Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/February 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The current archival system does not separate deleted/non-deleted templates (in use since January 4, 2006)

Contents 1 2006 2 Special cases 3 Old archival system (until January 3, 2006) 3.1 February 1 3.1.1 Template:fn1 3.1.2 Template:Offensivetemplate 3.1.3 Template:Picp 3.2 February 2 3.2.1 Template:Usercssjs 3.2.2 Template:Darwin 3.2.3 Template:CowProtected 3.3 February 3 3.3.1 Template:Offensiveimage 3.4 February 4 3.4.1 Template:Indonesia infobox 3.4.2 Template:us-geo-stub 3.5 February 6 3.5.1 Template:Love 3.5.2 Template:Vfd delete 3.6 February 8 3.6.1 Template: City-stub 3.7 February 14 3.7.1 Template:Deletebecauseoncommons 3.8 February 16 3.8.1 Template:CamNotice 3.8.2 Template:CamRequiredNotice 3.8.3 template:cite sources 3.8.4 Template:Cowstub 3.8.5 Template:FRANCE 3.8.6 Template:Stub-sorting-stub 3.9 February 17 3.9.1 Template:ChrisGtest 3.9.2 Template:Holmes 3.9.3 Template:Rename 3.10 February 18 3.10.1 Template:Portuguese former colonies 3.11 February 20 3.11.1 Template:not child safe 3.11.2 Template:morbid warning 3.12 February 23 3.12.1 Template:Infobox European regions 3.13 February 24 3.13.1 Template:vfd votes 3.13.2 Template:Audio format 3.14 February 26 3.14.1 Template:Timeline CGI in movies 3.14.2 Template:Delete unused redirect

[edit] 2006

<< January >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31	<< February >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28	<< March >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
<< April >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30	<< May >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31	<< June >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
<< July >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31	<< August >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31	<< September >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
<< October >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31	<< November >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30	<< December >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

[edit] Special cases

• Template:Block. To be deleted, but currently linked to an Arbitration case. -Splash^talk 13:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Template:Album_infobox_2 – nominated on 16 December 2005 by User:Monicasdude

• Comment: Template:Album_infobox_2 is a redirect to Template:Album infobox. A few hundred articles use that redirect at the moment. I think its not worth the trouble to replace the redirect with its target. If nobody objects, I would simply remove this entry from here without further action. Otherwise someone with a bot license could do that. Adrian Buehlmann 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Eventually, the templates should be moved to Infobox_Album. At that time, I'll probably run a bot against all the related articles at once. We should leave a note as a long-term reminder, though. -- Netoholic @ 06:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old archival system (until January 3, 2006)

Deleted

2006: January

2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December

Not deleted

2006: January

2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December

Combined

2004: September - October - November - December

[edit] February 1

[edit] Template:fn1

Discovered this while experimenting with footnotes. Not being used, not really suitable for template use. JFW | T@lk 00:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, though I admit it made me giggle. — MikeX (talk) 08:04, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a newbie mistake. Kinda funny actually, but no real utility. jni 08:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Offensivetemplate

Created for the hell of it (I was bored...). Should be a speedy delete :) Grutness|^hello? 09:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please tag it as a speedy deletion, citing point ten here, then remove this TfD section. (You can use {{deletebecause|REASON}} to tag it). Thanks! — MikeX (talk) 09:36, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, we laughed. Three times. Now please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Thanks. ?Cantus…☎ 09:36, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

A suitably chagrined Grutness apologises. In my defence, I would like to say that I read the proposed policy page you added a link to - and followed the section marked "If you must..." as exactly as I could. Grutness|^hello?

Keep as long as the offensiveimage template exists. RickK 10:17, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

um, OK... I have added a speedy delete tag to it,t hough, so it should be gone soon, hopefully. Grutness|^hello? 10:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uhh, I don't think CSD rule 10 applies anymore after RickK has disputed your deletion request here. Any policy lawyers to comment? jni 12:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you want a policy lawyer answer: "It can't be speedy deleted, even if RickK hadn't objected." The new CSD addition of "if the sole author asks for it to be deleted with good reason" only applies to templates. I wouldn't have objected to speedy deleting it at Grutness' request, but seeing as it's already here we might as well do the full TfD thing. --fvw* 00:57, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Funny, but delete. Might be worth putting on BJOADN along with the too-many-pastel-boxes one. --fvw* 00:57, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Keep. No, just kidding. Delete. -- Itai 12:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Picp

Exactly the same function (if slightly different wording) as Template:Commons. There is no need for this duplication. -- Netoholic @ 16:45, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

• Keep. Furthermore, Netoholic has orphaned the template prior to listing it on WP:TFD. (See Template talk:Picp. — Itai (f&t) 21:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't orphan it, I replaced usage of it with the more common and standard Commons template. I'll do the same anytime, because it is the correct thing to do. I have to ask, Itai, how old are you? "Tattling" is hardly productive, since this template stands or falls on its own. -- Netoholic @ 23:45, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure "Picp" means something profound, but "Commons" makes more sense to me. (Mummy! Netoholic hit me and stole my lunch money!) — MikeX (talk) 11:15, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Really mature, the both of you. Especially as it is established that Netoholic's 13, mentally if not in age. Anyway, my point stands. Unless we can see a usage example - how was this template used, and where - voting seems pointless. (Of course we should delete it - it's not used anywhere!) — Itai (f&t) 14:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what is Picp anyway? Grue 06:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February 2

[edit] Template:Usercssjs

(and redirect at MediaWiki:Usercssjs)

This really should be a "speedy". This template used to be a MediaWiki internal message, but the function was replaced with MediaWiki:Clearyourcache. -- Netoholic @ 01:18, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

• This is just one of 83 obsolete internal messages moved moved to Template: by the TNIS. (huge list removed) Goplat 16:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, yeah thanks for flooding the page. Anyway, this I think is too many for us to deal with here all at once. I have been proposing a couple a week, trying to see if there were any general issues with this. Some of these (like Usercssjss) have edit histories which could be merged into the newly-named function. Can we please take this off to a separate page for general discussion on an approach for all of these? -- Netoholic @ 17:41, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

I'm going to interpret this discussion as consensus to delete. I don't know what the other 83 messages are, or whether this discussion has been continued somewhere else. dbenbenn | talk 21:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Darwin

Classic template overkill. Why should Natural selection link to Darwin, Australia?--Pharos 15:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the template. Instead, there should be a category for "Topics related to Evolution" Johntex 22:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 00:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but edit. The genealogy stuff should be removed and probably put into a separate Darwin genealogy template (which could end up being huge). I would also edit out the links to evolution (it's duplicated in the Evolution template), plus natural selection and sexual selection. BlankVerse 12:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Add anything appropriate that isn't already in the Charles Darwin article into the "See also" section (and to any other appropriate articles) and then delete BlankVerse 05:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Convert to Category, and create a separate page for the organized genealogy information (I'm not sure a template is needed or best for that). But I wish this had been discussed on Talk:Charles Darwin beforehand. --Fastfission 16:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I put a notice on the template talk page on Jan. 26 and figured whoever was following the template would see it. If a similar situation arises again, I'll surely spread the notice more widely. There is already quite a comprehensive page for the Darwin -- Wedgwood family. I think the other stuff should just be mentioned on the Charles Darwin page, and elsewhere as appropriate.--Pharos 09:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Convert to list Both templates and categories are bad ways to handle this. If anything, this can be a topic list. -- Netoholic @ 17:23, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
• Delete thoroughly. — Dan | Talk 20:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- What's wrong with this? These are very important navigational aids. Create a catagory too if you wish, but this is very nice on those pages. See Jesus or Strong Bad. Both have bars linking to related pages and probably both have catagories (or should). The bar is nice and adds content. I see no reason to delete something useful. -SocratesJedi | Talk 16:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I dislike this because it makes all the articles it is attached to look like they are second in importance to this 'great man', particularly the biographical articles which are of people important in their own right, not just because of their connection to Darwin. Also it looks a bit tacky. --Mr impossible 12:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - SimonP 23:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a job for categories. Fredrik | talk 18:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete possible convert to list or categories. --Jiang 22:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: This navigational template doesn't "feel right" compared to others I've seen. It does seem a bit of "template overkill" as stated above improper use of the template functionality. Courtland 16:30, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC) (in reaction to Quill Courtland 17:03, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC))
• Keep, useful. "Template overkill" is not a valid reason for deletion. --Oldak Quill 18:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This template is not useful at all. Charles Darwin's relatives do not exist as an extension or subset of himself, and similarly with the city and university in Australia, the college in England, the Royal Society medal, or even the theories he pioneered but have since developed far beyond his original formulations. This should all be mentioned in his article in some way, and appropriately elsewhere, but there is absolutely no reason to have all this at the articles about the Australian city or the English college. Compare this to the example of Template:Jesus cited above, where each of the twelve articles is actually and directly about Jesus. In fact, the only such articles on the Darwin template directly relevant to him are his books, and there are only three of them listed.--Pharos 07:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't the use for which templates are intended to be put. Consider a category instead. —Lowellian (talk) 09:10, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CowProtected

Not likely to be useful. Goplat 22:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is just a silly attempt at a joke. -- Infrogmation 22:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strongest possible delete It is a weakness of Wikipedia that we even have to vote on stuff like this. Johntex 22:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Poppycock, in fact. – flamurai^TM 04:45, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, could be useful —Ashley Y 07:43, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
  • For what, pray tell? (Delete) Grutness|^hello? 09:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Already there: Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense: The wrath of bad nonsense#You have two Wikipedias... Goplat 17:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Chris 73 Talk 05:25, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If I owned cows I'd want them protected too. — Dan | Talk 03:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. ✏ OvenFresh² 04:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, of course. JamesMLane 04:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February 3

[edit] Template:Offensiveimage

I, the creator of this template, ask that it be deleted immediately. I thank everybody who supported this template. and now ask for your help in drafting a new policy I'm working on which I believe is far more democratic and embraces the desires of the community and not of a single editor. See Wikipedia:Images unsuitable for inline display for this new proposed policy. If you don't like the name, you can change that too! —Cantus…☎ 01:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep	Delete
11	36

Recent creation, falsely implies that images thought to be potentially offensive should be removed pending consensus on policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've been drafting the following policy Wikipedia:Images unsuitable for inline display as a possible first step for the use of this template. See that page for more information and discussion. —Cantus…☎ 08:41, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't needed. Any editor can turn an inline image into a link and vice versa. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Outright wrong. -Lommer | ^talk 01:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Isn't the de-facto policy on offensive images to revert-war over them while flaming each other on the talk pages? --Carnildo 02:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE. I was about to list this myself. Created by a user who enjoys pushing his POV on others in regard to "offensive" images (and has felt the wrath of arbcom numerous times as a result). Agree 100% with Tony that it "falsely implies that images thought to be potentially offensive should be removed pending consensus on policy." Blargh. TIMBO (T A L K) 03:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP Delete. There is no approved policy on how to handle such offensive images, so a case by case discussion on each article's Talk page seems the best solution so far. so using this template is the most sensible option. And no, Limeheadnyc I'm not trying to push my POV as you state, this is merely common sense and good judgment and I'm sorry you don't see that. —Cantus…☎ 03:36, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm going to try to disengage from this conflict after this message because I have neither the time nor energy to get into a flame war. Be that as it may, two points: (1) It is a POV that you're trying to push, even though you're thoroughly convinced that it is "common sense." The POV is that an image depicts an act or subject which is objectively somehow deplorable or offensive. I tend to disagree, and I know quite a few editors who feel the same way. (2) In lieu of an approved policy on how to handle such "offensive" images, we should take your approved action? The false implications of your template's wording notwithstanding, I think this is a bad idea. Sorry for the caustic wording, but NPOV is an ideal I will defend tooth-and-nail. TIMBO (T A L K) 03:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The display of pornography and not NPOV is what you're striving to defend here. Need I remind you this is an encyclopedia and not a triple-X web site? —Cantus…☎ 03:58, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • NPOV is what is being defended here. "This image contains a person performing autofellatio" is an objective statement. "This image contains potentially offensive content" is also objective, but is so broad that it can be used to describe any image whatsoever, and thus is useless. "This image contains triple-X pornography" is not objective, as the definition of pornography changes from person to person and situation to situation, and XXX is an advertising gimmick created by the porn industry. --Carnildo 06:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Though it is perhaps badly worded, in the interest of Wikipedia's reputation I feel this template is necessary in a very limited number of cases (the autofellatio pic being one of them). — Dan | Talk 03:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - UtherSRG 03:45, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Though it might do good to examine the wording again. Danny 03:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not censored or bowdlerized. →Raul654 04:05, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently the line hasn't been drawn. This is what the proposed policy should do. Honestly, with admins like you I fear for the future of this project. —Cantus…☎ 04:20, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Neutrality^talk 04:09, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Davenbelle 04:14, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Modify though. Geni 04:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Remember this is an comprehensive encyclopedia, not an anti-porn site. :) But seriously, it seems POV to mark images in this way. Who decides what's offensive or potentially offensive? Finding something "offensive" seems inherently point of view. Even if we deemed an image as "pornography", if you think pornography is "bad" that's your point of view. The question should be, IMHO: Does the image serve the educational purpose of the article? Like with articles, can an image be used that serves the educational purpose and pleases all editors? With that in mind, I don't feel this template is a good idea.--Sketchee 04:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I totally agree. Along those same lines, it seems to me that the picture either illustrates the article in a useful, encyclopedic way (which is subject to interpretation I suppose, and should be worked out in discussion) and should be included in the article, or the pic should be deleted. The pic was on IfD and was kept. 'Nuff said? The template screams POV. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If for some reason the Goatse was found to be public domain would you support it's use without a warning?Geni 04:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm glad that you're keeping your word and trying to "disengage" yourself from this discussion. Anyway, we're talking about basic common sense here. It is not about pornography being bad or not. Pornography has its place, and that place is definitely not Wikipedia. —Cantus…☎ 04:40, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • You caught me, Cantus. I'm tryin' to keep away, but there are some points that I feel I should make. Anyway, the Goatse guy was brought up in the infamous clitoris image controversy ad nauseum. The underpinnings of this debate are the same as in clitoris, in my mind; it's just that more people are comfortable censoring or bowdlerizing the 'pedia in this instance because the act of autofellatio may be seen as a bit more offensive than the female form. I stand by my conviction that the only npov way to proceed is to base inclusion/deletion arguments on encyclopedic utility. This is of course up to debate, but the debate should only focus on whether it enhances the informative value of the article in question, not whether it may offend some people. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Cantus: Calling your views "common sense" doesn't make it so; it's just not that obvious what is pornography, what is offense, and what is appropriate. While you may feel that certain things are "pornography" or "offensive", someone else can easily look at the same thing and not feel that way at all. There's nothing common about that at all. Is the reasoning that if it's appropriate for wikipedia then it's not pornography or that if it's pornography it's not appropriate? Both of these reasons are POV. Like I said, what's important is whether it serves the educational purpose of the article in the best way possible. This template, IMHO, does not as one thing we are trying to achieve with articles is NPOV.--Sketchee 05:05, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's obvious that ad hocing this will only lead to edit warring; Let's get some consensus (or at least something approximating that) on how to handle these cases before people individually start marking images as "this offends me". --fvw* 04:49, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • That's what Wikipedia:Profanity#Offensive_images is for. As there is no consensus there yet, replacing the image with a placeholder seems most appropriate. ?Cantus…☎ 05:07, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep —Ashley Y 05:25, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
• Delete/ This template is being to overlay images which one person has declared offensive. This is POV, and unacceptable. This template, its name, and its purpose is POV, and I will personally revert every use of it. RickK 06:06, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not up to you to decide, RickK. A policy is being discussed, and concensus will eventually be reached, and you will have to accept it. Madly reverting will only get you blocked and possibly desysopped. ?Cantus…☎ 06:21, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • You know, RickK has been threatened with desysopping so many times the threat has really lost all meaning, particularly when recent precedent makes it clear that said action is only taken when admin privileges are abused, and reverting doesn't qualify as such. Mackensen (talk) 06:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mackensen (talk) 06:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 06:40, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The very experience of taking offense is inherently and irredeemably POV. When have you ever known labels such as "offensive" or "indecent" to be anything but a proxy for what particular strains of sectarian morality don't want anyone to see/read/experience? Why would it be proper for an academic project to pass judgment on content in any manner beyond its factuality and relevance? We're not the babysitters of the faint of heart among us. Postdlf 07:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I find it perfectly acceptable to have potentially offensive images in articles they relate to. A picture of a penis in the penis article is informative, even though it's offensive to some as numerous edit wars have shown. I wouldn't mind a voluntary censoring option in someone's user preferences, or a template which gives you the option to show the full image (as User:Violetriga once had on their user page. I also agree with Tony's point: it falsely implies that images thought to be potentially offensive should be removed pending consensus on policy. So delete. Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Some people find nudity offensive but are quite happy talking about guns. Some people find guns offensive and are perfectly happy in the nude. This template is inherently POV, and if it is used we run the risk of watering down Wikipedia. Perhaps we need a Template: Offensivetemplate Grutness|^hello? 09:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you think about the warning on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, or the lack of a hello.jpg image at Goatse.cx? Double standards on Wikipedia? Noooo. Will you do anything about that? I bet no. ?Cantus…☎ 09:44, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, in the latter instance, I think that the lack of an image being there means we don't need the template in that case. In the former, anyone looking at a page with the words "torture and prisoner abuse" in the title will already be prepared for what they might find there by the page's title, so we don't need the template there, either. Grutness|^hello?
• weak delete. I'm torn over this. The template is an edit-war magnet. I think the disputes should concentrate on whether or not to show the image at all, and not on how many clicks are required to view it. dab (ᛏ) 10:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - While I disagree with some of the self-referential wording, I do think this template may come in handy. If its used gets out of hand, then we can come back to vote again. --mav 10:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I think this template can come in handy, maybe reworded for the reasons cited above. [jon] [talk] 12:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - As I said on Talk:Autofellatio, I don't mind that some images will be linked, but I oppose any kind of warning. Something like [[:Image:Flowers.jpg|click here to view what the article was talking about all the time]] really is enough. We neither need a template nor a warning for that. --Conti|✉ 12:26, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Noisy | Talk 16:47, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The template is intrinsically POV, and claims a non-existant consensus. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but reword. Any principle, taken to its logical conclusion, becomes irrational. So it is with "freedom of speech" (which does not extend to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre), and so it is here. I don't think it's unreasonable to have some images take one extra click to get to; it's a reasonable compromise which avoids censorship (which I am definitely against), but makes an effort to avoid giving offense. What's the bgi deal about needing one more click? And, no, it's not really "POV", because i) the image is still there, and ii) we make decisions every day, and every decision is nothing more than a point of view on the issue being decided (again we see how anything taken to its logical conclusion becomes silly). Yes, it does need to be reworded, but we need something like this. Noel (talk) 16:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Evice 00:13, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 00:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Such policy and practice as there is generally favors the eventual use of tagging systems to allow those who choose to install or make settings to block such images from doing so, while simultaneously allowing those who do not want filtering to get that: that is, to let both views have their way through better technology. This template encourages counterproductive behavior by those who want to censor the work contrary to current practice. SPeaking now as a developer, I urge anyone who finds images offensive to learn enough about the programming of the site to implement one or more of the standard content tagging schemes so all visitors to the site can get their preferred view. Jamesday 00:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong, strong, STRONG delete. Deceptive, inherently POV, and censoring. This is bullshit. This is an encylopedia. We present information. We do not CENSOR information. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm glad that you're here to defend pornography so fervently. Let me know when you have kids so I can show them a great article called Autofellatio and its accompanying picture, which I'm sure they will enjoy for the rest of their lives. —Cantus…☎ 07:18, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV: I can just see the multiple reversions as various editors add this template to images which are offensive to them personally. (I believe some religions require all women to cover their faces: are we then to tag all images showing a woman's face as "potentially offensive"?) NB to Cantus: I hardly think you strengthen your case by threatening to show images which you yourself deem offensive to children. --Phil | Talk 12:38, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm just going to list my thoughts here: First of all, should this be reworded, I'm not as strongly against this as the rest of you. For example, I would not want a coworker looking over my shoulder when I was looking at that autofellatio image. However, in that case, I shouldn't go to the page in the first place. I believe there are certain situations where images should not be displayed or should be warned about. For example, it's not obvious from Goatse that there may be a photo of a man stretching his ass open. In that case, it would be prudent to link to the image. I don't believe Wikipedia should lay down all black-and-white laws; it's a dangerous thing to have someone running around trying to remove any semblance of POV from the articles, for example. I believe we should apply two tests in the case of displaying inline images: 1. Would a reasonable person except the shocking nature of the image given the title of the article? If not, 2. Would a reasonable person want to be seen looking at the image at an average workplace? Regardless, I believe this template is in the spirit of removal rather than inclusion, which is why I'm voting delete. – flamurai^TM 19:01, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Templates such as this should objectively describe the specific reason for the warning. Examples: Template:Image contains adult frontal nudity. Hyacinth 19:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Adding my vote which otherwise wasn't being counted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is inherently POV which images are offensive. User:Cantus unilaterally reduced the size of the image at Nudism on monday to 50px wide ([1]) which I reverted ([2]). This image is being discussed at Talk:Nudism but the consensus is that it is not offensive - everyone commenting is for its inclusion (reducing the size of it was not even proposed there). I don't find it offensive, and it isn't pornographic. As long as the image is apropriate (e.g. the nudism picture would not be apropriate at Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, the picture there would not be apropriate at Isaac Asimov), legal according to the laws of Florida (where the Wikipedia servers are located) and do not violate any copyrights then I do not think that any images should be removed. Thryduulf 19:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Images should be used or not according to whether they improve the article or not, and whether it is legal to use them, not according to whether people with certain points of view find them offensive. See my rant at Wikipedia talk:Images unsuitable for inline display#There's no such thing. —AlanBarrett 20:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Reword, provide User Setting. The wording on this tag is terrible, but Wikipedia needs something like this to help users have the experience they would like to have. If technology permits (and it seems to permit almost anything if we work at it) why not give each user 2 choices: (1) show all images, even those that might be offensive and (2) hide images tagged as being potentially offensive. This way, users who select the first setting may browse without having anything censored. Users who select the second setting will have to decide to make an extra click to access images that are tagged potentially offensive. In this way, the potential harm done by an over-zealous editor is kept in check, but a somewhat prudish user could still read about Nudism without seeing an image. I do know that a user can turn off all images in her browser, but this would give an intermediate option. Johntex 22:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think "offensive" is the right word to use. If there were user settings, we should tag images based on objective criteria such as nudity, sexual acts, photos of corpses, etc. – flamurai^TM 22:48, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless completely rewritten to say ONLY that it is a placeholder. Useless and contentious in its current form. silsor 23:53, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Or, I suppose, you could rename it "Template:Imagewhichpushescantusbuttons" --Calton 00:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL. —Cantus…☎ 01:18, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The normal wiki edit mechanism suffices. -- SGBailey 09:55, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
• Delete. Disagree that POVness of offensivity is a problem in the normal POV way, but nevertheless prefer that we not make these judgements on Wikipedia. --Improv 19:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I think I'll decide what is offensive for myself. I don't need, nor want, the Mother Teresas, the Marilyn Mansons, or anyone inbetween deciding for me, thank you. I'm a big boy, I can decide for myself. ...at least my mommy says so. :) Cburnett 09:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Please. Room 101, anyone? Either everyone makes their own judgment, or someone makes it for us. I prefer the former. And please don't threaten my kids. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as inherently NPOV. There aren't any images that are offensive to everyone, and it isn't our place to make that call. Joyous 00:02, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-7 00:14 Z
• Delete -- Chris 73 Talk 05:22, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete foobaz·✐ 03:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I haven't yet seen a clear enough definition of how to use such things, and have seen that images which I consider unacceptable to censor are being targetted. Mozzerati 23:16, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

[edit] February 4

[edit] Template:Indonesia infobox

"Bring out your dead" — Davenbelle 05:58, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

• a tad on the large size, maybe, but nothing that a rewrite couldn't fix, surely? Looks as though it serves a useful purpose... Grutness|^hello? 09:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is an obsolete template; it implemented the Indonesia infobox first as a wikitable and then via the Template:Infobox Country. The Indonesia infobox is now implemented via Template:Infobox Country directly in the article, thus this file is "dead". (FYI, the template parameters have since been changed, so this now fails to render correctly. This is a serious drawback to the template approach.) — Davenbelle 17:07, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I change my vote to Delete Grutness|^hello?

• Delete, of course. -- Netoholic @ 17:21, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
• Delete – flamurai^TM 18:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:us-geo-stub

A good idea from someone who didn't realise we already had a well-used Template:US-geo-stub. Not in use on any articles. Grutness|^hello? 22:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both -- Netoholic @ 23:52, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
  • both??? Surely you jest. Template:US-geo-stub is one of the most useful stub templates, and is used currently on about 2000 articles! Grutness|^hello?
    • I see no reason that stubs be marked in any way other than with a simple, common message. Is there really any editor that comes to Wikipedia saying "Gee, I wish it was easier to find articles on U.S. geography that I can expand!". Sorting stubs is busy work. -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
      • For one reason: I've used the template:Japan-stub/Category:Japan-related stubs combo to look for articles to de-stub. Having the various topic stubs makes it much easier to look for articles that one might be interested than trying to deal with catchall Category:Stub and Category:Substubs. BlankVerse 18:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Why not create Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan (or whatever appropriate), and make a page listing all the stubs to be worked on? -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
          • There is the Japanese Wikipedians' notice board as well as various other Regional notice boards, and they do have lists of articles to create, stubs to expand, etc. Those lists, however, are fairly small lists of what are considered the most important articles for the boards to work on. Can you even imagine how much of a PITA it would be to try to maintain a large list of stubs and substubs basically by hand? You would have to regularly track down all the new stubs that Wikipedia newbies make so you could add them to the list (as well as find those new stubs created by regular Wikipedia editors who didn't know about the notice boards), and then regularly check the list for articles that had been turned into full articles but hadn't been deleted from the list. BlankVerse 12:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If you worked in stub-sorting like I do, you'd know that a LOT of editors say "gee, I'm glad I can find the stubs on my area of expertise!". And now it's far easier for people working on individual projects to find articles to expand. Currently there's a huge project going on to cut the number of generic stubs down, largely by putting them in the thoroughly necessary subcategories... hell, there were over 4000 geo-stubs alone a month ago, and there were already a couple of thousand in individual regional subcategories. Now the number of plain geo-stubs is down to about 500 and yes, those of us working on subdividing the stubs are getting lots of support and "thank you" messages from editors who would otherwise not have known where their projects' stub articles were. Grutness|^hello?
• Delete Template:us-geo-stub. — Itai (f&t) 00:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:US-geo-stub — MikeX (talk) 05:12, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Given that it's not being used...? Grutness|^hello?
    • Why not? Most *-geo-stubs are lowercase, IIRC, and that would've been my first guess if I needed the template. — MikeX (talk) 08:01, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • UK-geo-stub, HK-geo-stub (Hong Kong), SM-geo-stub (Serbia/Montenegro), NZ-geo-stub..., but then again plurality doesn't hurt. Grutness|^hello?
• Delete Template:us-geo-stub, Keep Template:US-geo-stub BlankVerse 18:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW: There may be a bug in redirects when used with templates, so it may be best to avoid a redirect until we know that the bug is fixed. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Hong-Kong-stub and HK-stub?
  • That's a bug with categories; I think you have to resave each page for it to show up in the new category. --SPUI (talk) 20:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and delete Category:United States geography stubs. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 07:48, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Template:us-geo-stub (since redirect serves little purpose and actually militates against accuracy in the use of the other templates) and Keep Template:US-geo-stub. I would have written much the same as Grutness, if xe had not. ☺ Uncle G 16:13, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

[edit] February 6

[edit] Template:Love

Basically a 'cute' way of saying this page needs attention. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:48, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unnecessary. - Vague | Rant 04:53, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, you are perfectly wrong from the beginning to the end and even when I read it backwards substituting with closest calculated mnemonics for symbolic derivation of reason. Love is more than Wiktionary:cute. Love is more than attention, although it has a lot in common with it. It is devotion. It is sense. It is purpose. It is affection. It is identyfication. It is eudaimonia. It is meme. It is symbol. It is essence. It is life. Agquarx 05:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With your attitude, donating attention to the WikiPedia becomes not only tedious work with no purpose and no payment in any form, but also harassment and a source of sorrow. How can you stand the universe you are living in? I hope you contribute something except of your hate for anything you cannot comprehend. Agquarx 05:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This template may have been meant to be cute, but all it does is basically say "cleanup". I see no reason for it. Cabhan 06:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about icreasing the productivity of the person, by strong emotional attachement to the work she is performing for the good of humanity and to praise the Goddess of Wisdom from your favourite mythology? It is a self-inducing declaration of devotion. It's a virulent meme that creates a possitive feedback loop. Woudn't it be merry if such template was used from time to time? Remember - the template is not finished, I created it yesterday! Give me a week.... Agquarx 16:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Love = POV. Might be clever the first time, but it'd just get annoying. – flamurai^TM 17:59, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Psychedelic drivel. Part of a pattern across several articles, including a wholly new "Memetics:" namespace. WP:VIP. Delete. Uncle G 19:15, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
• Ack, delete. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ugly, excessive, unfunny. — Dan | Talk 20:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I sense the sorrow of my fellow Wikipedians when they examine this template, as shown by their "Delete" votes. I feel the best way that I can show my empathy and love for them by adding my own supportive vote of Delete. That way, they may soon return to happiness and joy. Grutness|^hello? 11:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Needs medication. --Phil | Talk 11:55, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. silsor 02:18, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Vfd delete

VfD debates do not suddenly create "speedy deletion" candidates at the end of voting. This template will cause confusion and interfere with the routine operation of the admins who handle completed VFDs. Its use is not documented anywhere, and has gone unused since the last time it was on TFD over a month ago. -- Netoholic @ 04:11, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

• Object to listing', otherwise Keep. This template was created to alow non-sysops to handle VfD candidates. 1) Too soon after last vfd on Jan 3rd. 2) "Unused" - untrue, it just seems that way as by the nature of the template, all of the articles using it have been deleted. Vacuum c 15:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. VFD results are done by admins - this isn't needed. violet/riga (t) 15:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think non-admins can handle archive votes deciding "keeps", but all steps for "deletes" should be done by an admin. It comes down to this, would an admin trust that this notice was placed on a page correctly and blindly delete? No, they'd have to confirm the voting had consensus to delete. -- Netoholic @ 17:42, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
• Comment: This has spent less than five days without the tfd tag on it, discouraging both its use and its documentation. —Korath (Talk) 17:35, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that really shows that its creator abandoned it. -- Netoholic @ 17:42, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedy deletion and VfD are two separate processes. This will just confuse people. – flamurai^TM 18:00, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only admins should judge consensus on VFD debates. — Dan | Talk 20:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This template doesn't conform to the procedure that we use to close VfD's. Joyous 00:07, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-sysops have no business making deletion decisions. Snowspinner 22:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Intended usage does not conform to Wikipedia:deletion process. Admin doing the deletion needs to do independent check for consensus in any case. jni 10:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February 8

[edit] Template: City-stub

Largely redundant with the reorganisation of the geography stubs. In fact worse than that, it now confuses the issue greatly, so should be deleted asap. Only used on about a dozen articles, if that. Grutness|^hello? 00:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• delete Cities should be listed under the various country stubs. BlankVerse 05:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed. – flamurai (t) 06:44, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February 14

[edit] Template:Deletebecauseoncommons

(and redirect at Template:dbc)

summary: 3 votes only ~ 1 Keep, 2 Delete (1 with replace) ~ Courtland 8 March

We already have two templates which handle both aspects of this one. Template:NowCommons documents that the image is at Commons, and Template:ifd marks those images which are up for deletion. Compare here where I replaced use of this template with the appropriate ones. There is no special reason to combine these two ideas into a single template. -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Keep - it should be encouraged to upload files to commons under the same name, to avoid having to change the articles. And there's no reason {{NowCommons}} shouldn't be like this one (which I created not knowing of NowCommons's existence, if it existed at the time). --SPUI (talk) 22:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, but we already have templates to handle this. This one is redundant with those established ones. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
  • Why should we encourage people to keep the same name? A lot of images here are titled in CamelCase; and there's no reason not to fix it when the opportunity arises. I always replace bad names with good when pushing to the Commons. dbenbenn | talk 14:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I don't care - I just wanted to mention that there's a category associated with these which ought to go away too if the template does. Noel (talk) 05:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Replace it with {{NowCommons}} <br/> {{ifd}} or redirect to NowCommons. Alphax ^τεχ 01:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February 16

[edit] Template:CamNotice

A variation on the now deleted Template:CamTanNotice that exists mostly to make a Wikiproject's internal "standards of quality" sound like some sort of binding policy. Snowspinner 00:56, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• It's also hideously ugly. Delete. — MikeX (talk) 05:17, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP First of all, the complaint is being made by Snowspinner. Second, all templates can be edited, just like an article. Hence, anything offensive can be changed. Third, it is starndard part of projects to disply a notice in the talk page. Nothing unique to this project about project notices in the talk page. Don't like the look, then change it. -- John Gohde 10:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Since when is the nominator a reason to vote keep or delete? Snowspinner 15:29, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe that the obvious answer is patterns of behavior of the nominator. -- John Gohde 14:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Netoholic @ 19:54, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
• delete, inappropriate --Jiang 20:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, maybe it should be reworded to be more similar to the other such Wikiproject talk page notices? (Abstain from vote) --Sketchee 05:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A simple link to the project page on the talk page should suffice. -Sean Curtin 03:47, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CamRequiredNotice

Yet another CAM box, redundant with CamNotice and CamTanNotice. What on Earth does it mean to be a required part of a project? Snowspinner 18:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

"What does it mean to be a required part of a project?" I suggest that you try reading the project page. Maybe you might even try reading the notice that you are trying to delete? "a required part of the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine CAM menu navigational system." -- John Gohde 20:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Netoholic @ 19:54, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
• Ugly templates must die. Delete. — MikeX (talk) 20:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP First of all, the complaint is being made by Snowspinner. Second, all templates can be edited, just like an article. Hence, anything offensive can be changed. Third, it is starndard part of projects to disply a notice in the talk page. Nothing unique to this project about project notices in the talk page. Don't like the look, then change it. John Gohde 21:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most Cam project notices have been made redundant with the category option. Perhaps John can think of a more generic way of linking articles to the Wikiproject. JFW | T@lk 21:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Project notices exist in order to attract editors to the project. -- John Gohde 22:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 03:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] template:cite sources

This article does not adequately cite its sources and may contain unverified information or original research. Please help Wikipedia by adding references or removing unreferenced material. See the talk page for details.

[ Template:CiteSources was also deleted because it redirects to the TFD candidate.]

It's says the same as above. →Raul654 21:22, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -Lommer | ^talk 03:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wombat 10:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Only keep if people can agree that tags like this are more appropriate on the talk page, otherwise, Delete. older≠wiser 13:14, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• If the above Template:Unreferenced is removed, it suggests there's no point for this template. If the above Template:Unreferenced is kept, then this simply duplicates it. either way, there is no reason for this template. Delete. Grutness|^hello? 05:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's badly needed.This template predated the unreferenced one, and it mentions that there might be original research in the article. No original research is a policy, as is NPOV. Why have a tag for NPOV but not for original research? SlimVirgin 10:25, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • If this is to be kept, perhaps it can be changed to "no original research." Clearly we need two tags, cite sources and no original research. Slrubenstein 15:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If it is kept, require it to be used only on the talk pages of an article. Maybe what is needed instead of the template:cite sources and template:unreferenced is a template:attentionbecause that would allow someone to add a reason that the article needs attention. BlankVerse 11:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons given above by others. I especially agree with Grutness, and with BlankVerse about an "attention because" template. If either (but not both) "unreferenced" or "cite sources" are kept but confined to the talk pages, that would be OK. Maurreen 16:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with BlankVerse and Maurreen to have an "attention because" template. Johntex 22:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, see my comments above. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cowstub

THIS TEMPLATE HAS NOT YET BEEN DELETED DUE TO BLOCK-COMPRESSED REVISIONS. IT IS CURRENTLY PENDING DELETION, AND HAS BEEN LOGGED AS DELETED NOT ONLY BECAUSE VOTING IS NOW CLOSED, BUT ALSO TO PREVENT THE TFD PAGE FROM GETTING MORE CLUTTERED. Please remove this notice after the template has been deleted.

This cow is a heifer. You can help Wikipedia by milking it.

Sillyness; blank since October. -- Infrogmation 22:45, 2 eb 2005 (UTC)

• Strongest possible delete It is a weakness of Wikipedia that we even have to vote on stuff like this. Johntex 22:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tommyrot. – flamurai^TM 04:46, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I happen to like it. —Ashley Y 07:44, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
• Delete Same as above. Goplat 03:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Moo — MikeX (talk) (sorry) 05:14, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Chris 73 Talk 05:25, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. JamesMLane 04:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (consensus reached, time passed, I'll delete now). -Frazzydee|✍ 19:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:FRANCE

France (original created on 10:01, 5 Feb 2005: France)

Used by User:MG on France-related articles, for the links to France. Unneeded, and adds differential treatment for France and other countries. David.Monniaux 12:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Interesting idea if done for all countries, but even then unneccessary. Title makes it look like an acronym, too. Grutness|^hello? 22:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bah. -- Netoholic @ 23:33, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks ugly, is of no use, introduces inconsistency. — mark ✎ 02:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If an article is related to France, it's usually in the opening text fairly obviously. Nice thought but not necessary. --Sketchee 02:21, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Might look cute in your away message, but not on Wikipedia. – flamurai (t) 13:53, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Philip 02:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is unnecessary and makes the word "France" difficult to read. Josh 03:06, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is clutter: we have categories and ordinary links to indicate relationships between articles. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm really deleting now, say good bye everyone! -Frazzydee|✍ 19:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Stub-sorting-stub

[[Category:{{{category}}} stubs]]

Another joke template. Also Category:Stub sorting stubs. Goplat 22:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Move to Meta. Snowspinner 22:38, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

• This Template is a joke. You can help Wikipedia by deleting it.
  • Or, since User:SPUI is the only one using it, copy the template to a subpage under his user name. BlankVerse 09:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. – flamurai (t) 14:05, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's going bye-bye now. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February 17

[edit] Template:ChrisGtest

Presumably the test is over. -- Beland 04:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -Frazzydee|✍ 00:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 13:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marked as pending deletion. dbenbenn | talk 19:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Holmes

Huge template that is best served as a category. Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:19, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Whoa, that is huge! Convert to categories (looks like most are already there). -- Netoholic @ 21:18, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
• Convert to categories -- Chris 73 Talk 05:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Convert to categories Mostly redundant with better organized lists already in the Sherlock Holmes article. Anything in the template that isn't in the SH article (characters, places, pastiches, etc.) should probably be added to the article. BlankVerse 06:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Convert to categories. Maybe we need some guidelines to point people to as to when to use templates/categories/list ofs? – flamurai (t) 06:46, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah. If only we had an article like Wikipedia:Categories, Lists and Series Boxes
• Convert Snowspinner 01:01, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Is anyone allowed to vote? If so, I vote Convert. What a minger. Opera hat, 06.00, 14th February 2005 (GMT)
• Too big for a template so Convert AmosWolfe

Alright, I'm going to start removing it from the articles that use it, in preparation for deleting it. dbenbenn | talk 16:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. dbenbenn | talk 19:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Rename

Summary: 4 votes .. Delete-3, Oppose-1 (2 votes include proposal to redirect)

Inferior to and redundant with Template:Move. "rename" is just another name for "move". This template is only being used by one user--its creator. Delete the related category too--Jiang 20:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect if only to prevent recreation by someone else caught unawares. Move and Rename are both correct terms. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
• Oppose, see comment below. — Instantnood 17:49, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Jiang would you mind showing the evidence that this template is only used by OwenBlacker who created it at 23:33, Jul 5 2004? — Instantnood 17:51, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not a argument against redunandacy. Why not redirect and merge the categories? --Jiang 18:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I opposed because of possibly inaccurate information by the nominator. I might cross my vote out if it got settled. — Instantnood 19:16, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
      • crossed out. please provide a legitimate reason for opposing--Jiang 21:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • First it is not anybody's obligation to provide reasons to satisfy your standard of legitimacy. Second please verify your arguments before listing them out.
          To my understanding the two templates are not redundant or overlapping, whatever you call it. The two templates are also not inferior to each other. The rename template serves as an notice that they is such a proposal, and readers can discuss with it at the discussion page, or should at least be aware of the accuracy of the title and the scope of the content of the article. It is not the same as a vote for renaming/moving, like what the move template is functioning as. — Instantnood 22:55, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
          • If it's just a proposal, then the tag should not be necessary. People dont stick up tags every time they post something on the talk page. It just makes the article ugly. If it is to be discussed, then I dont see why we should be circumventing Wikipedia:Requested moves or else that page should not exist at all. I see the difference in procedure, but I dont see the difference in intended result and therefore the necessity to have a different procedure. --Jiang 23:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • With this notice added, readers can be aware of the accuracy of the title, and the scope of the content of the article or category. Whether such article or categories should be put forward to Wikipedia:Requested moves or Wikipedia:Categories for deletion depends on the relevant conventions, and will be subjected to lengthy discussion. In other words the two templates have different functions. — Instantnood 23:36, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
              • If the title is "inaccurate" then why not just go ahead demand that it be moved? If there's something confusing in the content, we add a disambiguation notice or make it obvious in the intro. I really dont see how this is necessary when we dont otherwise tag articles just to discuss something. This template is hideous and certainly isnt inciting lengthy discussion. Putting it on requested moved (for articles) or categories for deltion (for categories) does, however, promote discussion and is much more effective.--Jiang 04:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                • The proposed new title of many of these articles or categories are vacant, and the renaming could be done by clicking the "move" button on the top of the page. Whether they should be renamed depends on the naming conventions and perhaps the relevant ongoing discussions. I know the title of the two templates look alike, but the two templates do not have the same function at the time being. — Instantnood 11:05, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
                  • Then discuss and then move. The template is not necessary. It's ugly --Jiang 02:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                    • Do you think the {{move}} can fill the time gap before the move? — Instantnood 11:12, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Either a move is disputed, it needs admin attention because of history issues, or you just do it yourself. I don't see the need for this template. Anyway, it should be used on the talk page, not the article. – flamurai (t) 07:05, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. If it is deleted, it would probably only get recreated. Alphax ^τεχ 06:21, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February 18

[edit] Template:Portuguese former colonies

edit	Portuguese former colonies
Angola | Brazil | Cape Verde | East Timor (Portuguese Timor) | Guinea-Bissau (Portuguese Guinea) | Portuguese India | Macau (Macao) | Mozambique | São Tomé and Príncipe

Category:Portuguese colonies

This is a misuse of templates. the individual elements of this template are only vaguely related to each other. this just adds unnecessary clutter to already full country pages. the category contained within may be kept (this is what categories are for!). --Jiang 07:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Better as a "List of" article and/or Category. This isn't a topic I can forsee many people wanting to "browse". – flamurai^TM 18:09, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• We just went through all this with british former colonies, and the same arguments apply equally here. Delete. Grutness|^hello? 10:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose with the same reasons I mentioned for the Template:Former British colonies. — Instantnood 19:51, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)
  • Template:Former British colonies was deleted. Your logic doesnt make sense. I'll repeat: I fail to see a close relation among members of the group. To imply any close relation in some cases would be extremely misleading. I'll quote: "The similarity is tenuous at best. For example, the Thirteen Colonies were at the beginning of the British Empire, rebelled due to exploitative taxes and became independent after a war with the British Army. Tonga voluntarily became a British protectorate in 1900 while maintaining an internal monarchy, regaining full independence peacefully - with monarchy retained - in 1970, and remains within the Commonwealth. Sound like the metaphorical calcium carbonate and solidified dairy product to me. You might as well group Australia and Iraq together. Oh, right - you are. Grutness|^hello? 22:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)" I dont see how this situation is different. --Jiang 03:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry everyone. I didn't know Jiang would have reacted in this way. I just meant to say that I oppose for the same reasons. Jiang's logic doesn't make sense to me either, but I respect everyone's opinion and his opinion, always. — Instantnood 16:20, Feb 10 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - SimonP 23:02, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Privacy 11:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • reason?--Jiang 22:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February 20

[edit] Template:not child safe

Summary: Delete - 16, Keep - 1. Smells like a consensus, yes. Courtland 00:32, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC) (disclosure:I voted on this item)

Falsely implies that Wikipedia's content can be assumed to be child safe. Every page on Wikipedia contains a link to the content disclaimer, the relevant part of which is also summarised in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

delete, hopelessly POV. Got it in right as I was about to. --SPUI (talk) 12:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 12:30 Z

Delete. --Conti|✉ 14:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. See content filtering proposals on mailing list and meta. -- Karada 14:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is then {{Template:morbid warning}}? Just a content warning, on top of the page, not as User_talk:The_Anome#Template_not_child-safe suggested on the bottom. By the way, POV stands for (non-neutral) point of view. However the template was perfectly NPOV: the pages were not child-safe. --J heisenberg 12:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Child safe" is POV itself. Who says that descriptions of sexual activity or violence aren't child safe? --Dave2 15:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stating that descriptions of every sexual act is suitable for a child of any age is very POV. --J heisenberg 15:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not stating this though - not having any notice for "is not suitable for minors" is not the same as saying that "every sexual act is suitable for a child of any age". Different people have different views. I guarantee that just about anywhere that this template would be used there would be a dispute over its NPOVness. It's better just to avoid the whole mess and not have a template, IMO. --Dave2 17:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't avoid the mess, but takes up the most lax proposition: Everything visible to all. Certainly, some cases will be disputed, but on the whole, a consensus can be reached what is "adult" material and what isn't. Want to argue that this is child-safe/work safe? --J heisenberg 17:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to argue whether it is child/work safe or not. Different cultures have different views. I'm sure in some cultures, there would be no problem with showing that to kids. Hell, I don't particularly see any problem. It's not even a sexual act, it's merely a piece of someone's body. What, exactly, is wrong with a penis? However other people would think that it's not safe for kids (this group appears to include you). Likewise with work safe - one of my cousins worked in a place where goatse was work-safe - but to a lesser extent, as most workplaces have similar rules. Neither group is right or wrong, it's just different points of view. Hence why this template is, by its very existence, POV. --Dave2 18:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Curiously, neither CNN nor FOX News nor Guardian nor Der Spiegel would publish this on their web-site, even in an article on erotic piercing. I can't even think of a major news/info site that would.--J heisenberg 18:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which is beside the point. They are expected to censor themselves in this way. Wikipedia isn't. However the reason why these are censored is because the general viewpoint of the places that these organisations are based is that it should not be shown. Hence it still comes down to viewpoint. Note, however, that I imagine that Channel 4, for example, would not have any qualms about putting an image like that up on a show about erotic piercings. I don't see either one of us convincing the other to change their mind, however, so we'll have to agree to disagree. --Dave2 19:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree to disagree. Just shows that here is one point where WP has very significant bias. Way more than in politics--J heisenberg 19:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV. The content disclaimer already covers this, as well. --Dave2 15:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Davenbelle 15:32, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more POV then previous templates. ✏ OvenFresh² 16:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this POV crap. Vacuum c 17:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless at best, and more accurately highly misleading. James F. (talk) 17:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This deserves to leave skid marks on the bowl. →Raul654 17:34, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, individual and cultural POV.--Oldak Quill 18:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Not that we need another delete vote, but delete. POV. -Seth Mahoney 19:09, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Based on societal perceptions of what's proper for children. – flamurai (t) 05:23, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this POV-pushing - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete, inherently POV. IMHO the Prince Albert piercing picture is apropriate viewing for children, and I would much rather they watched a TV program showing that than one with even half the violence that is in a film like Home Alone. Thryduulf 23:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a tough one because we want Wikipedia to be a resource for everyone young and old, sensitive and world weary alike. We do not want Wikipedia to end up on people's "banned sites" lists. So what is the alternative? It's not added a warning to every page, because truly every page would require a warning becase as pointed out elsewhere anything here could offend someone. I look at it kind of like a busy train station. You walk by two people and one says in a normal voice you can hear "no fuckin' way!" which I don't like to hear myself ... uncouth lads. Can you slap a "this person is not child safe" on that person? No. Can you have that person brought up on charges? Thank goodness, not yet (I think). You live with it and move on, knowing that you find the train convenient if not a necessity. Wikipedia lets just about anyone (with an internet connection, mind you) write just about anything ... at first, and that's key. We have content deletion and dispute arbitration policies and procedures, and those should be used for things that might be both offensive and out of scope (say someone wants to put up links to MP3's of sex with his/her partner .. nope, that won't stay). So the choice is simple, tolerate what might be "uncouth lads" to some for the convenience of taking the train to the information you need. Courtland 18:23, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

[edit] Template:morbid warning

Summary: Delete - 10, Keep - 7 (excludes nominator). Calling as a consensus for deletion. Courtland 00:37, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

I disagree. Pages should have a 2/3rds majority before deletion. Vacuum c 02:23, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

No content censorship; information needed for downstream content selection should be possible to obtain from category information, not templates. --J heisenberg 12:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. See Talk:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 13:39 Z

Note that I'm not against a link to the no-pic page, just against a special template. --J heisenberg 13:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is a template such a bad thing? The template simplifies the process if future articles to do the same. And by the way, Oral sex isn't one of those articles. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 14:15 Z

Putting a big blue (green?) template indicates that pictures on this page are somehow crazily offending. Someone from other cultures might find them something normal, while finding pics in Oral sex offending. Everything above a one-liner is POV (IMO). I'll try to edit the Template to make it one line. A title change would be good too, since "morbid" is weaselly. Maybe "offensive content"? --J heisenberg 14:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with J Heisenberg; also, this template encourages article forking, which is a bad thing. Please see the proposals for content filtering / image linking on meta, which aim to address all of these problems. -- Karada 14:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it prevents article forking. Try editing the no picures version: it's derived from the top of the article page. Cool Hand Luke 14:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Template is nice for the no pictures page, although it could work without it (we could have a bar that says something like what's at the top of my user page, for example). Feel free to replace "potentially morbid" with something you find less weasily. Cool Hand Luke 14:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep for now. A page that requires this template has survived VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete post haste. This is nonsense. →Raul654 15:16, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sorry, but most users aren't going to receive a favorable impression of Wikipedia if they are surprised with a severed head. Vacuum c 17:19, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 17:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this discussion has already occurred once, and it was decided that this is OK (used very sparingly). — Dan | Talk 18:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - utter POV rubbish. --Oldak Quill 18:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. -Seth Mahoney 20:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this attempt at POV nannyism, before I get tempted to add it to George W. Bush. Grutness|^hello? 04:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — wrong, wrong, wrong; per all above deletes; — Davenbelle 04:54, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Jirate 04:59, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
• Delete. "Morbid" and "offensive" are POV terms. Specific pages should use specific, objective wording: i.e., for the Abu Ghraib page, "This page displays uncensored photographs of people being tortured, nude people, and a human corpse. For a version without these photographs, see ..." – flamurai (t) 05:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that this "no pictures" process is inherently POV, however, I believe it's needed in certain circumstances. Perhaps we could create some sort of guideline as to when this procedure is necessary. For example, take a poll, and if x percent of those polled believe a "no pictures" version is needed, then it should be used. You're ignoring the fact that it's also POV to think that everyone expects Wikipedia to contain photographs like this. They should not be censored, but people should be warned in extreme situations and given the option to view a version without images. – flamurai (t) 05:22, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for POVness. Tuf-Kat 21:54, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this POV-pushing - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep barring something better. --Twinxor 12:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Warning: This template may not be easy to delete without undermining the consensus in two recent votes related to the articles Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures) (code version of latter). The votes were Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) where there was a consensus not to have a forked page without pictures which would develop differently, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed where the consensus was to retain the derived page which would remain in step with the main article thanks to use of a template. A deliberate deletion of the template without considering the consequences which prevents the two earlier decisions being respected may need to be considered as whether it is an act of bad faith. --Audiovideo 13:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

non-voting comment I don't think a delete-outcome undermines those votes at all. The voting was on deletion of a template, not on forking, nor on the existence of a warning of some kind on particular articles. Courtland 00:41, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

[edit] February 23

[edit] Template:Infobox European regions

This template is based on the premise that phrases such as "Western Europe" and "Southern Europe" have precise meanings that statistics can be compiled for. Despite repeated requests, the creator of this template has failed to justify this premise. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Johan Magnus 13:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's only so much excessive insistence on how things are black and white (or that nuances can be strictly enumerated) that the region pages can take... --Joy [shallot] 00:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Tuomas 15:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February 24

[edit] Template:vfd votes

Template:Vfd votes This template is highly counter-productive, and encourages a "voting" mentality instead of a discussion mentality, exactly what we don't want. Please see WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy, WP:GVFD#Discussion, m:Don't vote on everything, and the many times that administrators have been annoyed by this sort of thing (the latest that I've personally encountered was Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Logarithmic timeline of current events). If reference to policy and to meta don't convince you that this is a very bad idea for WP:VFD, then I have five further words for you to consider that might: WP:TFD may well be next. Uncle G 22:05, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

• Keep and allow for organic template growth. GRider\^talk 22:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Uncle G on principle. -- Netoholic @ 23:09, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
• Delete and allow for organic decay. ;) Agree with Uncle G's arguments. Carrp | Talk 23:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Uncle G's "arguments" to the fullest. A small box tallying up keep/delete votes does not prohibit nor discourage discussion in the least. Has any official study been conducted to verify this claim, or is this a totally baseless assumption? If anything at all, a quick concensus summary encourages and fosters further discussion. I've yet to see any real evidence on the contrary. GRider\^talk 00:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vote-counting in the middle of a VfD itself inevitably leads to arguments as to whose vote counts as what (i.e. "I said merge and redirect, not keep or delete"), and whether or not certain users' votes (new users and anons, mostly) do or do not count. More importantly, the count isn't auto-updating, so the admin who handles the VfD after it concludes has to count the votes anyway, regardless of the theoretical usefulness of this template. -Sean Curtin 03:58, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the template could auto-update, an admin would still have to count votes to gauge sock-puppetish votes, votes to merge or redirect or transwiki, or other irregularities. If it doesn't auto-update, then entering the final numbers is just one more step in the closing process. As Uncle G pointed out, WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy, so the number of votes isn't the only factor that is examined. Joyous 04:30, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Helps keeps us admins honest. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There have been a few times when looking at v-e-r-y long VfD discussions that I have wished that there was some sort of tally of the votes. On the other hand, there is already enough vote stuffing, sock puppetry, and other shenanigans in the VfD process, and this template would only encourage that. BlankVerse ∅ 09:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The title "Votes for Deletion" is misleading enough. A template like this perpetuates the misconception. It also has the problem that in most discussions, counting votes is not required and thus the template is not needed. However, the few discussions where actual counting is needed are exactly those where the acting sysop needs to exercise judgement, perform due diligence inspecting user contribution records, etc. These are just the ones where a casual semi-mechanical tally is least helpful. It also can lead to contention when the apparent "vote tally" does not concord with the sysop's judgement. And, finally, it lends itself to misinterpretation as a kind of "scoreboard" and invites factions to monitor VfD to see whether they are "winning" or "losing" and call in outside reinforcements. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We can do without this, for reasons given above and also because there's a lot of work needed just to decide how to do it properly, for no obvious benefit. See this for an example. The vote is given as 1:6 in favour of deletion, a clear consensus, but that's only because three merge and redir votes aren't counted at all. Andrewa 21:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although this template is well intended, it can be subjected to abuse. Besides, I am certain that administrators know how to count when they conclude the debate. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 22:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Count votes at the end not the middle. --Henrygb 10:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above reasons. jni 17:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Uncle G and User:Dpbsmith. cesarb 00:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Its the reasons that are important not the numbers. Thryduulf 23:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If you need to get an idea of where the consensus is headed, you can jolly well read and tally the votes yourself. If you can't be bothered to do that, you shouldn't be voting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Audio format

This is redundant with template:listen →Raul654 22:50, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - While not exactly redundant, I don't see the value in it. -- Netoholic @ 23:14, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
• Keep. This template is intended to be used when there are multiple consecutive audio files. In this case, stacked listen templates look unappealing and give a lot of redundant information. Compare this current version to this old version. – flamurai (t) 23:17, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh, multiple music files is what template:multi-listen is for (which is, admittedly, still under development). This template is neither of them. →Raul654 02:43, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • These templates have been created with no consensus and they are not heavily used. What makes your method any better than my method? This is something so universal that I feel there needs to be discussion on it, not just two users creating things and forcing their will onto the rest of the encyclopedia. – flamurai (t) 04:03, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I feel insulted that Raul and I are being said to be "forcing their will on the rest of the encyclopedia" and that we are acting "without consensus". What happened to Wikipedia:Be bold? Have I reverted or got into an edit war with you over the template? What exactly do you think is going on, on Template talk:Listen? Dysprosia 10:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a silly little template? Both of them are! Why are people getting upset about these things?! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Deletable, redundant - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Please speedy this. The listen template is okay in its current form. – flamurai (t) 22:50, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] February 26

[edit] Template:Timeline CGI in movies

This was an attempt to produce an illustrative timeline for Timeline of CGI in movies. However, that article has evolved into a different format - a table with illustrations, so this timeline is no longer useful. Please delete. Paranoid 20:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Was originally listed on VFD, but seems like nothing happened. I'm listing it here as was suggested on the VfD page. As page history displays, User:Paranoid both created the first version and added the VfD tag. Probably wasn't aware of how to delete a template. *Delete. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-13 10:31 Z

• Delete. Unused. – flamurai (t) 19:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Delete unused redirect

Title misleading about reasons to delete redirects. Being "unused" (ie no inbound links) is generally NOT a reason to delete a redirect. Redirs are for common misspellings and alternate phrasings and capitalizations. Currently has been applied to a bunch of redirs created by moves that probably shouldn't be deleted because if one person used that phrasing, there are probably others. Template:Redirects with no target would be valid, but after the recent collaboration to get rid of them, probably wouldn't be used often enuf to justify the template. Niteowlneils 17:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: unused but meaningful redirects are helpful so this template should not be used. It also disrupts redirects. --Henrygb 18:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though possibly renamed or reworded. I created and used it in response to User talk:SPUI#Adminship -- Suggestion. It only disrupts redirects that are not being used, and that would not be idly typed. They only existed because of earlier naming conventions, and right now simply make it harder to move the articles when the naming conventions change. By the way, I just added {{tfd}} to the template; if I didn't have this page already on my watchlist I wouldn't have known about the proposed deletion. --SPUI (talk) 18:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry I forgot to tag it. I strenuously disagree with Cecropia's belief they should be deleted--if someone thot the article belonged at that title, another might, and leaving redirects at the alternate titles prevents accidental article duplication. Given that, so few redirs should be deleted that it seems like they can be handled using {deletebecause}. IMHO, most, if not all of the redirs currently using this template need to have their double/tripleness fixed, not deleted. Niteowlneils 20:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • This does use {{db}}; I simply made a template to make personal use of that one easier. I really don't see anyone typing in 125th Street (New York Subway); it would be either 125th Street or 125th Street Station, both of which would give the proper articles if search is up, and both of which are way to ambiguous for anything else. More likely is that someone would realize that there are so many different ways to name them and would instead type in New York City Subway or one of its redirects and go from there. --SPUI (talk) 12:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: The subway redirects are short term usages created while hashing out style. Sometimes we simply need to do housekeeping to keep the number of useless redirects in the database from muddying the question of why these redirects were created in the first place, and why they should be eliminated. The deleted subway redirects:
  • Have nothing pointing to them, so won't break any redirect chains
  • Are extremely unlikely to be typed, as they're awkward
  • Are not being removed "politically"--i.e., to further a political point-of-viw
• IOW, if those who know why the redirects were created in the first place, and know why they are obsolete don't do it, it will never be done. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK. So someone adds 14th Street-Union Square IRT Lexington Avenue Line station. A natural place to move/merge it might be 14th Street (New York City Subway) (the word "station" is often not used in articles for similar topics in other cities [eg Tung Chung (MTR)]). Under your plan, that doesn't exist so it goes there. Leaving the redir points them to 14th Street (New York City Subway station). Redirs are cheap--why delete potentially useful ones? Niteowlneils 19:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because they're a pain in the ass to deal with when moving pages. Why do we not have an option to automatically eliminate double redirects? By the way, the word 'station' is added because a few names in station names also describe other aspects of the subway, like Brooklyn Bridge (over which two BMT tracks used to run). --SPUI (talk) 19:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirs created by moves have no effect on page moves unless they've been editted, which you only caused by adding speedy tags. Niteowlneils 19:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirs created by moves don't change when you move again. Create User:Niteowlneils/movetest. Move it somewhere, and then move that one. If I'm not on crack, User:Niteowlneils/movetest will have to be edited to fix the double redir. --SPUI (talk) 21:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, double redirs require manual correction. I thot you were referring to moving back over the redir. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Niteowlneils 21:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this and the redirect Template:Dur. We only need Template:Deletebecause if one needs to provide reasons for a speedy deletion. As a side note, none of these subway redirects is a speedy delete, and should have gone to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. -- Netoholic @ 18:53, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete. Based on the reason listed in the template, those redirects wouldn't be speediable because of the subjective standard "is not useful". Anything that uses this template should go to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. – flamurai (t) 19:05, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm probably not going to fix Category:New York City Subway stations that share a name, at least not for a while. I'm not going to fix these double redirects either; the necessity of fixing them is fairly ridiculous when one considers that it shouldn't be too hard to add an option to automatically fix them. So whoever deletes this needs to fix the double redirects, while I'm off doing something useful. --SPUI (talk) 19:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dbl redirs fixed in 31 minutes, including a cigarette break and unrelated edits. Niteowlneils 20:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There's nothing wrong with {{db|it's a pointless redirect.}}. — MikeX (talk) 20:46, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

  That's what this is. --SPUI (talk) 21:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes... that's why there's very little point to this template. Were I given to silliness, I might suggest that this will eventually lead to the creation and use of templates like {{LetterA}} producing 'A'. — MikeX (talk) 05:22, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. There seems to be a whole rash of secretive NYCS-related templates that haven't been posted on Wikipedia:Template messages/All--Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_York_City_Subway#Templates. Niteowlneils 21:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Some other templates are for use in specific articles, like {{NYCS list}} in List of New York City Subway stations. A look at the source should make usage obvious." --SPUI (talk) 22:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 03:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)