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

Template:bullshit

Yet another obnoxious cleanup template. --W(t) 21:33, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Comment: Oh my god. This has to be the funniest template I have ever seen. --Hottentot
Delete as per Weyes, and especially because it's not funny. Joe D (t) 21:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hilarious, but trollfood. Delete this please. JFW | T@lk 21:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, if such an option exists for templates. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:29, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
Speedy ahh I'm blind, no color that bright should even exist, oh and BJAODN. ;-) <>Who ?¿? 22:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, oh, that's just lovely. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2

03:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy BJAODN. As a NZer, I'm impressed the fact that it's in the Australian colours, too :) Grutness...wha? 05:21, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DELETE. Maybe next time he/she should create a category (joking). --minghong 28 June 2005 05:45 (UTC)
Delete. Stupid and useless template. Made as a joke and probably with the intention of landing it on BJAODN, so let's not put it there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 07:34 (UTC)
- Agreed, and it was not funny enough for BJAODN anyway. - Sikon 28 June 2005 10:52 (UTC)
Speedied as nonsense. R adiant _>|< June 28, 2005 08:00 (UTC)

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

Delete, weird but not nonsense is good. --W(t) 11:03, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
Delete, utterly useless. -- Ec5618 15:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "Weird" and "strange" should also not be on CSD because they are more subjective. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{db}}: this template is a candidate for speedy deletion because it does not match Wikipedia CSD Policy. BlankVerse ∅ 16:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strange and weird articles go to either Wikipedia:Unusual articles or Wikipedia:Cleanup; unencyclopedic articles go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Neither of them are causes for a speedy deletion. --cesarb 19:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Or occasionally get BJAODN'd. BlankVerse ∅ 06:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --minghong 00:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bxscience

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

Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. one-article-only template --MarSch 16:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
subst: and then delete. BlankVerse ∅ 16:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... defintely want to avoid such specialized templates. Courtland 16:56, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
Delete, there's no point of having it if it only applies to one article. Is there no general template for this? -Frazzydee|✍ 02:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Special

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

Delete. Obsolete to Template:Specialpageslist (although I would not mind if we use a redirect instead). The only places it is currently used is on user pages. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objections to it being userfied instead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Templates for personal use don't need to be standardized and thus multiple version should be allowed to exist. --MarSch 16:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. In keeping with my views expressed elsewhere, this template really needs to be in User space.--MarSch 15:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it stays in the User namespace, which I take to be the intention. Courtland 16:58, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
- Do you mean userfy, then? It isn't presently in the user namespace. R adiant _* 09:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Move. Pcb21| Pete 07:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olditalic

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

delete unused --MarSch 16:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Obsolete SI prefixes

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

Delete. (Speedy candidate in talk proposal) --MarSch 15:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Obsolete. — Xiong 熊 talk * 14:21, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
Delete. Article is also now obsolete, and it like the template was incorrectly named in the first place. Gene Nygaard 03:49, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Gene. There is no such thing as an obsolete SI prefix - these prefixes were in use before the SI system was established in the 1960s and have nothing to do with the SI system. Grutness...wha? 02:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

delete. I guess they won't be needed. --MarSch 12:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The VfD nomination is inappropriate. VfD does not concern itself with Wikipedia-namespace pages. — Xiong熊talk* 14:27, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- You are wrong. Read VFD policy. R adiant _* 15:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Cute idea, but it hasn't been adopted, and it really looks like a bit of a joke.... --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USculture

Intended as a substitute for Category:American culture, but the latter contains far too many topics to conveniently list them in a template. Besides, there's no meaningful ordering to them. R adiant _* 12:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Comment - "No meaningful order"? Apparently theres "no meaningful order" to the TFD process either. Your comment is disjointed - you use "them" in consecutive sentences to refer to two different templates. You seemed to be on the verge of explaining the reason for the split, but you cut yourself off -inserting a coarse value judgement about its content. -SV|t
- Huh? 'Them' refers to 'far too many topics' in both cases. Surely TFD has better things to do than argue over grammar? R adiant _* 06:54, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep -SV|t 19:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The template has a brief yet incredibly random selection of topics. Expand or delete. -Sean Curtin 22:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Star stub

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

I've noticed a few people now think "stub" is a general term for any template :| Joe D (t) 12:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WPAO called this one star stub because it was a shorter version of their normal star template. Grutness...wha?

Delete. An easy decision. A confusingly named, and now unused template. BlankVerse ∅ 13:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to astronomy stub template or whatever the most suitable is. Dunc|☺ 13:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood what this template is ... (ie. not a stub template). --TheParanoidOne 19:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Less confusion = more usability. Feco 19:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably Delete, or, failing that, redirect to {{star-stub}}. -- grm_wnr Esc 03:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't make an easy one look confusing. Gene Nygaard 03:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: no longer necessary and likely to cause unwanted confusion. --Phil | Talk 10:21, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tu-civ-trans

An aircraft template, now against WikiProject aircraft standards. Not used in any articles. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 01:06, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Delete. unused [-MarSch]^[1]

Template:POS

A rediculous template, that not only called an article a 'Piece of shit' but also refered to the user page of User:SPUI. And it included the template for speedy deletion, which is rediculous in any case (I removed it). - Ec5618 17:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

While it refered to the user page of User:SPUI, it wasn't created by him; so, he quickly slapped a speedy deletion tag to it. And I agree with him that it should be speedy deleted. --cesarb 17:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Pcb21| Pete 17:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mentitle

A joke template that is only on two user pages. It should be Subst:'d, BJAODN'd, and deleted. Sooner or later there is going to have to be a BJAODN page that is just joke templates: Transcluded nonsense and other multisyllabic templates. BlankVerse ∅ 16:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN, and delete (and userfy?). BlankVerse ∅ 16:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, definetly. One of the better one, I'd say :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But feel free to post it on BJAODN. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userify. It's a joke template used only in user space, given the freedom usually given to user space creations, I think this should get a pass too. Not really harming anything. Dragons flight 05:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- It's not even "used" on User pages, only linked to (so it doesn't even need to be "Subst:'d". Besides, if it is a User-only template, it is better to have it as a User subpage than as an article in the Template namespace. BlankVerse ∅ 14:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Lysy 06:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete if you feel the need~to; BJaODN - if someone finds it funny... Halibu tt 12:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- This might have been speedied, due to its offensive content and obvious lack of utility. — Xiong 熊 talk * 22:14, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
Speedy delete this pollution of the template namespace.--MarSch 16:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BJODN, definately. Thryduulf 15:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, there ought to be a way to speedy this nonsense. I don't personally feel that it's BJAODN-worthy. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_U.S._school and Template:Infobox_school

While templates for schools are a good idea, these particular two aren't actually in use, and are very different in design from the one described and used at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Thus, for consistency's sake, removing and redirecting them seems best. R adiant _* 11:06, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Oops, I forgot about them after I mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools that they were unused. [2]. But I guess that ten days didn't make a whole lot of difference. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, unwanted, uneeded, unhelpful. BlankVerse ∅ 16:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep please. I've only started to learn the use of templates, and I'll edit them and make use of them shortly. I don't think anyone actually designed a template to match the one at WikiProject Schools, they're actually just copy/pasting in the example table. I think a template may be more useful, but need a bit more time to get familiar with them. Leaving these for me to modify won't hurt anything if they're slated for deletion anyway. Otherwise I'll have to recreate them from scratch, and I don't think that'll be as easy as editing an existing work. Thanks. --Unfocused 19:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I believe there's Template:School. Anyway, if you want to work with this template, would you mind if we userfied it for now? Radiant_* 07:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment I've decided to use my time elsewhere. I think these should be pointed out to the WikiProject Schools members before deletion to see if they have an interest, since, as I mentioned, it appears they're using a copy & paste rather than an actual template. Changed vote to "weak keep". Will change to delete if the WikiProject is aware but not interested. BTW, NOOB??? Care to expand? --Unfocused 21:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - (for the record, the WikiProject is aware and not interested (see its talk page) so I'm counting your vote as 'delete'). R adiant _* 09:50, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and NOOB -- These templates are very nice-looking, and a lot of hard work has obviously gone into them. It is immaterial whether they are in use yet. Unless the relevant WikiProject expresses a strong consensus against them, this nomination is inappropriate. — Xiong熊talk* 22:19, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
- As has been stated before, templates are the business of TFD. And as has been stated twice in this nomination and discussion, WikiProject:Schools uses another template. R adiant _* 07:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tu-civ-trans-text

No longer used in any articles; was originally nested in template:Tu-civ-trans, also up for deletion. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 02:15, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Template:President

This template was created almost a year ago as a blank page/template. Has remained a blank page/template ever since. One talk page comment saying someone had trouble getting it to work. Template has never been used in a year of existance. Was going to speedy it but figured it'd be better to bring it here. Hedley 23:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete this sandbox stuff. --MarSch 15:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete now that we have Infobox President, but it should be noted that this template was not created as a blank template. This was the original template, but the editor seems to have given up after "having trouble making [it] work". -Frazzydee|✍ 04:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and thank the author for their attempt to make a useful template. (No it was'nt me or anyone I know :) ). <>Who ?¿? 05:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:ScroogeUniverse

Another huge template. This one is three or four times larger than many of the articles it is on. - SimonP 02:41, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yikes. Could it be trimmed (aggressively!) to encompass the major characters, and include a reference to some sort of family tree article (perhaps a filled-out Scrooge McDuck universe page?) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Listify. A cat would be nice for the major characters (but Category:Donald Duck already exists), but this template contains far too many minor ones. R adiant _* 08:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
As huge as the rail navigation boxes below, but without duplicate links. Convert to lists and categories or (2nd choice) rewrite as a summary navigation box that is much, much smaller. BlankVerse ∅ 14:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categorify, listify, shrink -- Agree with BlankVerse. — Xiong 熊 talk * 17:04, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
Comment -- To me, it seems like most of the characters in that ginormous box should be condensed into a few articles of minor characters, according to WP:FICT -- Majromax 00:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do whatever it takes to shrink this. Yeek. Bryan 05:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As an amateur, I'd find this information useful if I needed to trace the McDuck universe, but I can see why, if it's larger than the article, some people find it confusing. Could it be made a 'Universe Headlines' or 'Universe keywords' page, as a centre point to and from which readers could navigate if they wished ? --Simon Cursitor 11:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite As everyone has said above, it is a very large template. However, I think it is better if it is rewritten into categories, instead of having so many characters on the one page. (I would like to refer to the Chronicles of Narnia template(s) as an example.) --JB Adder | Talk 02:45, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Incorrect

Created by an anonymous user, I assume as a prank. Obviously, placing this template on an article does nothing at all. — Asbestos | Talk 01:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Quickly, if not speedily. -- Ec5618 10:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It is no more daft than some of the other templates we have. But of course, it should be deleted. Pcb21| Pete 11:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think that it is a prank. I think that it is just one more well-meaning person creating yet another cleanup/warning template that is nothing more than m:Instruction creep. I hadn't looked at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup in quite awhile, and just recently noticed that there are several new templates on that page that I also think fit into the same instruction creep category. My personal opinion that most could be replaced with a {{cleanup-because}} template. On the other hand, without an active Template WikiProject similar to the Stub-sorting WikiProject, the folks here at TFD will just be doing more reactive mop duty. BlankVerse ∅ 17:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Duplicates the function of the "Edit this page" link. — Xiong 熊 talk * 17:06, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Speedy Delete If an article contains incorrect data, change it! Simple as that! If you think it contains incorrect information, put it up for peer review! You don't need to put in a message saying it's wrong. The writer of this template, it seems to me, didn't want to go to the trouble of editing Wikipedia. --JB Adder | Talk 02:54, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:AmE and Template:BrE

"This page is in American English" and "This page is in British English". Not in use, and both kinds of English are acceptable by the Manual of Style so I fail to see the point. R adiant _* 10:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Bit of a toss up, really... either delete or create Templates: IrishE, SAfricanE, AussieE, NZE, CanadE, and GibberishE. Eeeny, meeny... oh just delete it. Grutness...wha? 10:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It is tempting to try to set in stone the English usage that is used for a particular article, if only to try to prevent the edit wars that can occasionally flair up over the issue. On the other hand, I think that there are already enough guidelines on English usage in the Wikipedia:Manual of style, so this is only an issue with problem editors who will ignore these templates anyway. BlankVerse ∅ 12:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If it's not deleted, please revert to this version which makes it clear the template is only proposed. Angela . 13:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Grutness. Jacob 17:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox CVG/monitor

Optional line Not used. The creator decided to merge the arcade template infobox and the Computer and video games infobox, however, there was no support for it so it was abandoned. K1Bond007 04:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I am the creator, and since the optional lines for the arcade infobox will be separate, these are no longer needed. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox CVG/cabinet

Optional line Not used. The creator decided to merge the arcade template infobox and the Computer and video games infobox, however, there was no support for it so it was abandoned. K1Bond007 04:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I am the creator, and since the optional lines for the arcade infobox will be separate, these are no longer needed. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox CVG/arcade system

Optional line Not used. The creator decided to merge the arcade template infobox and the Computer and video games infobox, however, there was no support for it so it was abandoned. K1Bond007 04:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I am the creator, and since the optional lines for the arcade infobox will be separate, these are no longer needed. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:stylehowto

I'm splitting up the style and how-to categories, per WP:CFD. Wikipedia:Style and How-to Directory is getting split up, too, and there are more comprehensive navigational templates in use to unify these pages. (For instance, Template:Style.) At the end of this process (which will take several days), this template will no longer be needed. -- Beland 02:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment Sounds like a good idea, if the template's really big. --JB Adder | Talk 03:00, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:LanguageDispute

"According to some people there is an inherent neutrality issue in the use of a particular language... This may itself have been challenged by other people who assert that the language choice does not affect the neutrality of the article and that therefore this warning should not apply" Er, what? Apart from the fact that this isn't in use and has been reworded to the point of meaninglessness, I fail to see what this template is trying to accomplish. R adiant _* 11:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Unused, ugly, verbose, poorly written, POV, etc. BlankVerse ∅ 12:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ouch. That hurts to read. Is this a template designed to make it easy to find Gdansk/Danzig pages? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. generalization of deleted Template:Hawaiian. --MarSch 14:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Bureaucruft. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unlike {{NPOV}}, {{TotallyDisputed}}, etc., a language dispute isn't so big of a problem that people need to be warned about it before they start reading. Additionally, AFAIK this problem isn't that common, so simply talking about it on the discussion page should be fine. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Acc

template to include a picture. Inappropriate template use. --MarSch 12:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It's useful, which is the point of templates. --SPUI (talk) 12:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - stomp out laziness. -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete. If there was a possibility that the handicapped image being used in the template might be changed or improved, I would say this template was worthwhile, but since that is not the case, delete. BlankVerse ∅ 16:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Inappropriate use of a template. What is wrong with just writing/copying "[[Image:Accessible.png]]"? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, these type of things make it very confusing when people try to edit articles, because they have to go back to the template or the main page to see what it actually does. This degree of laziness is too much- even by my standards ;) -Frazzydee|✍ 17:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Pnpov

Alternative {{pov}}. Don't know what pn is supposed to mean. Little used.--MarSch 12:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete - yet another "miniature" version of a template. So many of these have been deleted recently. -- Netoholic @ 16:06, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete & sigh...do we have to do this again? -Frazzydee|✍ 18:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Amazing how many templates are around because some people are just too lazy to do anything about it (this is the second so far I've encountered). --JB Adder | Talk 02:59, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Otheruses custom

Duplicate of {{Otheruses2}} that nobody uses. Joe D (t) 15:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete. --MarSch 15:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Trödel|talk 02:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant template. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to the mentioned template. violet/riga (t) 19:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:No negative headings

I don't know why this was a template in the first place; the content has been merged into Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- Beland 13:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unused --MarSch 14:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, you may not use it, but I do, and with the "Subst:". You can point people at a policy page till you turn blue, quickly summarizing and pointing to the page is much more effective. Hyacinth 22:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Do we need to subst this kind of message in the template namespace? Won't that work if you just make a user subpage?--Sketchee 22:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy. BlankVerse ∅ 14:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy- these kind of personal messages belong in the user namespace. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Question: What does "userfy" mean? Hyacinth 07:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- See #Examples of votes. --W(t) 07:37, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  - What does that mean? How is something a template if it is not in the template space? Hyacinth 02:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The template transclude syntax works for all namespaces not just the template namespace, so syntax like {{user:hyacinth/blarg}} treats the named page just like a template meaning any user can have "private" templates as subpages off their user page. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:36, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Headingstalk

I don't know why this was a template in the first place; the content has been merged into Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- Beland 13:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unused --MarSch 14:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy. I know that is template, and probably Template:No negative headings was being used as boilderplate text for adding comments to User Talk pages. It was probably always substituted, so that is the reason there are pages listed in "What links here". User:Hyacinth, who created this template is currently not as active on the Wikipedia, but I left a note on his User Talk page. BlankVerse ∅ 16:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. BlankVerse is correct. Hyacinth 22:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy then, as it seems not heavily in use other than by Hyacinth. R adiant _* 07:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Foo-wikify

This includes Template:Biology-wikify, Template:Geo-wikify, Template:History-wikify, Template:Music-wikify, Template:Office-wikify, Template:Org-wikify, Template:People-wikify, Template:Pol-wikify, Template:Pop-wikify, Template:Sports-wikify, and any other Foo-wikify template that I might have missed.

Template:Education-wikify has already been deleted and Template:Comp-wikify was supposed to be deleted but hasn't been. Let's get rid of all the other Foo-wikify templates as well. If someone from an active WikiProject will volunteer to actively support a matching topic wikify template, I will delete that template from this list. BlankVerse ∅ 06:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete-wikify. m:Instruction creep. BlankVerse ∅ 06:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unlike stub-expansion, 99% of wikification doesn't require knowledge of the subject. --W(t) 06:38, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Keep The categories that this template creates help people edit articles that need to me wikified. User:Shanedidona
Wouldn't it be usefull to have a wikify template for each stub template? Wikifying may require less or even no knowledge, but separate templates offer editors the choice of what kind of articles to wikify. I guess this is part of a bigger problem though. Basically I think the problem is that stub and wikify templates are not integrated with categories. I am reserving my judgement. --MarSch 13:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- "Wouldn't it be usefull to have a wikify template for each stub template?" No, because wikification can be done by pretty much any editor who's even slightly familiar with WP, whereas unstubbing requires definite knowledge of the subject at hand. There will likely never be as many articles marked with Template:Wikify as there are in any moderately populous stub category. Delete. -Sean Curtin 23:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  - Since wikifying implies actuially reading the article, I think it would be good to be able to choose articles that you find interesting. --MarSch 16:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I really don't see how subject-specific wikification templates would help anybody in any way. I've wikified many articles of varying length and content, and it would not have helped me improve it if I knew what the article was about beforehand. Unwikified articles do not imply that they are short/lacking. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You might have chosen different articles to wikify. --MarSch 14:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikifying is essentially making an article pretty, and I can do that regardless of its category. Joyous 19:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not completely useless, but not worthwhile enough to merit the many hours of work it would take to categorize all the deadend pages. - SimonP 21:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete wikify is sufficient Gbeeker 12:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Replace all with {{wikify}} and delete. Kelly Martin 14:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless specific Wikiprojects come forward with specific template requests. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 14:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, somebody's forgotten that cleanup templates are a means to an end, not an end in itself. Joe D (t) 16:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think this may not be such a bad idea. Articles need to be sorted into categories anyway. I'm not well versed in cleanup, but I imagine that there is a big cleanup-category with subcategories wikify, stub and such. If not maybe there should be. But each stub needs also to be in its subject's category cleanup-subcategory. These templates would make it possible to have wikify also in a specific cleanup-category and not only the general. Then people can decide for themselves whether they want to do some random cleanup or subject specific. We shouldn't be deleting these templates but instead actively get some projects interested. This might be part of a remedy to prevent people from going straight to vfd, because they've lost faith in the cleanup process and would at the least improve the efficiency of cleanup. --MarSch 16:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - unnecessary specialization and instruction creep. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep I agree with MarSch - we have other templates that have less use than these do. Trödel|talk 19:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Otheruses4

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

Comment: I don't think that they duplicate each other completely. As far as I can tell, {{dablink}} would be used for saying "This article is about XYZ, for the ABC, see [[This article]]". {{otheruses4}} would be used for saying something like "This article is about XYZ, for other uses, see [[This disambiguation page]]"

Since it's not an exact duplicate, and there might be reason for distinguishing between the two in the future (i.e. if something needs to be changed on one), I don't feel comfortable deleting this since there are no votes. This was restored from the "ready to delete" section. -Frazzydee|✍ 12:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete. Used on 1 article and badly named. --MarSch 14:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Frazzydee's keeping the discussion open, but I've moved it to the top to give it some more attention. Oh, and delete as redundant. R adiant _* 09:51, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
delete I could have sworn I voted delete on this one already. Trödel|talk 19:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Noaccess

This is unused and redundant with Template:Technical. -- Beland 06:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete--MarSch 13:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redundant. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to the mentioned template. violet/riga (t) 19:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Access

This is apparently unused and I'm not sure it's very nice for transclusion. Generic examples of suggested formats would belong on a WikiProject page instead, and this sort of thing should be proposed as part of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Mathematics. Also redundant with Template:Technical. -- Beland 06:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete. --MarSch 13:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If there are 'prerequisites' that you must have to understand an article, why not just link to them as they come along? Whoever doesn't know them will click on the links. It also don't see why there would be exactly 8 articles. Is that just an arbitrary number, or is there a reason? -Frazzydee|✍ 19:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:fne

"Formula needs explanation." Not a bad idea, but it seems to be unused. Perhaps this is because it is too specific. Template:Technical is more general and more popular. -- Beland 06:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete. unused. talk pages also offer a better chance of explaining what is unclear in a specific formula.--MarSch 11:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Concur with MarSch. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 12:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Saint Peter

Delete: This was redundant to the papal infobox and the page was too cluttered with its inclusion. Since Saint Peter was the only page on which it was used and I've removed it, it no longer fits the "templates should be used" rule (and I can't see it being used on any other pages.) MikeJ9919 19:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unused --MarSch 12:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Del Trödel|talk 19:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Presidents of the United States

Only created for transclusion of text, now unused. I excised a table from President of the United States and made it a template in order to transclude it back into President of the United States and also into List of Presidents of the United States. However, it was subsequently subst:ed into that list and edited further there. I have since learned that creating templates for the purpose of transcluding text is not a good idea, so the purpose of the present template has now vanished. --MarkSweep 00:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

deleete, unused --MarSch 12:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Del Trödel|talk 19:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Editnote

There's no need for a shortcut for this text:

<!-- Editors Note: {{{1}}} -->

— Dan | Talk 21:57, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, delete. Fredrik | talk 22:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - agreed Trödel|talk 22:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep Although it is saving just a few keystrokes - I see no compelling reason to delete it - the cost to the server is minimal and some find it useful. Trödel|talk 19:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's just a normal HTML tag; no need for a template. Bratsche^{talk random} 22:17, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Template talk:Editnote#Usage points out at present it creates an HTML comment; one use of templates is so the results can be changed. (SEWilco 01:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC))
Keep. The name "Editnote" clearly conveys what that section means to editors, many of whom may not be familiar with something as esoteric as html comment notation. Since the point is to provide clear instructions to editors (praticularly inexperienced ones) I feel that this template is useful. Also, I feel it is inappropriate to have someone go and subst its usages while this is still open. Dragons flight 22:39, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
- That about esoteric markup could be said of any part of the MediaWiki syntax. Consider a template like {{link|target=World War II|title=World War II}} for comparison. If it is important that people see the message, a piece of text saying "note to editors" or something can trivially be inserted manually in the comment (with no more typing required). Fredrik | talk 23:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Someplace I had mentioned that one reason for this template is to avoid difficulties with HTML-sensitive editors, which may hide an HTML comment. I had stated that someplace earlier but now can't find it; it was in an article where the HTML comment kept vanishing as if an editing tool was removing it. Thus subst is counterproductive as it forces HTML presentation. (SEWilco 01:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC))
Comment. This is a note to editors, whatever HTML it creates. This is a semantic label, not a shortcut. Template author: (SEWilco 01:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC))
-  is a semantic label that means "note to editors" already! Its purpose is not to specifically create a HTML comment in the HTML output from the parser. - Fredrik | talk 14:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete. Checked uses:
- in Apollo8: editnote|At that time it was called the Vertical Assembly Building}}-> should be put into the article
- in Earth: editnote | Don't bother putting "MOSTLY HARMLESS" or "HARMLESS" or any Hitchhiker's Guide reference in here. It's been done to death. Find a gem with which to improve the article and you'll shine forever.}} -> this is just a useless(?) comment
- in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: EditNote | The "human-induced" phrase has been challenged several times. It is in the IPCC "About" page and the IPCC Principles, and indeed in the quote just above. }} -> helpfull, but why not make it a comment?
- in Pwn: editnote| Vandalizing this page with "PWNED" is neither original nor helpful. Find something new to add and your changes will last longer.}} -> this is just a useless(?) comment
all in all I see no reason for this template at all. The claim about tools which strip out HTML-comments is moot. Fix the tools or find other; don't "fix" wikipedia. --MarSch 12:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It may be interesting to you to note that at least one vandal decided not to put "Mostly Harmless" on the Earth page after reading that note: [3]. Regardless though, the content of the editnotes is not really the issue in question. The issue is whether using "editnote" is a useful way of making/identifying comments. I feel that it is, though I suspect you disagree. Dragons flight 17:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- It is hardly surprising that a template intended for comments is being used for comments. (SEWilco 19:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  - I think the problem is that most people won't know how to do an edit note anyway, and thus it will have to be explained to them. Instead of explaining to use tl:editnote, one could as easily explain to use -->. So weak delete. R adiant _>|< 16:24, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Incidentally, when I edited Template_talk:Tfd#Usage just now I observed that there are editnote there which were not mentioned above — if it has been resolved whether to use {{tfd}} in the template or the template talk page, someone should properly document it there. (SEWilco 17:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))
Delete, a new editor clever enough to understand wiki markup will understand  if he sees it. If he doesn't know how to make a comment than he will end up findind the HTML tag, no need for a duplicate.--Nabla 00:13, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
Substitute and delete, if your browser can't handle HTML comments in text boxes, Get Firefox. And what kind of editor would find this template without having an understanding of HTML comments anyway? Alphax ^τεχ 04:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- well, for new users, actual words might mean more than "<!--". It's not just a matter of who uses it, but also who reads it. --Sigmund Lahn
Delete. -Sean Curtin 23:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I fail to see why this is any better than manually inserting the comments. If somebody doesn't understand comment tags, then they likely won't understand that template either. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:TimelineOfMuhammad

Single use on Muhammad. I just substed it in. --Dmcdevit 01:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete, singleuse template --MarSch 12:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this template probably won't be used elsewhere. -Frazzydee|✍ 13:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep; it probably won't be used elsewhere, but having it inside the article makes editing much harder. - Mustafaa 23:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Defunct NFL teams

Inappropriate use of a navigational template because all of the articles are currently listed alphabetically just like the list on Defunct NFL teams. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My reasons come from the following quote on Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Article series boxes: Alphabetical order is not preferable, as categories naturally arrange articles alphabetically, making a series box redundant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

this template is used and alphabetical ordering is no reason for considering it inappropriate. If you don't like it you should discuss it at the pages using it. --MarSch 12:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think we really need to discuss navigational templates in general regarding their appropriateness. Or has this been done already? --MarSch 12:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep there have been discussions on navigational templates but despite strong feelings on both sides there has been no real consensus that I can see. However, since people work hard on these navigation aids and categories are more appropriate (IMHO) for looser relationships (instead of a limited number of very close relationships like this group of dufunct teams), I find them acceptable when used appropriately - like the changed crowns template below. Trödel|talk 14:02, 8 Ju74n 2005 (UTC)
- I still say keep it but consolidate it along with Merging many of the defunct team pages together - especially those that moved location, etc. Trödel|talk 19:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I think the closest we have to policy regarding navigational templates is Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, which currently supports Zzyzx11's claim that this template is inappropriate. On the other hand, this particular style guideline is so widely violated (see Wikipedia:Navigational templates) that IMO it should be considered to be incorrect. I think we need to resolve this, and that this dicussion should occur at Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates (and, if agreement can be reached, changes subsequently made to WP:CLS). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
delete this particular template. All articles seem to be eternal stubs that should be merged with a live team. Lots of (near) duplicates, such as
I've dropped a hint that they should be merged at Talk:Indianapolis_Colts#merging_some_stubs. For some reason Baltimore colts doesn't exist, but Baltimore Colts redirects to Indianapolis colts. --MarSch 14:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are not the same franchise. The NFL considers the Colts franchise to start in 1953.

- Okay, I guess the example above was just a fluke, but I've not seen anything article-worthy, so I am still tempted to vfd them all. Unfortunately I don't think they'd survive that. They being vfd. --MarSch 14:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and replace with a category. The CLS guidelines are relatively new and the template system has not yet been adapted to conform to them - SimonP 15:36, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
What is wrong with this template I made it and it took a good amount of time to do it. I love how other people on wiki love to delete someone's workSmith03 16:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- By contributing to Wikipedia, you accept that consensus might disagree with you and accept that anybody might eventually make changes to you work. Circeus 18:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I understand people can come along and edit somethin but to put something up for deletion just because a handful of people think it not useful is I believe an abuse. I made this temp so people could jump from team to team without having to go back to a list of team all the time. You'll understand what I mean when someone decided something you worked on has no value and so just be deleted because they just don't see any value in it. So are you guys going to delete the templates for the current NFL teams or NHL or NBA or MLS or MLB Smith03!~

- - Except {{NFL}} sorts the teams by conference first, {{NBAteams}} sorts them by division, {{MLB}} sorts them by league, {{NHL}} includes articles about trophies and awards, and {{Major League Soccer}} also includes articles about regular seasons. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Templates should not be used when a cat will do the job just fine. Circeus 18:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

If you folks decided to delete the page than at least do me the courtesy of putting a link on each team page back to the list of defunt nfl teams so that people have a way to go between teams. I am not going to waste my time to do that because apperently I already wasted my time by trying to create something that somepeople may find usefulSmith03 23:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) cheers

Delete & convert to category, but maybe it would be helpful if the category also had them listed by year. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Otheruses5

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

Keep The other disambig templates just do not work well for proper names where the disambiguation is not because they have the same name. For example Jesus, Brazil For other uses, see Jesus (disambiguation just doesn't sound right. Trödel|talk 03:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Seeing as this one had hardly any discussion, and the votes are exactly tied, and the related Template:Otheruses4 was deleted, I am relisting this to get a consensus. Its lack of discussion is possibly because it never had a TFD template on it; I've added one now. R adiant _* 07:13, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Also Template:Otheruses4 has a tfd on its talkpage, but was probably never listed here. What I see also from otheruses3, otheruses2 and otheruses, there seems to be a trend of increasing generalization. But personally I think {{for}} is all we need. --MarSch 15:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Otheruses4 is in the holding cell, and I've now replaced all instances with {{dablink}} so it's ready to go. Joe D (t) 16:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Some of these templates are used to refer to a disambiguation page, others to refer to one alternate page with a similar title. Thus I see the need for two templates. One that says "For disambiguation of PAGENAME, see [[{{{1}}}]]", another that says "There is also an article called [[{{{1}}}]]" or something. --MarSch 15:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Oh, and #4 was listed here earlier. R adiant _* 11:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, wow, I didn't even realize there were so many other "Otheruses" templates, or in fact that they existed at all. These templates don't seem to perform the task of minimalizing effort, becuase the text used, is very minimal in its self. By the time I research which "Otheruses" template to use, I could have typed "For other uses; See: link." Other than keeping the text uniform in style, they're not as productive as other templates, and too many of them at that. <>Who ?¿? 05:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Not redundant. Basically, it does the job. —Cantus…☎ 03:17, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Caribbean

unused, --MarSch 12:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep - this is a more accurate name for the region; Template:West Indies is a superior template, but it incorrectly includes The Bahamas. (Hmm - maybe this is a Merge vote, if such a thing exists on TfD, or maybe it's a Delete this one and Move Template:West Indies to this space. Guettarda 22:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Delete (see below). Guettarda 16:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Guettarda, redundant templates are a bad thing. R adiant _>|< 10:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Guettarda, though I must point out that if the Bahamas are an exception, Bermuda (also on this template) is doubly so. Although often linked with both the West Indies and the Caribbean, it is in neither. Grutness...wha? 13:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps the Bermuda and Bahamas links could go into a See also: or Notable neighbours: line at the bottom of the template? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Actually I thin I totally messed things up. The Bahamas is in the WIndies, but not the Caribbean since they do not actually touch the Caribbean Sea. So Template:West Indies is actually more accurate. (Open mouth, insert foot). Guettarda 16:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Well, okay. When we figure out where these places are all actually located, we can reference the neighbours at the bottom of the template. :-) Consider my comment suitably amended. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Add Turks and Caicos Islands to the list of neighbours, too! Grutness...wha? 02:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Does the title background on the template look really dark to anyone else, or is there just something wrong with my browser settings? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- looks like light blue to me. Not dark at all...--MarSch 17:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Ah, found it. The template set the background color as bgcolor=#ccf. It works in some browsers but not others. I've changed it to bgcolor="#c0c0f0", which gives what (I think) is the pleasant lavender that everyone else sees...? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Good to know that doesn't work on some browsers and isn't standard, since I've seen it used before. Will replace it from now on if encountered. --MarSch 12:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Heavy metal music

unused --MarSch 11:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with above gren 23:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and move. Template:heavymetal serves the same function but is actually used. Template:heavymetal should be moved to Template:Heavy metal music, as it is a more descriptive title. - Omegatron 20:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to the other template. -Sean Curtin 23:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and propose rename of Template:heavymetal as per Omegatron. This is one gaudy template. <>Who ?¿? 08:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stolen

Unused. While I agree that there are too many images that are marked Fair use that shouldn't be, this template is not the answer. BlankVerse ∅ 17:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 17:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I agree. If a more free alternative should be used, then it's better to add the image to Wikipedia:image requests and raise the objection on the article's talk page. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Abstain until creator votes to keep, as per my policy proposal, which I find _very_ unlikely happening in this case. --MarSch 18:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User:· (talk · contribs), who did the only edit on this template, had a grand total of 134 edits according to Kate's tools, and left the building on 9 September 2004. I have left a message on their talk page, however, just in case. BlankVerse ∅ 10:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It turns out that the User was permablocked on 9 Sep 2004 for being a troll, so they will be unable to vote. (see Special:Ipblocklist). BlankVerse ∅ 16:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, offensive. R adiant _>|< 09:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, trolling. the wub (talk) 11:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it presumes to take for Wikipedia a rigid, black-and-white stance in the debate about what is and is not fair use. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as the template itself is objectionable and poorly worded. However, even trolls create good articles and templates sometimes, this is not one of them. <>Who ?¿? 08:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete simply rude! ℬastique▼^talk 02:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If you don't think something's fair use, mark it Template:unverified or as a copyvio. Don't just complain. Superm401 | Talk 03:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Move to Wikitravel

Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia project, and is not under the GFDL. Articles cannot be moved there without violating the GFDL. The template needs to be deleted as people are already confused about the subject and don't need any encouragement. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete- if people want to move pages to wikitravel, then they must first get the article dual-licensed by each contributor. But I suspect that most articles that would be candidates to be moved to wikitravel would also be valid articles here, so that's copying rather than moving. Besides, like Cyrius said, wikitravel isn't even a wikimedia project. This template does more harm than good. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I also thought that Wikitravel was a Wikimedia project (it looks very similar to Wikipedia). This template will unfortunately only add to the confusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Week keep if reworded. In principle it is a good idea, and an article's author can cut/paste it to Wikitravel, but the template should indicate the ramifications. R adiant _>|< 09:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Beside the fact that Wikitravel is not a sister project, they also use the non-compatible Creative Commons license instead of GFDL. The ONLY way that something could be cut-and-pasted from the Wikipedia to Wikitravel is if the article had only a single author who licensed the article under both licenses (see [4]). BlankVerse ∅ 16:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The related category is on CFD; I've asked people to not vote there but come here instead, to keep the discussion in one place. The remark below is copied from that CFD. R adiant _>|< 09:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the original author(s) could be asked to re-post the material on the other project. That would be legal, and somewhat useful. -- Beland 07:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unused, and should not be used. (And that background color should be banned from the Wikipedia!). FYI: User:Spencer195 (talk · contribs) in the edit summary, says that the template was created "in response to request". BlankVerse ∅ 10:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And that request can be found at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Maintenance. Uncle G 22:27, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  - Since this concern comes up every now and then and very few people are aware of when and why one can or cannot transwiki to WikiTravel, we need a place to explain it. This template could be a start, because it could redirect there so that if the unaware use it, they get shown what it's about. Radiant_>|< 10:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    - There was a bunch of info that Ram-Man created when he was doing his dual-licensing project. On the other hand, if you read the WikiTravel article on dual licensing, you will find out that unless you are the sole author, that is not a very good solution either. BlankVerse ∅ 13:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep - The only problem (other than the hideous background color) is that articles cannot be copy and pasted to Wikitravel en masse, due to licensing restrictions. There is a need for a way to designate an article as one that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but appropriate for Wikitravel, without misleading people into thinking that it is ok to do a simple copy and paste. --Bletch
Delete. Not usable because of licence issues. --MarSch 15:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Because of license compatibility no page is a candidate to move there. The only way any can is by getting people to dual-license, and that takes time, effort, luck, and begging. Superm401 | Talk 03:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Carfuel

The sole purpose of this template seems to have been to get around the Petrol (gasoline) naming debate. ~~Seems to have been maliciously created.~~ Assuming good faith. ℬastique▼^talk 19:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As you said, this template circumvents on ongoing debate/vote. It also violates Wikipedia policy by establishing separate American and British article versions. I was going to propose its deletion, but you beat me to it. —Lifeisunfair 19:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Substantial article content should not be found outside of article space. --Carnildo 20:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Facilitating forks for different points of view is strongly discouraged; facilitating forks for U.S./British wording borders on the silly. Good intent from the template creator, but ultimately not a good resolution. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We already have a policy for dealing with English dialect differences. Forking the article is not that policy. - Omegatron 20:52, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I have to admit to being enthused at first but after thinking about some of the unintended consequences I agree that this is not the way forward. hydnjo talk 21:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, inappropriate use of a template. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just plain silly. Then the article needs to be renamed to Gasoline (or Petrol... frankly I don't give a damn). Then people need to realize/realise that throwing a fit over which flavor/flavour of English to use is a sign of needing important things to be concerned with. --Bletch 00:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Bletch. I also strongly diagree with Ed Poor's method of trying to unilaterally force an end to the huge amount of bickering in the Petrol/Gasoline/Stuff you put in cars-autos-motor vehicles to make them go debate. If all the people involved in that debate would realize that redirects are cheap and then had spent the same amount of effort into improving the article, it would have achieved Featured article status in record time. BlankVerse ∅ 12:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We did find a lot of useful information in the process, though. We can expand our articles on English use around the world. :-) Fighting isn't completely useless... - Omegatron 13:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Kbdank71 20:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Discussion moved to

Unused. Unsubstituted. Unnecessary. BlankVerse ∅ 11:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 11:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, occasionally useful. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Needless. Superm401 | Talk 03:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

{{DirectionUndecided}} and redirect {{Undecided}} and also Template:DirectionUndecidedSection

Yet more dispute templates. Used on exactly one article, and one category. BlankVerse ∅ 10:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) And yet another rarely used dispute template. Used on exactly two articles. BlankVerse ∅ 12:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

merged, so some double votes present, please undouble your own votes --MarSch 16:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I am not undecided about deleting this template. BlankVerse ∅ 12:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, instruction creep. R adiant _>|< 12:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think it makes sense to maintain a fairly wide variety of templates for editing disputes. JYolkowski // talk 21:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that there are a few of the dispute templates that are well-used and useful, and they should be kept, and there are a bunch of others that are often ad hoc creations for limited purposes. All of those templates should be replaced with something similiar to the {{deletebecause}} template where an editor can add any commentary they want to handle any special circumstances. BlankVerse ∅ 12:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete this is a note for the editors, not for a reader. If there is a current discussion, then the parties involved should watch the page, and kindly ask editors to participate in the discussion via their talk page. I would really hate to pick up a book and see the authors left a blank page; "Still has not been decided." Also agree with BlankVerse, if gonna keep, revamp and make it uniform with parameters. <>Who ?¿? 08:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. m:Instruction creep BlankVerse ∅ 10:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, instruction creep. R adiant _>|< 12:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think it makes sense to maintain a wide range of editing dispute-related templates so that the right one for the situation is available. JYolkowski // talk 21:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)Striking this vote out since this discussion has been merged with the above. JYolkowski // talk 23:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I don't think it's a good idea to have hundreds of templates for each dispute. That's what the discussion page is for. Templates are really only needed when it's such a big problem that people need to know about it before they read further (NPOV, factual accuracy), or when the dispute is so large that people need to know before they edit the page. Let's not replace talk pages with templates. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- A template and talk page serve two different purposes, the talk page is where contributors can discuss. A template on an article indicates to users and readers the status of the article. FT2 03:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  - Agreed, but I don't think that we need templates for every possible status of an article. If there's a dispute about something, it's usually fine to just discuss it on the talk page and make the change when consensus has been reached. -Frazzydee|✍ 03:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Discourages people from editing. Before doing large edits you should check the talk page anyway, so this template is not useful. --MarSch 15:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep all three of them - Template:DirectionUndecidedSection is, for instance, pretty useful on republic presently. My view: rather promote the use of these now still "exotic" templates, they can be very useful to avoid or pacify hardened edit wars. In that case it is very good to have a template with ***exactly*** the terminology & approach that is most pacifying. When you're in a discussion the idea that the template already was created in tempore non suspecto by some other wikipedian, who must have seen the use of it and took the effort to explain how it works best in wikipedia:templates (e.g. Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes), is far better than trying to construct something afresh in the heat of the discussion. "Uniformising" all to the about the same template is real creepy instruction creep. --Francis Schonken 21:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful for organization, and templates are cheap. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The direction of an article is never decided, and never should be. Superm401 | Talk 03:47, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:And

A template that takes seven characters to create six characters. {{and}} creates • (•). Only used on a single User subpage. BlankVerse ∅ 17:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 17:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete- useless. Don't replace unicode with templates. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Entirely illogical. —Lifeisunfair 02:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless (and wasteful) use of template functionality. Also non-intuitive template name. --TheParanoidOne 05:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

$\wedge$ Delete I wish I could at least hear the reasoning behind this one. I would have personally made a macro on my keyb. (sorry had to see how much of a difference it was compared to a wiki asterisk.) <>Who ?¿? 09:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Now look what a mess we've made of User:Ilya/AG ! Ashibaka (tock) 15:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aww, come on, you guys are so mean! Don't put the tfd notice if the template is so tiny! :P -Frazzydee|✍ 20:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I thought about that before I added the {{tfd}} template, but since User:Ilya seems to have "left the building", and the template was only used on one page, I decided to add the tfd template anyway. Beside, I wanted to see what a really FUBARed Wikipedia page would look like. ;-). I have no objections if you want to remove the tfd template, or move it to Template talk:And. BlankVerse ∅ 10:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Baleted! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 12:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template:esolangs

Lists eight arbitrarily selected languages from Category:Esoteric programming languages. That's pretty much redundant. R adiant _>|< 11:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, given there is a reasonable explanation for why these languages were chosen. I would assume that it's becausee they're the most popular/famous. If the chosen languages were picked at random, then this is a Keep & rewrite vote. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it is not given there is a reasonable explanation. It's just the individual opinion of one editor. R adiant _>|< 07:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Another quick point: templates are navigational aids, and this template should hopefully make it easier for people to go through the most notable esoteric programming languages rather than sifting through every single esoteric language ever invented. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. They are definitely not arbitrarily selected. Read the caption of the box: Notable esoteric programming languages. They are the canonical, best known and most popular languages. --ZeroOne 22:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds like a very arbitrary criterion. Who decides that these the best known and most popular languages? Why aren't l33t and HQ9+ on there, to give a random sample? Wikipedia has a strong precendent for deleting such things as List of best movies as they are inherently the POV of the author? R adiant _>|< 07:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I would rather have a link to a list of all the languages so I could find the ones I was interested in. There is no standard given for which are the most popular. As for a template, the Category:Esoteric programming languages is more than adequate as a navigational aid. <>Who ?¿? 08:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Created in good faith, but clearly POV. —Lifeisunfair 13:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, much more useful for navigation than a category, content seems to have reasonable consensus. Kappa 14:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Where did you get that idea? Only three editors have ever edited the templates, and one of those disagrees with the other two. That's no consensus. R adiant _>|< 09:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Inherently POV: the only entries you'll get agreement on are INTERCAL, the father of esoteric languages, and Malbolge, the most tortured language. I know I'd remove False and Shakespeare, the first for not being significantly more esoteric than APL, and the second for not being particularly well-known. --Carnildo 18:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

APL isn't technically an esoteric language since it was created for a purpose. gkhan 17:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete for reasons at WP:CLS#Article_series_boxes. POV. Category:Esoteric programming languages is perfectly adequate. Highlighting particularly notable esoteric languages can be done in the article Esoteric programming language. --Tabor 19:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for reasons already given. -Sean Curtin 02:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Car fuel, Template:Fuel_Name and Template:Fuel_name

Citing his disdain for "bickering," Ed Poor (the admin referred to in the deletion request below this one) recreated his Carfuel template at Template:Car fuel and deleted the aforementioned ongoing debate/vote (which I then restored). He also created the Fuel Name and Fuel name templates (the former containing "Gasoline" with an uppercase "G" and the latter containing "gasoline" with a lowercase "g"), and has encouraged users to change these to "Petrol" and "petrol" (respectively), on a whim, perhaps based upon whether the day is odd-numbered or even-numbered. Clearly, he is acting purely out of malice, as is evident in his repeated mockery of the dispute resolution process (including posting a phony request for arbitration against himself) —Lifeisunfair 02:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete all three, the first is inappropriate use of templates, and I don't see any point in the last two. Jeez, there oughta be a way for us to speedy this, I think we've established in previous cases that main article text doesn't belong in templates. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - but only after we settle where the fuel article should go: gasoline or petrol. I'm surprised that Li'r would attribute to malice my motivation to streamline this process. (Can't take yes for an answer? ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 10:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, by "streamline," you mean, "derail." You've done nothing but throw a monkey wrench into the works (openly mocking the dispute resolution process all the while), and you have the unmitigated audacity to claim good faith. You're proudly bragging that your actions allow users to switch back and forth between the American and British terms "whenever the mood strikes us," and we're supposed to believe that you wish to settle the Gasoline vs. Petrol debate? And what bearing does the final outcome have on your ludicrous templates? They're invalid, no matter what. As for my failure to "take yes for an answer," that's an inaccurate statement; I never wanted to "win" in this manner. Sure, you moved the article back to Gasoline, but at the expense of legitimate dispute resolution. As far as I'm concerned, that's no victory. The article should remain at Gasoline for the time being (which the voting thus far dictates), but the discussion (which you deleted, in flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy) should continue. And quite frankly, you should be stripped of the admin privileges that you're so eager to abuse. Your behavior isn't merely "poor" decision making, but outright trolling. —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lifeisunfair, please remember WP:NPA, WP:CIV and WP:FAITH. If you have an issue, discuss it in private with the user, or if that fails, request comments. R adiant _>|< 12:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

1. I'm commenting upon Ed Poor's "behavior," not Ed Poor himself. 2. Compared with both Ed Poor's rude remarks and the thoughts that are running through my mind, I'm being remarkably civil. 3. I did assume good faith, until Ed Poor began openly mocking the dispute resolution process and bragging about his sabotage. 4. I'm replying to Ed Poor's remarks, but I will take your advice regarding a request for comments. Thank you for your reply. —Lifeisunfair 12:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete all three. The inappropriateness of using Template namespace for transcluding large chunks of article is mostly TFD and VFD tradition, and not any sort of guideline or policy, although I think that it should be very strong guideline. BlankVerse ∅ 12:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Template namespace clearly states that "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace". R adiant _>|< 12:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor's reply from his talk page: "I read Wikipedia:Template_namespace as far as provide cross-language portability of texts which are largely internationally the same, but contain some standard terms different in each language and then stopped. Have I missed something? The policy page you directed me to seems to recommend the very approach you object to."

That's how seriously he takes this matter (and by extension, this community and it members). —Lifeisunfair 18:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Inappropriate. We were actually getting close to a consensus before this... - Omegatron 13:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, never use transclusion for article prose. -- Netoholic @ 15:46, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
Delete. --Kbdank71 20:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete ~~~~ 19:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pour Petrol on top, light with a match, then Delete ℬastique▼^talk 03:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Createdby

A very, very unWiki template. Also unused. I was tempted to to try to speedy delete it, but I am nominating it here instead. BlankVerse ∅ 15:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete BlankVerse ∅ 15:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant. Creation details are available via page history. Also, signing of a piece of work implies ownership. No one person has ownership of a WP article. --TheParanoidOne 15:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete BlankVerse said it. smoddy 17:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, signing articles is against policy, hence: this template isn't needed. Inform creator. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Superm401 | Talk 03:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No useful or legitimate use. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 13:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete for above reasons. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete This shouldn't be on here. It also sends a false message to newbies that you should sign your name in the article. And yes, please just look at the page history. --michael180 14:38, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've speedied it. -Lommer | ^talk 23:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Npov/perpetual

A variation on the {{NPOV}} template. Unfortunately, most articles that get the NPOV tag seem to keep it forever, but this template is not the solution for that problem. BlankVerse ∅ 05:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 05:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant. —Lifeisunfair 12:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Itp

This template has been around for almost a year and it appears to have never been used. It also violates self-references. BlankVerse ∅ 13:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 13:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no longer needed.--Patrick 14:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

note: Patrick is the creator of Template:Itp BlankVerse ∅

Template:It icon

Another unused template of more recent vintage. Uses this image: to symbolize a link to an Italian language website. The template was originally used on the French Wikipedia. On the English-language Wikipedia there are going to be a large percentage of the readers who won't make the connection between it=Italian, so it will be much better to explicitly state that the link is in Italian. BlankVerse ∅ 13:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 13:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but move the template to a different name and replace the current icon with one that's less ambiguous to readers of the English language.

I recommend the Italian flag:

—Lifeisunfair 14:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many of the same people who won't associate "it" with Italy will probably not recognize the Italian tricolor either (a large percentage of the world away from Europe). It's better just to say something like "this link is in Italian". BlankVerse ∅ 15:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't advocate displaying a flag in lieu of such a statement, but I believe that it would be a logical supplement. —Lifeisunfair 16:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not actually in use, delete. R adiant _>|< 15:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
delete.unused --MarSch 16:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As stated, saying it outright is better. Superm401 | Talk 03:38, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if I see an external link with that symbol, I'd have to first click the link to realize that the symbol means "this link is in italian". It would be much more effective if links just had (Italian) next to it. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:AidsNPOV

No idea what the purpose of this template is, but an AIDS denialist is using it on AIDS-related pages. Completely redundant with Template:POV. Rhobite 16:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Rhobite 18:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The point is that the talk page link points directly to Talk:AIDS/NPOV dispute. --Cryptic (talk) 16:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I missed that. I don't think that linking to a specific talk page is justification for an entirely new template. Rhobite 18:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
As per the comment, this version is needed for the current discussion occuring on a subpage instead of the talk page. It should be Subst:'d and then deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 18:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redundant. subst & delete. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
redundant. Delete -Irpen 02:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Subst and delete. The template is redundant and poorly named. (AIDS is an acronym.)
Delete. Not needed. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 12:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Needlessly specific. Superm401 | Talk 03:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Googletest

Extremely blatant template that was spammed all over VFD and that reads 'this articles should be googletested'. It completely destroys legibility of VFD, and googletest isn't an accepted standard anyway. I've temporarily blanked the template to make VFD more legible, you can view its likeness on its talk page. Delete. R adiant _>|< 16:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete This template should be ambushed at the pass. BlankVerse ∅ 16:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I despair at the sight of the dreaded Google test. The last thing we need is an official-looking template encouraging everyone to use it. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Kill Google! smoddy 17:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete cluttering up VfD page. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Google tests are useful in many situations, but using it as sole reasoning for a VfD vote is not a good thing, and using an official-looking template to perform it is even worse. It's been subst:ed in, so if you want to remove the boxes, it'll have to be done manually. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 17:58, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Painfully counterproductive! —Lifeisunfair 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ASAP --Tabor 19:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite?. That template needs to go away, but I am wondering if there might be constructive uses for a template embodying the google test concept, since some people will inevitable continue to use the test regardless of whether it is generally accepted. I would suggest something like:
[[Wikipedia:Google test|Google test]]: A search on ''{{{query}}}'' produces {{{number}}} results [http://www.google.com?q={{{query}}}].

Dragons flight 19:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite to something less voluminous. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete googol times. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete'. Manual google tests can always be done. This is just a waste of space. Furthermore, I think people do enough google tests without encouragement. What the web contains is just as arbitrary as what Wikipedia has, and has nothing to do with what a good encyclopeid should contain. Superm401 | Talk 03:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Manual google tests are better than automated ones anyway, since simply googling the article's name is rarely a reliable way of using an already only vaguely reliable test. Most more effective google tests use a combination of words from the article - something unlikely to be automatable. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Crank

Probably speedy delete candidate, but I am still listing it here. BlankVerse ∅ 15:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 15:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I agree, not a speedy. But personal attacks, unwiki, self-referential. What more do you want? smoddy 17:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Personal attacks? Noting that a certain idea is generally rejected hardly constitutes a "personal attack" as such. Certainly, proponents of such an idea may be offended by stating that, but it's true nonetheless--and important. As for as "unwiki" and "self-referential", well, what the hell are you talking about? Kurt Weber 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep What's wrong with it? If a certain topic discussed in WP is at odds with what is generally held to be true by the vast majority of experts in its particular field, it should be marked as such. Kurt Weber 18:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If it is such, then it should either be explained in the text or listed for deletion, circumstances depending. In short, we should be able to tell what this template says, without the template itself. smoddy 18:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - "If it is such, then it should either be explained in the text"--yes, and that's what the template does--explain up front that the idea isn't widely accepted. That it lacks widespread acceptance does not in and of itself make it unworthy for inclusion. Kurt Weber 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - No, what this template does is effectively allow a fork of an article, with a disclaimer at the bottom. The "crankiness" of the article should be shown by writing, not by a generic boilerplate. It is wonderfully unobtrusive. So unobtrusive that you won't notice it. And no, I don't want you to make it big and orange. smoddy 21:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Will only lead to arguments and edit wars about its inclusion, rather than reaching NPOV/consensus form of article. --Tabor 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I fail to see how that constitutes a valid reason for deleting it.Kurt Weber 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if it's complete nonsense or rubbish, it should be deleted. No need to template tag such a thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- That a certain idea or proposition is a crank does not mean it is "complete nonsense or rubbish". It simply means that, as I stated above, it "is at odds with what is generally held to be true by the vast majority of experts in its particular field". There's a big difference. Kurt Weber 20:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is just an excuse for non-NPOV. The use of a template at the top lends an unnecessary official air. If a view is considered incorrect by experts, the article should explain that fact, and all details about it. For example, it should say when the perspective began to be viewed as invalid. It must mention any reasons this is thought to be true. It should mention any rebuttals to the claim it is flawed. It shouldn't just have a boilerplate notice that condemns the idea before the article begins. Superm401 | Talk 03:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unhelpful, and huge potential for edit-warring. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Copyrightproblem

Somebody apparently wanted to create the ultimate minimalist version of {{copyvio}}, including not having a category. Unused. BlankVerse ∅ 11:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 11:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, copyright violations should be marked with big screaming boxes, not meekly whispered about. --W(t) 11:57, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
Comment. The template creates "[[Internal Link]] from [External Link]". If I had to guess, it's not meant to be used on copyvio pages, but rather substed into their entries on WP:CP. Of course, I don't see how it actually saves any appreciable amount of effort.... --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If this thing is suppose to be used the write entries on WP:CP then Userfy this. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was doing a lot of copyvio work, and it did make it a bit easier for me, but not enough to matter, so (as, apparently, the only user) I don't care one way or another. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing some rather random checking of the Template namespace recently. Besides the Patent nonsense that can be speedy deleted, and the unused templates that can be TFD'd, I am finding quite a few templates that could be very useful for other editors if they had some documentation on their Talk page or elsewhere. If you are still using this template, I will change my delete vote. BlankVerse ∅ 11:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is there a place here for publicizing Possibly Useful Templates? Anyway, I've not been using it recently, but only because I've not been on new page patrol. (well, also because I forgot I had created it.) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The only one I know of is mine. If anyone knows of others, tell me. --cesarb 21:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The most suitable place for advertising a template would probably be the village pump. CesarB -- I find your list rather useful, and would like to ask if you would consider putting it in Wikispace along with Wikipedia:Template messages. Radiant_>|< 01:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - Besides adding a template to Wikipedia:Template messages and publicizing the template in those places where they would be found useful (WP:CP for this template), I think that most templates should get some sort of documentation of the template's uses and parameters on the template's Talk page, although probably less than 5% currently have any such documentation. BlankVerse ∅ 04:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Crap and associated Category:Crap

Unnecessarily confrontative and redundant with Template:cleanup-rewrite and/or Template:Attention. I've put a pointer on WP:CFD to discuss Category:Crap here. --Cryptic (talk) 10:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Warning: I have commented on a number of the keep votes. User:Thodin has proceeded to move my comments to other votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Confrontive, uncivil, not needed. Note also that User:Thodin has removed the {{cfd}} and {{tfd}} tags citing them to be "vandalism". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Keep Why...
- 1. Funny
- 2. You can't vfd everything.
- 3. It's specific that an article needs serious rewriting--not just needs attention, but needs it badly.
- 4. Sometimes a person will be the first to create a topic and that first creation will be bad. However, the topic must say but be completely rewritten.
- 5. Another wiki already uses it to useful effect: encyclopediadramatica.com
- 6. This tag is far articles with more serious problems than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_rewrite Articles tagged as crap are on the verge of being deleted because they are so bad and need immediate rewrites. This is opposed to the ones with the cleanup-rewrite tag that can sit in Wikipedia for eons without anyone rewriting them but while also escaping deletion. Basically those with cleanup-rewrite should not get this tag. This tag is for ones that are on the verge of deletion.
- 7. Too many articles get tagged as "nonsense" when they're not nonsense, they just are in desperate need of a rewrite.
- 8. Only things for speedy deletion have gotten this tag so far. Things tagged with cleanup-rewrite get kept and are not about to be speedied.
- 9. People like User:Cryptic who like to mark pages for deletion instead of reading discussion. Actions like his border on vandalism because he didn't read talk pages first.
- 10. This tag has helped reform many pages that have been about to be speedied, but once they rewrote it the pages were fine. LIST: General_Council_of_the_Valleys,
- 11. User Crptic has been going around spamming pages with delete links all day and night. See his contribs.

Thodin 10:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about Template:Cleanup-importance? Some editors including me use that tag. It is less confrontational than Template:Crap. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your definitions of "vandalism" and "spamming" are utterly bizarre, Thodin. And contrary to the belief implied by one of your edit summaries, one needn't be an admin to propose a template's deletion. —Lifeisunfair 11:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it's used on Encyclopædia Dramatica doesn't mean it works here. It works on æ because æ is a humor site. (And not a Wikimedia wiki, by the way.) WP is an encyclopedia, and "crap", in this sense, is unencyclopedic. Delete. I was rather amused to see it here, though. SwissCelt 13:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Redundant. Could be used in ways that break the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being the person who reformed General Council of the Valleys, I can assure you that the "this article is crap" had nothing to do with it; I found that page going through recent-changes (patrolling for articles to mark as speedy-delete, in fact). It's surplus; I've only noticed it on articles already tagged as speedy - and, for that matter, invariably ones which are about to be deleted. I can think of no niche this template fills that isn't already covered,so implementing it will lead to further confusion and splitting of effort. And, yeah, there's the stylistic aspects. "This article needs rewriting" is a hell of a lot more polite than "this article is crap", and conveys the same information. Please, delete this... Shimgray 12:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign!)

Delete. While we definitely need cleanup templates, calling articles "crap"; is not the way to go about it. Kelly Martin 11:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Calling articles crap is needlessly confrontational and breaks loads of civility guidelines. Also, we've already got cleanup-rewrite and attention, which should work just as fine. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This template is redundant, offensive and patently absurd. —Lifeisunfair 11:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Calling an article "nonsense" is more offensive than calling it crap. At least with "crap" you can say it's poorly written but the subject matter is good, but "nonsense" is also an insult to the subject matter. Calling articles "nonsense" happens constantly, whether or not the articles are nonsense at all. Hhamadraad 11:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User's second edit. The first was to create a userpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep Just too many people deleting pages instead of editing them Alapretes 12:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User's second edit. The first was to create a userpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep It was put up without any discussion. ArchmageGwidon 12:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User's second, third and fourth edits. The first was to create a userpage. Also removed my comments on the last two keep votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This IS the discussion. Superm401 | Talk 03:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Offensive. It does have a purpose, but this is not the way to make a point. -- Ec5618 12:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This template is crap, just like much of the parody wiki, encyclopediadramatica.com, that it came from (so I can see why it's used there). BlankVerse ∅ 12:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep The worst insult is for someone to mark something you wrote for deletion. I'd rather be called crap. MiddaSantaClaus 12:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Account was created 8 minutes before casting this vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, we have perfectly good cleanup tags that don't go out of their way to insult the content. --W(t) 12:28, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
Delete. Not needed; just list it for cleanup and the Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce will queue it. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 12:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Too redundant with above mentioned templates/categories. I would also try and keep the language cleaner on an encyclopedia. --michael180 13:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Gratuitously uncivil and insulting, although I agree "nonsense" is often used the same way. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Labelling an article "crap", whilst it may be true in some cases, is certainly not the kind of definition I'd expect to see on an article, let alone as a standard template on Wikipedia. --Dave2 14:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete with the same extreme prejudice as might lead someone to apply this to an article. --Phil | Talk 15:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary and confrontational. Rhobite 17:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete both template and category. --Kbdank71 18:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
SUPER DELETE - Offensive and redundant. Andros 1337 21:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Obvious delete - Omegatron 21:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - simply because of the use of sockpuppets. ℬastique▼^talk 03:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - redundant, needlessly vulgar, confrontational. Also, encourages complete rewrite when this is rarely necessary. Superm401 | Talk 03:35, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Comment - add to BJAODN regardless of the result. -- Kizor 11:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Do not BJAODN. POV template, and sockpuppet limit reached (apologies to RickK). --cesarb 00:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep because it honors me and my template-creating artistry. --Aussieintn 15:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Insulting and against Wikipedia spirit. Whoever did this deserves to read the rules until his eyes bleed. Sarg 15:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Joke, very redundant. --Mateusc 17:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant and offensive. Angela . 21:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Multispoiler

Another specialized spoiler template. Unecessary. BlankVerse ∅ 05:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 05:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Redundant. —Lifeisunfair 12:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. May be useful in articles about multiple fictional works. If not kept, at least make a redirect to Template:Spoiler. Or can templates be redirected at all? — JIP | Talk 19:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, templates can be redirected, and that would make sense in this case. Delete and/or redirect. R adiant _>|< 10:48, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete in favor of template:Spoiler-about which does a better job when this might be useful. DES 14:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep; let me explain... - If someone can find a handy alternative to this (which I do not believe "spoiler-about" to be), then delete it, but I really do believe that things like lists should hav a sort of all-points warning. [-Litefantastic]
- One of the usage examples of spoiler-about on this page shows it accepting a list of multiple works as its subject. Why do you not think that a handy alternative to this template? It seems like one to me, given proper usage instructions. DES 17:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete in favour of {{spoiler-other}}, which is much more specific. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
del --MarSch 12:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and hope the newer spoiler templates remain. -Splash 17:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Whedon-spoiler

We do not need a spoiler template for every single fictional universe. -Sean Curtin 02:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Why not? It's useful and affects a large number of pages. If someone wants to keep track of it and use it then I think it is worth having. Dragons flight 04:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is better to use a template which warns what is going to be spoiled. MosheZadka 09:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - useless overspecialization. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I do not see how it is significantly useful. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It serves the same exact purpose as Template:Spoiler. - Brian Kendig 04:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unecessary specialization; redundant with Template:Spoiler. BlankVerse ∅ 05:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for the reason cited. —Lifeisunfair 05:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, simple template:spoiler is enough. Evil Monkey∴Hello 10:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary specialization. A spoiler is a spoiler. Kelly Martin 11:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per the above. R adiant _>|< 11:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Presumably it is only used in the Whedonverse articles, so it should be obvious what is likely to be spoiled, yes? Redundant with the usual spoiler notice. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and find a way to add this to the speedy deletion guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 05:28, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
I still disagree with deleting this and would strongly object to any speedy criterion that might be applied to templates with distinctive elements (and referencing Buffy is distinctive whether or not you view it as useful) and is used on more than 60 pages. Dragons flight 05:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I am a huge Joss Whedon fan, but there's no need to collect spoilers specifically for Buffy, etc. Category:Buffyverse stubs makes sense, as Buffyverse fans can focus their editing efforts. Category:Whedonverse (grouping Buffy, Angel, and Firefly categories) might make sense, to collect the article sets. But why would anyone need to know which Whedonverse articles have spoilers? Are they going to review articles including these spoiler templates to do something? On the other hand, it's a shame to lose the cute image. ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 09:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The only articles where I can see this being used are where the reader will already know what would be spoiled, as TenOfAllTrades said above. --Dave2 12:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Too similar to Template:Spoilers --michael180 14:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Since a lot of people seem to disagree with me on this one, I want to clarify my position. I don't consider this redundant because it encompasses more than a simple spoiler by identifying the subject matter and providing navigational elements to related topics, e.g. Whedonverse, Buffy, Angel, etc. So I regard it as useful as both a spoiler and a micro navigational template. Nor do I consider it problematic to fork something like this since I can't imagine any way one could update {{spoiler}} where it would be problematic if related templates were not changed. After all, it's not like the spoiler template contains any behavior guidelines or instructions. All in all, I think it is fairly cute, at least minimally useful, and does no harm, so I support it. Dragons flight 14:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is not redundant with the "spoiler" tag. In response to Ten-Trades and Dave2 said, some people might not be aware -- there is interplay between the two shows and between the shows and the comic books that is not immediately obvious unless a person follows all three. In addition, by that logic, it should be immediately obvious that, if you're reading an article on any work you ought to know that it could contain "spoilers" -- it seems an obvious conclusion. And yet, we have spoiler warnings anyway. It is much more obvious that an article about a story has spoilers about that story than it is that it will have spoilers about other stories. The purpose of the Whedonverse spoiler tag is to ensure that people realize there are other spoilers therein. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 06:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. Upon reading Che Nuevara's explanation, it's become clear to me that this template serves a legitimate purpose, so I'm changing my vote. —Lifeisunfair 06:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Still unnecessary. If a more specific spoiler tag is needed, maybe having a "spoilerabout" that would have a blank to fill so it could be useful, but even then I'm not too sure. --Sketchee 07:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ~~agree with nominator. {{spoiler}} is enough.~~ -Frazzydee|✍ 15:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How is {{spoiler}} enough? It doesn't warn readers of the fact that the article contains spoilers for entities other than the titular subject. I didn't recognize this application until Che Nuevara explained it, but now I feel that this template's deletion would be a significant disservice to many fans. —Lifeisunfair 15:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that I look over it again, I see your point, but I still believe the template should be deleted. I think that this purpose would be better served by manually making a note of this. This template doesn't specify what exactly is being 'spoiled'. Note the wording, "some or all of the Whedonverse productions Buffy, Angel, Fray, etc...". If I have seen a couple whedonverse productions, but not all, how will I know if it will be a spoiler for me or not? On the other hand, if the spoiler template is subst'd in and the different productions that are spoiled are added in, it would be a much greater benefit to the reader. For example, the text might say "This article contains plot details or endings of the Whedonverse productions Buffy, Angel and Fray." This is much more specific, and isn't something that can be done with a template unless all articles contain spoilers for the same productions. I think that there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about the use of this template, and I was also guilty of being overly rash when voting delete. However, I'm standing by my original decision, albeit for completely different reasons. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, just realized that there actually is a template to do what I'm saying...in that case this template should be deleted and replaced with {{spoiler-other}}. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete unnecessary. Dunc|☺ 15:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I just noticed the following in the spoiler warning article: "If this general purpose template is not suitable for the particular article you are working on, feel free to custom-design your own warning, but please link back to this page." While not an official Wikipedia policy, this guideline has been in place since July 7, 2004. —Lifeisunfair 16:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In light of this, this template should perhaps be altered to link back to the general spoiler page. DES 16:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It already does. —Lifeisunfair 16:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep I also have been convinced by Che Nuevara's argument above. However a more generic "spoilerabout" template, asSketchee suggests, might be a more widely useful construct, and prevent the proliferation of specialized spoiler templates, or this template could then call "spoilerabout" with the parameter filled in. DES 16:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good idea, and I've created {{spoiler-other}}. Here's an example of its application. —Lifeisunfair 16:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that is useful. Good job. --W(t) 16:48, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Now that we have {{spoiler-other}} and {{spoiler-about}} this becomes redudndant, so I am changing my vote to Delete provided that both of those templates survive TfD. Also, if this template were modified to simply call spoiler-other or spoiler-about, I wouldn't object to it. DES 14:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, following a reasonable phase-out period (allowing appropriate replacement with {{spoiler-about}} and {{spoiler-other}}). Like DESiegel's vote, mine is contingent upon the non-deletion of the aforementioned templates. —Lifeisunfair 14:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - {{Spoiler}} and {{Spoiler-about}} are all we need. - Omegatron 18:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per Lifeisunfair. Shem^(talk) 18:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

del, argumentify (apparently has already been done) --MarSch 12:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and hope that the new ones survive their TfDs. -Splash 17:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:WiktionaryWord

This is an exact duplicate of the existing and widely used Template:wiktionarypar. I don't know why it was created. I've removed all references to it. Quuxplusone 01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it was created because there's no documentation pointing to Template:wiktionarypar? Fix the problem, not the solution!

Both are fixed now. --Quuxplusone 01:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Quuxplusone 01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No reason for duplicate. Superm401 | Talk 03:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Josh Parris ✉ 04:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete or perhaps redirect. I understand why someone might want to call this template WiktionaryWord. Does anyone know what the "par" in Wiktionarypar is meant to indicate? It's not really what I would have thought of when looking for a template like this. Dragons flight 04:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- parameter. I agree the nomenclature sucks somewhat but unfortunately this problem got lost in the noise over meta-templates. --Phil | Talk 14:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, don't make template forks. R adiant _>|< 12:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: redundant. --Phil | Talk 14:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redundant template fork.-Splash 16:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:(disambiguation)

This is a near-duplicate of the existing and widely used Template:disambig. I don't know why it was created. I've removed all references to it. Quuxplusone 01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This template is intended to be a near duplicate. It excludes the instruction to go and fix the linking article. Josh Parris ✉ 02:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And why should it? Superm401 | Talk 03:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

See fish and fish (disambiguation). Intentional linking to (disambiguation) pages does happen - such as Hex (Discworld) linking to bug (disambiguation). Josh Parris ✉ 04:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Quuxplusone 01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep It excludes the instruction to go and fix the linking article. It's intended to go on Topic (disambiguation) pages, where Topic includes a link to Topic (disambiguation). No-one's ever going to accidentally link to those pages. Josh Parris ✉ 01:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. →Raul654 01:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redundant, silly name. JYolkowski // talk 01:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unnecessary with Template:disambig. Superm401 | Talk 03:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, don't make template forks. R adiant _>|< 12:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Merge I like the picture and the wording of this. Why not merge it with Template:disambig. --michael180 14:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: see Template talk:disambig. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge Could this template be merged with Template:disambig so that there ais a paramete that controls whethr or not to include the request to fix links? Otherwis many people won't ralize tht both templates exist, adn mys use the wrong one. DES 21:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge The picture and text box make it more noticable. Tastywheat 09:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, yes, don't make template forks, but I like this one better than {{disambig}}. Phoenix2 03:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Rename: The distinction between wanted and unwanted disambiguation pages is important. Ideally, this should be clear from the template's name. Proposed name: "disambig_intentional". "Don't make template forks" is all very nice, but since templates don't allow default values (correct me if I'm wrong) we would have to add a parameter to several thousand existing implementations of Template:disambig. — Sebastian (talk) 03:49, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Delete. Template fork. I also think this one is better than {{disambig}} but that should be discussed elsewhere.--Nabla 04:28, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Question for all "Delete" or "Merge" voters: What exactly do you mean? (A) Change the remaining template so that it distinguishes between wanted and unwanted redirect pages - or (B) Do not distinguish between both cases. — Sebastian (talk) 06:48, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
- I'd go for (B). The instruction to fix it is harmless, and it's always possible that new errors will be introduced in the future. R adiant _>|< 11:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- (B). Keep whichever template name is more popular (currently being used more) and make it look like the smaller one with the picture. In any case I'd like to see that one be the new standard template for disambiguation. - Tastywheat 22:47, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

merge, one purpose, one template, but the new version is much better. The (A) case hardly deserves mention. Just comment a link that is supposed to point to a disambiguation page. Also it doesn't say you must change the link, only that you might want to fix it.--MarSch 12:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge the styling into the existing template, but if that's not really the question at hand, otherwise delete - existing template does just fine. -Splash 16:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I believe there is a slight difference which should be noted on eaches talk page. The one on vfd is best for specific places and topics while the other is best for less specific subjects, IMHO. I've seen both templates used however I won't object to a merge. Falphin 22:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Recycling

Half red-links, and at least one thing on it is a redirect to Recycling. First get your series of articles, then you can have your article series box. Snowspinner 15:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Encourages further development and no real harm. Dragons flight 16:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, erroneous argument for deletion. --SPUI (talk) 18:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Just because some of the links are red does not necessarily mean you should get rid of the entire template. You can just remove those links. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Categorify, this is not a good series box as it has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetical. R adiant _>|< 09:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and replace with a category. - SimonP 00:26, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Categorify as per Radiant%21. — Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Categorify since there is no "linear series" nature to the article other than alphabetical. Ironically, categorification is probably a good analogy for template recycling. -Splash 16:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Fuzzy actor

This template was meant to be a link to voices.fuzzy.com much like the IMDB template links to imdb.com. Fuzzy.com is a database of voice actor credits, but it's notoriously unreliable; anyone can submit new credits to be visible immediately, but no one can delete wrong information, and it's not maintained. As a result it's got (for example) six voice credits for George Bush. I don't trust the information in this database, and I don't think it should be linked from Wikipedia. - Brian Kendig 18:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. For all the reasons listed by Brian Kendig. BlankVerse ∅ 05:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I created it, was unware of the reliability. Still think we need a standarized template for voice actors, if voicechasers.com is anymore reliable, or any other db. <>Who ?¿? 03:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. For all the reasons listed by Brian Kendig --MarSch 12:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator's reasoning and creator's agreement. -Splash 16:59, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ditto the above. —Lifeisunfair 17:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Move-To-Memory-Alpha

It says that some articles "do not belong in the Wikipedia" and that their "proper location" is in another Wiki instead. Memory Alpha does not use the GFDL, so I don't believe articles can be moved to it. - Brian Kendig 19:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-GFDL wiki. Dragons flight 04:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. non-SisterProject. BlankVerse ∅ 05:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but use on talk pages. I like templates that that make people realize that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — mark ✎ 09:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 09:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, having seen a similar template on Gorn [5] (and promptly deleting it) it's hideous and distracting. Memory Alpha deserves no special attention. Cburnett 07:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-SisterProject. K1Bond007 07:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-SisterProject which is non-GFDL.-Splash 17:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Screw the GFDL. We need to get rid of Trekkie nonsense and I don't care how. — Chameleon 09:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Msh

An unused template for adding a non-existing category (Maps of South Holland) to an article. BlankVerse ∅ 05:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 05:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Serves no purpose. —Lifeisunfair 12:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Phoenix2 03:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Eric42TestPages

A user just "messing around". The template is only found one of the user's subpages. it should be subst:'d and then deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 11:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Subst: and then Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 11:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Subst & speedy delete. Test pages qualify. —Lifeisunfair 12:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy until we hear from Eric42 (talk · contribs). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Move the templates to his userspace, and delete the redirects. Notify the man that he can use his userpages as templates as much as he likes. — Sverdrup 23:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy.-Splash 17:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Hurricaneivanlatestadvisory

The name is self explanitory. It's an advisory from SAT SEP 11 2004. Presumably at one time the text was transcluded into an article on Hurricane Ivan, but a Wikipedia and Google site-search didn't find anything. User:Poccil who created the page quit editing in February. BlankVerse ∅ 11:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 11:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No longer useful. —Lifeisunfair 12:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per previous. --Feydey 13:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Guideline1

Fork of Template:Guideline. Maybe we should consider speedy'ing template forks. R adiant _>|< 09:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why are you proposing this for deletion, Radiant, and what do you mean by fork? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

What I meant is that it's a duplicate of an existing template. Creating two divergent templates for a single purpose is potentially confusing. R adiant _>|< 09:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

How could it be confusing? There are many templates with different versions. Who would it confuse, and what might they be confused by? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

It would be confusing to see guidelines classified with two different templates. It implies that there are different kinds, or levels, of guidelines, and doesn't clarify in any way where the distinction lies. R adiant _>|< 10:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

The only difference at the moment is that one is beige and the other is yellow, which I doubt will cause much confusion, and I've elsewhere explained to you that I'm going to reword the second one to improve the English, because the writing on the current template isn't very good. The important thing is to explain that the page is a guideline, not policy, and I won't be changing that core issue. Why on earth would the existence of this template matter to you so much that you nominate it for deletion within an hour of its creation? I'd be grateful if you would explain that, so I can understand what this is about. It's looking as though you've appointed yourself the template police. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Multiple forks of the same content are problematic if the content/purpose of the "original" changes and the forks are not updated appropriately. You then have the possibility of multiple "official" looking templates that give differing information on the same subject. --TheParanoidOne 10:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Template police" might be a bit hard, but TFD is quite deletionist with respect to template forking. See, for example, Whedon-spoiler below. It has distinctive content and is used on dozens of pages and yet this community wants to delete it. Dragons flight 10:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that "and I've elsewhere explained to you that I'm going to reword the second one" bit. The place to do that, and to discuss rewording the template, is Template talk:Guideline, or to do it on the template itself. It sure looks like an attempt to sneak in a notion that there are different levels of guidelines, rather than an attempt to improve the current template. There was, at the very least, a "distinct absence of the collaborative spirit" here. Gene Nygaard 00:38, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And keep, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Obviously, if the wording of the existing needs attention, that template should be edited. Another template with 'better' wording is rediculous. -- Ec5618 10:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy. As a developmental version it would do better (meaning avoid objections) by being placed in user space until SlimVirgin knows how she wants to change the templates in general use or how it will distinguish itself. Dragons flight 10:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy and calm down. One of the deletion criteria is "Templates should not be redundant". If the original template needs work, just work on it. Sarg 11:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
'Comment. I just want to note for the record that I'd only just created the thing, in order to see whether I could work out how to change the color without screwing up the first one. I went to make myself something to eat, and returned to see it nominated for deletion! And not a word to me, which signals a distinct absence of the collaborative spirit. That's all I'm going to say because this isn't worth expending energy on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Just an idea: Maybe we could agree on some convention to avoid such misunderstandings. Userfy probably isn't always an option as the change of namespace brings about some complications. Maybe just naming them "temporary_..." might help. — Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
del, tests belong in your userspace and that goes double for test forks --MarSch 12:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete since it was a test and the wording is verbatim. -Splash 17:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Note that while the actual template was deleted, it was moved to User:SlimVirgin/Guideline1, where it can be improved upon and eventually considered for becoming the offical guideline template. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Anarchism

Used on only one page. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:34, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Keep. Being used on only a single page is not a TFD criterion. With complex nav boxes it makes sense to used transclusion to avoid cluttering the edit space. Or perhaps you also want to remove all the factboxs associated with planets, such as {{Planet Infobox/Earth}} used on Earth. Dragons flight 06:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) Delete. Being used on a single page is still not a TFD criterion, but Radiant is correct that this is a fork apparently created by an aggressive edit warrior who has already had several POV page forks of Anarchism VfDed [6] [7] [8]. Based on the VfDs, I would support speedy. Dragons flight 07:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's a fork of Template:Anarchism sidebar. R adiant _>|< 07:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork template. By the way, it was me who asked for this template be put on TfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism (anti-state) and Anarchism (socialist). It was created together with the POV forks deleted on that VfD. And the only article this template is currently at is a suspected recreation of another deleted article (but I cannot find the original). --cesarb 11:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a duplicate. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
del fork --MarSch 13:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
STRONG DELETE for obvious reasons. --Tothebarricades 06:02, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Current-now-aniv & Template:Current-now

Added to two articles which deal with events taking place on June 19. Little apparent purpose.--Pharos 05:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete both. Can't these poorly worded, confusingly named messes be speedy deleted? BlankVerse ∅ 06:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I'd like to hear from the creator about his/her intentions, since these have only existed for 7 hours. How are you guys searching for these things that you are so frequently pulling in just created templates? Dragons flight 06:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, don't make template forks. As to Dragon's question - if they're used or linked to some place we frequent, we just happen to run into them. At least that's what I do. Radiant_>|< 07:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
That wouldn't seem to explain a case like {{Guideline1}} where my understanding was that it hadn't yet been used on any pages. Am I mistaken about that? Dragons flight 07:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- It was in Category:Wikipedia guidelines at a time when I was cleaning that up. R adiant _>|< 09:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
del fork of {{current}} --MarSch 13:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per MarSch.-Splash 17:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete {{current-now}} as a fork. Delete {{current-now-aniv}} because I don't feel that we need templates for aniversaries of events- that's what the intro is for. -Frazzydee|✍ 03:53, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:PD-IndiaGov

This is not true. See User talk:DuKot#India images and [9]. --SPUI (talk) 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Factually incorrect disclaimer. Dragons flight 22:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Concur with the above. Misleading. pamri 17:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) [10]
Delete. It is incorrect, and there is already a correct PD tag for India in place. David Newton 22:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Support and Template:Object and Template:Oppose

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 July 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 April 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This discussion was considered in an RfC on 2021 February 1

This cannot be a good idea. Voting on every other topic as a proxy for consensus is bad enough, without adding a liberal sprinkling of dinky "+" and "-" images all over the shop. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added a third critter. Are there any more? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about N, Y, Yes and No? They aren't the exact same thing and aren't in widespread use, but I bring them up because they are similar. This link is Broken 02:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good spot - if they were being used on voting pages, then yes; however, they seem to be being used in articles, which is another matter althogether (although query whether they are actully needed, and whether a simply "Yes" and "No" would do). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support, er..., Keep. Maybe it is dumb but this is becoming standard operating procedure on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates (see their voting instructions) after being imported from Commons:Featured picture candidates. TFD is not the place to be setting guidelines for this kind of user behavior. If you want to move to exclude tokens like this from voting, I would suggest bringing it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) instead. Dragons flight 22:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- It's useful on Commons because it's a multilingual project, and a picture is needed for those who don't speak English. That's not an issue here, and the instruction creep and new, extra layer of transclusion at FPC and RFA are significant drawbacks. --Cryptic (talk) 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm happy to have a discussion about whether this could be a problem (and I certainly admit the possiblity on technical grounds), but I do not believe it is an appropriate discussion to be having at TFD. Dragons flight 22:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hundreds of little images on every page with voting seems like an unnecessary draw on our resources. Hopefully nobody will contaminate VfD with this—the page will never load again. The representation that Feature Picture Candidates has "adopted" this change is a bit misleading—the change was made a few hours ago, and apparently unilaterally in the absence of Talk page discussion. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Fair point. Dragons flight 22:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - Aren't the bullets an image? Alphax ^τεχ 17:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Yep - see [11] for an example. But this is on the part of the browser, not the server. Duh. I'll shut up now and vote. Alphax ^τεχ 17:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep It really clearly demonstrates a consensus - it's much easier to see the most color in a section rather than the most "support"/"oppose" words (obviously in the final tally each one would have to be counted not just estimated by the color). Silversmith had a good idea in shortening the template to only {{s}} and {{o}}, which would make voting eaiser than ever before. --Fir0002 22:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete:
1. Further encourages places like VFD to degrade into simple polls. VFD, TFD, etc. should be places for discussion
2. To ensure fast load times and a clean page, there should not be images littered all over the page.
3. Unnecessary load. If we don't use images, as I suggested, then typing {{support}} is not that much faster than typing '''support'''...well at least not enough to justify having a template for it. Besides, it's much more logical to use the syntax for bolding. Note that '''Keep''' is shorter than {{support}}, but either way, saving a few characters to type something so simple is hardly worth making a seperate template for it.
4. If half the people use the template, but the other half doesn't, I can definitely see this leading to people accidentally scanning over the votes as they count the little +'s and -'s to judge consensus. Unless everybody uses these templates, it will lead to a lack of uniformity on voting pages. But that's a relatively tiny problem- if I liked the idea of this template, this would make little difference to my opinion.
5. There will have to be two seperate templates- one for use on places like VFD and one for use on RFA. While I suppose saying "support" on VFD could be interpreted as a delete vote, it's definitely ambiguous enough to cause some confusion. Another minor problem- I'm voting delete mainly because of the first three points I made. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — Dan | Talk 22:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I rather liked the templates initially, but sufficient reason has been stated to delete them. Phoenix2 22:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Detonate This link is Broken 22:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete them all. Voting is evil (what am I doing here?). Besides, what Frazzydee said. — mark ✎ 23:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Discussion at Village Pump. Given that this is primarily a question of user behavior vs. server load, I have posted this question to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Voting templates. In so doing I have asked that people refrain from voting on this issue to allow a more general discussion on whether voting templates represent unacceptable user behavior. TFD is after all not a setting for creating new policy governing how users should behave. Dragons flight 23:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- On the contrary, this is where template deletion discussions are held. Publicizing this discussion at the VP is all well and good, but it seems like you're trying to stifle/invalidate the discussion going on here with this request. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Please assume good faith. I do not believe that policy should ever be created on *fD pages as the very format stifles discussion. There is nothing in the charter of TFD that says we are empowered to decide how people delineate votes, when voting is necessary, but that is what is defacto happening here. Presumably this will be the discussion everyone points to with respect to future voting templates even if the template was kept in User space or used with subst:. Basically, I feel that process matters more than just having people be confronted with a vote and saying keep or delete. Maybe my opinions in this regard are unusual, but I try to convey them honestly (for example I provided a direct link from VP to here and placed a notice here so people could in principle join the generalized discussion that I hoped for). Sorry if my methods have offended you. Dragons flight 00:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - No offense taken, and please understand that I was assuming good faith – I didn't mean to imply anything, just to describe what I saw. I don't quite get your reference to "policy" – this is simply a discussion regarding a few templates. If you want to vote with images, just don't use a template to do it. As others have pointed out, this is a Bad Idea™ for many different reasons. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 01:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - The only way in which "the very format stifles discussion" is where people keep trying to turn the discussions into straight up/down support/oppose keep/delete votes using exactly such tools as these. Delete. Uncle G 08:39, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
Delete: Excess complication and load for the negligible improvement they bring. Joe D (t) 23:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, using templates for voting stifles discussion, which is the primary purpose of voting in the first place. JYolkowski // talk 23:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for the same reasons against the colorful boxes on VfD and other *fD places. --cesarb 23:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete for most of the reasons given above. Vegaswikian 23:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As cesarb says, there's precedent for eliminating the use of silly colored things in discussions (on VfD, at least). For these to be useful, everyone would have to use them, and I personally would not. Also, server load, transclusion, blah blah blah. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 00:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Draws on resources too much. -Lommer | ^talk 00:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Kill, kill, kill. Mark ¹ 00:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, really serves no purpose except to distract and use resources. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:06, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
Keep these templates. They are really useful, I love the way commons:Featured_picture_candidates looks. — Sverdrup 02:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Do you also like the fact that there's very little discussion at all on that page? Do you like the fact that several of the people who have adopted these templates have also taken to giving no rationales whatever? Uncle G 08:39, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  - Do you expect me to say I do? I think these are useful at featured pictures candidates, where they are just as silly as the boldface Support I see there (and I got used to do that, and now everyone does that). I can see why people object to these templates' specific uses but not their existence; there are so many places in Wikipedia where we can use this (effecively!) that we can't be sure to cover here. — Sverdrup 18:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. I quite like them, but if it is a strain on WP, and if pages will load much slower, or not at all, then delete. --Silversmith Hewwo 03:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even without the TFD template, those pictures make things look silly in a text-only browser such as Links. --Carnildo 03:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. WB 03:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Something we can do without. Enochlau 04:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What I can't understand is why the template has to be deleted just because some people don't want to use it. I never wanted to take over the voting process and establish the template as the absolute process for voting. If people want to use this style they should have the option. The loading time of the page will only be mariginally influenced, (the icon being less than 1 kb) and most browsers would cache this. Should we now have a limit on the number of photos which can be posted on the FPC page to save bandwidth? Or should we limit our comments to save bandwidth? NO.
  - Many people already are customising there votes by modifying their signature (see Merovingian, Denni, B. Ramerth, ✏ Sverdrup to name a few) and cramping someone's freedom of expression (IMO) is very unwiki. I can't see a problem of having an extra two templates if some people want to use them, its not like they take up gigabytes of Wiki's server. I intend to make them into the short {{s}} and {{o}} forms to really make them a time saver. And why shouldn't there be a time saver? To say that it will force people to be briefer in their comments is ridiculous. --Fir0002 06:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't just not want to use them- I don't want to see them. They're slightly less irritating than they would be if they blinked, but not much. Mark¹ 07:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - Well it's not like you vote on FPC anyway. --Fir0002 08:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        It is and I do. Mark ¹ 04:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        Even so, it is a bit selfish don't you think? --Fir0002 06:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    - None of those signatures are being customized with the use of templates (and neither is mine). AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 11:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - Why is a template a problem? --Fir0002 06:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
      - Your sig is ridiculously long -- it should be put in a template or be shortened (IMO). A template makes it easier and makes the wikitext easier to read; banning templates telling us to use long wikitext snippets to do it if we want is Premature optimization. — Sverdrup 15:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it doesn't confer benefits. Some of the points raised here are quite interesting... but it's a matter of aesthetics. It's ugly, and we all want to concentrate on the pictures being offered and the comments being made. But really, counting oppose and support words, when they're in bold, really isn't that hard - and also there's no neutral icon too. Enochlau 23:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There is actually, although I haven't brought it across from the commons because of all this argument erupted. --Fir0002 06:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Extreme delete. R adiant _>|< 07:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Will draw too much of the server's resources that will cause pages to load slower. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If that is the case than why is it being used on the much larger Commons FPC? --Fir0002 10:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Because Commons is used by people with different languages that may not overlap, so it makes sense to have a language-independent symbol. We don't need it on :en. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - It's ironic hearing arguments about them being an eyesore, when the biggest eyesore on WP is the signatures people customize. It is also annoying to anyone who only reads diffs, and has been complained about a lot. But lovers of their fancy signatures wouldn't be happy if their "freedom" to use them was taken away. Including myself. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Exactly. --Fir0002 12:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
      - Oh, I'd set up the software to take away the "fancy" sigs away too - a plain link to the user page and talk page should be enough for anyone: see: -- ALoan (Talk) 12:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - And in response to ALoan, English WP is the largest of all, and we have a lot of people read it and contribute to it whose english is very poor. So although it obviously isn't as necessary as on Commons, I don't think it's a valid point for deleting them. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        Hmm - if someone can't understand enough English to be able to use "support" and "object", do we really want them voting on FAC, FPC, VFD, etc? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        
        And you dont need a graphic to accomodate the different languages. A simple '+' or '-' would suffice. --Fir0002 12:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        Good idea. If it was simply a matter of {{subst:support}} being used to add '''+ Support''', I would not care at all (but why do it? it is more characters to type, FCOL). But adding in {{support}} with the dinky image is wrong on many counts. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        And another point - The commons is using this template to accomodate language barriers. Right? Well if someone who can't speak english can understand that the words "support" and "oppose" (used in the templates {{s}} and {{o}}) than they should be able to just write the word "support" or "oppose". --Fir0002 22:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose their use! I've looked at their use at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and elsewhere and find them thoroughly annoying. Furthermore, they distract from any comments that editors have made, which should be the more important point. They should all be Extreme deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 12:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well I find your customized siganture very, annoying, but I don't go complaining about it (upto now). Who are the editors and why should their vote be more important than a "common" wikipedian?? --Fir0002 10:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - I don't think Blankverse or any other wikipedian is insinuating they are better by having a custom signature, as anyone can do it in their preferences. It is also only html code that the browser has to render, and not a server bandwidth issue like hundreds of images on a discussion page. <>Who ?¿? 16:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Crush by elephant! (See, I can vote with pictures too) the wub "?/!" 13:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And why should't you be able to? --Fir0002 22:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I like the idea, but it can't work (for reasons stated above). violet/riga (t) 14:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Annoying. Let's keep the wiki simple. --Bernard Helmstetter 17:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- More resource hungry, more time to download a page. Sure, it's prettier, but that's hardly a positive when we're all so used to the masses of text here anyway and gotten along just fine until now. Everything just says no. - Longhair | Talk 17:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If bandwidth is such an issue, than why run such as nominating poll at all 365 days a year? The actual image thumbnails on every image that is being voting on, would be more than the combined download time of all the icons used to vote for it. --Fir0002 22:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Pretty but completely unnecessary. Maybe recommend people use colored votes if you want to make them more visible, but even this is not necessary. - Omegatron 18:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Only some people would use, so appearence is misleading as well as distracting. -R. S. Shaw 19:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- To reiterate, so are customized signatures. --Fir0002 22:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep although merge object and oppose. Two is enough. They are nice, and not obligatory. I always said that colors are an important tools help increase the 'processing speed' of reading (i.e. save our time) - for example, it is slightly faster to count green/red instead of reading 'object', 'support', 'comment', etc. The increase in page size or processign speed is insignificant in the era of such fast computer capabilities growth. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We could implement a recommendation or policy to make vote text in colors instead, as I showed above.

The increase in bandwidth and server resource use is highly significant with an image-containing template which would appear on many pages many times from a server run entirely from donations. Templates like this have caused all kinds of debate already because of their server load. - Omegatron 20:14, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- - I seem to remember that not too long ago Wiki ran a fund raiser to the amount of $20,000 for their servers. You can't tell me with that much to spend that wiki is being run a pair of 486's. --Fir0002 22:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - $75,000, as I recall, and it was raised well before the fundraiser concluded. Like so many other projects, however, the limiting factor on performance is not how much money you can throw at it, but how much developer time. --Cryptic (talk) 23:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - Surely not for server load, that would depend mainly on the equipment. --Fir0002 06:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
        Yes, for server load. Load depends on the equipment and the efficiency of the code. The code is bogged down by templates. Besides, these three are unnecessary and distracting. - Omegatron 17:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There are already more pressures than I like away from consensus building. We keep introducing elements that increase the appearance of democracy at the expense of consensus. These are way too reminiscent of marks on ballot papers. The various tallies are worrying enough. This is a step too far.—Theo (Talk) 19:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- So you are against democracy?--Fir0002 22:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Wikipedia is not a democracy. It works on building consensus, not raw vote-tallying. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 23:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
Delete -- Umm... I dont hate it. It looks cool and okei. But for the sake of server load this should be removed as it can simply be done with '''Oppose'''|'''Delete'''. Err..server load..? Yeah server load... users are encourged to substitue bable template (though i dont do it) to their user pages for the sake of reducing load! So I say delete -- Oblivious 21:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- People! can't you guys see that it is being used universally on the commons FPC? A much larger page, and as I mentioned further up the page - if people can understand the words "support" and "oppose" enought to be able to type in the write template, than they can just as easily type the words in so the templates do not play any part in overcoming the language barrier! Its there - as it should be here - because people want to express their vote in that style. Why oppress it? --Fir0002 22:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - 1) You have an odd definition of the word universally. 2) I don't care what they're/you're doing at Commons. 3) It's not oppression. If you really feel like it, and no one else cares, you can still use images in your comments. Just don't use this template. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - What do you mean and "odd" definition of the word 'universally'? Have you even had a look at the FPC on the Commons? Perhaps 1 in every 50 votes doesn't use the template (see this this and this to name a few.) And the Commons is part of the Wiki project - and if it works OK for them, it can certainly be used here without an ill effects. --Fir0002 06:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - At FPC I count about 10 people using it (infrequently), and quickly scanned about 30 that don't. Hardly "universally" accepted. violet/riga (t) 23:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - To be fair, there were only about nine hours - from 13:02 Jun 20 to 21:51 Jun 20 UTC - between the instructions on FPC changed to use {{Support/Oppose}} and the tfd template was applied. In that time frame, the only support or oppose votes I see on FPC that did not use the template is Guettarda's here (at 13:04) and Longhair's here (which another editor later changed to use the template). In contast, all of the other six editors voting during that window used the templates, and three more began even after the tfd notice started wreaking havoc with the formatting. --Cryptic (talk) 00:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Crush by llama! OK so they're cute, but, um, no. Commons:Featured picture candidates makes me shudder. Oh at first glance it's all pretty with clicky things and colours and drop-shadows and whatnot that would make the overfriendliness team at Microsoft.com proud, but there are hardly any *reasons* given for the votes! It's already bad enough that some people (here and there) give little to no reason with their vote, but being able to copy-n-paste such a tag will further encourage mindless voting. I doubt server drag would be much of an issue; however it is more troublesome for the end user. Now which is longer?

<a href="/wiki/Image:Symbol_support_vote.png" class="image" title=""><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/15px-Symbol_support_vote.png" alt="" longdesc="/wiki/Image:Symbol_support_vote.png" />
<li>

Yes, that's the basic HTML this page shoved me for each type. 222 characters instead of just 4. Multiply that over the course of a clogged SchoolWatch Vfd and it'll take forever to download (in comparison to the pure tagging) regardless of how good your connection is. I can see the reasons for using it, but I would never want to see an asthetic "improvement" made at the cost of supplying reasoning. We're Wikipedia, not Encarta, we value functionality over clicky things. Crush, I say! Crush! *does best impression of ticked-off llama sound* *fails miserably* bah, I knew I should have gone with the donkey instead... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- The commons is a different voting process - there they don't use the thumbnail discription or put in reasons for their opposal as a rule. As for the copy and paste - that is simply ridiculous! How can the text '''support''' be harder to copy than the text {{support}} ? So there is no "cost of supplying reason". It is just as easy for someone to leave a reason without the template as it is with the template. I fail to rationale behind that argument. --Fir0002 06:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -Sean Curtin 04:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Look at the above vote - no rationale and no template. --Fir0002 06:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - And there's nothing wrong with that! Why say again what loads of others have already said? violet/riga (t) 07:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - What?! Have you been reading what is being said at all? People are saying that if the templates are introduced than the voting process will have more of these no-reason-votes. --Fir0002 08:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
      - And what's wrong with that? violet/riga (t) 12:21, 22 Jun 2005 UTC)
      - The FPC page should have a certain amount of reason behind each vote. --Fir0002 22:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
        Fir0002 dude, Why dont you give up? I mean majority of people are saying Delete with reasons good enough to delete it. As a regular voter in FP you should know, better than anyone else, majority is taken into consideration in descision making. --Oblivious 13:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        There is no way I'm going to "just give up". The only have decent objection to this template is that of server load. And to tiny extra templates aren't likely to make much difference since such an overwhelming amount of people say that they hate them and will not use them. Although I can't see the justice behind comments like "they look ugly" coming from users who use ridiculous signature styles. I know there isn't a chance now that these templates will survive, but I just can't see why a user should be unable to use this simple, small template. I drew a case study from the FPC page on the Commons, showing that the page loads up as fast as the FPC on en.wikipedia, and there was no problems with server load. But people just conveniently ignored the point. People are saying that the template would discourage reasons behind votes, just because instead of typing '''support''' you will be typing {{Support}} and therefore it will somehow prevent you from typing anything after it. I mean where is the logic behind that!? I just can't believe they way this template is being treated. --Fir0002 22:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - All right: Delete for reasons already given by other voters. You might not agree with them, but the reasons that people are consistently giving for deletion are pretty obvious by now. -Sean Curtin 05:18, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Some faulty reasoning has been thrown around. For example, people should always provide a rationale and these templates shouldn't change anything about how they act. Also, this is a multilingual project just like the commons. The number of non-native English wikipedians is significant. Still, I don't see how these are useful for scanning unless everyone uses them. And unless subst: is used they will strain servers and using subst: doesn't exactly make voting any easier. It's a nice idea, but I don't think it would work. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- What would not work? These templates are being taken so seriously that everyone has to be against it or accept some kind of impending dominance of silly icons -- it's a wiki, people! Templates are used when people like it, because they think it's a good idea. I can't understand how anyone just wants to delete these templates, when what they want is really to frown upon their use in their favorite Wikipedia insitution. What if, for example, this template was kept alive, was sporadically used on all votings but only was left in heavy use in say, personal elections. (I don't know if we have any of those left in wiki-form.) The point here is that it's not sensible to ban this EnWiki-wide just because "it won't work". Have some faith in the free wiki. — Sverdrup 10:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support They make the page eaiser to read at a glance by looking at the colors. --michael180 14:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are enough knee-jerk voters already; why make it easier for them? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- How is it easier for them with a template? --Fir0002 22:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not needed here. Alphax ^τεχ 17:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedians can read fine without the server resources. Shem^(talk) 18:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, because they encourage people to take one side or the other without any consideration that they might want to be neutral or just want to add a comment. Angela . 20:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Angela's is an excellent point, I'd encourage other editors to note it. Shem^(talk) 20:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This point can be overcome with the addition of a "neutral" template. There already is an image Neutral Vote, so creating a tempate would be simple. --Fir0002 22:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - more overcomplication by people who think "votes" around here are actually votes. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep all. These are useful in many contexts. A deletion solely based on whether they are needed here is illogical. The decision about use for voting is a different issue – it must not be decided by a vote for or against a particular template. (I actually sympathize with Mel Etitis' and Angela's concern about sheep votes, but whether they actually aggravate the problem is questionable. The templates may even make it easier to spot (and fight, e.g. discount) such votes. I believe that making things intentionally hard often creates more problems than it solves. Such questions should be discussed in a different place, as Dragons flight said.) — Sebastian (talk) 02:32, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Delete, on wikipedia, even votes shouldn't be just about numbers. --W(t) 02:39, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
~~Why is this a reason against a template for a checkmark that can be used in hundreds of other places? — Sebastian (talk) 04:07, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)~~
It encourages scanning of the page for the majority opinion instead of reading the comments. If there's something other than voicing support or opposition to things on infrastructure pages you want to use the checkmark for it's still there as an image, in that case there's no need to have a boldface "support" attached to it. --W(t) 04:13, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Sorry, I just realized that this vote is not about the "Y" and "N" templates. — Sebastian (talk) 04:29, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Ooh, hadn't seen those, those are excellent, all for keeping those. --W(t) 04:32, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
How can you be against the support and oppose templates and be all for the y and n templates?! What's the difference? --Fir0002 06:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The support/oppose templates can only realisticly be used in voting. The y and n templates are wonderful for use in comparison tables and such. --W(t) 06:24, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Sorry, Fir0002, but I don't like them. I am also worried about server load, although I do not know the technical details about small redundant images and hundreds (thousands?) of template requests per page load. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. All we have to do is use subst to get rid of repeated template acquisitions, and as for the image server load argument, the servers are now able to handle up to 600KB images without any increased server load, no matter how many people access the image at once. Talk to user dammit on IRC, and stop rehashing old arguments. --brian0918 13:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you subst it it adds a pointless chunk of code. The other problem is that there seems to be no point in using it if most other people aren't. violet/riga (t) 17:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral - if it doesn't impose a load on the image servers. It has only recently been introduced as an idea on WP:FPC, and even then without discussion (but that's fine, boldness is a virtue). The template looks quite nice, but it doesn't seem particularly necessary. Only a few people are using it so far. Using 'subst:' would solve any transclusion issues, but it would obscure the Wikicode for each vote. Many new voters struggle to place their vote above the comment/section break at the bottom of the page, particularly if the previous vote has a convoluted signature. I'm just please that we have mostly gotten people into the habit of bolding their vote. -- Solipsist 14:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Sean Curtin. --Kbdank71 18:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Good luck to anyone who takes it on themselves to orphan that one. Phils 12:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I kind of like these templates as they make it easier to know which votes are support and which votes are not. I could see some negative aspects to them as well. So my vote is Neutral(as the image suggests). Falphin 15:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete <- Is a very clear indicator of one's vote. And agree with several above, the discussion is more important than the vote in many cases, as well as extreme server overload if they were in use; in this particular discussion, there would be 56 instances (+/- 1) of this template and graphic in use; for one discussion, that is quite a bit. <>Who?¿? 16:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Not really, as noone seems to want to use the template. It is only supposed to be an individual taste template not a everyone must use this template, although it can be used that way as I have mentioned several times earlier. --Fir0002 00:16, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  - You just proved our points, an individual taste template, belongs in user namespace, not main. <>Who?¿? 01:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - It should be as easy as possible to indulge in your taste, and doing it that way is far more complicated than need be. --Fir0002 03:00, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Support - I don't buy the server load arguments - if there are 100 instances of a single image, the browser should only request it once when the page is loaded, not 100 times. Firebug 08:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:BeingVandalized

Joke template, unfortunately not good enough for BJAODN. Delete. --cesarb 01:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary for its creation reads "(A little bit of silliness for the (too-serious) Wikipedia.)". Delete. R adiant _>|< 11:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just about as grotesque as it gets? Phils 13:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, joke template. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, though I disagree on the hilarity, so I copied it to BJAODN. --MikeJ9919 19:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since I doubt vandals would have the courtesy to use it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh no, I see a future of "tagged" pages now ;) Delete <>Who ?¿? 20:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above.-Splash 21:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ~~I've BJAODN'ed it already.~~ Oops, it had already gotten BJAODN'ed. Anyway, I removed the copy I added. You (Talk) 20:16, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, if such a thing is at all possible for a template. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:28, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Template:wikitravelbyname

Duplicate of Template:wikitravelpar (though the TFD'd is older) except wikitravelpar follows the format of the other templates of similar name: Template:wikisourcepar, Template:wiktionarypar, Template:wikiquotepar. Cburnett 16:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. (Comment: I don't think there's any debate. See talk pages.) --Quuxplusone 17:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep this one, as it follows the convention for a link to an external project. I'd support deleting template:wikitravel and template:wikitravelpar, as they are links to external sites masquerading as Wikimedia Foundation sister projects link boxes. Gentgeen 17:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hm, that's interesting, I was under the impression that WikiTravel was a sister project, but in fact it is not. In that case we should probably remove such things as the 'transwiki to wikitravel' process, et al. Also, keep per Gentgeen, and delete the other two. R adiant _>|< 19:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- The other two are now text links again, an anon had turned them into boxes early this morning. Joe D (t) 19:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - And wikitravelbyname has been removed from use in favor of wikitravelpar... Cburnett 20:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, delete. (Gentgeen's and Radiant's objections were to the former content of the template, but the reason it's listed here is because it's a duplicate of an existing, better-named template.)
- And I'm too lazy to find who made this vote. :) Cburnett 06:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
del historical fork --MarSch 13:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:notdeletebecause

Nonsense. --W(t) 23:24, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

That's the point. Besides, if you guys delete this template, would you mind copying the exact wording and pasting it in all spaces where the template currently appears? Thanks. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You can go ahead and do that using subst:, since the only other place this seems to appear is your userpage. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 00:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 00:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy & delete, or subst it depending on what the creator prefers. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as it degrades into nonsense. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Subst: and delete, and if Rickyrab wants it as a subpage, then also userfy it. BlankVerse ∅ 13:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Utter nonsense --michael180 14:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Heavy-handed failure to be funny. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
del unusable --MarSch 13:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Copied template content to BJAODN. - Sikon 13:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:BJAODN

Support: Articles are voted into BJAODN by vfd, not "candidates for BJAODN"You (Talk) 01:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, if a speedy is BJAODN-worthy, just add it in yourself. We don't need another layer of bureaucracy for this. BJAODN is informal enough to just let people put stuff in themselves. Besides, BJAODN shouldn't be seen as a place where articles are moved, it's more of an archive of deleted content. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep: This is merely another version of CSD similar to the {{nonsense}} tag. The "BJAODN" notice is a nonbinding recommendation to place it in BJAODN before speedily deleting.24.54.208.177 01:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As one of the people who handle CSD, the less templates adding to the category, the better. Only {{nonsense}} and {{deleteagain}} are useful as extra templates, since they are very common; the rest can get {{deletebecause}}. --cesarb 01:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Instruction creep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep per anon. Who says you need to act on it? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense. R adiant _>|< 10:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Extreme Delete. If the article meets the speedy delete criteria, but is funny enough to also copy to WP:BJAODN, then the person should go ahead and copy it, rather than being lazy and leaving the task to someone else. BlankVerse ∅ 13:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, BJAODN it yourself if you must. --W(t) 01:19, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC) (vote restored after I deleted it myself by accident) --W(t)
Delete: A good proportion of WP editors don't find BJAODN remotely funny or worthwhile and if tidying up CSD wouldn't bother moving it to BJAODN. If somebody finds BJAODN a worthwhile project it's up them to work on it. Joe D (t) 13:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN...I mean delete. -Sean Curtin 05:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete since BJAODN shouldn't exist anyway. It could also be used as an excuse for subverting the VfD process by sticking this on it partway through and making it look like a decision had already been reached.-Splash 23:41, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - no harm in sticking this and a speedy tag on at the same time (or putting this on an article that is clearly going down in vfd).-- BD2412 ^talk 22:38, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Template:TOCembed

This produces a horrible-looking TOC on the left-hand side of the page. All pages ought to follow the same format, but this ruins the look of about 4 articles. Dunc|☺ 16:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless somebody can come up with a better format. The left-floating box isn't nice. Joe D (t) 16:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Section convinces me that thsi is a good ides in some cases. When the TOC is long, the default format introduces a lot of undesireable whitespace. Short TOCs, Wide TODs and Long but not Wide TOCs should not be handled in the same way. DES 17:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What part of this long discussion page are you referring to? — Sebastian (talk) 17:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  - Sorry. I was refering specifically to the "Right floating TOC" section found here. DES 17:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, unless a viable alternative is offered. I used this template to diffuse an Anon user who was starting to crossover to a vandal. He raised the valid point that the brief intro to the article, followed by a lengthy ToC, pushed needed mention of criticisms "below the fold" of the front page. It ain't pretty, but it works.--ghost 17:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. The intelligent design article is quite a mess as I view it. Section 1 (ID in summary) is squeezed in a narrow right margin with a "Creationism" template sitting on top of it, making it impossible for me to read it.--Nabla 04:34, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Delete, pointless. R adiant _>|< 08:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, because it has its uses, though Template:TOCright is usually the preferred template for floating TOCs. Looking at intelligent design, I think it is not appropriate in that case simply because of the right floating box next to it. In previous discussion it has been suggested that TOCs only float when other boxes are not floating at the same place in the document. It also sounds like the conflict on that article has more to do with developing a good summary than TOC placement. —Mike (creator of both templates) 08:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I tried Template:TOCright, and it works well. Therefore, I remove my objections for deleteing Template:TOCembed. However, if this is done, please update the TOC instruction pages, as I never saw a reference to TOCright, and I looked.--ghost 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

del, file a feature request instead --MarSch 13:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Transwiki

This template is unused, since it is redundant with {{move to Wiktionary}}, {{move to Wikisource}}, etc. It was only used on a few old pages specifying other projects, so I've cleaned out the category (Category:Wikipedia articles to be transwikied) using the specific templates. This is unnecessary and creates more work. --Dmcdevit 21:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I should say the category should go along with it. --Dmcdevit 18:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
del, superseded --MarSch 13:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, what about articles that are in other languages. While it is rare it still could be used. Falphin 22:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Those use the {{notenglish}} tag, and go to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. They shouldn't use the Transwiki tag. --Dmcdevit 06:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - The Transwiki allows for articles to be sent to other languages when they don't have one. But overall it is beginning to seem like a useless template. I'll continue to consider my vote. Falphin 21:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There are other, "nonstandard" wikis associated with mediawiki. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What do you mean? They all have wiki-specific templates. There's no reason to use this, because anyone wishing to do transwikis would look in the specific category. --Dmcdevit 03:14, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, redundant. R adiant _>|< June 28, 2005 12:12 (UTC)

Template:Li-isotopes

Same as below. Made redundant, just missed it in the last list.--metta, The Sunborn 19:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done — Sverdrup 06:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I hope this doesn't mean there are isolotopes for all the other non-nobles still out there... Grutness...wha?

Several isotope templates

I created these templates for the isotopes and am the only one who ever edited them. They are now redundant with the new system being put in place for the same purpose. The list as follows:

--metta, The Sunborn 17:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

speedy delete -- Netoholic @ 18:46, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Speedy deleting. Good? - Omegatron 19:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Constantvandalisminprogress

(and the redirect Template:CVIP, and the associated Category:Vandalism in Progress) Pointless. If the page needs to be protected from vandalism there's template:vprotected; if the page isn't protected there's no point to placing a notice like this, since the vandals can vandalize it as easily as they vandalize the rest of the article. It is also needlessly self-referential: Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages already exists, hidden away from the average reader, to list pages that need careful watching for vandalism. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete since adequate provision exists as described above and this risks making martyrs of pages.-Splash 17:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Concur with above reasoning. — Davenbelle 08:30, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: There are numerous pages on the Wikipedia that are under regular low-grade vandalism and NPOV attacks. It may be only a few times/per day, and they are usually reverted fairly, so there is no need to put the page under protection, but perhaps this template, or something like it, is needed on those pages. Look at, for example, how often Wikipedia is vandalized, yet even on this highly Watchlisted page the vandalism may remain for up to ten minutes. BlankVerse ∅ 13:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The appropriate place for such a warning would be on the talk page, wouldn't it? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I think that it needs to be on the main page—both as a notice for the casual visitor to the Wikipedia that is not used to an encyclopedia that anyone, including vandals, can edit, and to show up on the more static mirror websites that may have the vandalized page for a much, much longer time that on the Wikipedia. BlankVerse ∅ 10:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - But wouldn't a vandal be likely to remove any such tag as part of the vandalism, thus meaning that precisely when the tag is needed it won't be seen? I understand the motive -- we wnat to want users that if they see somethign odd, it may be a vandal at work. But how do we really accomplish this. There isn't any way to have limited protection, so that a page is generally editable but a tag like tghis is protected, is there? DES 11:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: what if the page under constant attack from vandals is a talk page? Consider my talk page, which came under fire last week by a vandal: do we protect talk pages too? -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Also, "vandalists" are called "vandals". - Sikon 04:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Just leave a warning on the article's talk page and/or WP:VIP. -Sean Curtin 05:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
The template is usefull for automated detection of pages constantly vandalised. Removal of the template will be detected, alerting people. The coding process is ongoing and I created the template prematurely, in order to test the code. The template was not intended to and will not stop vandals, but will help us detect them. --81.215.35.133 30 June 2005 22:15 (UTC)

Therefore, I vote Keep. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 1 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. R adiant _>|< July 1, 2005 07:48 (UTC)

Template:Artportal

Redundant with {{portalpar}} which accepts one parameter and is thus much more versatile. Do we really want a separate portal template for each portal? --MarSch 11:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I doubt the creator or users, including myself, were aware of portalpar's existence. --sparkit (talk) 14:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- someone (maybe I) linked to it on portal talk, which they should have checked. --MarSch 14:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:swwiki

This template was usable when starwars.wikia.com was just opened, but by the moment every worthy SW-related Wikipedia article has already been copied to SWW, so the notice is no longer needed. - Sikon 13:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If a new star wars related article is created, would this template not be possibly useful on it? DES 15:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Question: The template is still on quite a few talk pages. Has the info from those articles been copied to the SW Wiki, and then someone forgot to remove the template, or what? BlankVerse ∅ 16:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
used keep --MarSch 16:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the nomintor's reason, but a list of things that a (non wikimedia) wants to copy should be kept on their wiki, not ours. Delete. --W(t) 16:59, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
Delete, I agree with Weyes that this template does nothing to help improve Wikipedia. - SimonP 18:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not a sisterproject. R adiant _>|< 21:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete template not needed in this project. -Splash 23:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Yes, it helps the Wookieepedia and not Wikipedia, but it is used nonetheless. The creator of the template, WhiteBoy, will have to explain his reasonings for actually creating the template. I guess its not as important now as it once was, and the Wookieepedia is up to 4000 articles now.
Delete, the star wars wikicity isn't a sister project. If they'd like to copy an article there, then by all means somebody involved with that wikicity can come on over and copy it, but I don't feel that this template is necessary. -Frazzydee|✍ 4 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Template:Merge2

Redundant with the various {{cleanup}} tags, and potentially confused with the various {{merge}} tags. Created in March 2004, but presently used in only one article. —Lifeisunfair 16:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete redundant. Also unclear what the template means: most articles are in 'separate' sections so this presumably means 'in seperate pages' which is handled ok by the existing merge tags. The one article it's used in doesn't even have a talk page which the template urges the use of. -Splash 17:46, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the wording is highly ambiguous. My initial interpretation was "separate pages" (due to the "merge" terminology), but I now think (though I'm far from certain) that it's suggesting that sections of a single page be merged, presumably referring to articles in which the sections are redundant and/or disorganized (making the template redundant with the various {{cleanup}} tags). —Lifeisunfair 18:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

del unclear template, thus unusable. --MarSch 16:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unclear. Authors, remember to document usage in the Template talk page. (SEWilco 3 July 2005 03:28 (UTC))
Keep- seems pretty clear to me. Unless I'm mistaken, it would be used on an article with too many sections. I've seen a few of those while browsing- I just didn't know about this tag. -Frazzydee|✍ 3 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)