could follow the link). Wipe 03:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sig-2004IOEQ

[edit]

Archived at Template talk:Sig-2004IOEQ

Template:WH40k-stub

[edit]

Archived at Template talk:WH40k-stub

Template:Ed_Chron and Template:Ed_Menu

[edit]

Template:Alt

[edit]

Duplicates function of {{otheruses}} & {{otheruses2}}. -- Netoholic @ 17:12, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Template:Islamofascism-stub

[edit]

More of LevelCheck's disruption. The "as is Allah's will" is particularly offensive. RickK 23:02, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Hasid-stub

[edit]
See related discussions and vote for Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Sefer-stub above.
  • Delete: Do we really need this stub if we have the Judaism-related stub of Template:Judaism-stub already? (And remember, we also have the "Jewish history" stub of Template:JewHist-stub, the "Hebrew Bible" stub of Template:HeBible-stub, and of course the "Israel" stub of Template:Israel-stub.) There are NOT enough articles to warrent a new Jewish-articles stub at this time I would think, this will only clutter the field and further splinter the Judaism- and Jewish history- stubs sections. It thus needs to be put on hold for now. It also does not seem to be working from a technical point. See Satmar (Hasidic dynasty). IZAK 07:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary. Grue 07:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Judaism stubs are a big mess already - a look at the caveats and provisos at the top of Category:Israel-related stubs will tell you that. This one hasn't been approved by WP:WSS and just further complicates and already complicated set of stub categories. Grutness|hello? 12:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Grutness, I take great exception to your critique. The "Judaism" stubs are not "a big mess". There are four of them for good reasons: One for the 3,300+ year-old religion of Judaism; one specifically for Hebrew Bible primary texts; one relating to the modern State of Israel; and one for the vast subject of Jewish history.IZAK 06:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • From a stub-sorter's viewpoint, they take more working out as to what goes where than any other group of stub categories. They don't follow the usual clear cut distinctions that other, more well thought-out stub categories do. They're messy to use from that point of view. The convolutions of these categories are the main reason there isn't a separate Israel-geo-stub (although controversy about the borders was another consideration). Anyway, there aren't four. There's {{Judaism-stub}}, {{JewHist-stub}}, {{Israel-stub}}, {{Sefer-stub}}, {{HeBible-stub}}, and {{Hasid-stub}} - that's six messily tangled categories. Grutness|hello? 00:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Grutness: Well at least I agree with you about one thing, that they need to be controlled, that is why I have proposed this {{Hasid-stub}} and as of 18 April {{Sefer-stub}} (see [1]) for deletion. But the other four make sense I do believe, considering that they deal with a three-and-half-thousand-year/s-old subject! IZAK 09:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Sounds fine to me - the proliferation and overlap of stub categories is the main problem here. There seemed to be no clear delineation between {{Hasid-stub}}, {{Sefer-stub}} and subjects which would be covered by one of the other stubs. I'd say 99% of the confusion would be reduced by removing these two stubs, (or replacing one of the existing ones with Sefer-stub - see note below). Grutness|hello? 11:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Judaism-stub and JewHist-stub are enough. Jayjg (talk) 14:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hyperstubsorting. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this should go, so should Template:Sefer-stub. E=MC^2 T@lk 23:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Judaism is such a small religion in terms of adherents (both today and in the past), and while it is quite important historically, this particular branch is a drop in a drop in an ocean.02:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I for one think there are a number of articles that center around that subject, and that the stub itself has been put to good usage so far. SF2K1 02:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It can be useful for people familiar with the distinctions, who will hopefully be expanding the articles anyway. Danny 15:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Question: Did this stub pass the stub creation process? — Xiong熊talk 18:58, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
There is no formal stub creation process. Asking at WP:WSS is highly recommended (to make discussions like this unlikely), but not obligatory. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And it wasn't even mentioned there. To answer Danny - it may be useful for the editors who know the difference, but it's not the editors who put stubs in separate categories. I doubt if more than a small handful of the stub sorters would know the differences. Grutness|hello? 02:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep My original reasons for creating the stub was that I realized there were at least 15 Hasidic stub articles. This is not a lot and does not seem to be a good reason. Yet recently users have been writing stubs about Hasidic dynasties. There are over 200 Hasidic dynasty articles that are yet to be written. When it comes the time when there will be so many articles on one subject than the stub will be very usefull. In the mean time we should keep it though, Hasidic articles are written quickly and always start as stubs, not full fledged articles. On the sorting issue. It may be a little annoying for sorting yet I think that the stub template is needed a bit now and will come in very handy on the future. ChanochGruenman 13:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Chanoch, while your heart is in the right place, you absolutely CANNOT say that because down the line there are "200 articles that are yet to be written", that it is therefore a "justification" for creating stubs now , which makes no sense at all. If we indeed one day in the future had that many articles we can begin to think about it. I can tell you now, that I have been the one who entered most of the Judaism/Hebrew Bible/Israel articles into the two largest "Jewish" categories of Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Israel and Zionism as well as their sub and sub-sub categories, and I can tell you that on those huge subjects there are about 3,500 articles in total including all stubs. So at this point to start splintering and dividing up a field of relatively few articles will not be of help (as you can see how poor old Grutness is so confused already), and it will surely only confuse a very confusing subject. Unless you do not agree that Hasidism is part of Judaism??? So for now, let's keep Hasidic-stub subjects as part of Judaism-stub or Jewish history-stub subjects, please. IZAK 10:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. In an attempt to mollify some of the feathers that may have been ruffled by my earlier comments, may I try to explain. The general procedure with stub category creation is to first assay the need for a category based on one of two ideas: (1) there are a large number of extant generic stubs which would qualify for a specific category, or (2) there are too many stubs for an existing category to be viable, and therefore consider reducing it by making a natural subcategory for it. In general, WP:WSS uses rule of thumb figures of between 60 and 100 existing stubs as a minimum for a new category, and - except in special circumstances - is unlikely to split a category with under about 800 stubs. At all times, attempts are made to have the nw category fit in with the existing scheme, rather than cutting across two or more extant categories. Currently neither Judaism-stub nor JewHist-stub is on more than 200 articles, and, as Chanoch said, there are currently only some 15 stubs which would benefit from the new template. I think it highly unlikely the template would have been agreed to had it been proposed at WP:WSS. Furthermore, it does create confusion, by cutting across two current stub categories (many articles on Hasidic Judaism also deal with matters linked to Jewish history or Judaism in general - lets face it, the Hasidic/Rabbinical schism - if that's the right terminology for it - was a major event in both Judaism and Jewish history). Having sefer-stub suddenly appear caused enough confusion, without this one appearing as well. As to sefer-stub, I'd be quite happy to see it replace HeBible-stub, which it largely duplicates. Grutness|hello? 11:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Grutness: There would be a huge problem with having the "Sefer-stub" replace the "HeBible-stub" because the Hebrew word Sefer simply means "book" and so it could also be used to include non-religious and non-Biblical books and it would therefore NOT make any sense to combine the "Hebrew Bible-stub" under the "Sefer-stub", as its present creators have a very narrow Orthodox Judaism view of the word sefer. IZAK 06:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Hm. I was thrown off by the wording of the template which seemed to imply it could only be religion-related texts (specifically Judaism-related texts). Would it be better to combine the two into one new template simply for Jewish religious texts? If not, and it is for books in general, then it compounds problems by tanging itself up with book-stub and I would recomment deleting it. Grutness|hello? 06:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It may be an idea because we do have Category:Jewish texts that is quite all-inclusive which does have many stub articles of course. Simutaneously, many of them do legitimately fit into the Template:Judaism-stub as well. Whereas the Hebrew Bible-stub also functions as an acceptable demarcation between (1)Judaism's one and only Hebrew Bible -- and -- (2) Christianity's name for it of the Old Testament because of its (Christianity's) New Testament. It's a bit of a minefield, I must admit. IZAK 09:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • ...which also brings up the problem of whether an article on an Old Testament character (say, Shem) gets Christianity-stub or HeBible-stub - but that's just adding more confusions. Grutness|hello? 10:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No the case you mention (of Shem) is not confusing, because it is a fact of reality that Judaism and Christianity are ENTIRELY different religions, Judaism came first, it is Christianity that adoped some of Judaism's texts and not the other way around (so there will be some similarities because of that), and as long as a link, or category, or stub is working in good faith recognizing the differences between the seperate faiths, then two (i.e. one Judaism-related and one Christianity-related) different Wikipedia links/categories/stubs will always reflect truth and therefore will always be valid. IZAK 07:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Topic too narrow to be distinguished from existing stubs DDerby 06:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Rotten

[edit]

(and redirect at Template:Rottendotcomwarning)

Hopefully, we don't have too many places where this is needed. As I post this, it is use on one article. We should post any warning message as prose next to the external link, but we don't need a disclaimer template like this. -- Netoholic @ 18:31, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Template:El, Template:Bio, Template:Refs, Template:Ov

[edit]

These templates consist solely of the text "External links", "Biography", and "References", respectively. I ran across them being transcluded into several articles as section headings, (and even into the body text of one Talk page). These section headings aren't likely to be modified or updated, so there's no reason to transclude them. These transclusions (some articles even included more than one of the above) are a waste of server resources. Writing out the full form with a proper subst: is just about as much work as typing the actual words, so I recommend these templates be deleted. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (I added Template:Ov to this) - Good intentions, but the trade-off of people who forget to subst: this is bad. A newbie seeing these in an article might think it's standard practice, spreading the mistake. Not useful even as a subst: . -- Netoholic @ 00:40, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Comment who says that subst: is better practice? That was deprecated for all templates. -SV|t 02:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it wasn't. Delete. Radiant_* 07:59, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I can see making a template out of an often-used phrase or section of code, but one word?. -Sean Curtin 03:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all -- a noble effort, very poor execution. They don't even insert the == section head markup. I'll study the issue, and see if I can't crank out a useful standard article skeleton template, akin to {{doctl}}. — Xiong熊talk* 09:30, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Delete all. -MarSch 14:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Answers

[edit]

Template to generate link to external search engine. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Template:Yahoo

[edit]

Template to generate link to external search engine. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

[edit]

(includes Template:Google, Template:Googlethis, Template:Googlim)

Template to generate link to external search engine. Template:Google was previously deleted. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Template:Olternateuses

[edit]

Not used anywhere, appears to be a mis-spelling of {{alternateuses}}:both actually REDIRECT to {{otheruses}}. --Phil | Talk 16:26, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Template:ISBN

[edit]

I don't get the point in this. If you're too lazy to just type the name of a book into Google, why add {{ISBN}} so that everyone can see how lazy you are? I just spotted this in an article and discovered the ISBN in a matter of seconds... — Timwi 10:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, but doesn't the "fix it, don't tag it" line of reasoning apply to nearly all editor-oriented templates? Pcb21| Pete 11:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless. Lack of ISBNs is not such an urgent problem that it requires a big bold notice placed in the article. (Really, if the author, title, publisher, place, and date are specified, the ISBN isn't even necessary.) If this isn't deleted, at least keep it on the talk page. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Mirv. -- Netoholic @
  • Wow. Way OTT. Delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now all we need is {{canbeimproved}}: "This article can be improved in some way. Please do so and remove this message when done". JRM · Talk 02:35, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Convert to category tagging articles which need ISBNs is not a valueless exercise; perhaps changing the template so it just categorised the article would be less visually intrusive. Some of those articles have hundreds of books in them. Josh Parris ✉ 03:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's irritating. It also might encourage the unthinking addition of ISBNs. All too often I see mention of a book that has obviously gone through various editions, and there's a single ISBN for a single, unspecified edition -- mostly likely the one that the writer happened to have in his or hand at the time. But the multieditionality (?) might not be equally obvious to others, who might get the wrong impression that a single edition must be sought. For some of the books listed within Nicholson Baker, I dutifully tried to be more informative; but this was tedious and I gave up without finishing. (Reading the result isn't much fun either.) I don't know what the solution is, but I really don't think that spraying this template on pages is part of it. -- Hoary 05:03, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's unnecessary in many cases, there's the 'editional problem' and there's the additional problem of books that are out of print, not for sale anyway, or books without potential buyers. I'd leave it to the discretion of the editors to add some ISBN's to common and important books on a subject (not to every reference in the article); we really don't need a template for that. — mark ✎ 07:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless overkill based on a misunderstanding of a booksellers' tool. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.. — Xiong熊talk* 10:23, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Delete The value of having the ISBN is questionable. There's a good reason they are not found in most bibliographies: they discriminate too finely between various editions to be useful. I've also seen articles tagged with this that refer to nothing but research papers, which do not have an ISBN. Joke137 16:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this template and have been pleased to see others using it. I have expressed thoughts on which ISBN to use on the template's talk page. PedanticallySpeaking 17:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Despite what other users claim, I have found that finding the ISBN for some books is extremely difficult. Not all books with ISBNs are currently listed on Amazon.com or other places one might look at first. Having ISBNs in articles is also useful for people using Wikipedia to find bibliographic data. I admit that the practice of each edition being assigned a unique ISBN is problematic, but perhaps this could be addressed through a change in the template used to format ISBNs. For example, if there is just one ISBN, the template could print out the link as it currently does; if there is more than one, then it could link to a page listing all known ISBNs. Psychonaut 20:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons Hoary gives above. — Sebastian (talk) 01:45, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Keep but I'd really like the template to only be used on those articles which feature a book(s) as their topic, in which case the ISBN is an important piece of meta-data. I wouldn't want to see this on any article that just contains reference to a book, where a particular book is not the main topic. Courtland 00:00, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Template:Twotalk

[edit]

Made to advertise a dispute which only exists in the mind of its creator (User:Xiong). We have no on-going need for one-shot templates. -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

  • Delete. Creator seems to have missed the point of Template:Twoversions entirely. And aren't we already voting on this below? —Korath (Talk) 00:59, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not voting but commenting: {{twoversions}} is used when two versions of the same page are "in competition", whereas {{twotalk}} (the name of which frankly sucks rocks but that's another argument :-) is about two separate pages which are "in competition", a situation not unlikely to occur again in the ongoing development of policy. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 09:00, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
I take exception to the derogatory adverb. I modeled this template on Template:Twoversions with my eyes wide open. I preserved the link to an existing policy candidate page. — Xiong熊talk* 03:20, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Keep, could be a useful template. Firebug 05:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Dan | Talk 02:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or better yet, excuse from this forum. I believe we have established that VfD is not the proper forum for discussion of policy; only for its implementation. By the same token, TfD is not the proper place to discuss policy matters. To the extent that this nomination is about the use of the template, therefore, TfD has no jurisdiction. To the extent that the template is poorly constructed, however, we may all contribute improvement. It is a violation of the collaborative wiki spirit of this project to dismiss contributions out of hand, rather than attempt to improve them. — Xiong熊talk* 03:20, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Delete, if there are two versions of a policy proposal they should be listed on the same page for easier discussion. In fact there are often several (up to a dozen) versions of such. Radiant_* 11:09, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - use {{twoversions}}. violet/riga (t) 12:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - twoverisons template is more than enough

Template:News-trade

[edit]

The TFD tag was placed on this template by User:Calicocat but no entry for it placed on this page. It appears to me that this template is redundant with Template:Journalism (see also WP:CFD#Category:News_trade_or_Category:Journalism) and the two should probably be merged, but I am neutral otherwise. Kelly Martin 19:34, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I placed the tag and was editing my comments on it, they appear below Calicocat 20:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Calicocat 20:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) on Template: news-trade:

  • Template is pushing a POV: This template establishes a false impression that an inveted concept, "news trade," is a valid, sound top level heading for inclusion on many or all articles dealing with the subject of Journalism, and perhaps in other articles. This template offers a link to an article, news trade, itself a totally disputed stub. In other words, I'm concerned this template might establish the dubious concept of "news trade" as a credible category within the universe of Journalism articles and perhaps others dealing with economics, etc.
  • Redundant: Template:news-trade is redundant with both the category Journalism and an existing template in use, Template:Journalism.
  • Corrective Measures Taken: As a corrective measure, I have edited some of the useful links contained in Template:news-trade into Template:journalism since some valid items in the former were not contained in the latter. Nothing was removed from Template: Journalism. (I have some issues with Template: Journalism, but those can be cooperatively worked on at Template: Journalism's talk page.
  • Further discussion: Issues with the article news trade are being addressed on its talk pages and I have suggested that conversations regarding Template:news-trade and category: news trade be addressed there as well so as to consolidate the issues with "news trade" as article, category and template into one location. Calicocat 20:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the reasons above are somewhat disingenous, as the discussion continues on the topical pages. But here's the basics: The profession of Journalism is separate from the business of the News Trade. Its that simple. One doesnt think of a daytrader who specializes in pharmaceudical stocks as part of the "medical profession." Likewise the blonde ditz on the celebrity news show is not a journalist. There is of course some overlap, but this is elementary: Set J may have members {A, P, Q, X, D) while set N has {A, P, D, R, T, Z, F}, this doesnt mean that somehow J=N! Thre are enough relevant links for each separate (slightly overlapping) category to justify a split. Finally, I dont see anything controversial about it except that by Calicocat's edits to homogenize the two into one, he has made the distinctions apparently moot to any superficial judgement. Apparently he thinks that anything in the very broad news trade qualifies as "journalism", and in failing to note this distinction, of course he thinks its unnecessary or even POV. With all due respect, SV|t|add 01:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Template:Journalism is far better. Contact me when you need it to be depopulated. Alphax τεχ 00:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see little or no difference between the template for "journalism" and the template for "news trade." "Journalism" is already a category. At least in the United States, "news trade" is not a common phrase. As best as I can tell, SV appears to reaching for a reason to link journalism with infotainment. That is insufficient reason for a template. Journalism is already part of the "mass media" category. If he wants some intermediary linkage, a "news industry" category would be more appropriate. -User:Maureen
  • Delete The term in common usage for what SV calls, "News Trade" is "News Industry." I've started a stub at News industry, however, in reading his news trade stub, it seems the larger universe here is Media economics, so I started another stub there. SV is also getting into the universe of media ethics, I've opened a Media ethics stub. I think SV is taking an admixture of things based on some of his points of view, in and of itself, fine and what is now called the article news trade might become an excellent editorial or blog entry on the journalism blogs. While I might agree with him on some points, I think having a whole template based on a stub article and placing that all over "Journalism Town" was an error. With the execption of the link to the News trade article, the template was highly duplicative with Template: Journalism. I think SV had good intentions, but was just jumping the gun on the template roll out. Whereas Template: Journalism is established and working well lets stick with that and work more on developing the artciles which interst us. In future, lets try to have more discussions on new templates before rolling them out and plugging them into many articles. I can see where "template vandalism" could be an issue. I do not think that was SV's intent at all in this. Calicocat 19:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you voting twice? -SV|t 00:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd interpret the first 'vote' to be a comment since it doesn't contain the words "delete" or "keep." No matter, I just won't count the first one anyways. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manga

[edit]

Category scheme in a box. Very pretty, but it doesn't even have any content specifically related to any given article that it's put on. Snowspinner 05:04, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete
[edit]
  • It does not follow the policy for navigational templates because it is more like a combination of TOC templates for the following: List of manga, Mangaka, and Manga. Secondly, the links for List of manga and List of Manga-ka are in alphabetical order, thus making it redundant to categories. Zzyzx11 06:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's big, awkward, redundant, and not useful. (It was worse when it was vertical.) I agree with mako's albumbox-ish proposal, though. -℘yrop (talk) 07:10, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Large and hideous; convert to category. — Dan | Talk 01:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've never bothered to click on any of the links, and i doubt many other will. Right now this template is just a deposite of links, no real content. If you were to expand this template, it will take up more space than the contents on many wiki entries on manga/anime. DELETE after there's something better as an replacement. LG-犬夜叉 23:38, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Useless. Ashibaka (tock) 00:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Blatant category. Convert and delete - David Gerard 00:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Either a category or a TOC. Delete. -Sean Curtin 22:33, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this template is larger than many articles. - SimonP 17:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks much better on the category page. -Frazzydee|✍ 03:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
[edit]
  • This template has been around for a while. It used to be a vertical box that occupied a sidebar position, like this. I modified the box to be horizontal a few months back, envisioning placement at the bottom of the page, as suggested on Template_talk:Manga. However the change would require going through every page referencing this template and moving the tag to the bottom, so I did not go through with the change, instead leaving the template on the talk page for comment. User:Minghong decided to implement it yesterday. This is an arduous task, as he has discovered (read the talk if you haven't already). I suspect the user who posted this to vfd viewed a yet unfixed page, which would indeed be aesthetically jarring. However, at the bottom of the page, where it belongs, it serves a navigational purpose. Keep. - mako 06:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Other
[edit]
  • I don't know... It might be sufficient to link to the various lists in this template on the articles that use this template, but it is a convenient method of navigation if you want to find another manga series. Josh 05:41, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I prefer to use "List of XXX" to do this kind of thing, i.e. List of manga. This navigation bar, while being improved, is just quite large in size. And many manga are also anime and/or game. So in order to make it complete, we need to create "anime" and "game" navbar as well? The article will be overloaded... P.S. Oh yes, I'm the one who make the change from vertical to horizontal. --minghong 07:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I would rather see it a bit smaller than having it removed altogether. Philip Nilsson 22:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, an infobox would be much better. As the articles are now it can take up to 10 seconds to find a single piece of information if it is not written in a standard way in the first paragraph. I do suggest that we keep it until we have something to replace it with though.
  • I don't understand why the design of this box was changed from that vertical version to an horizontal one. To me, it looks pretty bad the way it is now, while it looked just fine the way it used to be. That's why I vote for it to be reverted to the vertical-oriented style.--Kaonashi 07:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I liked it better when it was vertical, too. It certainly took up less space. —Korath (Talk) 02:26, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Refactor -- This clearly fulfills the role of a category more than of a template. I certainly don't support its inclusion on every such page. On the other hand, I think it's well done. It does something I don't think a standard category page does well. Horizontal box is "clean" -- formats properly in extremely narrow window. I say, keep it for now, and figure out how to upgrade a category page to that standard; then replace. Major project; kick it off this page and look at it in a month or two. — Xiong (talk) 10:04, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Template:Substub

[edit]

Thanks to the hard work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, there are no longer any substubs, so the category and template can be deprecated. Radiant_* 14:57, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Rest in peace -- Netoholic @ 16:47, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • I find it hard to believe that there are no substubs. I saw one just 5 minutes ago. BrokenSegue 19:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the following have been tagged with this template today: Analog filter, Forum invasion, Jnes, Doily, Non-linear filter, Lukanka, Kawaks. Uncle G 19:39, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
    • Note that all have since been re-tagged with more appropriate stub subcategories. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Non-linear filter was created with a more appropriate stub tag alongside the substub tag. Uncle G 18:32, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
    • Uncle G -> Yes, but they should have been tagged with {{stub}} instead. The two templates serve the same purpose, hence one should go (or be a redir). Radiant_* 07:56, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree that they were wrongly tagged. I was merely noting that a scant 5 hours after your saying that there weren't any articles tagged as substubs, which was true at the time that you wrote it, 7 articles had been tagged. Uncle G 18:32, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • I think what Radiant means is that all substubs have been categorized as something-else-stubs. I think the template should be kept because it links to substub which tells people not to make them. Kappa 19:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The concept of substubs has been tried and found not to work. The only proper use for this template is for tagging the junk that does not deserve the honor of being called a stub, but does not qualify as a speedy delete canidate. These articles are better handled by the various cleanup templates. --Allen3 talk 21:01, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. See my comments at the substub category deletion voting. Courtland 23:33, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. No longer in much serious use, and redundant since the inception of stub subcategories. The original intention of substub was to mark articles that were too short to stand alone and should have had several thins happen to them (1) vfd; (2) merge; (3) hurried expansion. Now, the same articles are placed in categories where editors who know about such topics can find them more easily (who ever waded through 3000 substubs?). And those editors will know far better than the average Wikipedian whether something should be saved or not - as well as being able to expand those that could. I must say that from a philosophical point of view I like Kappa's argument that {{substub}} should exist to tell people that substubs shouldn't exist, but I still say rest in peace. Given that substubs are simply short stubs, and are being sorted by the same people who sort stubs, redirecting to {{stub}} would be a viable alternative. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The concept of a substub is essential to Wikipedia. Substubs are shorter articles which may offer some, if little, information; they can become valuable articles if worked on. I have also noticed some users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting are incorrectly reclassifing substubs as stubs. The abolition of substubs would most likely have a negative impact on Wikipedia, just as it would if the stub template was abolished. тəzєті 01:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • care to explain how? The work that has previously been done by substub is now being done far more effectively by the separate stub subcategories. It is far easier for editors to tell what should be kept and what shouldn't. Before there were, at one point, several thousand substubs languishing bcause no-one had the energy to sort out what should stay and what should go. Now, in the vast majority of cases, those articles are somewhere where specialist editors can assess them readily. As for "incorrectly reclassifing substubs as stubs", many people at WP:WSS do not believe that substubs exist as a separate entity, and that there is no purpose for the separate distinction between a short article fragment and a slightly shorter article fragment. If it had been otherwise, substub would not now be empty. Grutness...wha? 02:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If articles are classified as substubs, editors who wish to expand very short articles can easily identify them. A stub can sometimes be longer than a full paragraph, causing me to believe that these articles should be separated from others consisting of only one sentence. I am a member of WikiProject Stub sorting, however I believe that articles should only be sorted as stubs when they would not fit better under any other category. тəzєті 03:20, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • But most of the things that were in substubs were well over a sentence in length! The last few I've re-sorted from there have, for the most part, been a paragraph in length. And as for "better suiting another category - that's exactly what I explained earlier. They far better suit the subcategories of stub than they do substub. Say, for example, you know a bit about French geography and want to expand some articles. Where would you look first - Category: Substubs or Category: France geography stubs? Perhaps it would illustrate my point further by saying that of the ten or so substubs that I have re-categorised in the last 24 hours, three (Interpellation, The Miracle Maker, and Mount Wuyi) have already been expanded further - presumably by the specialist editors working on the stub subcategories they are now in. One of them is no longer a stub, the other two are still short, but better articles than they were. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Substub Categories would allow for this problem to be fixed, or using multiple templates so an article could both be considered a categorized stub and a substub. Also, making the template into a category could offer another solution. тəzєті 22:44, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Consensus in previous TFD was to keep. Andros 1337 03:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:Stub, and delete Category:Substubs. People still use the template, but the stub sorting project has made it redundant and less than useful. -Sean Curtin 03:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this template has always been superfluous. --Yath 04:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, putting into specific stub categories is much much more effective. Bluemoose 09:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless. Substubs ahould be transwiki'd, merged, deleted or expanded to stubs (if they aren't already stubs). -- grm_wnr Esc 09:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and NOOB -- this is within the domain of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. We have no business fooling with it. If they wish to delete it, they don't need to ask for our help or permission. Any user who wishes to comment on this should do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. — Xiong熊talk* 10:16, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
    • If you consider it none of your business, don't vote on it. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Also, you are probably unaware that most people voting against it ARE from the WPSS. Radiant_* 11:11, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Delete (1st choice), or Redirect (2nd choice). Substubs are an idea whose time has come and gone. BlankVerse ∅ 12:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' until the project decide what to do with it. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • The project will decide whether to keep it or delete it right here, right now (This TfD is linked from the WP:WSS pages multiple times), so I suggest that if you're indifferent or want to leave the decision up to the project you should change your vote to "undecided". -- grm_wnr Esc 13:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wonder what will be the faith of the Wikipedia:Substub
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stub - SoM 18:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to {stub} (or {delete} - heh). CDC (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I have not seen a single unrefuted argument for substubs, other than that we have a page about them. So far, as strongly as тəzєті purports to feel, he has not even provided a reason why his two model cases (on Wikipedia_talk:Substub#Abolition_of_substub) should be substubs. — Sebastian (talk) 00:16, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
  • Delete I've sorted lots of stubs and substubs; there is a tremendous amount of overlap. It's a distinction without a difference, anything substubs can do stubs can do better. By sorting stubs into categories editors can find articles they have expertise in and expand them. There are no substub categories that offer the same function. If editors don't want to categorize a stub they can still use the generic {{stub}} and someone will sort it, though it's preferable to sort it out of the gate of course. After a transition period while we spread the word and update pages that refer to it, it should be deleted. The substub template is redundant and eliminating it will streamline the process of expanding very short articles. Rx StrangeLove 01:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: organisation by topic is far more useful than organisation by length. Joe D (t) 02:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant. Stub categories are much more useful, for all the reasons already stated above. --TheParanoidOne 15:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant with {{''stub''}} now that stub categories exist and are in full use. --Nabla 15:31, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Martg76 19:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, people are tagging articles as substubs whether we like it or not. It doesn't really matter what their reasons are...maybe they just don't know what to prefix the stub message with to put it into the proper category; or maybe they just think that there's so little information that it should be made note of. Regardless of the reasons why, deleting this template would cause a lot of "wtf?" reactions when people try to put this in. Don't delete this, just put a big red box saying deprecated or something so that people know what should be used. I've seen substubs appear, although they are sorted amazingly fast nowadays. Still, this template shouldn't be completely deleted, just deprecated. -Frazzydee|✍ 03:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this has always been useless. — Dan | Talk 03:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the template - the substubs with only a few words should be (after a few days) deleted! Yopohari 08:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not needed and redundant. Stub categories are far more useful. --Canderson7 13:15, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Uglybox

[edit]

Created by User:LevelCheck to use for his signature (see below, this page). Disruptive, useless. Some might be tempted to say "userfy", but signatures shouldn't use templates at all. -- Netoholic @ 22:32, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Template:Tooinnocent

[edit]

Useless template. Use Template:NPOV, Template:Disputed, or Template:TotallyDisputed instead. Andros 1337 02:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top-Secret

[edit]

We're not really in the business of keeping things top secret. --W(t) 19:41, 2005 May 17 (UTC)


Template:RfAInstructions

[edit]

Pretty straighforward... the text of this message is now present on the WP:RFA page itself, so this was a one-shot template which has been orphaned. -- Netoholic @ 21:26, 2005 May 12 (UTC)


Template:Obscene

[edit]

Obscenity is not a criterion for speedy deletion —User:Mulad (talk) 18:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Offensivewebsitewarning

[edit]

I don't think Wikipedia needs these disclaimers. Offensive websites really aren't good sources wherein we should be providing external links. When specific pages have been linked, a short notice is appropriate (Warning: Nudity), but need not be templatized. -- Netoholic @ 00:46, 2005 May 11 (UTC)


Template:Nu

[edit]

This template exists solely to add an image to Category:Images containing nudity, making it completely pointless. Thryduulf 09:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I do not mind if for whatever reason you would like to change the template tags to category tags, but since {{nu}} is shorter, keep the template to have this as a convenient alternative when people place new tags, until a more important need arises to use this particular template name for a different purpose.--Patrick 23:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no need for this template any more than templates for other categories. — Dan | Talk 02:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misuse of templates. --Carnildo 20:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Use Ctrl-C Ctrl-V to avoid typing too much.
  • Delete. "Nu" is misleading because it can stand for many things. And why should "Category:Images containing nudity" of all categories need a 2LA? — Sebastian (talk) 18:14, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Delete, please let's not get into using templates instead of categories; it'll make it a bit confusing when trying to remove categories from articles if we have to check all the templates first. -Frazzydee|✍ 12:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New TFD

[edit]

(and redirect at Template:TFDNotice)

TFD does not make use of this template. It's not common practice to make sections for "keep", "delete" votes. -- Netoholic @ 07:52, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

vote tally (7 April to 19 May) ... Courtland 00:19, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • keep: 2
    • mel etitis, frazzydee
  • delete: 7
    • korath, radiant, sean curtin, blankverse, zscount, SV, grutness


  • Nor should it be. Whenever someone "helpfully" refactors a vfd like this, it stops being a discussion and starts turning into a shouting match. There's no reason to suspect things would be any different here. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 07:59, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like this (the basic idea, at least). It organises the reasons for and against (and their accompanying votes — but as has been stressed continually, it shouldn't be, and in theory it's not, about the votes) into clear sections. These discussions can turn into shouting matches anyway; I'm not sure why this would accelerate the process. Unlike the Tally Box, it doesn't focus on votes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Korath. Like the Tally Box Pox. Radiant_* 09:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same ambiguity issues here as with tally boxes. -Sean Curtin 22:29, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is often helpful to see the votes seperated, especially when people don't bold their votes. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Korath. BlankVerse ∅ 01:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tally boxes are not encouraged in VfD (from what people have told me) and the format above was taken from places like RfC. Zscout370 02:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If the point of this template was to redefine the way TFD works - great. I dont see this page as being active enough to warrant such a redesign - yet. Archive for later -SV|t 02:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can understand this sort of system being usef dor things like new administraor status, but not for yaying/naying templates. The current system (as used here, cfd, vfd...) allows debate to take place in a natural, structured way. People can see how individual points are raised and answered. With a "For"/"Against"/"Neutral" system, this is implaired. Furthermore, for valid psychological reasons, whichever decision appears first on the list (i.e., "For") will receive a slight but real boost in its vote, simply for being first on the list. Grutness...wha? 04:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the process is not strictly a vote, and we should not encourage the illusion that it is. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Color dot

[edit]

I don't get it. This is linked from nowhere, has no talk page, has 1 contributor, and appears to have no apparant use. Alphax τεχ 14:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vote tally (5 May to 9 May) ... Courtland 23:57, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

  • userfy: 2
    • xiong, alphax (nominator)
  • delete: 4
    • zzyzx11, k1bond007, grutness, radiant


  • Comment. What I'd like to know is, how on Earth did you find this? JRM · Talk 18:45, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hasn't seemed to have been used in over a month. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears useless K1Bond007 06:58, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are times, looking at some templates, when I ask myself "why would anyone ever have considered that useful?" This is one of those times. Delete. Grutness|hello? 08:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- or at worst, userfy. True that nothing appears to link to this template. Perhaps it has never been transcluded. Perhaps its creator invariably substitutes it, in which case its use does no conceivable harm. True it appears useless. I do not understand this template, so I will not be so headstrong as to condemn what I do not understand. The creator's contribs show a history of short periods of intense editing, widely spaced. I am inclined to believe that, as usual, {tfd} tagging has not had its intended effect, and the template's creator has not been noticed of this TfD nomination. I have repaired this error and commented on user talk. Perhaps when the creator has had a fair opportunity to defend his work, we may wish to revisit this nomination. — Xiong熊talk* 09:15, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

{{color dot|red}} Amazing! it works: {{color dot|red}}. -- User:Docu

  • Delete, useless. Radiant_* 11:08, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


Template:NNDB

[edit]

Orphaned, template used to generate a link to an external site. A better, and already existing, mechanism to use is meta:Interwiki map. It's better just to put the plain link in place, because it's less obscure for new users. -- Netoholic @ 00:53, 2005 May 11 (UTC)


Template:Cfd-howto

[edit]

This template was only used in the WP:CFD page. Since that page has recently been restructured with subpages, the Howto template has been SUBST'ed into there to ease server load. Thus, there is no further need of the separate template. Radiant_* 08:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and NOOB -- This template is used by the folks at CfD; it never appears outside of that process. They should have the final say over it, and we should stay out of their business. Suggest you bring it up, if you like, at CfD -- perhaps on Wikipedia Talk:Categories for deletion. — Xiong熊talk* 09:06, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
    • I am one of the folks at CfD. A template of which only one instance will ever be used is not necessarily useful. Radiant_* 10:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • What's a NOOB...or am I one for asking? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "None Of Our Business", which is plainly wrong since it's in template namespace and therefore may be put on TFD. If Xiong thinks it isn't his business, he shouldn't vote on it. Other people can decide for themselves whether or not it is their business. Radiant_* 13:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah. Well, since there's now a notice on the WP:CFD Talk page, and someone has proposed deletion of the template in question, and this page is Templates for deletion...is it now our business? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it is not now our business. The good people at CfD are empowered to deal with their own process. We have already established that one XfD process has no jurisdiction over another; the precedent has been set. — Xiong熊talk* 23:48, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
            • How was that established? Are you talking about the nomination of the TfD page on VfD? If so, that was a nomination to delete the entire TfD page without any discussion of policy or a mechanism to replace it. I suggest that basing a NOOB argument on that case would be an apples to oranges comparison. In this case, we seem to be looking at a template whose text is used in only one place—to which it has now been subst:ed. Rather than maintaining two copies of the text (and running the risk that one will diverge from the other and result in future confusion), I would argue it makes sense to clear out the no-longer-needed template. Nobody is suggesting a major policy change on CfD; in fact the removal of the template won't have any effect on CfD whatsoever. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have a strong feeling that if CFD were to decide they no longer need the template, then Xiong would pop up there and say "Hey, you can't do that, templates may only be deleted on TfD!". WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Radiant_* 09:05, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
                • This is ridiculous. If the creators of it came here and said - "were not using this anymore" then Xiong of course woundnt object. There needs to be a firewall to keep the deleteophiles from making rash imposing decisions about how other units deal with stuff. NOOB may not be it, but the issue is informing people about the TFD - I suggest doing it formally by contacting the people whove used it. This ties in with the Huge templates problem - oversized explanatory messages are just a lazy excuse for making contact and inquiring. There should be a distinction between deletion and delete-archive. -SV|t 05:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, you are wrong. CfD has been heavily restructured recently, for which I am to some extent responsible. Hence, I know exactly what I'm talking about when I say that this template is no longer useful. The same reasoning applies with Template:substub - Xiong has wrongly assumed that this hadn't been discussed on WPSS earlier, and that they were unaware of its pending deletion. Radiant_* 16:17, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 15:04, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Comment - Xiong is right, but if its not being used theres no need for it. I think I was the one who did that just because it was a load to deal with - Im not per se "one of them" either. Reintegration is certainly a good idea - its not a question of "deletionism" then, - its reintegrationism where differentiation is not necessary. -SV|t 00:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template is not currently in use and will not be used in the future. --Carnildo 20:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm visiting from CfD, as well. This was a block of instructional text that User:Stevertigo moved to a template that was transcluded onto the page. It's now been subst'd back into the page. Since this was a useless template from the outset, I see no reason to keep it around.

--Azkar 03:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comicbookpub-stub

[edit]

Stub category contained only four stubs, with no potential to grow. Stubs resorted into Category:Comics stubs, equivalent category also on WP:CFD - SoM 18:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and NOOB -- this is within the domain of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. This WikiProject was established to vet stubs and we should let them do it. They don't need to ask for our help or permission. Any user who wishes to comment on this should do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. — Xiong熊talk* 23:55, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
    • Stop disrupting this page with this "NOOB" nonsense. Template deletion is the scope of this page. -- Netoholic @ 02:14, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
      • Xiong's addition of NOOB is as much within the scope of acceptable additions as are stub templates within the scope of this page. Stop attacking people for speaking their mind, Netoholic. Courtland 23:43, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
    • If and when sfd is up and running, what Xiong says will be true. For now, though WP:WSS can only advise on what we think should be deleted. Things are debated at WP:WSS but then (if the project thinks deletion should be undertaken) they must be sent here for vote, so yes, tfd's permission is still needed. (oh, and delete) Grutness...wha? 06:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comment As someone who's personally sorted a hefty proportion, if not the majority, of the stubs in Category:Marvel Comics stubs and Category:DC Comics stubs, I can honestly say it won't shrink considerably, since most of the Marvel & DC ones ARE sorted already (Glancing through, there are a few new ones there since I last looked, but even adding the comic-creators, you're still well into 2 pages at least) - SoM 20:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very much our business, and no longer a useful template per WPSS. Xiong should stop turning Wikipedia into a bureaucracy. Radiant_* 09:05, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a template, of course it's our business; death to bureaucracy. — Dan | Talk 02:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pnpov-d

[edit]

Redundant with Template:TotallyDisputed. Creator believes "smaller is better" and made this rather than gain consensus to change the established template. As an aside, the creator reverted my redirect and then protected it, so that's why no TFD notice is on it yet. -- Netoholic @ 02:59, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't think it's a good idea to have multiple, nonstandard versions of the 'official' cleanup templates. For what it's worth, I do think there's somthing to be said for the slimmer format, but a modified template should be discussed at Template talk:TotallyDisputed(I also like the second variant of TotallyDisputed suggested on that page). --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is redundant, and for tricks like 'what links here' it is beneficial to have a single template for such disputes. Also, I think 'totally disputed' is not trivial, so deserves a bright red blinking screen-filling box. Radiant_* 13:43, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant. Jayjg (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikibureaucracy appears to be strong in this camp. Nuf said. See the Choices entry on WP:TS#Choices]] for more. -SV|t 19:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it bureaucratic to want one template (rather than two) for one function?
      • Because it is. Where does it say "there must be one and one only" other than in the codices of Selbstbefriedigung bureaucracy? -SV|t 05:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant_* 19:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. One template or nothing. Multiple are going to invite confusion or edit warring. Of all things to worry about on disputed articles, visual layout is the very last. But do edit

{{totallydisputed}} if you're so inclined, of course. JRM · Talk 20:35, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

  • Comment see Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#A choice of sizes. The notion that its one way or the highway is rather hebetudious. -SV|t 05:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion that differently sized templates are needed to express that an article is totally disputed in a visually pleasing way is rather fastidious. I want that box to be as ugly and obvious as possible. What can I say? I'm a boring clod. Being a programmer might have made me too sensitive to the Zero-One-Infinity rule in this regard. If we have two templates for expressing this, why not three? Or four? Or one for every user with a new idea for layout? Can we start reverting each other to choose the most pleasing box? Can of worms. JRM · Talk 11:10, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. If someone wants to change the size of the template, it's best to just have a straw poll on the previous template's talk page. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Pseudoprotected

[edit]

This template is not in use. It is also a misnomer since it doesn't have anything to do with protection. Finally, while the idea in principle may be good, I don't see it stopping edit wars in any way (it's tempting for one party to revert to that version, then slap on this template to stop the other party). Bottom line - we have reasonable mechanisms for revert wars and edit conflicts, and this isn't it. Radiant_* 14:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Keydrive internals

[edit]

(and redirect at Template:Fadertest.)

This template, as far as I can tell, is/was used in keydrive. The information is valuable, but should be in the article body rather than in a template. Kail Ceannai 04:39, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


Template:Helpout

[edit]

This template links to temporary article Donations_for_victims_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake recently voted for deletion (result redirect). (used to link to this archived version) The template is obsolete now and used only on same user pages and archives. DariuszT 02:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Box

[edit]

Unused -MarSch 15:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question
I don't get it. This template contains basically the following:

content
<div class="usermessage">{{{1}}}</div>
which yields simply
Foo

What does this have to do with random colored boxes? — Sebastian (talk) 17:59, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

  • Seems to me there are better ways of making a box. Plus this template isn't actually in use, plus it would cause an (admittedly slight) undesired strain on the server. So delete. Radiant_* 00:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
{{divbox|none||CONTENT}}
Fears of excessive server load are overblown and without actual foundation. — Xiong熊talk* 03:31, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
I've made a copy of this template at this page and I think this is called "userfying". Just so you know. But I would have said keep anyway.-->Energy (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Boxstub

[edit]

Far too narrow and single-purpose. "Stub" is defined as a very short article, not a portion thereof. -- Netoholic @ 17:51, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


Template:Wiki

[edit]

Why would I want to edit a page which I haven't seen seen yet? BrokenSegue 18:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Protectedf, Template:Protectedsmall, Template:Protected/sandbox and also Template:Vprotected-s

[edit]

Simple variations in style on Template:Protected; none are in actual use. As a matter of style uniformity (see WP:TS) we should have one template for protection, not four. Radiant_* 08:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete. MarSch 17:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and stab anyone in the eye who tries to fork a template just because they can't convince others on the talk page to adopt their view for something so trivial as its size. One template per function, please. -- Netoholic @ 18:24, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
    • Why all the WikiHate? — Sebastian (talk) 18:53, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
      • Sorry, we've seen a few too many of these "miniature" versions of standard templates on this page lately. -- Netoholic @ 19:07, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Delete, but no fork stabbing required. Wikipedia should have a uniform style for its administrative templates.
  • Delete - Ill just make new ones for front-page cases of Template madness. Either that or compromise with my suggestion on WP:TS for a basic choice of two sizes for people to use at will. I agree with the notion of "standards" but that doesn't mean that the only size available is a "Supersize" -SV|t 02:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all One protected is enough; and too likely to be used to trick people that an article is protected when it hasn't been. I should know I was tricked once :) Trödel|talk 03:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vfdbecause, Template:Neologism, Template:Povfork, Template:Lacksnotability

[edit]

Redundant. Seems like a "lazy man's" way to use Template:VFD. 69.110.11.6 02:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep only Template:Vfdbecause - Allows user to state reason on the article rather than just on the vfd pages. The others can be deleted. Andros 1337 02:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But often, other reasons are cited on the VfD discussion, and articles may end up deleted for a different reason than the original one. So imho, delete all four. Radiant_* 10:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all - One person's idea of why a page is VfD'd should not take priority. I can see revert wars over this. -- Netoholic @ 02:30, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The reason for a VFD should be explained on the VFD page itself, not in the notice. — Dan | Talk 02:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (No vote) Why? and what about {{db|reason}}? Kappa 06:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy criteria are very strict and set in stone. Regular deletion criteria not so (see old discussion on the colored boxen). Radiant_* 10:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all - Trödel|talk 04:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, censure User:LevelCheck. Instruction creep, and a source of perpetual revert wars. Further, meta-templates are harmful. --Carnildo 06:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The content of this template is covered under the VfD nomination process. People going through the VfD page should see the nominators explicitly stating their reasons for voting. Using these various tags just encourages laziness. I can see people slapping on one of these tags and not continuing with the VfD process because they feel they've already stated their reasons for nominating. --Deathphoenix 19:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. We already went through this with the VFD boxes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill them all, not only to the above reason, but the outcome of the vote can be changed by just changing a few words on the templates. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:lgbt

[edit]

This template does not appear to be substantially in use, and also does not have a particularly representative good sampling of articles. See Category:LGBT. -- Beland 02:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notpolicy

[edit]

Should be deprecated; anything that's not policy is either obviously so, or should be tagged as Template:Proposed, Template:Rejected, Template:Guideline or Template:Historical. Radiant_* 14:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Tfdss

[edit]

Yet another miniature version of an existing template (Template:Tfd) from User:Stevertigo. -- Netoholic @ 17:50, 2005 May 17 (UTC)


Template:Cleanups

[edit]

Yet another miniature version of an existing template (Template:Cleanup) from User:Stevertigo. Seems like a good occassion to cite WP:POINT, since he's creating so many of these. RFC?. -- Netoholic @ 20:33, 2005 May 17 (UTC)


Template:Current-s

[edit]

Yet another miniature version of an existing template (Template:Current) from User:Stevertigo. -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • Delete should be named Template:currents -SV|t 21:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please save us the trouble then and speedy delete this one. -- Netoholic @ 21:17, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
  • Delete, and Steve should really read WP:POINT. Radiant_* 21:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No need for the miniature version. Oleg Alexandrov 07:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This nomination has nothing to do with whether a template is useful or not; it's just a control issue. Let's keep the number of templates very small and, over time, encumber each one with a rule that bounds its use; finally, let's elect one user to guard the keys. Done? — Xiong熊talk* 07:44, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
    • Please state a good reason for having multiple templates that have the same function. Radiant_* 09:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wdp

[edit]

Template for the implementation of a rejected policy, useful mostly for personal attacks. Possibly a candidate for speedy deletion. --Carnildo 22:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reallytinytotallydisputed

[edit]

Not useful. WP:POINT by User:LevelCheck. --Carnildo 22:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vfds

[edit]

Another small version of an existing template. Radiant_* 11:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is useful Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 15:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • <40 edits, most to Jesus-related pages and some to Template:npovs and the like. Suspected sockpuppet. Radiant_* 15:40, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
What ides this mean? Do I need to do anything? Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 18:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means that, given your (previous) username and lack of edit history, I was concerned whether this was a valid vote (per WP:SOCK). I'm happy to see you have changed your user name. However, could you please explain why you find Template:Vfds useful when the common process uses Template:Vfd? Yours, Radiant_* 09:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I just saw it on the Jesus page, but I guess I voted for the wrong thing - as I was trying to say that I thought the template I edited (npovs) was useful, and {{vfds}} was referenced on that template so I thought that was were I should vote. Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 13:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:See also2, Template:See2

[edit]

Short for "See X and Y", and "Also see X and Y". Not in use, and relatively pointless imho. Radiant_* 11:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Template_messages

[edit]

Seems intended as a templated version of Wikipedia:Template_messages, but it's only partially complete, and I'm not sure if that'd be all that useful in the first place. Nothing links here, and the various split-offs from WP:TM were recently VfD'ed. Radiant_* 11:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Valid

[edit]

Instruction creep. Purpose is to stick this template on topics that are considered 'valid' but have not yet any content, then list them in a cat. We already have Requested articles. Radiant_* 12:08, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong delete - Any page that it would be put on is a speedy delete candidate. Red links should tell readers that there is no content but the topic is valid. --mav 14:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted -SV
  • Why was this deleted so quickly? Courtland 02:18, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Template:Rfmf, Template:Rfm

[edit]

Attempts to streamline the RFM process, but not actually in use. Potential instruction creep. Radiant_* 12:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - because its not currently used ATM. SV

Template:Ancient gods

[edit]

Presently only contains Template:Semitic gods. But ancient gods also include Greek, Egyptian and Norse deities, among others. Adding them all would make the template too unwieldy to use. Also, nothing links here. Radiant_* 12:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Populate - you seem to have some knowledge of the subject why not instead of wikiwhining (and singling out my history for templates) actually populate it and see where it goes. -SV|t 19:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -Sean Curtin 22:46, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Ancient Semitic gods". It sounds like the content isn't the problem, it's the mismatch of title and content. Probably many old mythologies would profit from templates. -Willmcw 22:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is currently constructed; I agree with it becoming unwieldly quickly. An alternative suggestion would be a template covering Ancient Belief Systems that would provide linkages to things like the Semitic Gods, which would be adorned with both the ABS and Semitic Gods templates, the combination being smaller than a single template covering the panoply of deities. Courtland 23:32, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
    • Why has this been deleted so quickly? This was not a speedy candidate. Courtland 02:16, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
      • Possibly because it had no content, other than transcluding another template. Radiant_* 09:00, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • Not an acceptable reason as far as I'm concerned. Courtland 22:59, 2005 May 19 (UTC)


Template:WikiProject:Community

[edit]

This appears to be a startup wikiproject that has been accidentally put in template namespace. It is empty, merely transcluding (rather than subst'ing) Template:WikiProject. Radiant_* 12:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Archived on Talk - SV
    • Our process is not to archive deleted content on talk pages. In fact, Talk pages are to be deleted along with the main page they refer to. -- Netoholic @ 02:22, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 02:22, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Template:Ambiguous

[edit]

Policies should not be labelled "ambiguous". If there is a dispute, they should be labelled "proposed", and then promoted, rejected, or archived after discussion. -- Beland 02:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ... Agreed. Concerns about the clarity of policies should be handled through discussion and acceptance of decided outcomes, not branding such as this that needlessly muddies the policy and perhaps undermines it's application. Courtland 02:15, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is yet another attempt to set policy on the WP:TFD page. There are Wikipedia namespace articles that have at least some support and have been around for a long time, but have never been voted on, nor have had sufficient discussions to show that they do have strong consensus. They probably need to have a survey done on them (like the recent survey on WP:POINT) to determine what level of support the page has. One such page that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Google test, which in my opinion is used and abused, and rarely enlightening. Until the support for such pages has been properly appraised, they should get the "ambiguous" tag. BlankVerse ∅ 05:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, at least temporarily, because there's some classification of policy-like pages that is uncertain at the moment. These should be cleared up quickly (although I'd prefer not to get any other WP:POINT-like polls...) Radiant_* 06:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC) Delete, conviced by Zocky. Radiant_* 08:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's just another name for semi-policy. Whether the semi-policy template is deleted or not, this is redundant. I appreciate Blankverse's point to an extent, but I suggest that there are other ways to handle pages like the Google Test. It's just a guideline. Nobody will mind if you change it to make it better. Zocky 07:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the heck is a Wikipedia:Guideline? Right now, that link just takes you to the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines page, which makes the issue no clearer. Although it is something that needed to be done, Radiant! has gone ahead and done some major changes to Wikipedia Policy pages without any Wikipedia:consensus. BlankVerse ∅ 09:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a major change, it's a rename. If you don't know what a guideline is, check Template:Guideline, Category:Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia:Project namespace and/or wikt:guideline. Radiant_* 10:00, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
        • It is a major change. Until you started this solo project of yours, there was Policy, Guidelines, Semi-Policy, Think-tank Proposals, Failed policies, and whole bunch of pages that were not classified. You've eliminated one entire category, Semi-Policy (ill-named, but a good category), and you've shoehorned articles from that category mostly into the Guideline category where many do not belong. BlankVerse ∅ 15:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid you are mistaken. This is not a solo-project, and cat:guidelines was created a month ago to create an alternative to semi-pol. The reclassification of articles wasn't caused by me, even if you hadn't noticed it earlier - it started when the templates for 'policy', 'historical' etc where created, about a month and a half ago. Radiant_* 19:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Noimage

[edit]

Hideous; duplicates the function of the image request page; unnecessary clutter, etc. — Dan | Talk 03:23, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Smoothhenry

[edit]

Unused personal template. If User:Smoothhenry still wants it, it should be userfied. BlankVerse ∅ 10:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Project usage

[edit]

Violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references; editorial conventions should be collected in a central location, perhaps the MoS. — Dan | Talk 02:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) (oh, and I vote delete. — Dan | Talk)

vote tally (29 April to 2 May) ... Courtland 00:10, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • keep: 3
    • SPUI, thryduulf, xiong
  • delete: 7 (8 including mav)
    • tony sidaway, jiang, raul654, ævarab, JRM, dpark, netoholic


  • Keep, as this is something that will be useful to readers. Looking at the uses of it, it's rather useful on billion and natural number, as NPOV prevents us from saying "this way is better" but we have to choose one or the other. As for Date, I'm not sure if it's useful there. "Avoid self-references" is not policy, only semi-policy, anyway. --SPUI (talk) 09:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is useful for readers. It should be used as it is used on billion, where it conveys useful information. I agree with SPUI that its use on Date is questionable as it doesn't give a concise point of information. It should not refer you to another page. Thryduulf 10:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't about Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Our reusers are not called 'Wikipedia'. --mav 04:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. --Jiang 06:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - concur with Mav and Jiang. →Raul654 06:21, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • ANNIHILATE! —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 07:27, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wrong way of going about it. I'm not going to visit billion to find out what Wikipedia's conventions on using the word are. If there's unclarity, then explain what you mean every single time you use the word. This is the only feasible way of doing it; we can't demand that readers plow through our MoS to find out. Articles should be as self-explanatory as possible in these matters. JRM · Talk 13:37, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
    Update: but also see the vote below. I'm wavering on this point. JRM · Talk 14:13, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Dpark 21:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; fixed -- I've addressed all objections in an overhaul of this template. It no longer refers to Wikipedia, and its documentation specifically forbids linking across namespaces. Additionally, I've visited the 3 pages where it was used. I rephrased its parameter text on Billion and Natural number, and removed it from Date. — Xiong熊talk* 14:52, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
    • Still got that big, flashy and ugly look to it. I also replaced {{SITENAME}} with 'in this encyclopedia' since mirrors that do not use MediaWiki would not be able to deal with that in the intended manor. --mav 16:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 05:47, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Template:ZIMf

[edit]

This template is not in use and identical to Template:ZIM. Thuresson 01:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vote tally ... 1 vote to keep (earl andrew), 1 vote to delete (wipe) ... Courtland 00:04, 2005 May 21 (UTC)


It is not identical. ZIMf links to the Zimbabwe national football team, ZIM just links to Zimbabwe. These templates are only temporarily orphaned, and will be used in the future for football (soccer) related articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't there be only one template with the country name as an attribute? (Plus another one for football.) That would of course require harmonizing the flag image naming (or creating redirects) but it would be very useful. Wipe 03:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? These two templates (Template:ZIM and Template:ZIMf) have links to 2 different articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mean something like this (an example, "Template:Country"):
[[Image:{{{1}}} flag 300.png|20px|{{{1}}}]] [[{{{1}}}]]
and this (the other one, "Template:CountryF"):
[[Image:{{{1}}} flag 300.png|20px|{{{1}}}]] [[{{{1}}} national football team|{{{1}}}]]
used like this: {{Country|Zimbabwe}}, {{CountryF|Zimbabwe}}. Zimbabwe could be replaced here with any country. If you had to edit the template, you'd make one edit and all countries would still look consistent.
Wipe 06:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm already almost done with these football templates. Plus I made quite a few for ice hockey as well. (Template:CANh or Template:USAhw for example)-- Earl Andrew - talk 00:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:EU 10 and Template:EU coins

[edit]

Both are in serious violation of the guideline in Wikipedia:Template_namespace that templates shouldn't be masquerading as article content. These templates were used to replace long initial paragraphs in a series of articles that should have instead been individualized. The creation and insertion of these specific templates makes said individualization impossible. Aris Katsaris 11:38, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think these two templates should be treated separately. I agree with Aris on the EU 10 but I'm not sure about EU coins. Parmaestro 11:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EU 10 template is no longer in use. Parmaestro 12:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion from User_talk:Aris Katsaris

As I usually agree with almost all your decisions? I'm curious about your opinion of template use. I don't find it particularly hard to edit templates. It seems to me that when you have a dozen or so articles with identical text and especially where this text will be needed to edited in the future because of upcoming changes that it makes sense to have one template that can be edited/updated/corrected as necessary rather than making the identical edits/corrections/updates to a dozen or more texts. Wouldn't you agree ? Parmaestro 11:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are usually good to use, but always in places where the text will *necessarily* be identical. Where it is *good* that it should be identical. This case however is different -- the initial paragraphs of each article should be individual to that article, and if anything these templates worsen and make permanent what was already a not-very-nice redundancy and repetition. Moreover large templates must make themselves obvious as templates: As Wikipedia:Template_namespace says: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace". Aris Katsaris 11:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
We seem to be in agreement than about te use of templates. I completely agree with you about the EU-10 template. The only apparent difference we might have is in the application to this specific series of articles. The initial paragraphs in these articles all include an introduction about the euro before discussing the items that specific to the article. Should those introductary paragraphs be deleted and just start with those items that are individual to tha article ? If not and if we are still going to include the same introductory paragraphs, we'd be better off with the template. Or maybe you have a better solution than these two ideas.
Since I added the templates to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion it'd be better if we took the discussion there, if you will. Feel free to move both my comments and yours there, if you want to, or I can do it, if you have no objections. I think that the introductory paragraphs should be as small as possible, and the relevant information in them (and part of it *is* relevant, e.g. when talking about the other side that is in common) perhaps combined with the rest of the text. Turning it into a template makes this introduction permanent however in a way that I don't think it should be made. Moreover, the specific content of the template was itself lacking, as it actually *enlarged* the repeated non-specific information in them, e.g. by adding mention of the circulation dates that hadn't existed formerly. The content of the templates ended up speaking about the whole of the Eurozone, even adding mention about Kosovo or Montenegro!! Egads. But as I said it's more than the specific content that bothered me, it was the nature of the templates themselves. That's why I didn't just edit them but tfd them instead. Aris Katsaris 12:09, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with what you are saying. I've already replaced the template with text for EU 10. This template is not in use anywhere now. Although I agree with you that one is not interested in Andorra when reading an article about Belgian coins, I think it is germane to talk about where the euro is a currency which is why the article starts out with saying that it used in the twelve Eurozone member states. I think it's particluarly relevant when there are euro coins from the Vatican, San Marino and Monaco. I agree with you that introductory paragraph should be as short as possible. Are you saying that even if the text is identical, it's better not to use a template even though it means that all the articles would have to be edited separately? Parmaestro 12:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a judgement call which I'm afraid I don't have the time to analyze much further right this moment. I'm moving this discussion to the relevant section of Templates for deletion, so that others can enter the argument also. Please add further comments there. Aris Katsaris 12:34, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

vote tally (6 May to 10 May) ... Courtland 00:01, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • keep: 1
    • xiong
  • delete: 2
    • radiant, alphax
  • Note that Xiong said to 'keep temporarily', and you may also count the nominator (Parmaestro) as a vote to delete. Radiant_* 09:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep -- however, my vote is not an endorsement of this template. The template should be kept temporarily while larger issues are resolved, then deleted. Templates should not generally contain boilerplate article content, for the reason that articles themselves should not generally contain duplicate content at all. The mere existence of this template calls into question the entire series of repetitive articles which include it -- all of which, perhaps, should be merged into a single article. — Xiong熊talk* 09:25, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Delete, that's not what templates are for. Radiant_* 11:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


Template:history

[edit]
content
[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{1}}}|action=history&limit=500&offset=0}} {{{1}}}]
use example
{{history|Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/history}}
yields
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/history

I created this template in order to list pages with a link to their history, rather than the page itself. I thought it a neat idea, and hoped people would pick it up, but so far nobody used it. (I didn't advertize it, either.) I'm fine with deleting it, in which case i'll just define it in my userspace instead. If it remains, it may need to be renamed because "history" is not specific enough. — Sebastian (talk) 02:55, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Comments (1) This function will be subsumed in an upcoming template I've got cooking. It's not a bad idea, just insufficiently general. (2) No need to create subpages for nominated items; TfD, unlike VfD, hashes everything out in one page -- wise or not. (3) If you're the template creator and it is unused, you can hang {{db}} on it, say you're the creator, and see if you get a speedy. No need to bring it here. — Xiong熊talk* 03:11, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. (1) Great! I'm looking forward to it. (2) Please see Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#This_page_has_become_almost_uneditable. (3) I am not saying it should be deleted. I only posted this here out of WikiLove. If people don't mind then i'd rather keep it. — Sebastian (talk) 06:09, 2005 May 15 (UTC)


Template:Standard template style

[edit]

Oh my god! The idea is to include a redirect to this template from every single template in order to make the style uniform. And it's not even subst'ed! Can we please get rid of this server drain? Radiant_* 11:31, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: not every single template, just the kind-of-official ones as far as I know. There is discussion underway to convert to a CSS-based solution, so if the horses could be held for just bit...? Oh, and BTW, thanks for not plastering {{tl:tfd}} all over it: this would have simply broken everything using it and made a nasty mess, so your courtesy is appreciated. --Phil | Talk 11:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete when the proposal to move the standard style to the CSS comes to fruition. – ClockworkSoul 12:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm the original author of this template and was not fully aware of the server issues when I created it. The CSS alternative is feasible, but some details are still being discussed. Once the remaining issues have been settled, the template will be replaced by a CSS class and can safely be deleted. --MarkSweep 18:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-MNGov

[edit]

(Hope this is the right area to put this in.) Created this template on very mistaken assumptions and am now asking for it to be deleted. Schissel : bowl listen 04:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

You've come to the right place :) Looks like a speedy delete to me. Grutness|hello? 12:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You should retag the affected images at some point as well. If not PD, what's the license on these? grendel|khan 20:27, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I'll inform the poster(s?) in the next couple of days that I was mistaken about the copyright condition of the image and whether they can verify fair use, otherwise remove the image - perhaps in favor of another. Schissel : bowl listen 03:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

{{PD-CAGov}} will need to go too... Alphax τεχ 07:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually I think California has released all its stuff to the public domain. --SPUI (talk) 21:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The link-to list has decreased but is not yet down to zero. *groan* (Should just retag myself where possible, I guess. Especially since there's a whole category whose existence may be predicated on the mistake I made. May not, also, if the person who created it knows something about MN law no one here so far does, but...) Schissel : bowl listen 14:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have contacted the State of Minnesota regarding copyright issues in regards to their site content. I will post what I find as well as fix the articles in question. Dennis Fernkes 00:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Appreciated. At least one of the affected images was set up by someone who hasn't been on Wikipedia in two months from their contr. page (this would be User:JTilly) and perhaps should just be deleted at that... Schissel : bowl listen 10:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't receive a response from whomever I tried to contact through the State of Minnesota website. But I did talk to someone who controls the portal that the State uses. They told me that there should be no problem using these photos. I also found this statement somewhere in the vastness of the state government website:
"State agency authored documents are in the public domain.
Copyright and access restrictions apply."
However, I can't find a suitable tag for this in the current list. I have always found the issue of copyright to be confusing. Therefore, based on what the statement says, I ask someone to tag both JesseVentura.jpg and TimPawlenty.jpg with an appropriate tag. Dennis Fernkes 21:55, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Eesh. What a messed-up statement on the website.. I know I found a law at some point that said that by default, works of the State of Minnesota are public domain. However, there are provisions for exceptions, and most of the different departments in the state now have copyright rights as far as I can tell. Also, they might be referring to the inclusion of copyrighted information from other sources that finds its way into state documents, reports, etc. I don't really think this template should be deleted, but people really must include a source URL when uploading MN government images, so it can be verified if the file came from a copyrighted work or not. I have doubts that the official portraits of governors are copyrighted, but at this point who the hell knows... —Mulad (talk) 23:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oy. To understate, this could be a whole lot clearer. And thanks for going to all that trouble (and sorry about the delay in my response.) Just wondering what an appropriate tag would be in this case now. Should the category be maintained after all this and all... It's good my head is good at spinning, so to say. Schissel : bowl listen 15:28, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Template:2005Calendar through Template:2024Calendar

[edit]

Also, Template:AprilCalendar2004 and Template:AprilCalendar2005, and Template:AprilCalendar2004Source through Template:AprilCalendar2025Source, and the same for every other month.

  • Deprecated by generic calender templates for both months and years (dependent on the weekday of january 1st and leapness of the year). Well-intended, but unfortunately needless clutter. Radiant_* 11:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

vote tally ... 1 keep (allyunion), 2 deletes (netoholic, marsch), 1 redirect (docu) ... Courtland 00:14, 2005 May 21 (UTC)


  • Delete - needless meta-templates. Have the alternate calendars been created yet, for comparison? -- Netoholic @ 15:02, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
    • Note, Template:AprilCalendar2005 is still being in use. And they aren't necessarily meta-templates, at least for the ones I created from 2006 to 2025. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • If a template includes a call to another template, it is a meta-template. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
        • The templates created from January 2006 to December 2025 aren't meta-templates. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Netoholic, please really take a look. Template:MayCalendar2006Source is not a meta-template in any way. It's actual template. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Templates for "Leap year starting on tuesday" or "30-day month starting on friday" (with parametrization for which month and year it is) have the advantage of being reusable for each and every year in the Gregorian calendar, obviating the need for hundreds of templates for each individual month and year therein. Radiant_* 09:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, but, there's so much parameter passing for those templates. And people are lazy. Without these templates, any page using a calendar to display the current month must change using the "Leap year starting on Tuesday" or whatever templates. What happens if I want to display only one month and have it change every month? I can't use {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} anymore. I would have to manually update and figure out which template to use every month. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GenericCountryStub and its redirect GCS, plus the "sub-template" GenericCountryStubDetail and its redirect GCSD

[edit]

An attempt at simplifying the various country stubs that doesn't work because of the inconsistent manner in which country stubs and their corresponding categories are named. BlankVerse ∅ 06:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 06:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every bit as impossible to use as 2stub below. A distinct liability. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll commend the creator for trying to simplify the stubber's life while hiding complexity beneath technology ... something that is a big part of computer application design. However, this unnecessarily complicates the stub template/category relationships as (to the best of my knowledge) there is not an analogous way to generify the country stub categories while preserving their separate identities, and it is the stub category that is the thing which assists would be authors to find things, the template being the connector between article and category. Courtland 10:23, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
    • You're right that it was a good idea, but sadly it didn't work, and would have taken the devil's own job to get and keep working. Full marks for the attempt, though. Grutness...wha? 14:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2stub

[edit]

This would have been wonderful if it had been created prior to subcategorising stubs, but now it's simply not going to work, due to the way stub categories are named. Which leaves us three options: 1) leaving it to muddy the waters at stub-sorting; 2) turning round the battleship that is WP:WSS (should only take about 18 months of 24-hour-a-day effort to get everything renamed properly); 3) deleting the template (no mess, no fuss). Personally, I vote delete and NOOB. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2Stub or not 2stub? Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 06:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete *Kat* 06:22, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree that this would have been wonderful if introduced months ago. I'm voting delete more on the grounds of lack of utility as opposed to the complications it would force in the lives of stubbers the world over. Cases where it would be utile are those where there is a natural relationship between two stub categories that is apparent for a subset of articles but not for all articles; however, in those circumstances, a new stub category (or at least template) would be the simpler approach. Courtland 10:29, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I've rewritten it so it works (a usage example is at User:Korath/sb2), though it'll make the meta-template crusaders cringe. —Korath (Talk) 15:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nice attempt, and that would work... on a limited proportion of stub types. The problem is, of course, that many of the stub types have different names to the categories they feed, often for good reason ({{BiH-geo-stub}}{{SM-geo-stub}} is a fraction easier to type than {{2stub|Bosnia and Herzegovina geography|Serbia and Montenegro geography}}!). I suspect it would still be harder on editors than the current system and - as you imply - it would play merry hell with the servers (even if only 10% of all stub articles require two templates, that would still mean a metatemplate used on 4000 or so articles!) Grutness...wha? 15:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It uses the stub templates to get the category names, so you'd be typing {{2stub|BiH-geo|SM-geo}} and actually saving keystrokes. This is academic, though, since the server load argument is the more important one. —Korath (Talk) 18:15, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah - I see. In that case it's a more elegant solution than I thought. But the servers must come first, unfortunately. BTW, I notice that with your variant only the text from the first template appeared. Any reason? Grutness...wha? 03:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clear soup

[edit]

I just stumbled across this. I think it was mistakenly created in the Template namespace or something. Don't know what it's for. It's obviously not helpful or in use (nothing links to it). --Dmcdevit 22:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Importantstub and the redirect Template:Important-stub

[edit]

I've removed this template from a number of very trivial articles (such as Toilet training). One problem is that this stub isn't associated with any WikiProjects, so even if an article was important, adding this tag to an article would still mean most people wouldn't know about it. Furthermore, if an article really was important, it would get mentioned on the mailing list, or on the IRC channel, and get fixed up in no time, so this template is a solution without a problem. BlankVerse ∅ 14:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comp-wikify

[edit]

Used on exactly three articles. Iff it was also mentioned at an appropriate WikiProject, I might have ignored it because there would at least be the potential for it to be used. BlankVerse ∅ 11:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 11:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur, and if deleted, Category:Computer and electronics articles that need to be wikified should also go. Radiant_* 14:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I find the idea interesting: alert the right people that an article is lacking in some way. Maybe for wikifying not so important but for expanding or cleanup it is. Is there already a standard way to do this?--MarSch 17:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is already {{wikify}}. The difference between unwikified articles and the topic stubs is that ANYONE can wikify almost any article. I've wikified articles that I've stumbled upon (most without the wikify template) in a huge variety of subject areas. On the other hand, I generally only work on stubs in topic areas that I am knowledgable about. BlankVerse ∅ 04:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While stubs need to be categorized so that potential stub-expanders can find stubs in a topic that interests them, "To-be-wikified" articles need not be categorized. As Blank Verse said, categorizing the wikifieds is unnessecary and little used anyway. MithrandirMage 21:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per education-wikify. —Korath (Talk) 15:06, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Commons3

[edit]

Orphaned and redundant with the established Wikipedia:Sister projects templates. -- Netoholic @ 05:19, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Template:Fridtjof Nansen class frigate

[edit]

Delete, no longer used. For a short time there were seperate articles for each vessel in this frigate class with essentially all duplicated info, that info is now collected in the common article for this class. -- Egil 05:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VfD-BunchofXena and Template:VfD-HollowayCA

[edit]

These look like more mistakenly created votes in the template namespace. Does this happen a lot, or am I missing something? The similar names worry me that either 1) this is supposed to happen and I'm wasting your time, or 2) there's more out there and we should do a comprehensive search. So, what's up? --Dmcdevit 17:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nointernal

[edit]

A less obnoxious version of Template:Noimage that was created by an anon and is completely unused. BlankVerse ∅ 07:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cobauth

[edit]

Not used anywhere. Unless any use can be found for it, delete. - Mike Rosoft 06:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Intro/1

[edit]

nonreusable. Should be substituted. Same goes for these templates: {{Intro/unselected}}, {{Intro/selected}}, {{Intro/1}} and {{Intro/2}}, {{Intro/3}}. --MarSch 17:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Oppose blanket nominations. These appear useful. — Xiong熊talk* 10:44, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Template:Vip

[edit]

copy of {{user}}. Stands for Vandalism in Progress. --MarSch 16:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the template, I don't object to it being deleted. But there are quite some pages where it is used, so that should be cleaned up first. --Conti|✉ 23:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • It could be replaced with a redirect. Radiant_* 09:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{user}} just like {{vandal}} does. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the vandal template. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the user template, not the vandal template since that would be a double redirect. Sjakkalle 07:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that this should be deprecated in favour of {{user}}. However simply making it a REDIRECT would likely break all the client articles because {{vip}} uses a named parameter whereas {{user}} does not, so great care would be needed: this would likely be a good job for a bot. In addition it would seem that some people have incorporated {{vip}} into their signatures, so they would have to be informed also. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 13:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tc

[edit]

unused and unuseful --MarSch 16:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, trivial. For those templates whose display is significantly mangled when looking at their Template: pages, just use {{msgnw:Ed}} on the talk pages. —Korath (Talk) 15:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Moveto

[edit]

Deprecated by {{move}} and the WP:RM process. There are no systems in place to deal with a "moveto" tag. violet/riga (t) 13:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AU-bio-stub

[edit]

Badly named duplicate of Template:Australia-bio-stub. Redirect is possible, but not desirable (WP:WSS is trying to reduce the number of redirects, since they cause yet more server slowdown). Grutness...wha? 10:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AU-actor-stub, Template:FR-actor-stub, Template:SE-actor-stub

[edit]

As above, these are redirects, but incompatible with any of the naming standards used by WP:WSS, and redirects of heavy-use templates are a cause of server slowdown. Of the three, only FR-actor-stub is heavily used (about 75 articles). The others are depopulated. Grutness...wha? 11:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Npovs

[edit]

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

Template:Video Editing

[edit]

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

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

Template:Protecteds, and also Template:Tfds

[edit]

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

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

Template:Sub-stub and Template:Substubs

[edit]

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

Template:Hrwiki

[edit]

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

IMPORTANT: don't mix up Memory Alpha and Homestar Runner Wiki. MA is the biggest Wiki for fictive terms in the world, HRW is much smaller and Homestar Runner Cartoons are not as famous as Star Trek is. And MA is not commercial. --Memory 22:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do support your notion that the MemoryAlpha wiki is a more "pressing" example for helping to set policy than the Homestar Runner wiki. But regarding a "commercial" comparison: (1) Homestar Runner gives away all episodes/content for free (Star Trek doesn't), and (2) the homestar runner wiki has fully transparent accounting and no advertising whatsoever, not even from the host (MA has "Ads by Gooooogle"). Metaeducation 11:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know that... but the name could well have been a template saying something like "This article has been translated approximately from an article in the Croation Wikipedia - please help us by correcting any grammatical errors." Grutness...wha?
  • I (metaeducation) made this template because there's crazy duplication between the homestar runner wiki and the wikipedia. I'd like people to review the outlined issues in [talk page] for the template before commenting. I think that keeping it as a template rather than a simple link is ideal for several reasons, though whether the template renders as a graphical ad is a separate concern. If there is something HRwiki has to do in order to become a sister project, can we investigate that process?
    • If HRWiki wants to become a sister project, I'd suggest they take the matter up with Jimbo, or with the Board. If not, then they really have no business claiming that they are. Delete for now. Radiant_* 14:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although I personally don't think that there should be any templates like this, we already have at least one other in Template:Memoryalpha. There are going to be more and more special topic Wikis on the internet which will have some overlap with the Wikipedia, and so there will probably be more templates created that are similar to this one. Perhaps this is something that needs to be decided by consensus, rather than a vote at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 19:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Deleteth. — Dan | Talk 20:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Leave this up to the people working on articles about Homestar Runner. Once they decide to orphan this template we should delete it. --MarSch 12:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless Memoryalpha is deleted. Consistency. Grue 13:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; allowing this would allow everyone to advertise here. -- Ec5618 13:49, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is what the external links section is for (if the relevant article is good enough). --W(t) 15:27, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  • Keep but downsize. This shouldn't get a special box like Wikimedia sister projects' templates do. It should be a single-line link, just like Template:imdb_name and numerous others. This is obviously useful if the domain name or URL scheme for the site were to change. Also, as I have said before about Template:Memoryalpha, this type of template is preferable to using simple hyperlinks because this creates an easy-to-detect explicit connection between two databases that could potentially be used in a JOIN operation at some point in the future. ~leif ☺ (talk) 20:31, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but de-box like other non-Wikimedia project templates like Template:Wikitravel. --mav 14:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete have people forgotten how to enter things without using templates?Geni 15:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Old Business
Everything from here on down is old business; the current 5-day review period has ended. Everything from this point on should be dealt with and removed from the workflow. Move this marker up as time passes.

Template:GC

[edit]

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

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

Template:User en-!

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Deleted/May_2005&oldid=1086088778"