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

For an index of all TfD archives, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.

April 6

Template:KND-stub

Not used by stub sorters. Not really used by anyone (only thyree articles, and nothing's been added to the associated category for a few days now). Unneccessary subcategory, and a dangerous precedent for having stub categories for every cult TV series going (or non-cult TV series, for that matter). Grutness|^hello? 04:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It's got a cuter icon than Angel-stub. Delete overspecific stub templates anyway. —Korath (Talk) 06:47, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• (comment) Angel-stub's likely to be going soon. Talk on WP:SS is of a completely understandable merger between that and Buffy-stub. Grutness|^hello?
• Delete. It would be different if some fan of KND had pumped the stub category full of characters, episodes, animators, tie-ins, etc. It is, however, just sitting there, a near empty container ... and it's unlikely to be mourned in its passing (unless someone refutes that here). Courtland 23:45, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Enshrine -- remove all instances; bronze creator and hang from rear view mirror. Move aside, bananna-stub! — Xiong (talk) 10:08, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Template:Dizy

Template that was only used for Dizy, Switzerland. Dizy has now been given real words instead of just a template, this template is unncessary. RickK 09:37, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Pointless. Delete and protect to prevent recreation. (See deletion log.) - Mike Rosoft 09:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Since a few such templates were already speedily deleted, I have also marked Template:Dizy and Template:Zofingen for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 23:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion has been successful. This item should be logged and removed. — Xiong (talk) 09:49, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Template:La Courde, Template:L 'Isle, Template:Chevilly, Template:Communes of Pays-d'Enhaut

Templates by a user who has been playing around in articles related to Switzerland for a few weeks, but doesn't seem to be able to grasp the Wikipedia style. By same IP user as Dizy, above. Noisy | Talk 14:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

...and Zofingen, below. They also created a totally unnecessary Grisons-geo-stub (now a redirect to Switzerland-geo-stub), and the Cantons of Andorra one that's further up this page. Consign them all to the pit of Hades... erm, that is, delete. Grutness|^hello? 02:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and caution user. — Xiong (talk) 09:53, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Since a few such templates were already speedily deleted, I see no reason not to do the same to these ones. - Mike Rosoft 09:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:0-9

A misguided attempt to add a navigation box to the top of 0 (number) through 9 (number). Since January 2 the template has just been a category link, but I just now got around to removing it from the 10 articles that used it.

• Delete. dbenbenn | talk 04:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I support deletion, but this template has been prematurely orphaned and blanked. Please move templates through the TfD process and do not act prematurely. Okay? — Xiong (talk) 09:47, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Delete, and I agree with Xiong

• Template is pending deletion due to block compressed revisions. RedWolf 05:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tastes

All six of the links on this template redirect to Basic taste, so it doesn't serve any purpose. It appears on only two pages: Basic taste (from which I already removed it, since it's especially pointless to have that page link to itself) and Taste bud, which already has appropriate links in the content of the article. —Caesura 20:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Summary after 2 weeks — unanimous support for deletion => move to Holding Cell to be orphaned then deleted

• Delete - serves no purpose. Fawcett5 20:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary; may confuse readers if it takes them in circles. TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- worse than useless! — Xiong (talk) 09:16, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Template:Cantons & Citys in Andorra

Messed up template repeatedly being inserted into the Andorra article by an anon, keeps messing up the formatting of the Andorra article. RickK 07:17, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Summary after 2 weeks — Unanimous support for Deletion => template is already an orphan in the main article space; move to Holding Cell for Deletion

• Delete. -- This template is an orphan, serves no clear purpose, points to several redlinks, and is malformed to boot. Delete soonest. — Xiong (talk) 09:22, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• As in case of the pointless Switzerland templates below, speedy delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:RuneScape-stub

Stub template, its single use has been removed, the stub category is unlikely to grow again and seems too specific anyway. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yup - another one that's been suggested for deletion at WP:WSS. Delete. Grutness|^hello? 23:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looking through the series of RuneScape articles, I see why the stub category might have been created, but I think the author(s) of those articles have opted to used in-article sections rather than a cloud of stubs, at least for the time being. I wouldn't be surprised to see this come back, but let's let it come back when someone(s) is in a position to use it. Courtland 23:51, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Delete -- and if tfd fails, boy, I have a mind to put up all the articles it references for vfd. This is a {{bh}}. — Xiong (talk) 10:11, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Template:Picneed

Content before redirecting to {{reqimage}}:

This article needs some picture(s), you can help Wikipedia by donating pictures to the article.

---

This misguided template was created in conjunction with Category:Articles that need pictures. Created by User:SamuraiClinton, a user who is creating a significant amount of cleanup work for other editors. We already have Wikipedia:Requested pictures, which makes this template/category combo redundant. Rhobite 02:36, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

see also related Template:Reqimg and Template:Noimgyet below

Summary after 3 weeks — not quite consensus though 2:1 in favor of Deletion

• 6 Delete: Uncle G; older!=wiser; Xiong; BlankVerse; Courtland; THOR
• 1 Keep: SamuraiClinton/GoofyGuy
• 2 Keep & Redirect: Netoholic; Louisisthebest_007

• Keep. I see nothing wrong with having 2 alternate templates for the same request. I also like this template too.
  • According to the History, the entry above ("Keep. I see nothing wrong...") was added by User:SamuraiClinton. Courtland 03:14, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• Entirely redundant, given {{reqimage}}. Delete. Uncle G 10:49, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

This template has been redirected to reqimg; so don't vote anymore. Problem has been solved. --GoofyGuy 23:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• That solved nothing. reqimg is as bad as picneed. It has something or other in it that is broken (the {{{1}}} doesn't do whatever it is supposed to do). The template as is is too chatty and self-refernential. If there is any appropriate use, it belongs on the talk page not cluttering up the article with meta-instructions to editors. Delete both. older≠wiser 02:33, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree; reqimg is unnecessary. I add tfd to that template and start new thread for its deletion. — Xiong (talk) 03:58, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
• Keep, and redirect to {{reqimage}}. . -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant and poorly named. BlankVerse ∅ 11:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think we need two templates that are, essentially, semantically identical. If they could be distinguished from one another as serving different functions ... for instance "need a person's picture" vs. "need a picture of a thing" (the latter a much easier thing to accomplish in public domain) ... then certainly keep both, but that would best be done with a renaming so the purpose is clear. Courtland 00:50, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
• Delete, wholly superflous. — THOR 16:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to reqimage - Louisisthebest_007 13:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 7

Template:Infobox VG extended and Template:Infobox VG end

These templates are not needed anymore. At one point they were meant to aid problems with Template:Infobox VG, however, the problems we had were resolved. K1Bond007 01:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I created the templates and they are no longer needed. Mrwojo 14:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Changed to speedy. When deleted, log and remove. — Xiong (talk) 10:31, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

• • • Speedy deleted, as per request. - Mailer Diablo 05:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:VfdB4

Has no place in the article namespace. See also Category:Past VfDs. --SPUI (talk) 23:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Conceivably useful for the talk page, but it'd break if the article ever moved. Better to paste it in by hand. The CamelCase name doesn't do wonders for its usability, either, and the category is just pointless. —Korath (Talk) 01:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Plus, of course, part of the closure process (for kept articles) is to add a link to the deletion discussion to the article's talk page. Delete. If administrators had wanted a template for the text that they add, they'd have made one long since. Uncle G 01:46, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Template:Phone-stub

Was never proposed on Wikiproject Stub Sorting, used by only one article. Goplat 05:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never proposed? We've never even heard of it! Get rid of the thing. Grutness|^hello? 11:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, replace with a more general stub. Concept unclear. — Xiong (talk) 10:23, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Template:Mehorses

Group of stubs converted to a single article at Horses_of_Middle_Earth per WP:FICT, so the template is no longer necessary. Radiant_* 08:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- obvious delete; trivial; also pseudo-category. — Xiong (talk) 10:12, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Template:UN table

A needless template – it is only used on one page where it could be a table. Extra server call not needed. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c) 17:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It is only used on United Nations and could easily be merged into that article. Zzyzx11 17:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Tablefy it (and then delete). BlankVerse ∅ 02:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Might as well be a table, at most. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete switch to table Fawcett5 06:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to a general template for international organisations, where this information is appropiate: UN, OSCE, OECD, Council of Europe, etc. Gerritholl 10:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete template, but salvage content into United Nations. — Xiong (talk) 09:40, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Note I have restored tfd tag. — Xiong (talk) 09:40, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

NOTE: The table in the template was copied to United Nations (not by me). RedWolf 04:59, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Noimgyet

Another creation of SamuraiClinton (talk · contribs) the creator of Template:picneed (listed above) Category:Past VfDs (up for deletion at WP:CFD) and Template:VfdB4 (listed above). As pointed out on Template talk:Noimgyet the fact that Template:picneed is on the way to being deleted should serve as a good sign that we don't want more such templates. Uncle G 00:27, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

• Delete. Not only is it redundant, it's ugly. --Vik Reykja ♬ 00:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; hideous. — Dan | Talk 01:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- and all similar templates calling for images on flagged pages. Uncle G, Vikrykja, Rdsmith4 -- all you guys, please vote on {{reqimage}}, too. — Xiong (talk) 03:53, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary, more bilge from SamuraiClinton. This guy seems to be batting for the record number of articles deleted on Vfd too. Fawcett5 06:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Another redundant image request template. reqimage is the ONLY template that Wikipedia needs - Louisisthebest_007 13:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Bh

Abuse of template namespace for a single user's comments. —Korath (Talk) 22:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

From the same user who brought you Template:Mockup and Template:01, no less. Not quite vandalism, but testing the waters - which I'd put down simply to it being 1/4 rather than deliberate maliciousness (I'm sure Xiong wouldn't do that). Delete all three. Grutness|^hello? 23:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Vandalism is a serious charge, to be neither made nor taken lightly; nor does a typo or snarky hedge excuse it. I have used this template in exactly 3 instances. I ask you either to show that any one of these uses was in bad faith, or to retract your unwarranted charge.

In passing, I'll say, as before, that there is a much more direct way of asking me to remove templates such as these -- just drop me a line on my Talk page. I really don't care whether they are in main Template space or not; the template mechanism permits any user to include any page, anywhere -- did you know?

Let me rephrase this clearly, then - hopefully in a way that you will not find "snarky". If the same set of templates had come up by some anonymous user, I would have believed it to be possible vandalism. It did not - the templates were created by someone whom I trust as a Wikipedian, and as such, I believe there was a genuine purpose behind their creation. Given that it was the first of April, and given that there seemed no genuine purpose for them, I put that down as the reason. I still do not think that the templates are worth keeping, and as such, they should be deleted. I am willing to be swayed, however, if good and valid reasons can be listed here. That - as I'm sure you are aware - is the usual way for dealing with unneccessary templates. I am sorry that my original wording was clumsy, and apologise for any offence caused. Grutness|^hello? 03:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I created and used the template before 1 Apr (and I rarely use numbers to represent months). I did not fully understand your comment. My apologies. Please don't ask me to defend the templates as such. You can see how I've used them, but I agree that I might have done the same things in other ways.

Please allow me to state my views on the process of TfD. I participate regularly here and vote for many deletions, but I do not generally do so in the face of opposition -- I vote to provide a clear consensus for removal of obviously unnecessary, malformed templates, whose presence disrupts the project. I have not tried to vote out templates over the reasoned objections of their creators or boosters; and I have certainly not used TfD as a vehicle for personal vendetta. I participate in TfD as a janitor, not as a warrior. We are best able to do our work by keeping out of controversial and confrontational deletions -- they can be handled otherwise.

Netoholic is dragging in the good with the bad, in a deliberately confrontational manner. He has gone beyond TfDing templates I created; he's started to RfM my articles and rv my edits. He is currently in arbitration and I don't believe he should be humored in his bad-faith nominations. He has tagged templates in such a way as to disrupt Talk pages on which they appear and reverted entirely sane moves of those tags to respective Talk pages. Note that Korath, who nominated {{bh}}, did not feel it necessary to be so disruptive.

Netoholic is disrupting the project to make a point. I don't care about the content, since nothing on WP is ever permanently lost; I do care about the damage to our social structure.

This is what I ask, on behalf of all my silly templates (01, bh, and mockup): Vote to hold them until the review period of 7 days expires. Show all users reading this page that our work here is on behalf of the project, and not in service to trends, fads, and vendetta. When the comment period has expired and, in accordance with process, the templates removed from the workflow, I'll be glad to serve any who perceive them to be a threat by orphaning them and putting them up for admin attention.

Okay? — Xiongtalk 10:12, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Well, I'm still at a loss as to the purpose of the templates, but I can see no need personally to speedy them, so I'm fine with the seven day holding period. I can also see little technical reason why the templates can't be stored in Xiong's user space for use via "subst:", unless doing so contravenes WP rules (although it might set a fairly poor precedent). As to the apology - that's fine, it was my fault for commenting when I was tired and grumpy. Truce? :) Grutness|^hello? 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(I wanted to read that as "tired and grunty".) Several of the people who welcome new members have custom welcome templates as subpages under their User page. I know that I've run into a few other examples as well, although I can think of any specific ones at the moment. BlankVerse ∅ 18:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Each one of those minor templates has a very minor purpose, which I shall not attempt to defend. I don't see they do much harm, but I agree they do little good, and I don't expect I'll bother to keep them in userspace. So long as the text is replaced on the Talk pages where used, history is preserved, and that is the only substantive issue.

You were grunty and I was crabby. Netoholic's nomination of {{divbox}} was such a blatant example of strangling the baby in the cradle. I lost my wa completely when he responded to my defense not with rebuttal, but with systematic nomination of everything he came across. I should admit that not Netoholic, but Korath, nominated {bh}, and I don't really perceive any bad faith, despite an inflammatory tone. Perhaps it was a case of jumping on the bandwagon, perhaps not.

In any case, I have no real beef with anyone except Netoholic, and I wouldn't have a beef -- a personal beef -- with him if he had none with me. He wrote an opinion and tried to get it accepted as policy; I disagreed loudly, and I was not the only one, but perhaps the newest and most visible. Most vulnerable? Well, he certainly provoked the reaction he desired, and I'm a fool to fall for it.

As a sign of good faith, I have orphaned, moved, and called speedy on {bh}. And I apologize for fuming at such length. — Xiongtalk 07:56, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

April 8

Template:Banana-stub

Carrying stub sorting to its illogical conclusion. Can't we speedy this one? Pretty please? Grutness|^hello? 00:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (speedy or otherwise). BlankVerse ∅ 03:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This template has been here since 15 March and nobody has used it (What a surprise.) I think it's also an excellent candidate for BJAODN. (I couldn't resist adding a picture of a banana to make it a more stylish stub notice.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring, Banana-stub! (delete) Goplat 03:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, of course. I managed to refrain from making a snarky comment earlier about it not even having a picture, and just what are they teaching the little trolls these days, but now the point is kind of moot. —Korath (Talk) 03:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just be glad they weren't thorough enough to create a category for banana stubs.--TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This stub-related template is nonsense. You can help Wikipedia by deleting it. dbenbenn | talk 04:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are many varieties of bananas. Those articles on bananas that are stubs deserve this template. Why bother? Gerritholl 10:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If there were articles that were using the stub (nothing but administrative pages are at "What links here") then you would be able to make a stronger case. If there are ~100 stub articles about banana varieties, foods where banana is the major ingredient, drugs administered via banana ingestion, etc. then a case could be made. There aren't about 100 banana varieties are there? Courtland 10:09, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's all a matter of editor interest. There could be a hundred-odd stub articles about banana-related topics; there exist this many (and probably more) banana topics in the real world, but bananas don't attract the same kind of fan base, as, say, the works of J.R.R. Tolkein.--Pharos 10:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if only to make me hungry when I'm editing late at night. — Dan | Talk 06:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Enshrine as exemplar of most superflous template -- stub poster child. Replace all instances of its use with a more general stub template. — Xiong (talk) 09:42, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly and not needed. RedWolf 05:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Template:01

Terrible use for a template. -- Netoholic @ 17:19, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

• Delete --Vik Reykja ♬ 17:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. That is terrible. Zzyzx11 18:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Hold -- This is becoming a personal vendetta. Netaholic is simply listing every template I ever created. Ordinarily, I'd say fine, I'll take it inside to my user space. But this template is used in now-archived debate. Elimination of the template amounts to Orwellian editing of history. I'm willing to (a) move the template to my user space and (b) replace every instance of its use with a subst: inclusion. But I don't feel we should be forced into doing this work due to a personal agenda. — Xiong (talk) 18:39, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks to me like someone's joking use of a template ... a tool for vandalism perhaps? Courtland 19:13, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Delete see also Template:Bh. Grutness|^hello? 23:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please note that my comment of 18:39, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) was "disappeared" -- how, I cannot say; but I've restored it. I object to any characterization of this template as a tool for vandalism -- that is just plain rude. As I wrote above, I'm happy to take it inside my user space, but there is nothing about the sentiment that ought to offend anyone. Please see where it has been used before imputing evil motives.

Let me make myself very clear: I agree that this template is trivial, probably unworthy even of remaining in my user space, let alone general template space. But this is not the way to handle this, nor does this have anything to do with the template itself. Any user, Netaholic included, might have suggested to me that I move this to my user space, and I'd have been happy to comply. To bring this up in this hostile manner is to retaliate for my comments on Netaholic's opinion piece.

Do you all wish to be cat's paws for Netaholic? Do you want TfD to become his, or anyone's, private battleground? Must we debate, take sides, and vote, regardless of need? Is there no longer any room in WP for direct, non-confrontational suggestions?

I ask you to vote this proposal down. I'll eliminate the offending template myself when I have the leisure to replace its every instance in Talk with verbatim text. This is not about a template; it is about one user's attempt to assume control of the template mechanism itself. Please hold your comment until you have read Netaholic's demands at Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, with attention to the objections raised by several users on the related Talk page -- and the manner in which Netaholic has tried to override the discussion. — Xiong (talk) 03:46, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

• Delete --minghong 08:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Hopeless JFW | T@lk 00:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this shouldn't be a template. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: Template was moved to User:Xiong/01, then deleted. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ie, Template:Eg

i.e.

e.g.

Quite useless. — Dan | Talk 06:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Quite. -- Netoholic @ 07:49, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not think they are useful. Zzyzx11 23:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Would lead to patronising overlinking. Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sucks

(view archival copy here)

While I acknowledge that articles with {{attention}}, let alone {{cleanup}}, don't get fixed as quickly as we'd like, there's got to be more productive ways of dealing with them than this. —Korath (Talk) 09:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Ugh! Delete it. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 10:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, of course (and it occupies exactly the same ecological niche than "attention"). Rama 10:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• "I'm sorry if I offend you. But I don't swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands." Delete anyway. — Davenbelle 11:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Very cute. I take it someone will put it on BJAODN before deleting it? Grutness|^hello? 11:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Check. J.K. 10:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Nuuuuu!!!!! It's too cute! Keep it, PLEASE!!!!! --Kitch 14:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, after moving to BJAODN --Vik Reykja ♬ 17:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and move to BJAODN. Redundant to {{attention}} and {{cleanup}}, and I seriously doubt this template will speed up the clean up of articles. Zzyzx11 22:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cute but ultimately unhelpful. Slac speak up! 01:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Compromise Put the picture of the Dyson on {{cleanup}}. --Kitch 12:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Check the template now Kitch, if that is what you wanted to see. Zscout370 15:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Unprofessional. Personally, it amuses me, and I think we need more humor around here -- but this is not the place for it. — Xiong (talk) 10:25, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Keep It's a cute version of {{cleanup}}
  • Unsigned vote, couldn't locate its creator
• Keep However unprofessional it may be, this template makes me laugh. AngryParsley 21:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Too unprofessional.
  • This vote by User:Dukot
• Delete, too close to a personal attack. Radiant_* 11:48, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• ROTFL, but delete JFW | T@lk 00:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this should be on a user namespace or something, no place in an encyclopedia...but I'm not saying it isn't funny, because it's hilarious ;-) -Frazzydee|✍ 03:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Marylandother

For other uses, see University of Maryland (disambiguation)

One line of text created for one article. Not necessary. --tomf688 (talk) 04:23, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Netoholic @ 04:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Delete --DuKot 21:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mockup

MOCKUP ONLY

See:Mockup

Poor use for a template. -- Netoholic @ 17:24, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

• Delete --Vik Reykja ♬ 17:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hold -- I could defend this template, but I'd rather meet this vendetta squarely, and call it for what it is. In practice, I'd be open to deletion of the template itself and the substantive page upon which it appears.

This is not the place to work out personal differences between users. — Xiong (talk) 18:46, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

• Delete — I've made mockups before and used the Talk page for them; I think the Talk-space is the right place for these and not the main article space. Courtland 19:10, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Delete see also Template:Bh. Grutness|^hello? 23:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:HP ref workaround, Template:HP linked workaround, Template:HP unlinked workaround

Workarounds for the old 5-template limit, no longer needed. Goplat 03:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Netoholic @ 04:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Template:Docimg

Template inserted image with a text link to image underneath, in the form Image:Example.png.

Not useful, considering that if you click on any image you go to the Image: page. -- Netoholic @ 04:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Sometimes you do not wish to go to the image page, nor do you wish to edit source in order to copy the location of the image page. This template is a general utility and bothers nobody. You are disrupting the project to make a point. — Xiongtalk 03:49, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Absolutely delete. Using templates because you're too lazy to learn proper mediawiki syntax shows a criminal degree of lazyiness, *particularly* when it lags the servers to use templates. →Raul654 04:24, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry; I actually thought I was being clever. I have searched the documentation very hard for existing solutions. Would Someone be kind enough to to demonstrate the correct syntax for inserting an image itself, followed immediately by a clickable and copyable link to its image page? It would be most preferable if the link would include displayed double brackets, so it could be copied directly from the page. Thank you. — Xiongtalk 09:26, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, because that would be exactly what's in the template. If you want to display an image, it's [[Image:Example.png]]. If you want to show a link to the image, it's [[:Image:Example.png]]. Like all other links, you can put whatever you want in the link like this: [[:Image:Example.png|click here to go to example.png]]. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. We're supposed to be creating an encyclopedia for the benefit of our readers, not our editors. We don't need to load the servers this way to save editors a few keystrokes. If you don't want to go to an image page to get its location, then right click, copy-paste the URL, and remove the first bit of the address (everything before "Image:..."). --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 12:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what Mark said. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 9

Template:Angel-stub and Template:Buffy-stub

Deprecated - replaced with the new (merged) Template:Buffyverse-stub. Grutness|^hello? 13:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment — the two templates are already redirects, so a redirect vote is pretty much equivalent to a keep vote. Courtland 21:55, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
• Delete - no objections on WSS/criteria -- grm_wnr Esc 21:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Buffyverse stubs should be fine. Rhobite 22:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Any reason not to leave these as redirects? "Buffyverse" isn't exactly intuitive. —Korath (Talk) 22:56, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment — "Angel" could easily be misinterpreted as related to theology; intuition cuts both ways. Courtland 21:55, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
• redirect--Henrygb 17:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all and impose blanket ban on fantasy universe stubs. — Xiong (talk) 10:27, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Template:Law connections

This has been abandoned by its creator and isn't used anywhere. Seems a shame since it's nice, but probably useless. Mozzerati 20:34, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Template:Education-wikify

I can't see any reason why wikify tags need to be subject specific. Such a thing makes sense for stubs, where expanding them may require specialized knowledge, but wikifying is a relatively straightforward process. I think Template:Wikify is just fine, and a proliferation of sub-templates would be confusing and lead to instruction creep. CDC (talk) 00:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd been vaguely wondering about this myself. See also: Template:Biology-wikify, Template:Comp-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. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I would support keeping this if it appeared to be part of either a Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Education or one of the existing projects in the education category. Even if that were true, though, I think it would need rewording. No, I think that User:Woohookitty who created this was acting in good faith, believing that education-related articles needed special treatment. Courtland 01:33, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I'm absolutely sure the creator of these templates was acting in good faith; I mean nothing personal, and I appreciate their efforts. I just don't think they're a good idea, and I thought I'd see what other folks think. Regarding the others Korath mentions above, maybe they all should go if the consensus is that the one I posted (as an example, I suppose) does too? CDC (talk) 05:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all. I could actually see templates like this being useful iff they were associated with specific WikiProjects which would make them much more likely to be wikified than if the articles were just left in the larger Category: Articles that need to be wikified (with 5-600 articles). If this and the other topic wikify templates are kept, they should also only be put on the article's Talk page. Of course most of these unwikified articles are also stubs, so a better way of doing the categorization is to use the existing topic stubs along with the wikify template. BlankVerse ∅ 08:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I created most (but not all) of these. The idea was to keep the wikify page less cluttered. The catagorization is keeping the wikify page from becoming a 4 page entry. That was my point of doing this. I'm not sure what the difference is between this and all of the cleanup tags, i.e. cleanup-context, etc. Also, if we move these to the talk page, then we would need to move all of the wikify tags over to the talk page soon. If you want tackle that, go right ahead. :-) One is simply a child of the other.--Woohookitty 17:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Frazzydee|✍ 13:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Senior citizen

(and MediaWiki:Senior citizen)

Senior citizens:
Ageing
Centenarian
Supercentenarian
Longevity myths

Links to a total of 6 articles on Vfd, and (according to what I think is most likely)]] only the last 2 of these will probably survive Vfd as articles of their own and this probably means the template itself should be deleted. Georgia guy 00:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I abstain until the relevant VfD discussions are complete. Zzyzx11 07:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. After the deletion has run its course, I have reworked it to reference five currently existing articles. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- pseudo-category. — Xiong (talk) 10:06, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
• Keep. Why do these people from other fields continue to launch assaults on the work of others? If they think their job is to destroy knowledge...the Mongols did a lot more than they ever will. Ryoung122 19:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - pretty bad series box with a bad name. -- Netoholic @ 01:50, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Delete, would function better as a 'see also' section of the article. -Frazzydee|✍ 13:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 11

Some coordinate templates: Template:Coordinate dms, Template:Coor d NW, Template:Coor d NE, Template:Coor d SE, Template:Coor d SW

The above five are all obsoleted by the Template:coor d et al some time ago. All usage has been changed to the newer template, so none of these are in use. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. -- Egil 19:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Even the obvious ones deserve at least one vote. Gene Nygaard 13:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, indeed :-). James F. (talk) 18:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- User:Docu

Template:Partmerge

Another creation by SamuraiClinton that is redundant to Template:Merge and Template:Mergefrom. Zzyzx11 18:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Unnecessary. Delete Uncle G 11:33, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

April 12

Template:*, Template:=

File:Grad hat jpg.gif

=

Is there any point to this? Radiant_* 11:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no point to these templates. Zscout370 18:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete? -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Delete: I believe not, my friend. -Frazzydee|✍ 13:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete'. Pointless. Andros 1337 02:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 13

Template:Reqimg

This template tries to make a general need specific. Many pages need images; these are, almost universally, the ones that have few images. Readers like to look at pictures, even avid bookworms. Even gratuitous graphics help to relieve the eye and are not superfluous.

No template is required on pages that contain insufficient images; the lack of images is immediately and glaringly obvious to all editors with any skill in graphics arts or any inclination to add such images. It is redundant and distracting to call attention to any one individual article by means of this template.

I have marked this template for deletion. — Xiong (talk) 07:22, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

see also related Template:Picneed above and Template:Noimgyet below

Summary after 2 weeks — no consensus reached (<2:1 for deletion)

• 7 Delete: BlankVerse; iMB~Mw; older!=wiser; Sean Curtin (1); Louisthebest_007; Burgundavia; Uncle G
• 2 Keep: msh210; Courtland
• 2 Keep & Redirect: Netoholic; Sean Curtin (2)

• delete (redirect iff kept). There should only be one template for pages listed at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. The most commonly used one is Template:Reqimage (which also has the most appropriate name as well). Even that template should be rewritten it so that it is designed to go on the article's talk page instead of the article's main page, and then all the current uses of the template should be moved to talk pages. BlankVerse ∅ 08:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• For the same reasons given to delete the accompanying Category:Articles that need pictures (namely, it's painfully redundant), this template should go away. --iMb~Mw 07:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (except as outlined below). There are two reasons listed above for deleting: (1) it's obvious which articles need pictures, so no template is necessary (Xiong, iMeowbot); (2) a template is necessary, but only one, and we already have {{reqimage}} (BlankVerse). (1) As to reason 1, I agree, but I think that this discussion should be about {{reqimage}} also; as long as {{reqimage}} isn't listed here, I'm voting "keep" on {{reqimg}}. (For that matter, the stub templates would also belong on tfd by the logic of reason 1.) (2) I absolutely disagree with reason 2, though: (a) There's nothing wrong with two templates; what does it hurt? And (b) this one serves a different purpose from {{reqimage}}, as is obvious from reading their text. —msh210 14:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I did not say it's obvious what articles need pictures. The redundancy is with WP:RP. — user:IMeowbot 23 Mar 2005
    • Sorry for the misunderstanding. —msh210 15:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and redirect to {{reqimage}}. -- Netoholic @ 19:07, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
• Delete. The template is broken as is. And redundant even if it did work. older≠wiser 01:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - There no real need for almost identical templates like this. {{reqimage}} was perfectly fine to begin with. Louisisthebest_007 19:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Modify. I've voted Delete for {{picneed}} above. My feeling is that a general "need picture" message is not the best application of this template. I think it should be modified to work something like the {{deletebecause}} template that provides the ability ... necessitates really ... the addition of a reason. In the case of the modified {{reqimg}} the necessitated addition would be a statement of what picture is needed. I think this is very important for two reasons. First, it allows people to judge at first glance whether they can provide such an image or not. Second, the need for images is not universally accepted, but among those believing they are needed, the "right" text-to-image weight has no consensus and neither has the type of article needing images; for example, Sledgehammer vs. A priori ... an image could be added to both, though I'm certain that the need for an image for the latter would meet with little support. Courtland 01:05, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
• Delete Not much of a deletionist, but I think this one should go. Burgundavia 11:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Entirely redundant, given {{reqimage}}. Delete. Uncle G 15:16, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Delete in preference to {{reqimage}}. -- FP 23:51, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant with Wikipedia:Requested pictures. Besides, I think it's usually pretty obvious when an article doesn't have a picture, so plastering a notice on the page might not help too much. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ttfd

Purely disruptive. Creator made this after this layout was reverted on Template:tfd. -- Netoholic @ 15:55, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

• Please; will you substantiate "disruptive"? Explain in what manner the existence or prescribed use of this template disrupts the project. Does it interfere with the proper display or function of some other template? Does it impair anyone's ability to perform any task? Does it provoke anyone to intemperate acts? I request a direct answer from the gentleman.

Meantime, my vote on the issue here at hand: Move template to Template:Tfd, then delete as redundant. Also, Someone should fix annoyingly chosen color for box. — Xiongtalk 17:26, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

• Inferior wording; gigantic and ugly; uses multiple layers of metatemplates (was fixed); unsuitable for use in the prescribed manner (on the template itself). Delete. —Korath (Talk) 18:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I can see we require a comparison for effective debate. I shall provide one. I do suggest that any user who sees a way to improve {{ttfd}} do so; it's perfectly acceptable to edit boldly.

Template:Ttfd:

{{ttfd}}

Template:Tfd:

{{tfd}}

Please note that the usage prescribed for {{ttfd}} is placement on Talk pages by default. Thank you. — Xiongtalk 22:33, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

I've removed this "comparison" We can all click links and see what they look like. We don't need this, since it fouls up what is supposed to be a simple vote thread. -- Netoholic @ 23:19, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

• Delete. I do not think that the code-into-code example applies in this case, which is the main reason stated for this template's existence. My understanding is that template functionality is influenced by parameterized text but not additional text, with non-parameter information either being ignored or presented as nowiki text; in other words, the nested template functionality is specifically disabled by the function-rendering engine. If I'm wrong about this admitted speculation (i.e. if this is self-delusion), then I'd appreciate being corrected with an explanation in this discussion thread. Courtland 00:08, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

I have restored the side-by-side comparison, which can not be seen by an ordinary user merely by flipping back-and-forth between two browser windows. The side-by-side comparison is my choice of comment upon this Talk page. To remove it from view is to strangle my ability to express myself -- to express myself in neutral language, for I did not give preference of any kind to one over the other, nor attach nasty words to either. There is extremely dense precedent for freedom of expression outside of speech and textual writing (and in any case, if you wish to be pedantic, my expression was in the form of text, but let us pass lightly over that). Since the largest difference between these two templates is visual, my visual expression is even more clearly appropriate and protected by all policy and convention from interference.

The comparison does not "foul up" the debate. You are free to express yourself at any length, right here. Wikipedia is not paper, and we will not hit the bottom of the page no matter what we do. Nor have I chosen to display my comment in such a way as to obscure anyone else's. Continue to debate in whatever style you feel appropriate. Every word and every example will be visible not only to other users who come to review the debate, but to all the generations of Wikipedians who follow.

Please, before you decide to silence me or mangle my expression, distort my comments, or steer debate by whacking out your opponents, please ask yourself: How far down that road do you wish to take us? Thank you. — Xiongtalk 05:08, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

• Delete. Did I mention I'm confused by why exactly this template is needed? Rhobite 05:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Duplicates Template:tfd. --Carnildo 06:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reply first to Rhobite. {{ttfd}} is needed because {tfd} has been nominated for deletion, and once that is gone, we will need some method of tagging nominated templates. It is not enough simply to suggest that {tfd} be placed on nominated templates' Talk pages; first, because the wording is incorrect; second, because I have tried that solution and a certain gentleman has instantly reverted this reasonable refinement of procedure -- all the more baffling, since he once attempted the same reasonable refinement.

The exact purpose of {{ttfd}} is documented on its own Talk page. I realize templates have had poor documentation in the past, so users are not accustomed to seek it; but I am hoping to start a trend. From Template talk:Ttfd#Purpose:

Templates are not merely words strung together to say something; they are code which the engine interprets. It is dangerous to insert random code into other code; you cannot be sure of the effects. It is safer to tag Templates with {{ttfd}} on their Talk pages, where there is no risk of unintended chain-reactions of side effects. (emphasis added).

I now reply to Carnildo. It did seem to me at first that the ideal solution to the malformed {tfd} text was to improve it directly. If you take a peek at [1], you'll see I attempted that very solution. Having repaired {tfd}, of course, I thought this matter at an end -- or, more precisely, that others would come along and build on this to further improve it, and the immediate crisis be ended.

But a certain gentleman instantly reverted this solution to the previous version, without attempting to improve it. Thus, as it appears impossible to improve {tfd}, it must go; and with it gone, {ttfd} duplicates nothing, but is our remaining tool.

I now take note of an action relevant to this debate involving {tfd} and {ttfd} by one who has yet to participate directly. Violetriga removed the {tfd} tag from Template:Tfd, in the face of caution not to do so, with this edit summary:

revert - the correct procedure is to insert {{tfd}} not this - a trivial detail but does serve as grounds to fix the mess

(Please note I have enclosed the inclusion of the tag in nowiki tags, lest we all become hopelessly confused. Let us thank all the gods that the engine does not expand templates within edit summaries.)

By "revert", it seems the good user has edited the template to a state in which it is displayed without any tag at all.

To be honest, I am confounded. If it is the correct procedure to insert the tag, why did she not do so?

When I put the tag in myself, I thought to avoid possible server meltdown by inserting it via the subst: atom -- an alternative that should be considered whenever a template of any kind is used. That was rash enough -- perhaps I pushed the wrong button, but that action of mine inserted two copies of {tfd} within the template body, in addition to the one already there. When a careless user removed the prescribed {tfd} tag from the doomed Template:Tfd, I gently cautioned against such contrary-to-established-procedure action and restored the missing, required tag content safely, by instancing the template elsewhere and pasting the resulting code directly into the template body. This resulted, correctly, for each instance of use of the tag, in exactly two identical copies being written of the original {tfd} code and message: the upper copy giving required (albeit confusing) notice to all users that the template "below" has been nominated for deletion; the lower copy giving required (though shortly to be deprecated, perhaps) notice to all users that whatever poor template it is affixed to has been so nominated.

Did everybody follow that? I could explain it again in other language, but it might be best to read it over once or twice. Please forgive me if I sound condescending; it is extremely confusing to me, and I must read it over four or five times to be sure I've got it absolutely straight.

So, the last user to touch the template has insisted on the necessity of including the tag itself within the template body. I don't honestly believe that Florida will slide into the Gulf of Mexico if this is done -- I'm sure there is adequate protection -- but I am not sure what will happen. But there seems to be no room at all for a commonsense approach to this matter. We have a procedure, and procedures are meant to be obeyed. Templates nominated for deletion must be tagged with {{tfd}}, within the nominated template's body. Template:Tfd has been so nominated, thus it must be so tagged.

I confess I am something of a gambling man; though too poor to play with high rollers, I often make private bets with myself. I wager that the engine will deal with this situation by refusing to display the self-included template at all; nothing will appear in its place. I have not cheated, either by direct experiment in a corner of the Great Sandbox or by peeking at the documentation; so it is a fair bet. I will confess my error, follow established and inviolable procedure, see what happens, turn out the lights and go to bed. After work tomorrow, I will browse on over to CNN and see if Florida is still there. I am happy to say that, as I live in California, I hope to suffer no personal ill effects in the all-too-possible event that I am wrong. — Xiongtalk 08:47, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

• As per Rhobite and Carnildo in the discussion of Template:tfd. Delete. Uncle G 11:25, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

• Delete. -Sean Curtin 22:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - absolutely no need for it. -- FP 06:24, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, must be a private joke.-gadfium 08:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that:

1. Whoever admin deleted this template entirely failed to properly archive this debate, so far as I know, or remove it from workflow. Quick to whack, slow to tidy up.

2. Again, unless the archived debate is substantially different that what I see here, there was a failure to properly orphan the template prior to deletion. The instance of the template above, in the (hotly debated itself) side-by-side comparison, should have been retained by way of the subst:atom, and thus preserved to survive the template deletion itself. The instance was not a mere reference to the template page, but an inclusion of the template substance within the debate.

We try so hard to pretend we are rational men of goodwill; why does it so often appear we are merely ready to sink to a petty level to advance our POV and sabotage others'?

Waving this aside for the moment, I do hope the group has learned something from all of this: Your pet always looks more important than your enemy's. If you uphold neutrality, fairness, and intellectual honesty, and you want others to treat your stuff with respect, you will have to do the same for them. — Xiongtalk 22:46, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

I count 8 delete votes and zero keep votes. Even you voted to delete this template. There's clearly a consensus to delete it. To say that I'm confused would be an understatement. Why do you keep using the word "pet"? Rhobite 23:29, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Pet" -- I'm sorry; this may be one of those things that is either immediately apparent, or cannot be explained in less time than it is worth. If you got it, fine; if not, leave the term aside for now.

I think we have shown a sorry lack of regard for the templates nominated on this page -- I include myself, and prior to the recent dust-up, too. Templates do many things, serve many roles -- tagging a template, not to mention deleting it, has many consequences. I don't belive we are sufficiently respectful of these consequences, many of which must surely be unintended.

We should not attempt to make this process contentious, or use it to advance an agenda. TfD should concentrate on garbage removal -- deletion of templates that are clearly of no use to anyone. The mere existence of a contentious debate on any given template should be immediate cause to bounce it from this process.

There are many templates which need improvement, yes. Sometimes a template should be removed, but its function must be replaced before removing the actual template. None of this work can be done in a contentious atmosphere.

How did we get from "consensus" to immediate, divisive voting on each template? How did it even become possible to conceive of {{NewTFD}}? We should be working together, not turning every nomination into a pitched battle -- or, just as bad, a kangaroo-court bum's rush, with deletionists running roughshod over every other user in the project.

My simple point is that every template was created by someone, and at a minimum, that creator needs to be made part of the TfD process, unless we can swear before all the gods that we are completely sure that nobody would care anything if we summarily obliterate his creation. — Xiongtalk 07:47, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Template:Disamb2=

• Keep. This falls under the same general category as templates like {{moveto}} and {{cleanup-rewrite}} and {{split}} and provides a useable boilerplate opinion statement. Courtland 02:40, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary SamuraiClinton creations. Rhobite 05:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems redundant. --ssd 13:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:VfDis

Useless template in conjunction with Wikipedia:Votes for disambiguation. --SPUI (talk) 00:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Should be handled in Talk: or maybe RFC. See also m:Instruction creep, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for disambiguation. —Korath (Talk) 00:48, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary SamuraiClinton creations. Rhobite 05:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Overall, I think this is redundant with existing mechanisms and adds a layer of process that is not necessary. It's not a bad idea to get a consensus for moving from a set of introductory see-also's to a full blown disambiguation page, but that's really a content editing matter and I do not think a matter of policy (though the content of a disambiguation page is a policy matter). If there is a question about moving a page from XXXYYYZZZ to XXXYYYZZZ (disambiguation), Wikipedia:Requested_moves is there for use in garnering a consensus. Courtland 00:51, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Template:Numberlist

• Delete. This would be an OK template by me if there were not already a variety of Cleanup Templates. The activity that {{Numberlist}} falls under would seem to be copy-editing, and that's already dealt with by {{Cleanup-copyedit}} which would be put on the Talk page and followed with details as to the type of copyedits required. Courtland 02:29, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary SamuraiClinton creations. Rhobite 05:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Disamb2

• Keep. This falls under the same general category as templates like {{moveto}} and {{cleanup-rewrite}} and {{split}} and provides a useable boilerplate opinion statement. Courtland 02:40, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary SamuraiClinton creations. Rhobite 05:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems redundant. --ssd 13:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Deletetranswikied

This speedy-deletion-notice template was recently created by User:Sirkumsize [2]. However, its very existence is a bit problematic and contradictory, because the mere fact that a page has been transwikied is not explicitly one of the criteria for speedy deletion. In fact, an article being a dicdef stub was explicitly voted down in voting a few months ago to expand the speedy-deletion criteria. Many topics that have simple one-line dictionary definitions could also be the subjects of long encyclopedia articles (such as "astronomy", or many others). So it does not follow from the mere fact that a Wiktionary page has been created that the corresponding Wikipedia page should be deleted.

Recently a bot has been automatically applying this speedy deletion notice to articles (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bot_.5B.5BUser:KevinBot.5D.5D) Recently this notice has been applied to articles that are much more than mere dicdefs (Fag hag) and articles with encyclopedic potential that books have been written about (Affluenza). In some cases, admins have actually acted on these speedy deletion notices for cases that are debatable and best left for VfD (such as Virility, which I restored).

However, the fundamental problem is that this template places a speedy deletion notice that cites a reason that is not one of the speedy deletion criteria, and so every single use of this template is, well, basically not valid. -- Curps 02:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - transwikied pages must go through VfD, unless, by themselves, they fit the WP:CSD. We shold block whatever bot is doing this. -- Netoholic @ 03:04, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with above. User:KevinBot is placing the tags, but you probably don't need to block it, just talk to its owner User:Kevin Rector. Kappa 07:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and reword. It is useful to state that an article has been transwiki'd. Of course transwikefaction is no grounds for speedy deletion, but a transwiki'd article should be marked as such to prevent people from tagging it for transwiki again, or from voting transwiki on a VfD. Radiant_* 13:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's what Template:Transwikied to Wiktionary is for. —Korath (Talk) 14:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually there's a whole load of mechanism that Kevin Rector and I have independently had to invent for this, including the various templates listed at Category:transwikied to Wiktionary and Category:moved to Wiktionary. The end of the transwikification process is a mess. (As I've pointed out before, the transwikification and deletion processes as they stand actually form a loop.) We've had to make up much of this as we went along. Uncle G 15:35, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Delete -- transwikied pages are not automatic speedy deletion candidates. Rls 00:07, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Delete, misleading template. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:CFUPTYSYSTTD

Should be moved to Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. --Ellmist 20:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• So are you asking for deletion, or do you need help finding out how to move the template yourself? -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • No need to be short with him. Since BJAODN is not composed of subpages, and a redirect would be silly, listing for deletion is appropriate.
• Delete. Snowspinner 23:54, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• I have copied it there. Now delete. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Who the heck would have such a warped mind to come up with this patent nonsense? Denelson83 08:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a blatant case of someone abusing Wikipedia to make a point. The creator has most likely been involved in recent debates over whether CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat should be considered a free license. I still think it's funny though. Deco 20:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Come on, though. While it is nonsense, and maybe it has an agenda, there's no need to be so bitter about it. It's definitely not necessary to say that the author has a warped mind. Don't make personal attacks. Let's just delete it and then move on.
• Delete this NOW before it actually gets used. Unless of course, the template describes how one would sell their soul to the devil ;) -Frazzydee|✍ 00:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 16

Template:JB character

James Bond character
{{{image}}}
{{{name}}}
Gender	{{{gender}}}
Age	{{{age}}}
Affiliation	{{{affiliation}}}
Film actor	{{{actor}}}
Current status	{{{status}}}

An exact copy of Template:James Bond Character for no reason. Orphan as well. K1Bond007 06:19, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Duplicate --DuKot 19:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a duplicate, but I think that it's much prettier than the other one. Maybe the content can be used in the other template? -Frazzydee|✍ 14:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- redundant and an orphan (not prematurely orphaned). — Xiong熊talk 19:06, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

April 18

Template:Kurdistan/Pictures

This is an ill-conceived template. Even if it were used in more than two articles (it was in Kurdistan and Kurdish people before I subst:ituted it), it would force all those articles to use the same images, with the same captions, in the same order, with the same format. The problems of this arrangement should be obvious, but I'll be glad to explain them if they aren't. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Bad use of templates. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An obviously inappropriate use of a template; it's been speedied and recreated twice now. — Davenbelle 00:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment just to clarify, I executed the second speedy deletion, but I realized afterwards that the article should not have been speedy deletion. There is very little given in the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion as to why templates should be speedily deleted. Other than outright nonsense or recreations of previously deleted content, the delete template should NOT be used on templates, they should go to tfd. That being said, my vote below is to delete. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 03:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

  /* Comment: it's a template/subpage construct – I created the contents of the template; a table wrapped around the images, one of which I uploaded. */ — Davenbelle 06:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Of course --DuKot 02:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inappropriate use of templates. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 03:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Briangotts 14:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A template is "reusable text". I want to use the same thing on multiple articles. What difference does it make? Its been deleted lightning fast, I was never told. I can make better use of the template when I can use it. I am not allowed to use it currently. Cat ^chi? 14:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see: Wikipedia:Template namespace; "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." -- this would apply to the Nato and Star Trek badges, too. — Davenbelle 14:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Stereotek 18:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- insufficiently general. — Xiong熊talk 19:00, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Template:Toolong

Another User:SamuraiClinton creation, honstly, do we really need this any way, cosidering their is no policy saying as much, just recomendations. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundant to Template:Split. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No way we need a boilerplate template for this. If you think an article should split, please say so on the talk page. Article length isn't a hard-and-fast rule, anyway. Rhobite 04:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we have MediaWiki:Longpagewarning for this. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete template, delete creator. --Carnildo 20:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- work should generally not be tagged, but simply done. — Xiong熊talk 19:01, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Template:Alpha

I thought I had listed this already. Just put the list in alphabetical order. --SPUI (talk) 00:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unnecessary. (Just like checking the template's history was. Sigh.) —Korath (Talk) 02:10, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Dleete. This vote should be spellchecked. Rhobite 06:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Abolish. This vote is out of alphabetical order, but then again, who is to say that the establishment's notion of alphabetical ordering is right or even desirable? --iMb~Meow 09:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the template and the associated Category: Lists suggested for alphabetical organizing --Carnildo 19:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- redundant with Template:Adviseorder. — Xiong熊talk 18:42, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Template:Magden-geo-stub

and also Template:Apples-geo-stub : unnecessary Templates-they're far too low level for templates, surely? Magden is a village of some 3500 people, and there's only one article, already a Swiss stub. I have also removed them from the country section of Category:Europe geography stubs, so nothing uses them now. -Wikibob | Talk 00:07, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

• We've had a slew of pointless Swiss geo templates lately - including a couple of unneccessary geo-stubs (none of which have made it within a sniff of WP:WSS). D-leet Grutness|^hello? 00:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 'em all. Created by an utterly clueless, non-communicating substub generating person who obviously has no idea of either Swiss geography or when to use which feature of this Wiki. Operates under various IPs, creates tons of poorly formatted and poorly written substubs on Swiss and other municipalities by importing stuff from fr: and other language Wikipedias, complete with image refs, but of course most of these images don't exist on en: or the commons. I've been watching this for at least a month now, but he generates just too many articles for me to clean up. I've tried gently dissuading him, but to no avail. IP's involved include at least 68.250.71.135, 68.252.102.120, 68.79.21.71, 38.115.176.228, 68.79.14.52, 68.79.59.42, and maybe others. I suspect it is Pumpie :-( — check the creator IP of Apples, Vaud. Lupo 06:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Also responsible for the Andorra-geo-stub listed further up the page, and those Andorra municipalities templates we had a while back. Grutness|^hello? 00:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Lowellian (talk) 07:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cpop

Orphan, and an article masquerading as a template. Should be merged into C-Pop. —Lowellian (talk) 07:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have merged the userful information. —Lowellian (talk) 08:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above reasoning. —Lowellian (talk) 07:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Rick Block 13:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- good that you merged the content. Creator a naked IP. — Xiong熊talk 18:11, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

April 19

Template:Nn

Another redundant template from our friend User:SamuraiClinton. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think this template will reduce all the space taken up on Wikipedia from people nominating articles as "not notable" when they are being nominated for deletion. I want more template like this made (e.g. some people nominate deletion via saying neolgism, lets make a template like that too). --TheSamurai 02:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think the user is trying to prove a WP:POINT, but this template is just unnecessary. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:57, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I hope people can write their own votes. Rhobite 02:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, templates use processor cycles, which are more important than space for something simple like this. Also keeps you from voting keep, non-notable. --SPUI (talk) 03:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not what templates are for. Radiant_* 09:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Copy&Paste and keyboard-macro votes are problematic enough. This is a terrible idea. (Moreover: I don't say that simply because I personally choose to put the rationales before the votes.) People should be encouraged to not vote by rote. Delete. Uncle G 09:22, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm surprised nobody has changed the template text to read something like, Delete. Article filled with rich, creamy nougat. or Keep. I like bunnies. --Milkmandan 14:09, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Delete. Almost as bad as the pastel boxes. --cesarb 00:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't encourage those who put no thought into their votes.

—Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. --iMb~Meow 08:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It makes a mockery of VfD. --Carnildo 18:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need templates for paradoxical votes. People who make paradoxical votes hould be forced to write out all the characters, all by themselves. Not that it matters... Sjakkalle 10:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not really paradoxical - it used to read 'delete - not notable' until User:SPUI changed it. Then again people who vote-by-rote might actually deserve to get their vote changed or nullified. Radiant_* 11:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, throw out nomination entirely -- this is not within our purview. This should be dealt with by the folks at VfD, who already have a fully developed debate on this and related issues. — Xiong熊talk 18:51, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Template:Marylebone County Cricket Club v Warwickshire County Cricket Club (8-11 April 2005)

Improper use of a Template. This doesn't even seem to be worthy of an article, let alone a Template which is supposed to be used on multiple articles. We should stop the proliferation of Templates which contain text that would normally be used in an article. RickK 07:36, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

As part of a series of articles on the 2005 English cricket season, I would like the same text to go into three articles: one on the season as a whole, one on the MCC's season and another on Warwickshire's season. If you know a better way of linking one piece of text through to a number of different articles, let me know, jguk 08:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - We've voted this sort of thing down before, every time. There is no solution to replicate prose amongst several articles. Using this method is incredibly confusing for newbies. -- Netoholic @ 08:08, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

  I've found a better way of doing what I want to now. I've moved the "template" into the Wikipedia namespace. By organising it like the WP:VfD page, it won't confuse newbies either, jguk 15:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I don't think you understand... it was not that it was a template, it was that the mechanism you're using is inappropriate. This was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/MCC v Warwickshire 8-11 April 2005. I'm going to go subst: it into all the articles using it. -- Netoholic @ 22:56, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:Template namespace says "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." I put that text there because it gets voted out every time when it comes here - David Gerard 00:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• While I strongly agree with David Gerard on this point, I think the policy would benefit from discussions that are less ephemeral and abbreviated than those conducted here. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Template namespace and comment. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:LibDem

Just found this in the Sandbox. Someone's trying to get votes for the Liberal Democrats in the upcoming UK elections... SteveW | Talk 17:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but make a Template:Tory and Template:Labour or similar for other parties' supporters to use. 212.100.250.219 17:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Note: This vote will be discarded, since anonymous contributors are not permitted to vote. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • ...not to mention Template:SNP and Template:PlaidCymru! Grutness|^hello?
• Hahaha, delete but maybe BJAODN --SPUI (talk) 17:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless POV content is removed. --brian0918&#153; 17:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unable to become NPOV. SPUI's edits are cute, though. —Korath (Talk) 18:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a polling/campaign station. Zscout370 18:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Alpha

I thought I had listed this already. Just put the list in alphabetical order. --SPUI (talk) 00:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unnecessary. (Just like checking the template's history was. Sigh.) —Korath (Talk) 02:10, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Dleete. This vote should be spellchecked. Rhobite 06:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Abolish. This vote is out of alphabetical order, but then again, who is to say that the establishment's notion of alphabetical ordering is right or even desirable? --iMb~Meow 09:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the template and the associated Category: Lists suggested for alphabetical organizing --Carnildo 19:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- redundant with Template:Adviseorder. — Xiong熊talk 18:42, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Template:Not notable

Just like Template:Nn below, except it doesn't even save you as much typing. —Korath (Talk) 09:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Note: The discussion below refers to the template at its original location and what is now a redirect to Firebug's user space. A delete vote on this does not mean a delete vote on its current location in Firebug's user space. --SPUI (talk) 22:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{Not notable}} --iMb~Meow 15:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I left a note on the creators page asking them to mark this for speedy deletion. -- Netoholic @ 15:32, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Delete, we definitely don't need templates for VFD voting. JYolkowski 15:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Basically redundant to Template:Nn. And we don't need another template for VFD voting. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems that User:SPUI also keeps on trying to change this template to read "Keep. Not notable". [3] Then again, as User:Radiant! wrote below, "people who vote-by-rote might actually deserve to get their vote changed or nullified." Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bad precedent. – flamurai (t) 16:08, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. I created this template because I feel that "Not Notable" is a very common reason to vote for deletion, and it is inelegant from a coding perspective to have to hardcode the same "Delete, not notable" string in every identical vote. Any good C++ programmer, faced with a similar situation in their code, would use a #define, and this is the Wikipedia equivalent. If the template is a target for vandalism, that is an argument for protecting the template, not removing it. Firebug 16:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) I withdraw my opposition to deletion for the reasons given by Radiant. Firebug 17:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • And if someone wants to vote "keep, not notable"? Anyway, a #define is replaced when the program is compiled, and its only affect is to the programmer, but a template uses resources whenever the page is re-"compiled". --SPUI (talk) 16:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • No one should ever be making a "keep, not notable" vote, because notability is a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Firebug 16:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • See, that's the thing. The community doesn't even have consensus on whether or not such a requirement should be added, much less does it have that requirement. See Wikipedia:Notability for details.--iMb~Meow 16:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's now been moved into Firebug's user space, but has been protected as a redirect. I think it should be kept at something like this version. --SPUI (talk) 17:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete template for vfd voting incourage template vfd voting, which is a very very bad thing, in my books. Burgundavia 17:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Contributing to VFD is just not the same thing as writing code. Elegance is not measured the same way. SPUI makes a good point about when VFD is "compiled." Good C++ programmers know when it is more appropriate to use editor macros instead of project-wide changes to enhance their personal work processes. FreplySpang (talk) 17:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We shouldn't be encouraging the use of template responses in discussions. If nothing else, it annoys me on an aesthetic level: It seems rude. Aris Katsaris 22:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Go ahead and delete both the template and the redirect. I'm willing to remove the template due to the concerns about server load raised by several users. I still think we either need a more solid VFD policy on notability issues; otherwise, the same arguments will be rehashed time and again, with or without a template. Firebug 02:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Adviseorder

(and the generated Category:Lists that need sequential organizing upon removal of this template)

This list should be put in a sequential order.

How'd we miss this one? -- Netoholic @ 15:46, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

• Delete. This has slightly more merit than Template:Alpha, since it's conceivable that someone might not know what the proper sequential order is. Still, it belongs on the talk page, it's rare enough that it shouldn't need a template, and it's misnamed anyway. —Korath (Talk) 16:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the few places where the template has been placed show the absurdity of this instruction creep. Why would anyone knowingly not list album track listings in order? --iMb~Meow 23:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- the template has been fixed. Its documentation now explains its new usage. See: Jock Jams volume 1, Party Zone. — Xiong熊talk 18:05, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  • BTW, the category reference is gone. The useless category should be rm, but that's not within our purview on this page. — Xiong熊talk 18:08, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• Delete as instruction creep. Also, "sequential order" is generic and vague. If you want to leave an instruction for a list to be reordered, you should specify what kind of order you mean. If it was obvious what order the list should be in, it would already be in that order. FreplySpang (talk) 21:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The associated category was not deleted along with the template because it is outside of TfD's jurisdiction. I nominated it for deletion on WP:CFD. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Kpop

A template with the title "Popular K-pop artists"? This should be a category, not a template. Otherwise, the template will continue to grow indefinitely. Furthermore, "popular" is bad word-choice; presumably, if they're not popular, they wouldn't be in Wikipedia in the first place. —Lowellian (talk) 07:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above reasoning. —Lowellian (talk) 07:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if it gets too big, it can be restricted to "most popular" artists. Kappa 12:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, and should we have a most popular US artists template also? What's the criteria for "most popular"? —Lowellian (talk) 00:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Templates are not designed for lists that will continue to grow indefinitely into the future. Categories are. —Lowellian (talk) 00:30, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with category:K-pop artists, agree with Lowellian (wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes should, but doesn't currently, provide clear guidance about this). -- Rick Block 13:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - "Popular" is impossible to judge without criteria. Suggest this is better done as a category, and perhaps as a list of artists with sales or play metrics. -- Netoholic @ 14:31, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • There aren't enough KPop contributors to do that, and its unnecessary instruction creep. The current template has consensus. Kappa 17:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; this is better served by a category. "Popular" is asking for an edit war. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't treat users as children. If it becomes controversial, we might even be able to discuss it rationally. Kappa 17:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing is better served by a category. I mean, is there anyone who actually uses categories to navigate? Templates are much more user-friendly and should always be used instead. P Ingerson 08:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right! Let's delete all categories! They're a terrible misfeature, and the work of Wikipedians who've amassed tens of thousands of edits trying to organize them is completely useless and should be summarily thrown away! (Categorize.) —Korath (Talk) 10:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Suggesting something is better for navigation is not the same as suggestion categories are completely useless, unless their only purpose is navigation (is it?). Are we supposed to delete useful templates just to validate those tens of thousands of edits? Kappa 17:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I know Korath is probably being sarcastic, but in all seriousness, yes we should be deleting all categories, and banning those "Wikipedians who've amassed tens of thousands of edits" inflicting thekm on the rest of us. And not only banning thejm from Wikipedia, but from editing any webpage anywhere on the internet. Because people who are that shit-for-brained stupid about what makes good navigation, really should not be allowed anywhere near a computer. ~~

Template:Graphicviolence

This template merits deletion on two of the grounds listed above as justifications for deletion of a template: it is not used, and it is not helpful or noteworthy. --FOo 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - graphic violence is an objective criterion, not a moral judgment; and some Wikipedians may prefer not to view such images. Thus, this template may prove useful. Firebug 16:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I must respectfully disagree with Firebug; graphic violence is not an objective criterion, and there are certainly gray areas. (Is a picture of a person firing a gun "graphic violence"? What if they're shown firing it at another person, but no blood is visible? If blood is visible? Is a martial arts demonstration graphic violence? Male circumcision? Female circumcision? Is it not graphic violence if it's in a PG rated movie? How about R? Only NC-17? I'm sure that anybody here could probably answer those questions--but I'm also sure that we'd all come up with different answers.) Imagery which might be considered violent (or otherwise distasteful; we've seen this discussion before) should be limited to articles where its presence is reasonably expected, and from there it should be up to the common sense of our readers. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 17:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. We already have disclaimers. RickK 18:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Our job is to present information, not to sugar coat it with warnings. Remember, Wikipedia does not censor anything due to minors using this service. Zscout370 18:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Graphic" violence as opposed to what? Aural violence? Ludicrous. Get this PMRC crap out of here. Clarknova 20:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First, this is POV since different areas have different standards. Second, Wikipedia is not censored. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Graphic" as determined by whom? -Sean Curtin 22:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already stated. Postdlf 02:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Talkfix

Fragmented discussion merged to: [[User talk:{{{1}}}]] Whenever I refactor a discussion, I try to include a summary of it. I can't see how this template is any more practical than simply typing a suitable description and adding a link; indeed, it makes it less likely that a meaningful pointer will be left since the templates wording would have to stay generic. Not likely to be used on a wide basis, so it's a bad use for a template. -- Netoholic @ 16:38, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Keep -- Is a template bad because it is often used and loads the server? Is it bad because it is infrequently used, and -- since substitution is prescribed -- the work could be done just as well by retyping the text each time it is used? Or is the template merely bad because tagging it serves a certain user's purpose to stalk another?

Again, if it's no use to you, don't use it. — Xiong熊talk 16:38, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy. Doesn't reflect common practice, nor is practice likely to evolve to reflect it. —Korath (Talk) 15:54, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've seen it in use, and it has a decided negative effect. --Carnildo 18:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what User:Netoholic said. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Obscenity

This template merits deletion on two of the grounds listed above as justifications for deletion of a template: it is not used, and it is not helpful or noteworthy.

Moreover, it represents a derogatory POV judgment over the contents of an encyclopedia article. Therefore, adding this template to any article is necessarily an NPOV violation and an insult to those who have worked upon the article.

(Consider: Would we want a template that said "The contents of this article may be considered evil" or "The contents of this article may be considered morally corrupting"? That's exactly what obscene means.)

What's worse, in some places, "obscenity" is the name of a criminal offense, so this template may be read as a libellous accusation that others have committed that offense. Adding this template to any article is therefore likely to be a breach of civility as well.

Since this template cannot be used without breaking Wikipedia policy in two or three different ways, there is no need to have it. --FOo 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - "obscenity" is an insulting term, and it could also cause legal trouble. I would not oppose a template saying that an article contains sexually explicit images, if it avoided the loaded POV term "obscene". Firebug 16:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, for the reasons elaborated by Firebug. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Extreme delete. Highly offensive template. Highly POV. We have disclaimers. This is not Kiddiepedia. RickK 18:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't believe i have to vote on this. Get it out of here. Clarknova 20:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - POV to the max. Remove it before I start slapping it on articles for certain politicians. Grutness|^hello? 00:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. First, this is POV since different areas have different standards. Second, Wikipedia is not censored. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- redirect to Template:Adult. Only one such required. — Xiong熊talk 17:03, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• Delete. Highly POV and legally...unwise to say the least. Or, in the alternative, keep it and put it on the user page of whomever created it. Postdlf 02:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Can you apply a template to a template? Mtrisk 04:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This template is obscene. →Vik Reykja 05:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. — Davenbelle 06:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

April 22

Template:Adult

This template said "Please note that this encyclopedia may not be appropriate at all times, nor for all viewers."

We already have a general disclaimer. This could apply to any article. Templates like this have been deleted without exception in the past. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• Keep -- Anything could apply to anything. This template should properly be applied only to content that middle-of-the-roaders would very likely find objectionable and found under a title that does not immediately suggest this fact.

I actually agree with you in spirit; the entire net should be considered an adult zone, and everyone on it should be ready to experience the full range of human expression. But we went through all of this with porn sites -- the entire debate. It's now common practice to label a certain kind of content -- erotica, graphic violence, terrorism manuals -- as "Adult" content. Do I agree this is good? No. Will I be using this template? No. But it fulfills a need. — Xiong熊talk 18:18, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• Delete. This template could be attached to practically anything on Wikipedia or the Web at large. Wikipedia already has a general content disclaimer; adding this template to every single page that someone might be offended by is both redundant and highly subjective. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per TenOfAllTrades. Also, I wonder whether this usage of "adult" might be an Americanism. FreplySpang (talk) 21:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First, this is POV since different areas have different standards. Second, Wikipedia is not censored. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I disagree with the use of this template for the reasons already mentioned, and also this template is an orphan →Vik Reykja 22:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is an orphan -- it has not yet been used -- because it was created today. Every template is created anew; none are immediately used. This is not grounds for deletion. Should I go tag some articles with it to increase its legitimacy?

I would rather this template not need to exist, but it does. We are already considering a spate of similar templates, and I don't doubt that more are created all the time. Like it or not, there is a strong current of feeling -- a feeling which I do not share -- that demands this sort of labeling. Better for us to compromise with this feeling than to return to do battle with it every week.

This template permits speedy deletion of each new crop of "censorship" templates as they arise. Each such template may simply be redirected to Template:Adult, and at leisure, the (no doubt) transclusion replaced with a simple substitution. Finally, the redirect may be speedied.

Then, the issue of placing the tag on a given article may be openly debated in the proper place -- on that article's Talk page. As much as we might like to do so, we cannot silence the middle-of-the-roaders who frankly detest all "offensive" content. Better to meet them openly at each turn, and debate on the merits -- and, in some cases, simply allow certain articles to be labeled as unsuitable for Small Town Midwest viewers.

Deleting this template will solve nothing -- deleting most templates solves nothing. The content can be re-created anywhere, in a user's Talk space, in a file that resides entirely on a user's computer, or on a page on another wiki. Users who want to put that content on a WP page will do so.

Do not underestimate the power of the peasants-with-pitchforks when aroused. Far, far better to throw them a bone, and hold them to that alone. Wikipedia is not a castle, we have no walls, and we cannot spend our every effort defending against the same people who cheerfully bomb abortion clinics. — Xiong熊talk 22:30, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• Delete. POV. RickK 22:32, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV and a poorly worded message - should refer to a single page, but better, should not exist. --Tagishsimon (talk)
• Delete. Sorry Xiong, I'm going to have to side with the reasons to delete already given. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, let's not open pandora's box. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, please. We do not need to have the POV fights that this template would cause. There is precious little chance that there would ever be consensus that this template should (or should not) be used on many, many articles. Thus, it would be nothing but an invitation to a POV flamewar. --FOo 23:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I believe the consensus is that disclaimers should not be added to articles. See Wikipedia talk:Risk disclaimer#Risk disclaimer template. Delete. --cesarb 00:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can so many smart people be so dumb? I'm with the majority on this, not the Moral Majority dickheads who want everything to read like a Calvinist Sunday-school primer. This template is a way out -- an excuse to speedy each new crop of POV labels. Do you all understand what I'm saying?

Step 1: Redirect the new, annoying template, for example, {{nakedpantys}}, to {{adult}}.

Step 2: Police up any transclusions of {nakedpantys}, wherever found; replace with substitutions of {adult}.

Step 3: Immediately speedy the redirect. It's orphaned and, if you catch it quick, has no history or Talk. Wait for an admin to do the speedy.

Step 4: Return to any page {nakedpantys} crapped on, and add a peremptory notice to its Talk. ("This page is not adult material/This project is already covered by disclaimer")

Step 5: Delete the substitution of {adult}. It's all done in a day, you didn't trample anyone's toes, and the offensive template never had to come down to TfD for a week's worth of debate.

Think about it. I'm an inclusionist, and I've handed you a deletionist's wet dream. Revel. — Xiong熊talk 00:13, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

• What's the point? They could simply be speedied as a recreation of a deleted template. Remove the substitutions, slap a {{db}}, done. No need for such a complex dance. --cesarb 01:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Um...a template shouldn't be created as a way to delete things out of process. As CesarB notes, templates that substantially duplicate ones already deleted through TfD can be speedied as reincarnations of deleted material. Templates that aren't duplicates of deleted material should go through TfD. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This has gone on long enough. Obviously consensus is to delete, so I move that we speedy delete this, just so we can end this discussion and to give fewer reasons for Xiong to mount personal attacks on the voters. -- Netoholic @ 03:21, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

• Delete unless applied to every article. Postdlf 02:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If you look up "adult content" in the encyclopedia, expect to get it! Mtrisk 04:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. — Davenbelle 05:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too vague to be helpful. The purpose of something like a "non-worksafe" template is to let people know, on pages which most readers would consider to be "worksafe", that there is some unexpectedly racy/controversial/attention-getting content on that page. This template doesn't provide any specific informatino about the article/category/image at hand (where is it intended to be applied?) +sj + 09:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I should hope that most, if not all, content on Wikipedia is suitable for grown-ups. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 23

Template:Nonworksafe

Warning: this article is not work-safe.   Please use discretion when viewing this page; it may be inappropriate or prohibited in your workplace.

This template merits deletion on two of the grounds listed above as justifications for deletion of a template: it is not used, and it is not helpful or noteworthy.

Moreover, it represents a culturally-biased judgment over the contents of an encyclopedia article, which is hazardous to our project of countering systemic bias. --FOo 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - criticisms of "culturally-biased judgments" don't hold much weight for me compared to the risk of people losing their jobs. Firebug 16:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  It's worth asking whether anyone ever might lose their job from reading Wikipedia instead of working ... and does that make all of Wikipedia "non-work-safe"? :) --FOo 16:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Deciding if a topic/article/image is "work safe" is highly subjective. Forget the cultural subjectivity, each workplace is quite different with respect to permissible web activity. If people are going to surf Wikipedia at work, they should know to limit themselves to 1)work-related topics, or 2)topics that a reasonable person would expect to be "safe" for that particular workplace. Their judgement ought to be significantly more accurate than ours. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• comment Wikiprojects don't set policy. I don't know if there is anything in to policy on templates about subjectivity.Geni 17:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Extremely POV. Different work environments have different rules. If you shouldn't be reading Wikipedia at work, don't. If you are afraid that, horrors, you might come across an image you shouldn't, turn off images in your browser. RickK 18:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This isn't FARK.com Clarknova 20:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep; fixed Delete; superseded -- Does every nomination have to descend immediately into either-or, yes-no, thumbsup-thumbsdown politics? What happened to working together to fix flawed templates?

This template has never been used. While I agree that it should, in a better world, be unnecessary, I think there are articles whose content may demand such a tag. Autofellatio does not need this; it is obvious that the content will be objectionable to some users and in some contexts. But since WPdians are constantly pushing boundaries, there are articles on seemingly "innocent" topics which contain content that large numbers of middle-of-the-roaders dislike. Some of these will be quieted if they feel they have been alerted. Template edited and renamed to increase scope and generality. — Xiong熊talk 16:57, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Xiong, while your zeal to improve Wikipedia is unparalleled, it's probably not a good practice to redirect, rename, and rewrite from scratch a template being discussed here. In future, I might suggest drafting a proposal in your user space. With respect to "fixing" flawed templates, I suspect the concern is not that the template in question is poorly worded but rather that its entire purpose is inappropriate. Finally, your proposed template leaves us with the same debate, except that the wording is now sufficiently general ("Please note that this encyclopedia may not be appropriate at all times, nor for all viewers") that it could be applied to every article in Wikipedia. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are in fundamental disagreement. We are not here to vote; we are here to improve. Of course, it's much easier to bash something than to fix it.

As for the issue of application, please see the entry for the improved version -- which a certain user immediately nominated. — Xiong熊talk 18:28, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Xiong renamed this template to Template:Adult and the change Ten refers to above. I've reverted his edit, and moved this template back to its original name, and put Xiong's change into Template:Adult. That template is now separately nominated it for TFD. -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

That's a typically confrontational way to handle the matter. But I shall let it stand; and thus I change my vote on this old version. — Xiong熊talk 18:28, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• Delete. Postdlf 02:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete of course. My boss is smart enough to know when I've been vandalized by a wiki, invaded by a popup, etc; and when I've been surfing places I shouldn't. →Vik Reykja 05:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. — Davenbelle 05:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful, by some reckoning "necessary." Trying to preclude discussion of how to use this template, by deleting it before it has been used, is poor form.

  Comment: Being orphaned shouldn't be much reason for deletion.

  Comment: Xiong, thanks for your efforts, but I your "adult content" template does not necessarily cover some of the reasons that a page might be non-worksafe... A page that is about to grab your screen and fill it with a silly animated cartoon, a page that forces you to listen to loud music, or any time a page contains something unexpected that is noticeable enough to potentially disturb third parties passing by the user; that is non-worksafe. +sj + 09:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with RickK, TenOfAllTrades, and the rest. Also: Wikipedia articles shouldn't be playing loud music or grabbing your screen. Anyone who makes them do that is not going to add this template. And, a little box of text at the top of the screen isn't going to cover up the picture of autofellatio or whatever. (No, no, no, do not take this as a reason to make it huge!) I'd like to point out that, to a nonnative speaker of English, "autofellatio" or whatever might not be obviously about sex -- it's not exactly on the Intro-to-ESL vocabulary lists! FreplySpang (talk) 18:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Andorra-geo-stub

At last count, there were only six Andorra geo-stubs, yet this hasn't stopped someone from creating this template and the related category. There's no Andorra WikiProject, and no chance that this category will ever be heavily populated. The person who created this has also been heavily featured on tfd in the past for his unneccessary Andorra and Switzerland articles, and the stub category was not vetted prior to creation by WP:WSS. Oh, did I mention that Category: Andorra geography stubs says it is about the geography of Switzerland, by the way? Grutness|^hello? 02:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Andorra is a sovereign nation, and there is no reason not to have a national stub template for it, even if it doesn't get used often. I see your problems in the category, it looks pretty messed up, but deletion of the template is not part of the remedy here. Sjakkalle 10:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) I see, Grutness and and Korath. I believe that I did misunderstand. OK delete then. Sjakkalle 07:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You seem to assume that stub templates and categories are for the benefit of readers - they are for the benefit of editors. Say there was an Andorra WikiProject. If there are a maximum of a dozen possible stubs, how long it would be before this template is empty and redundant? As it is, the articles are already part of Category:Europe geography stubs, of which all unsubcategorised members are from countries with too few stubs to warrant separate categories (Andorra is one of about ten countries there, with a total of about 100 stubs between them). Grutness|^hello?
• Delete. Sjakkalle, you misunderstand the purpose of specific stub templates. They aren't there to duplicate categories, or to provide pictures. They're there to reduce category size to a manageable size. A stub category with at most a half dozen stubs in it is useless. —Korath (Talk) 10:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 10:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If that is the case where this geo-stub is only serving a few pages, why not merge it into the main Andorra stub so there is just one stub category covering this nation. Zscout370 17:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What Andorra stub? There isn't one. And given that with small countries almost all of the stubs tend to be geographic ones, this isn't really a solution. What's worse, these articles would then be double stubbed as Andorra-stub and Euro-geo-stub. That double-stubbing problem already occurs with some other countries (Belarus, Kiribati, Fiji, Uganda...) Grutness|^hello? 00:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Then I will create a stub dealing with Andorra and once that is done, then all geo-stubs dealing with Andorra will be replaced by this blanket template for Andorra articles. We can see if that works, and if it does not, I can easily change the template or place it on this very page. Zscout370 00:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If you intend to do so, please propose it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria first... not that I'd expect it to pass any vote there. I doubt you could find more than a dozen Andorra-related stubs in total and there's no WikiProject on Andorra and - well, all the same arguments as above, really. Trust me, this sort of thing has been tried before with other countries with few articles - it doesn't work, and it creates more work than it reduces. Grutness|^hello? 07:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Gruntness. BlankVerse ∅ 01:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support, BankVerse ;) Grutness|^hello?

Template:Sefer-stub

See related discussions and vote for Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Hasid-stub below.

• Delete (Similarly, this is because of the same problem that resulted in the proposed vote for deletion of Template:Hasid-stub below, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Hasid-stub, April 12) [4] and I repeat here what I say below: Do we really need this stub if we have the Judaism-related stub of Template:Judaism-stub already? (And remember, we also have the "Jewish history" stub of Template:JewHist-stub, the "Hebrew Bible" stub of Template:HeBible-stub, and of course the "Israel" stub of Template:Israel-stub.) There are NOT enough articles to warrent a new Jewish-articles stub at this time I would think, this will only clutter the field and further splinter the Judaism- and Jewish history- stubs sections. It thus needs to be put on hold for now. Thank you. IZAK 09:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I have suggested below (and repeat here) that it may be better to keep this one and delete HeBible-stub. HeBible-stub, by definition, is a very large subset of Sefer-stub, and is likely to appeal to the same group of editors. it may make more sense to keep the more inclusive xategory. Grutness|^hello? 11:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • (This was my response to Grutness below, and I repeat it here because of its direct relevance:) "Grutness: There would be a huge problem with having the "Sefer-stub" replace the "HeBible-stub" because the Hebrew word Sefer simply means "book" and so it could also be used to include non-religious and non-Biblical books and it would therefore NOT make any sense to combine the "Hebrew Bible-stub" under the "Sefer-stub", as its present creators have a very narrow Orthodox Judaism view of the word sefer. IZAK 06:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons cited by IZAK. --Briangotts 14:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It does not even provide a link back to sefer. JFW | T@lk 16:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unlike the Hasid stub, the sefer stub has been generally unused. There is a book-stub already, and there is not enough need to specify Jewish books. SF2K1 22:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Topic is a narrow take on existing stub category DDerby 06:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons above ChanochGruenman 16:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 25

Template:Nocontent

This template seems to largely duplicate Template:Nonsense, and is also not worded in a way that is supported by any WP:CSD guideline. Better to use {{db}}, or even {{delete}} and trust that the deleting admin will see for themselves that there is insufficient content. -- Netoholic @ 00:57, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

• Keep (obviously). Neutrality^talk 01:07, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This speedy criterion failed to pass the proposal to expand WP:CSD, and even if these get speedied anyway, they shouldn't have a specific template justifying them until doing so is accepted as policy. A Template:Nocontext would make sense, though. —Korath (Talk) 01:43, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Korath, and because "no content" is way overused in speedy tagging already. Kappa 01:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I created this template because speedy deletion Criterion 1 for articles reads: "Very short articles with little or no context", and this is a very common occurrence. This template is useful for articles that can't quite be called patent nonsense but are still candidates for speedy deletion due to having virtually nothing in the article. I also think Netoholic is far too quick on the trigger to post templates on here. I've got an unpleasant feeling that I've just been sucked into the middle of a pissing match between Netoholic and Xiong. Firebug 03:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's causing this recent "paranoia", but I only nominated this because I think it's a bad template. I have Category:Candidates for speedy deletion on my watchlist to watch out for instruction creep, and saw Firebug add Nocontent there. There's is no conspiracy. -- Netoholic @ 15:19, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
• I do believe Template:Deletebecause suffices, and don't see the need for this separate template, so I'm going to vote delete on the opinion that having too many templates is a Bad Thing. Bts Firebug, if you feel you're caught in the crossfire, you may want to read the WP:RFC about Xiong, or the WP:RFAr about Netaholic. Radiant_* 09:42, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, As an admin who frequently patrols Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, I'd prefer the number of standing articles on that page to be as limited in number as possible. The addition of new templates is confusing, and doesn't seem all that useful. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it duplicates {{deletebecause}}. BlankVerse ∅ 20:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Template:Deletebecause and Template:Nonsense suffice. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This template should be deleted because it contains no substantive content. --iMb~Meow 01:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I have changed the words to be more in line with the policy. If people use it instead of a simple Template:Delete then it is useful. --Henrygb 01:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Racist

I've been thinking long and hard about whether to nominate this template. Although racist content has no place in Wikipedia, and this template was created with the noblest of intentions, I consider it a little bit misguided. Here are my reasons:

1. There's too much potential for abuse. It's far too tempting for someone to use a template like this as a weapon in a content dispute, as a way of attacking other editors or discrediting the article.
2. There are other, much less problematic ways of dealing with racist articles, among them VfD and the POV, Disputed and TotallyDisputed tags. As a policy issue, content with a racist bias is already prohibited by the NPOV policy, as is other content with offensive biases.
3. Whether or not this is intended as a "content warning" template, there's a clear trend against them, as there should be; they're inherently POV and Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.
4. It's barely used, not even on Wikipedia:Template messages or similar pages. When it was first created, it appeared on a few articles created by a racist POV pusher, all of which have been deleted or significantly rewritten.

sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 01:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Zscout370 01:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant with Template:NPOV, which does the job in a better way. --cesarb 01:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing here not already covered by the NPOV template. Grutness|^hello? 01:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CryptoDerk 01:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons summarized by proposer. -- Curps 01:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ditto →Vik Reykja 01:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, already covered by POV tag. Rhobite 02:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, already covered by POV tag. Master Thief Garrett 02:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Go ahead and delete it; as the author, I've already tagged it for speedy deletion. I only ever used this template on 2 articles (Caste football and Non-white) and both were deleted via the WP:VFD process. Since community consensus seems to be leaning towards deletion, and the template is currently not in use on any pages, there's no need to drag the process out. Firebug 04:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: This template was not deleted by TFD. Instead, it was deleted as a WP:CSD because the author requested its deletion. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 27

Template:Archist

Gives advice which is contrary to Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, which documents the alomost universal practice of archiving to a separate page. The creator of this has specific views about refactoring (see below #Template:Talkfix), but his ideas are not supported by common practice. The creator is of course open to make this suggestion using his own words, but it's poor use for a Template. -- Netoholic @ 08:26, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• Keep -- This doesn't give advice; it makes a gentle suggestion. Archival to history is the common practice, and the gentleman user employs it himself. If this is not of service to you, do not use it. This is just more of a certain user's vendetta. — Xiong熊talk 16:34, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• • I think that only a few user talk pages are occasionally done like that, but almost never are article or project talk pages "archived to history". In any case, global templates should represent common practice. If you want to make this suggestion, do it by copy and pasting. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

I challenge the user to support his assertions. — Xiong熊talk 18:31, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• Userfy. Could this template be moved to Xiong's User space? I don't think it belongs in the Template namespace, since it doesn't seem to represent a generally accepted policy or practice. Failing that, it should be deleted—chatty personal notes don't need to be general templates. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The practice is generally accepted, though far from universal. Many prominent users archive in just this way. The challenge stands -- unanswered. — Xiong熊talk 20:36, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Perhaps, but why does a personal note from you and about your preferred method of archiving talk pages need to be in the main Template space? If you want to trade appeals to popularity, I could assert that there are many prominent users who archive using other methods—especially the methods outlined in Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you read Template talk:Archist#Usage? Put yourself in the user's shoes. Some users -- among them, the gentleman who nominated this template -- have a Bad Habit of blanking their Talk pages. They don't leave links, they don't archive to another page, they don't read "How to archive a talk page" -- they just blank what they don't like. Perhaps their intent is evil; perhaps they are merely careless.

Give the user the benefit of the doubt; don't force him to defend his blanking. Gently suggest that he link to history. This satisfies everyone, and at worst, does no harm. If you aggressively attack him for blanking Talk, you only make an enemy, not a convert.

It's in Template space because it ought not be a personal note; but it should read like one. Edit it if you like, but keep it light, friendly, and chatty. Think psychology. You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. — Xiong熊talk 00:21, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

• Delete. It is not useful for writing normal articles. It is not useful for writing WP: articles. It is not useful for writing User: articles. In fact, it is only good for inserting half a page of text into a User_Talk: page. However, a message in a talk page should not spontaneously change when someone changes the template. This template, if used, creates large chunks of duplicate information, which misses the point. And lastly, there is nothing achieved here which could not be achieved by linking to a user-space article: the information in the template communicates no important information which the viewer should know before reading the article. Elektron 14:49, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• Delete or at most userfy. Trying to instruct someone in any but the bluntest points of Wikiquette with a template message is going to be offensive. —Korath (Talk) 15:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete & userfy: I also use the same method of archiving, and I personally like it a lot better (shoot me ;)), but I see little benefit for having this in the main template namespace. Userfying will allow Xiong to use it for his personal use, and doesn't prevent it from being used. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 28

Template:TLA

The template basically informs the visitor that he looks at a TLA disambiguation page like MAA. I really think that he would also find this out without the existence of this template. :-) --Conti|✉ 15:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

TfD was added only on April 14.

• Delete - seems the explanatory text doesn't add anything, and we have other mechanisms on the pages like Category:TLAs, Category:Lists of two-letter combinations. -- Netoholic @ 18:04, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Keep. -- User:Docu
• Delete per Netoholic. Radiant_* 07:01, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Netoholic. –Lev 19:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete...hey wait a minute? MAA is a three letter acronym?! Who'da thunk it? -Frazzydee|✍ 00:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it merely states the obvious -- Kaszeta 17:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It should be split up into two templates: one about TLAs and including Category:TLAs and disambig, and the other about two-letter combinations and including Category:$1 and disambig. However, that should all be done automatically, doing it manually is a waste of time. --Joy [shallot] 11:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant w/ cat. Also obvious w/o template. —Lowellian (talk) 19:54, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: the advantage over the use of the categories is that it invites to be thorough with the list of possible expansions. Personally, I don't like the current layout as I find centering more suitable for titles or short list than for texts. Alternatively, we could include some text in a page footer that includes {{disambig}}.

• Delete. - Maybe we can replace this template and {{disambig}} with {{TLAdisambig}} for all TLAs, and {{2LCdisambig}} for all two-letter combinations.
• Delete, as per above. Master Thief Garrett 03:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Performs no useful service. -- Dpark 12:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Lake-stub

Not cleared by WP:WSS, this cuts across the current scheme which divides all geography stubs by region rather than by landform type. Can only make for confusion, since articles will be marked lake-stub rather than with the accepted country stubs. There is no Lakes WikiProject, otherwise it might have been viable. Grutness|^hello? 23:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Sink this template. BlankVerse ∅ 01:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment only; no vote. Can't an article carry two stub templates? There are more than a few stubs that probably belong in a couple of categories, and this seems relatively harmless. Then again, if there isn't a Wikiproject looking to clean up these stubs, then the template isn't particularly useful, either. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They can, but a lot of Wiki-editors hate it when they do. And usually for them to carry a second indicates there's a very good reason. Since all geo-stubs have country/region specific stubs, it means that all lake stubs automatically have a minimum of two stubs. And there were already several with two - lakes on the borders between two countries, so the lake-stub adds a third. The big problem with this stub, though, is that some people will put lake-stub onto articles and no other stub, not realisin that the principal method of categorising geo-stubs is by location (since most geo wikiprojects are country-specific. I've already had to look through Category:Lake Stubs (sic) and added country stubs to several that didn't have them. Grutness|^hello? 06:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Putting the additional stub templates on the talk page gives almost no detriment (it is still useful for stub expanders, and only loses utility for someone who comes across the page and says "hey, it's a stub, how do I find more like it?") but has benefit in keeping bloat down. --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see the discussions elsewhere about why putting stub templates on a talk page is an unbelievably bad idea. To cut a long story short by just naming three of the many reasons, they don't get removed by editors who don't know they're there, continuing to clog up stub categories; they waste the time of stub editors, by requiring several pages to load for editing to take place (and then - in the case I've previously noted, more time still because they're more likely to have been previously expanded); and they're less likely to encourage casual editors to edit the articles in the first place, since they don't have the visible "please edit me" message (a slight effect, but lilely a significant one). Grutness|^hello? 01:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• comment: The vote at cfd for "Category:Lake stubs" was delete. Grutness|^hello? 06:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Old Hockey Templates that aren't being used

• Template:Hockey player missing intl play
• Template:Hockey player missing stats
• Template:Hockey player missing awards
• Template:Hockey player missing info
• Template:Hockey player not formatted

The above are all obsolete and no longer used. Kevin Rector (talk) 04:51, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Keep. A hockey player doesn't remain a hockey player forever, he gets replaced with younger players. As younger players are added to WP, I can see a need for templates like these to flag articles on these younger players that are missing the associated data. slambo 20:16, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) slambo 11:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comment The point is that they've never really ever been used. They just didn't catch on and some people objected to them, so they died a quiet death. This is just the burial. Kevin Rector (talk) 03:04, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Vote updated. slambo 11:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:tram

Was only used on streetcar, where it was redundant with the text up top. --SPUI (talk) 11:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Is this a useful template? Couldn't it be replaced by a link in the "See also" section? Delete. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, not useful at all. It appears to have been the creation of someone who hadn't yet discovered categories (Category:Tram transport in this case). No harm at all in deleting. --iMb~Meow 02:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Brittanyhill-stub

Created by the same user as Template:Template stub. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. How many hills in Brittany could possibly merit an article? And of those, how many would survive vfd unless already bigger than a stub? —Korath (Talk) 21:24, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm beginning to think that all new "Template: (something)-stub" additions need to be auto-tagged for review and speedy deletion. Master Thief Garrett 03:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • see my comment under Secur-stub, above. Grutness|^hello? 06:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, and Delete. Is it just me, or does "Brittany Hill" sound like the name of a new generic flavour-of-the-month pop-star? Grutness|^hello? 06:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • uh-oh, you just wait, someone will see your comment and dutifully start an article about her... Master Thief Garrett 07:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Medical

Another disclaimer template. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/April 2005#Template:Adult and Wikipedia talk:Risk disclaimer. Delete. --cesarb 14:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — until some argument is given here. I've looked at the documents linked to, and much of what's in them is irrelevant to this case (the template isn't in screaming capitals, it isn't alarmist, etc.). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think mav has made the most pertinent argument already: the template is not going to be placed on some pages that should have it, and people are going to think that means that the medical advice is good. This opens us up to lawsuits. Rely on the disclaimers linked to from every page instead. (Plus this is yet another ugly obtrusive box that, if it survives, will be placed in articles and never removed. Feh.) —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this template is redundant with Wikipedia:General disclaimer and Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. The general disclaimer is linked from every page, and the medical disclaimer is one click away from the general one. Personally I think medical/legal advice disclaimers are probably unnecessary here, but for those who believe they are required to protect Wikipedia, they already exist. Rhobite 18:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There will be arguments about which pages deserve this disclaimer, it's redundant with the comprehensive disclaimers cited by Rhobite, and from a legal standpoint this disclaimer may expose us to additional liability if we miss putting it on any page related however remotely to medicine. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all the same reasons. --Delirium 07:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, it won't be on all pages that could possibly be used as medical advice. We have a general medical disclaimer which is clear that no page should be misconstrued as such. However, to be especially clear, not to protect our asses, but rather to protect anyone who might actually try to use information on wikipedia as medical advice. Notthe9 19:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• For the reasons given on the talk pages of our omnipresent disclaimers, Delete. Uncle G 15:26, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
• delete. Wikipedia already has all the content disclaimers the lawyers have asked for. No need to second-guess them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessary pastel boxes, begone! — Dan | Talk 20:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 23:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia has a general medical disclaimer, but I've never seen it without looking for it. This template can and is used for making it clear.
• Delete. It is not being used, it is already covered by the general disclaimer, and you'd have to be mad to trust Wikipedia on medical matters (i.e. common sense). JFW | T@lk 06:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Put the use of this template on hold—see my comment. Delete, for all the reasons mentioned above. Iff it is kept, it should be redesigned with the "cute" graphic removed and the template made much less prominent. Again, iff it is kept, it should only be put at the bottom of the medically-related articles. (Although it is currently only being used on a few articles, once people know about this template, I can see it being added to hundreds of articles!) BlankVerse ∅ 07:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Comment. After thinking about this for a day, I have decided that this is an issue that really should be decided as a Wikipedia policy issue, and should not be handled by a Templates for deletion vote. This vote should probably be set aside while a Thinktank proposal is created to make decisions on this and similar templates. Until a decision is made, the use of this template should be put on hold. BlankVerse ∅ 07:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, concurring with all reasons to keep given above. Samaritan 16:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia has a general disclaimer. No need for this. K1Bond007 02:55, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - So the articles without this template in it are safe? We already have a disclaimer link at the bottom of every page. --mav 04:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We already link to the general disclaimer from every single page on wikipedia. →Raul654 05:54, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete general disclaimer exists --Jiang 06:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if we have a medical disclaimer on all medical-related articles, we might as well put a legal advice disclaimer on all law-related articles...but that means that we should also put a general disclaimer on all articles, which is the whole purpose of having the disclaimers all in one place. The only disclaimer on wikipedia should be the spoiler warnings, because you don't know where they are, and they ruin things for you. You can choose to ignore medical-related content on Wikipedia, but once you've read a spoiler, you can't just pretend you never read it. -Frazzydee|✍ 12:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Pfd

Blanked by its creator, and the explanation on the talk page didn't convince me (I fail to see how keeping it blanked prevents recreation, or why preventing its recreation is needed). Delete. --cesarb 00:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Note that said creator politely blanked the content when I asked him to. I'm happy to see it go, but it doesn't much bother me to have the blank one hanging around the Template space. FreplySpang (talk) 04:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- Do the research before you vote. If you don't want to be tagged a deletionist fanatic, think before you act.

You think this comment is unjustified? Prove me wrong. Go look. Believe it or not, there is a joke page preserved -- "People for deletion". And yes, we need some humor around here. If you look that page over, you will see that {{pfd}} is specified -- obviously. The next step is to create the template -- which is just what this old fool did. Then, I tagged myself.

A user asked me to remove the template, in fear that some inconsiderate asshole might actually tag some other user's page with this joke, which would not be funny at all. I agreed, and moved it to my user space. The user wrote back, Thanks! That certainly was more pleasant than TFD. I'm glad I stopped to think before putting it there. Boy, it sure was -- and I'm glad, too.

Delete the template, and all information, all history about it goes away. Some other fool thinks it is clever to write the template and creates it anew. Perhaps that new fool will not have the discretion of an old fool to tag his own page; perhaps he tags another's. Disaster, or at least annoyance.

Keep the template, and there is not an actual incentive given the fool who sees a box with the words, "Go right ahead now and create this thing." Who knows, the lazy fool might actually transclude {pfd} in a victim's page and fail to understand why nothing is copied. A slightly wiser fool might even check out the Talk page and take a lesson.

Deleting the template solves nothing -- deleting most templates solves nothing, because the same misuse, abuse, or nonsense can be committed in other ways -- or in the same way all over again. Better to watch how templates are used, and rm the stupid uses of them -- oh, but while that accomplishes something, it does require actual work. — Xiong熊talk 04:27, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

If the template is recreated, it can be speedily deleted as a recreation. Just because someone might recreate it is not reason enough to keep it alive. Just because the same abuse might be done other ways is not reason enough to keep it alive.

The newbie you speak of will never see the box you speak of (Mediawiki:noarticletext), because simply nothing on the joke page links to Template:pfd. Even if he tries to use {{subst:pfd}}, as suggested on the joke page, he will not see a link to the template (as he would if the instructions were to use {{pfd}}). And if he is not a newbie, not only he knows how to create it, but he also knows that it's wrong, and why it's wrong. A vandal would not be stopped by a simple comment on a talk page.

If you are too worried about recreation, you can go ahead and add it to your watchlist. It works even if the page has been deleted, and will show any attempts at recreation.

--cesarb 13:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy, recreation of deleted content. —Korath (Talk) 21:21, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not "worried" about recreation; it's just another good reason to keep it as is. Most of us would rather not have to fool with something again and again; we have other duties. A better reason is to preserve the Talk. Show me what harm is done by retaining the blank content. — Xiong熊talk 22:30, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

• May I please ask the reverse and query what good is done by retaining the blank content? Radiant_* 09:34, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

As the boys on the playlot say, "I asked you first." Not only that, I already told you the good it does. What parts of my remarks are unclear to you? — Xiong熊talk 04:43, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

• Might I redirect you to WP:CIV? Blank pages are confusing. This is 'templates for deletion', not 'templates for replacing with a blank page'. Radiant_* 07:32, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete -- Netoholic @ 03:01, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
• Delete or Speedy K1Bond007 03:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, you mean this template hasn't already been deleted? -Frazzydee|✍ 12:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Secur-stub

Created by an anonymous user. Desperately vague, it could cover everything from Yale locks to Spy satellites. Not created nor wanted by WP:WSS. Grutness|^hello? 11:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No vote I have a hard time voting to delete these stub templates. It seems that anything that isn't in the stub project's list gets voted for deletion and I think that is wrong. It should be added to your project, or it should redirect to the proper stub template in your project. The people who create these classified stubs are clearly doing it with good intentions in an effort to improve Wikipedia and I don't think it is wise to repremand them for it just because it hasn't yet been included in some project. →Vik Reykja 05:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Current policy says there is no absolute stipulation to create stub templates via WP:WSS, but that stub templates should be presented there as a courtesy (there is actually a proposal to make the deletion/creation of stub templates entirely a WP:WSS thing, to reduce the traffic here and on cfd, but it's still only a proposal). WP:WSS is finding on average about ten new stub templates a week. Some of them will be useful, but we're drowning in them and they're hampering us in our work - there are now several hundred different types of stub template, many of them serving no practical purpose. Given that it is stub sorters and WikiProject editors who use the stub categories, to have a stub category that will not be used by either is impractical, to put it mildly. The people who create these classified stubs are working with good intentions, but are often working in a manner that makes the work of stub sorters harder by creating categories that run contrary to the hierarchies that have been created, or creating categories that will never have more than two or three stubs in them, or - as in this case - having a category that is worded so ambiguously as to be of no use to anyone. Some of them - as in this case - are created by anonymous users who may not have had any clear plan as to what they wanted to do with them, and aren't around to tell anyone. As to redirects, as you probably know, a redirect on a template will do nothing until the article the template on is next edited. In other words, the stubs have been removed from Category:Stub, but won't appear in a new category until they are next editor. Problem with that is, who will edit them? They're not listed as stubs anywhere any more... I'm not saying it's a case of "trust us, we know what we're doing" - it's more a case of "if we're not using them and the editors aren't using them, then to all intents and purposes, these templates will never be used for what they were intended for". Grutness|^hello? 06:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The quantity and frequency of stub classifications are not excuses. After all, isn't that why the project was created? Ignorant users cannot be used as an excuse either; wikis do not require certification of all [pseudo-]policies in order to edit them. Vague stubs can be read and determined to which less-vague stub to redirect; ultra-specific stubs can redirect to not-so-ultra-specific stub classifications. As for the not redirecting until the article is modified, this is a bug in the software and must not affect policy. (I did not know about this bug, but I'll keep an eye out for its manifestation in the future) My point is we should be as forgiving of new/unaware users as we can and not just blow them out of the water. I would much rather have redirects than vfds. →Vik Reykja 07:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • To answer your question first - no, that is not why the project was created. The project was created to help editors of specific topic types by dividing stubs into smaller sections so that they could be found by editors looking for those specific topics. As such, its principal aim is to connect with wikiprojects on particular subjects. It was not created to split the stub category into so many minor topics that a specialist editor would have to check dozens of categories each containing less than a dozen stubs. Nor was it created so that no stub sorter could ever remember all of the stub categories available. Neither was it created so that almost identical categories with different names could exist on the same subject. You're right as to wikis and ignorant users - and if templates could be redirected without the bug in the software, there would be no problem (except that it would be equally hard on new users to find their lovely new useless stub redirecting to a useful one). And of course bugs in the software affect policy - it's not necessarily a good thing that they do, but it is a practical necessity. For example, the policy is to create new good articles - if a bug in the software means that the server is down, we cannot create new good articles. As to "blowing new users out of the water", you clearly don't know the lengths to which the WP:WSS goes to explain the policy to creators of useless stubs and encourage them to participate. Grutness|^hello? 10:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too broad to be useful. —Korath (Talk) 13:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Grutness' excellent reasoning. We can't keep a useless/confusing template just because a "well-meaning" newbie added it. This isn't us biting them, it's just that they've obviously overlooked the guidelines, which I don't see you could interpret as being "unclear". Master Thief Garrett 03:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  I was merely commenting on why I had a hard time with this kind of tfd, not this particular tfd. →Vik Reykja 04:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 07:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Samaritan 16:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Lectonar 09:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Shahnama-stub

An appalling piece of hypercategorisation. there isn't even a Shahnama category, and the subject is quite adequately covered by other stubs. Not created nor wanted by WP:WSS. Grutness|^hello? 11:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't know what a Shahnama is or are, but I reckon Grutness knows what he's on about... Master Thief Garrett 03:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • :) Thank you - it's the national epic poem of Iran - sort of a Middle-eastern Beowulf or Kalevala. Grutness|^hello? 04:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes I looked it up soon after voting... at least I've learned *something* today... Master Thief Garrett 04:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's not even a Template:Beowolf-stub or a Template:Kalevala-stub. --Bastique 19:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 07:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Lectonar 09:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)