Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/August 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Template:Football in Portugal 2 Template:Preview 3 Template:Sharks 4 Template:Chicagoland 5 Template:Scientific classification 6 Template:Alsace infobox 7 Template:Otherusesabout 8 Template:Las Vegas casinos 9 Template:Shh 10 Template:Npov-intro/Template:POV-intro 11 Template:Sexual_orientation 12 Template:Green; Template:Red; Template:Blue 13 Template:Fantasy 14 Template:Zelda series and Template:Mario series 15 Template:OriginalResearch (and Category:Original research disputes) 16 Template:SOreligiousfreedomATW 17 Template:Major Cities of Tamil Nadu 18 Template:Lynch 19 Template:NMGovernors 20 Template:Seemain and Template:SeeMain 21 Template:Abuse 22 Template:13colonies 23 Template:anti-war 24 Template:Ludwig van Beethoven 25 Template:Hide 26 Template:Ccm 27 Template:R from CamelCase, Template:R from UN/LOCODE, Template:R from title without diacritics, Template:R to decade, Template:R for convenience and Template:R CamelCase 28 Template:R for as of 29 Template:R from alternate name and others 30 Template:R from UN/LOCODE 31 {{R from misspelling}} 32 Template:Vote bar 33 Template:Chem-cat 34 Template:Future building 35 Template:Sectio 36 Template:Interwiki-category-check 37 Numbered Seemain series 38 Template:Idw 39 Template:vandal1

[edit] Template:Football in Portugal

Overkill template, with two other templates included (which are of value individually) and a list of seasons, with only one article done. Large, bulky and next to useless, as if needed, the two templates can be placed seperately and the list of seasons converted into a wikilink of template:Football in Portugal table cells, which I've struggled earlier to make barely usable. After FiP is deleted, the "table cells" template could have that part of the name removed, and used for division and federation articles ^wS;✉ 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, too heavy handed for its purpose. With that purpose only really being one article, it could just be subst:ed. -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep --MarSch 16:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

two persons questioned the original decision to delete, which led to reassignment here

Period of comment 9 August AM to 14 August PM — 6 days
Removed from TFD 25 August AM (originally to the deleted log) — 16 days

[edit] Template:Preview

Delete: It is listed as a template message for the user talk namespace, but it is too large to put on a user's talk page. It is also just a redirect to Wikipedia:Show preview, which makes it somewhat redundant. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep as per Alphax. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unnecessary. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless. ∞Who?¿? 11:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although I've never seen this before, any template that is a redirect outside of the Template namespace should be a Speedy delete candidate. BlankVerse ∅ 12:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted. nonsense. ed g2s • talk 01:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It was created as a bit of a joke - the idea being to substitute it into a user's talk page. I've recreated a shorter, more useful version. Edit it mecilessly, but please don't delete it on sight. Alphax ^τεχ 10:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now a valid, useful template. Sigh... Alphax ^τεχ 01:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 1 August AM to 10 August AM — 9 days Removed from TFD 10 August PM — 9 days

[edit] Template:Sharks

This template have not been deleted but removed from all articles by Gdr. The template is a navigational template, it have been discussed before and now GDR thinks there is a consensus since one user was agains and one for removal adding his agains that was a consensus, so he used his bot to remove (not delete) it. See discussion at Template talk:Sharks. I have stated my point there as has he, or stan opinion that GDR agrees with. I can not start a edit war with a admin with a bot so I found this place and though this was a good place to discuss. Also see my suggestion to add nav links under language links? not sure if possible, probably better than this template but that is not the vote. This vote is either for deletion and not usage of the template or for keeping and adding the template back to the articles where it was removed from. Stefan 13:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Is good for navigational purposes, much easier to use than category and tax boxes, especially for new users. Stefan 13:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This template is currently a very, very partial list of the 350+ total possible sharks. Either it will always be rather incomplete, or it will be H--U--G--E--! Either way, it shouldn't be a navigation template. The template should be converted to a list, which can be grouped, annotated, illustrated, etc., and then a link to the new List of sharks can be added to the "See also" section of each shark article. BlankVerse ∅ 15:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Originally going to say keep, but after reading [User:BlankVerse|BlankVerse]] ∅ argument, i'm agreeing with him instead.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with above. - SimonP 00:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Listify and delete, as above. --Carnildo 21:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and listify if felt necessary. -Splash 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Aesthetically pleasing and extremely useful. This anti-template crusade is a pity. --goethean ॐ 15:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with BlankVerse. The template can only contain small percentage of sharks, so a list is more appropriate in this case. The JPS 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Goethean. --WikiFan04^{Talk 20:14, 6 Aug 2005 (CDT)}
• Delete as per BlankVerse. It may be "Aesthetically pleasing" now but not when there are hundreds of links on it in the future if kept. RedWolf 22:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be to listify: therefore I have moved the template to "list of sharks" and editors can do what they want with it. Dan100 (Talk) 11:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 1 August PM to 10 August PM — 9 days Removed from TFD 10 August PM — 9 days

[edit] Template:Chicagoland

Delete: This template is unnecessary. We already have one for the City of Chicago and one for the state of Illinois which lists both the Chicagoland region and most of the cities in the regions. Having potentially three regional templates on a page ({{Chicago}} {{Illinois}} and {{Chicagoland}}) just seems excessive. Plus, the template isnt even fell formatted. --Gpyoung ^talk 03:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Parts of Chicagoland lie within Indiana and Wisconsin. — Instantnood 14:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The template is informative. The easy solution is for {{Chicago}}to replace {{Chicagoland}} in articles about Chicago. --goethean ॐ 15:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the base problem here needs a better solution. Very often you have a city and other governments that frequently go by the name of the city or other names. There is a lot of overlap. I hope this discussion becomes a step on the road to fixing the overall problem. In looking at the template in question, I don't see it as a big issue so I'd vote Keep but maybe someone needs to make sure that only one of the two local ones listed above is used in an article. Vegaswikian 19:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Keep. As Instantnood mentioned, this template is helpful for those regions of Chicagoland stretching into other states. --BaronLarf 18:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Keep. Chicagoland comprises a significant proportion of the Illinois population as well as serves a navigational purpose for many chicagoland related pages. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 18:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Could people please use Keep or Delete, rather than Oppose? It makes it harder to know if you are opposing the templates nomination (i.e. want to Keep it) or opposing it's existence (i.e. want to Delete it). I think it is usually the former, but I would rather not have to interpret every comment just to be sure. Thanks. Dragons flight 21:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and categorize. An uncertainly defined list, as the discussion of Rockford, Illinois on its talkpage shows; without the advantage of a list article in discussing doubtlful cases. Septentrionalis 21:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • But Chicagoland is defined; see the Chicagoland article for the counties of which it is comprised. If someone added Rockford thinking it was in Chicagoland, they were simply mistaken. HollyAm 22:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Chicagoland has over 8 million residents. I think that it would deserve a template. --67.173.128.161 03:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, which I've already taken the liberty of doing, into Template:Chicago. I think it looks much better and is more compact this way.--Pharos 04:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Nah, this is unnecessary, keep, and have a look at the new and improved design of Template:Chicagoland on the model of Template:Chicago.--Pharos 04:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful template. If too many templates is the concern, there is already a link to Chicagoland in Template:Chicago, so eliminate Template:Chicagoland from City of Chicago articles. Suburb articles would not have Template:Chicago, so again, only two templates. If formatting or content is the concern, these could have been discussed on talk or changed (compliments to User:Pharos on the latter). HollyAm 22:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 5 August AM to 6 August PM — 1 day Removed from TFD 12 August PM — 7 days

[edit] Template:Scientific classification

Delete, well-meaning, but inappropriate way to generate taxoboxes. Currently linked by two articles that I will soon have converted. Circeus 16:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep-It seems like a good idea and a good thing to have. If it isnt quite up to speed, I think it can definatly be fixed and brought up to standard. I dont quite understand your link about the Taxoboxes, so that is why I voted conditional keep. If you can show that there is a better way to do it, I will change my vote. --Gpyoung ^talk 17:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Assembling a taxobox can be tricky. A template that handled the more common cases would be helpful. But this tempalte is rather more limited than its name implies. This templace creates a taxobox for a single animal species. It does not handle plants or fungi or other non-animal species. It does not handle taxoboxes for a group larger than a singel species (a family or order, say). It does not handle taxoboxes when any of the less common levels of classification should be used (sub-class or super-class, sub-phylem, etc). If this is to be retained, than the usage of its parameters, and these limitatiosn should be throughly documented, with a link to the page where general taxobox format is described, and its name should be changed to something less general sounding than Scientific classification. Perhaps Template:Animal species taxobox. Conditional keep if these changes are made. By the way, I don't think tempalte syntax is up to a single tempalte that can handle a fully general taxobox, unless there are tricks to template syntax i don't know yet. DES ^(talk) 12:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 5 August PM to 11 August PM — 6 days Removed from TFD 12 August PM — 7 days

[edit] Template:Alsace infobox

Redundant with Template:Infobox French Région that could be used on Alsace instead. For a discussion see also WikiProject French régions. -- User:Docu

• The template Template:Infobox French Région was used for only 3 of the 26 régions of France, whereas the other 23 régions have each a specific infobox which is more detailed and better laid out than the generic Template:Infobox French Région, so I am puting specific infoboxes for the three remaining régions. It's better to have specific infoboxes for each région rather than a generic infobox for all the régions because each région has its own peculiarities, and one generic infobox cannot do the job (some régions need footnotes, some don't, some régions are made up of several départements, while some régions are monodepartmental, etc.). Hardouin 15:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-This infobox is much better laid out then Template:Infobox French Région and it is also much more detailed. If Template:Infobox French Région really is only used on three articles, I think IT should be up for deletion. Sometimes, people here try too hard to standardize things and over-standardization (is that a word?) can sometimes lead to decreased quality, as is shown with Template:Infobox French Région IMO. --Gpyoung ^talk 16:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Didn't all Regions used to use Template:Infobox French Région? It is fairly easy to add additional fields to the infobox. If an infobox can be made for all countries it should be easy for French regions.-- User:Docu
• Like Gpyoung rightly said, sometimes people try too hard to standardize things, for no real reason. Individual infoboxes take more time to design in the first place, but then they are much more flexible in use than a generic infobox. Besides, I would like to point out that the infoboxes for French régions were all designed with the same format, so if you check several French régions, you'll have the impression the infobox is a unique standardized infobox, whereas in fact it is specific to each région. So we get both the benefit of standardization (uniform format) and the benefit of specific infoboxes (flexibility). Hardouin 16:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I prepared the replacement for Template:Alsace infobox at Template talk:Alsace infobox. Is there anything missing? (I agree, I could have prepared that before, please excuse) -- User:Docu
• Delete, as they stand right now Alsace infobox is unneeded specialization. All you have to do is add the links to the files into the french region template and it will give you the present Alsace box. gren グレン 20:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --WikiFan04^{Talk 20:16, 6 Aug 2005 (CDT)}
• Comment on the surface this would look like a single use template. Is it likely to be included in more then one article? Vegaswikian 01:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• del, single use template. Also I agree with Grenavitar.--MarSch 16:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe a subst first. Vegaswikian 07:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 6 August to 17 August AM — 11 days Removed from TFD 25 August AM — 19 days

[edit] Template:Otherusesabout

Worrying new template that ecourages repetition of opening paragraph above it for disambiguation. Template:Otheruses is already the standard way to provide a disambiguation link. ed g2s • talk 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. (By which I mean bot all uses to Template:Otheruses, then delete.) ed g2s • talk 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I wouldn't suggest botting this as suggested ... there are less than 250 uses and the likelihood is that more than one of the bot replacements would result in some manner of nonsense being writ. Would it be possible to subst: the existing uses if the template gets deleted, which would maintain the status quo on the articles that currently use it while removing it from circulation for new uses? Courtland 01:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. That being voted, I'll say that "worrying" is a far stronger reaction than warranted. The reality is that it (I believe, not having made it or discussed it with the makers) was probably created to provide a crutch for the many many many articles that have introductions that are not well written. I doubt it is encouraging bad writing, because those people who would write a poor introduction would not bother to add the template (one would think), but it is providing a band-aid (or tourniquet, depending on the view of how severe the problem is) to a widespread problem. Better to remove the band-aid and let the wound heal in the open air. Courtland 23:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Note the (nearly) identical template, {{otheruses1}}. Coincidentally, a template named {{otheruses1}} was deleted per TFD consensus in December 2004 --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 00:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  3 to 1 is not exactly "consensus", or even if it is, not a particularly strong one. —Lowellian (talk) 12:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

  Let's reword that, then. It was deleted through a TFD. The consensus may be questionable, but the result is apparent - it was deleted. Now, I have no idea what the "old" template was, and if it was something entirely different than this one, then the TFD doesn't make any difference. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundancy stinks. -- jiy^Talk 00:24, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Redundancy is sometimes necessary. --DuKot 01:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant with {{otheruses1}}. CG 09:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu

Template:Otheruses1 is now orphaned. I propose we delete this too as it is pretty much identical (unless anyone thinks we need to vote separately?). ed g2s • talk 14:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that adding a template to a TfD part way through is less good than just making a new TfD. You should at least inform the prior voters on their talk pages. Oh, and orphaning a tl before bringing it here and asking if it should be deleted is a little hasty. -Splash 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I did think of starting a new TfD, but as I said, they're practically identical. Anyone who's voted deleted on the first one would definitely vote delete on the second one. Also I don't need a passed TfD to carry out the orphaning, as the orphaning was done per disambiguation guidelines, the TfD is just to clean up.

• comment considering the identity of the two templates, could the second be speedied if the first is deleted? Courtland 01:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete redundant. -Splash 19:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand why people want to delete this. It's not identical to Template:Otheruses, so it's not redundant, right? —Lowellian (talk) 12:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep overdeletionism is a pain in the arse, redirectionism is better. Dunc|☺ 13:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, provides context not given by Template:Otheruses. -Sean Curtin 04:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  It's the wrong way to do disambiguation. Context is given by the first line/paragraph of the article. ed g2s • talk 08:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • comment No, it's an OK way to do disambiguation; it's just an inelegant way of doing it. There are few cases where application of the concept the template targets is needed (as noted below) and those few cases can be handled without the use of a template. Courtland 01:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. redundant with {{otheruses}}. -- User:Docu
• Delete redundant with introductory paragraph. JesseW 06:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep see Macedonia for an example of where someone has put it to good use. --Mysidia (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Please keep. There were some terrible revert wars over exactly how the disambig notice at the top of Macedonia should be worded before this template was finally agreed on for that article. I really don't want to see a revert war over its replacement should this template be deleted. It has a use. Please keep. Jonathunder 00:44, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
  • comment I came very close to changing my vote to Keep, but then considered that an ad hoc disambiguation statement to handle the very contentious issues that you've very rightly highlighted is as appropriate as a template, that the revert wars should not start over just because the template disappears because the text can be recapitulated exactly as it appears without the template being used. Courtland 01:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment it can be done with {{dablink}} or {{for}} instead. -- User:Docu
• Delete — Trilobite (Talk) 21:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 10 August PM to 28 August PM — 18 days
Removal from TFD 31 August AM — 20 days

[edit] Template:Las Vegas casinos

• Delete : See Talk Page for template. Short version: Suggest using List of greater Las Vegas resorts. – …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 08:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The author responded to questions about the template on the talk page by removing all text from the template. It was not clear what purpose it was intended to serve. Since it is empty, there is probably no reason to keep it. Vegaswikian 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not bothered whether this is kept or not, but I've re-added the content that was removed, while it's on TFD, and while it's still used by so many pages. sjorford →•← 22:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The content was not removed while it was on TfD, it was removed before. I think this needs to be returned to the last version before your change. As a piece of additional information, the new Wikipedia:Wikiproject Las Vegas has not included this template in their project, likely because of the problems with the version that was not blanked. Vegaswikian 22:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • But this makes no sense - what are people voting on? Voting on a blank template is meaningless - if it's going to stay blank, just speedy it. If you're going to vote on it, then obviously there's a possibility it could be kept, so people are voting on what it's going to look like after the vote. Anyway, that's not even the reason I unblanked it - just seeing the message "this template has been blanked..." at the bottom of one of the casino articles looked ugly and out of place. sjorford →•← 08:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Since it is likely to be blanked after this vote, maybe it should have been a speedy since the vote was about the template at the time it was nominated. If you look at the editors talk page that created this template, you will see a long list of images posted by the editor that have been deleted. While it does not affect this vote, it does may one wonder. Vegaswikian 23:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Although big, i think this is a very useful template. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per reason by ZeWrestler -michael180 17:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no List of Greater Las Vegas resorts, but there is a List of casinos, which is broken down geographically. There's also a Category:Casinos in Las Vegas. Someone who wanted the information in this template could easily use one of those resources. JamesMLane 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is very useful. It is much easier than finding other pages that have this information. I use this template allot. When a person reading about casinos on the strip, it makes sense that there should be an easy way to browse to other casinos that strike one's fancy. This is the type of thing that makes Wikipedia a pleasure. It happens to not take up very much space at the bottom of a page, either. Sherm. August 24, 2005
  • I agree with you that ease of browsing is great, but the category system can do the job. The top of each article has a hyperlink to Category:Casinos in Las Vegas. You click on the link and you can browse to other casinos. I think that's reasonably easy. It also gives you one-click access to Category:Las Vegas, Nevada (for non-casino points of interest) and Category:Casinos in Nevada (for casinos outside Las Vegas), both of which are likely meanderings for the reader who wants to browse. JamesMLane 11:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 11 August AM to 24 August AM — 13 days Removed from TFD 25 August AM — 14 days

[edit] Template:Shh

• Delete: Looks like a vanity/advert link to a movie site. Jpers36 04:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep:I don't know what you're talking about .. SHH! links have always been put in the articles that concern comic book movie adaptations. what difference does it make if it is put using a template to make it look nicer? why would I advertise for SHH! anyway .. it's not like it's mine, or that I'm making any profit from it .. unless you consider every external link as an ad then you should ban the whole thing from the encylopedia .. and there is right now a whole bunch of templates that are used to generate links to external websites like imdb and rottentomatoes .. they're almost on every page.. the only difference that the SHH! concerns only a few selected articles .. --Amr Hassan 07:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The template uses a different format than that any of the other links in the "external links" section. At the very least it needs a cleanup, to stay standard accros the board. However, I don't see the purpose in it at all; a simple external link works fine. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, ok.. count how many articles it's used in .. what are templates for anyway? and what harm is it doing right now?--Amr Hassan 08:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia's purpose is not to advertise other websites. Radiant_>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This looks very similer to {{imdb title}} (t/l) or {{isfdb name}} (t/l) to me, a template to provide a standard format for making an external link to a site that has pages with urls constructed according to a standard scheme. It should be documented, of course. I routinely add the proper isfdb tempalte to pages on any sf or fantasy author or work I edit, and use one of the IMDB templates on a film-related page. why is this different? DES ^(talk) 12:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed I go further -- if I am editing such an article and i see soemone has added a drirect external link to the ISFDB or the IMDB, I will replace it with a template link. DES ^(talk) 12:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in its current form. It's not very useful and does seem to be vanity.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per DES. Carioca 02:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it's useful for those who want to keep up with the latest updates on the movies based on comic characters.--DizerX 13:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep, per DES --MarSch 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per DES. Havok (T/C) 13:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the delete votes above. DreamGuy 00:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, will somebody delete it or remove the TFD from it already!! --Amr Hassan 13:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless there is some specific issue with the website, which I have not seen evidence of. MosheZadka 14:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per DES. Joeyconnick 17:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because the link is only in the form of domain.com/name (such as the one seen on Sin City page) instead of a harder-to-type form such as IMDb's domain.com/title/ttnumber. Having this template does not make anything easier and does not provide standardization of a complex URL (since the URL is not complex at all). A link to SHH can simply be a regular link, and does not require any special templates. --Hcblue 02:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Late Delete. Just use link under "External links" heading. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

period for comment 12 August AM to 29 August PM — 17 days Removed from TFD 30 August AM — 18 days

[edit] Template:Npov-intro/Template:POV-intro

• This is completely unused and should probably be deleted. --Joy [shallot] 10:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, brilliant, this is just the template for the creation science article (and I'm sure a few others). The article itself is usually fine, as critism and supporting arguments have their own sections, but the intro has been causing a lot of problems. Is this template documented? -- Ec5618 11:08, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect both to Template:POV-section. Good idea but redundant. Radiant_>|< 12:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' - and use more widely. The intro is often the most contentious section, and a template that makes that crystal clear is very useful. The "section" version is not clear enough, IMO, when used to refer to an intro (people may not be clear about what it's referring to). Rd232 13:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and list on Wikipedia:Templates. Is there also an in-line version of {npov}; like {dubious} is of {accuracy}? Septentrionalis 19:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it exists, that would be Template:POV-section like I said above. Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • No - put dubious and Pov-section in a page - you'll see the difference. The former is inline, the latter is not - it floats above the line. Rd232 22:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• del per Radiant --MarSch 17:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. BTW the claim about these being "completely used" simply is not true. I came across this debate though the use of this template on a page. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 18:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)}
• Keep per Rd232. Robert A West 00:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Rd232 and Septentrionalis. DES ^(talk) 01:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 12 Aug PM to 26 Aug AM — 13 days Removed from TFD 26 August AM — 13 days

[edit] Template:Sexual_orientation

I propose deletion for several reasons: One is that this is a topic that, if not seen as inherently POV, at least attracts many POV-warriors. Furthermore, there is no need for this article series box; the subject is hard to reduce to a few articles, and bound to invite heated debates over what should and should not be included. Right now the articles are quite randomly choosen, and that is the improved version -- in the initial one, transgender was listed as a sexual orientation, and the debate on the talk page did not leave the impression that the maker of said template was much willing to discuss that obvious mistake. This is not the first attempt to do an ASB on this (or closely related) topics; see Wikipedia:Article series boxes policy (proposed) for a discussion of a previous attempt. Much of the criticism applies here, too. -- AlexR 13:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - information better served by categories than a template. -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• There are also a few lists regarding this and similar topics if one wishes for a more ordered reading guide. -- AlexR 13:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a useful navigational tool and provides a fairly compact organization to much of the relevant knowledge. If important things are missing they should be added and organization improved, not just delete the whole thing. AlexR, most of your argument seems to boil down to "I don't want to fight about what goes in this template", which is not a good reason to delete it. Certainly you wouldn't make the argument that we should delete the article on homosexuality just cause people will fight over it? Of course there will be disagreements in this area of Wikipedia, can't be helped, but no one is forcing you to participate. Disclaimer: After this was listed for deletion, I editted it to make it less huge and slightly more readible. Dragons flight 14:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • You are misreading my arguments - the "what goes in it" is just one part of the problem; and unlike an article the real estate space in an ASB is very limited. -- AlexR 17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well I reread your statement including references to "POV-warriors", "heated debate" and what you perceive as a failed discussion on transgender. Forgive me, but I still get the impression that you are complaining primarily about the difficulty in getting people to agree. If you have another argument, could you please try making it a little clearer for me? Also, how many articles do you think it needs? There are already 31 links there. Adding a few more wouldn't hurt, or it could be condensed by linking to list pages covering the appropriate topic, rather than all the pages individually. Still I don't see deletion as an appropriate solution to what I percieve as a content dispute. Dragons flight 18:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • As I already said, I think the very format of an article series box is unsuitable for this subject - and I linked to a page going into more detail already. Subjects as complex as this one are, in my opinon, much better served by lists and categories; hence, no such ASB is the solution of my choice. (And as can be seen from the article linked above, that is not exactly a position I've only held since yesterday.) And of course the fact that it is an extremely controversial subject does not help, either. Those, however, are two arguments, not one. As for "how many" - that is a pretty irrelevant question. It is which ones go into that are the problem, not how many. Should - for example - such an ASB try to go from "homosexual and heterosexual", or from "gay and lesbian", or maybe from "androphilia and gynophilia"? Cases can be made for all three apporaches, but if they were put into one ASB that think would drown the article. OTOH, if one approach is choosen, it would be entirely appropriate, and from some points of view even necessary, to make a box for the other two approaches. Not a desireable idea, if you ask me. -- AlexR 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at least for further discussion. I only created it 4 days ago, and I think the principle of a seriesbox is a useful one. It complements, rather than replaces, categories, because it highlights the major articles of the topic. Obviously there will be disagreement about what they are, and maybe about what the topic is, which will be handled in the usual Wikipedia way. (I'm mystified by AlexR's comment about my not being willing to discuss the inclusion of transgender; I'd said 3 days ago "Let's see if there are any more comments".) Rd232 15:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• You are? That link very obviously did not belong there, so what was there to wait about? Nevertheless, I, like you (hopefully), waited, and nothing came. So I removed the entry, but actually, this does not make this ASB any more useful. -- AlexR 17:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Regardless of the intentions of the creator, it's bound to end up being used for POV pushing, jguk 17:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Categorify and Delete, doesn't have a linear series to it per WP:CSL. -Splash 19:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Although WP:CSL is of unclear status, this does not prevent it being used as a reason for a vote. I think that this particular point from CSL is a good one, so my vote stands. -Splash 17:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Categorify and delete. The inherent POV attraction of this template can be seen already. Here's a question that will be among the first things that's going to attract POV-warriors and trolling: "Why pink?" Tomer ^TALK 19:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• The Category:Sexual orientation already exists. -- AlexR 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• As does Category:LGBT. The relationship is far from clear. Rd232 09:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I like the idea but doesn't fit the rules on WP:CSL. Changed to no vote because of below comment. We do, after all, have {{Jew}} and similar. ~~ N (t/c) 01:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• What is WP:CSL, Really? I have never heard mention of WP:CSL before, which is more than a little odd given the number of navigational templates that come through here. There is no tag for {proposed}, {guideline}, {policy}, etc. Further there are abundant examples of navigational templates which wouldn't meet the strict linear series rule. Based on this discussion, it would in fact appear there is little consensus for that part of the guideline anyway. I am going to bring this issue up at the Village Pump. Dragons flight 00:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • My comments at the pump are here. Dragons flight 01:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename ? I don't really know how to do this voting thing. But my vote would be that this is worthy of being kept, but should be renamed to something like 'sexuality' or 'sexual orientation issues'. Because it isn't really about sexual orientation, is it? It's about sexual orientation as it relates to politics and society. If this were about sexual orientation it would contain stuff like "lgpt performers" or "strapons" and stuff. Also, it might make more sense to make this be a separate category page type thing instead of a box that's always hanging there. Awk 22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Bad idea but should be discussed in a more central place. Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Dan | Talk 00:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If you do keep this, change the color scheme to something other than pink. To me as a homosexual male that just seems so... stereotypical. :P Espantajo 00:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the pink came from the marketing template it was derived from. I don't mind what colour it is! Rd232 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• bad title and as a result suboptimal cohesion between included articles. Keep, since those are not reasons for deletion as long as it is used. --MarSch 17:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's well used and links to various related topics in just the same way that Template:Christianity does, for example. I don't see any reason to delete it. — OwenBlacker 19:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per OwenBlacker. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Rename. I generally prefer series boxes above categories, but this one isn't about sexual orientation. It's about homosexuality, with a few token "where does orientation come from" links thrown in, and a link to heterosexuality second to homosexuality. At the very least it should be renamed Template:Homosexuality. It shouldn't exist in its current form at its current location. It could, however, be useful if retooled or shortened. But if it's shortened enough, maybe a category is better, even though I don't like categories. --Golbez 08:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, I wasn't sure what the focus of it should be - "sexual orientation" or "homosexuality". I still don't. Rd232 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see a reason for this being deleted? The two given in the nomination text are that it is and/or will attract 'POV warriors' but I do not see that we should be forced to delete anything for that reason, else a whole myriad of other articles should be nominated too, the second reason given was that there are too many potential articles which should and/or could be included, are there any which are actually missing from the template which anyone feels should go in? (or visa-versa?) finally the third reason is that a category is more suited to the job, I don't think this is the case personally, I think ASBs allow the main topics to be navigated to much easier. -- Joolz 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: My comment was altered ([1]) to include a vote, usually when someone explicitly writes "Comment:" they don't want it to be counted as a vote either way. Since there's likely to be no response to my questions which would satisfy me enough to vote delete, I will vote keep. -- Joolz 16:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:32, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Homosexuality or LGBT, good idea. ~~ N (t/c) 19:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve as per comments above. This is just a few days old. Give it a chance improve. If after it fully matures, the template clearly does not work as a navigational tool then it can be deleted. Everything at Wikipedia has the potential for POV abuse. That is one reason why we all edit and watch pages. -- Samuel Wantman 19:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve per Samuel Wantman. Havok (T/C) 16:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep: It directs people to other topics on similar subjects from the same page in a way that categories don't --Cherry blossom tree 22:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Template:Homosexuality. David | Talk 11:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Template:LGBT and lose the pink colour scheme lest this be reported to the fashion police. ;) --carlb 16:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Repurpose this template to focus on GLBT/LGBT issues exclusively. This template can and will create serious problems with some heterosexuals and with people who do not support the ideas of sexual orientation. Not saying it's right, just saying it'll happen.—Kbolino 01:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve as per Samuel Wantman Spaltavian 05:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

---

This thread's been going for nearly a fortnight (and the note at the top of this page says seven days for consensus). Votes thusfar: Delete: 6; Keep: 12; Rename (inc "Delete or rename" and "keep and rename"): 5.

Looks like there's no consensus to delete, to me, so I'm removing the {{tfd}} tag. — OwenBlacker 13:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 12 August PM to 24 August PM — 12 days Removed from TFD 25 August AM &mdash 12 days

[edit] Template:Green; Template:Red; Template:Blue

I have no idea how many other of these there are, but I have just noticed them cropping up in WP:FAC and other places. I think they are as bad as {{object}} and its ilk, which were deleted a few months ago. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• ugly, confusing, don't work right delete Mozzerati 19:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep.What is your evidence that green and red and blue don't work right other than the {tfd}, which will go away again? Septentrionalis 19:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'f your suggesting deletion, please don't give a worthless reason. Phoenix2 20:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've said it before, and I fully expect to say it again. TFD is not, at least in my opinion, a way to go about regulating user behavior. If you are offended by colored doodads, then write a style guideline on voting and get consensus approval for it. However, right now there is nothing wrong with these templates and if someone wants to pretty up user or talk space, I know of no consensus saying it is forbidden. While we are at it, I noticed that {{Red}} has actually been used in a number of drug-related articles to create red warning tags. Dragons flight 20:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have created {{tfd-inline}} for the purposes of having a TFD template that can fit into the flow of text without breaking it into multiple lines. Obviously you can see the effect of this on the red, green, and blue mentions by Septentrionalis above. Dragons flight 20:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks Septentrionalis 15:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep harmless.  Grue  20:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not as bad as the other ones we deleted because comments were made that the images increased load times, that argument can't be made here. Phoenix2 20:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful. ~~ N (t/c) 00:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• ‹The template Green.3B_Template:Red.3B_Template:Blue has
  been proposed for deletion here.› Keep, great fun. Flowerparty ^talk 02:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete oh do come along. Dunc|☺ 13:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's kinda handy in using the formatting. --Amr Hassan 13:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful for those who find them useful. For those who don't, well forget about them. They're doing no harm. The JPS 16:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I agree with Dragons flight. ALoan should have initiated a discussion regarding the behavior to which he/she objects, instead of attempting to eliminate the legitimate means by which said behavior is accomplished. —Lifeisunfair 16:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Whilst overuse of color is bad there are legitimate uses for it and having to write html for it is a pita. Plugwash 22:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and subst, per Plugwash. If the user is expecting one use for it, they don't want it changing in the future. It is potentially useful for the non-HTML fluent among us. I won't use it, but I have no objection to others using it properly (i.e. in relevant situations and with subst:, as the template call is unnecessary). [[smoddy]] 23:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment using subst on templates like this is a double edged sword, on the one hand it reduces server load slightly (yes i know netoholic has been crusading against templates on the basis of a very vauge comment by jamesday but when i actually tried to speak to jamesday about the issue he seemed to ignore my questions as if it wasn't all that significant after all). However subst also dumps the html from the template into the wikitext making it harder to follow. Plugwash 23:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow, I never thought I'd be defending Netoholic. Please read WP:AUM - Jamesday is likely not answering you because he has lots of things on his hands, and it's been debated to death already. This issue is very real. Radiant_>|< 00:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have read that page and also its corresponding talk page and some associated revert wars. If the devs really thought this was important don't you think they would have gone through jimbo rather than making fairly vague comments like the one on that page. Plugwash 16:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• del, how lazy can you get? Besides if someone uses a template like this you have to look it up to see what it does, while a simple font-tag is much clearer and cleaner. When programming you also don't make functions for every tidbit, then also don't make a template for every trivial task. It's just stupid. You need only see the font version once to know how it works and if not just keep a copy on your user page. Hey Radiant, don't defend Netoholic and not vote. Defend AND vote. --MarSch 17:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's less typing, and the meaning is obvious once you look at the page (not the wikitext). ~~ N (t/c) 17:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We shouldn't be colouring text, and definitely not with the font tag. ed g2s • talk 09:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Can't hurt, might help. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, someone should put together a list of all the templates for easy reference and add the colors that use 6 digit codes (eg. color="f0f0f0"). Where can we look up these codes, btw? NoSeptember 13:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, do not use subst: as it obfuscates the source. If you don’t think a particular bit of text should be coloured change it, and if you don’t like the font tag change the templates. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Not doing any harm. Some may fid it useful. —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 12:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 12 August PM to 23 August PM — 11 days Removed from TFD 25 August AM — 12 days

[edit] Template:Fantasy

A very large navbox, recently created and added to a number of pages. Some of the topics are only rather distantly related to each other, IMO. I question the value of this particular navigation box, and it takes up a lot of space on the articles it is placed on. DES ^(talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (nom) DES ^(talk) 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Duh. It can always be improved, made smaller, etc. As far as questions of its "value" are concerned, it allows for easier navigation through the series on Fantasy. The general policy here on Wikipedia is to improve rather than to arbitrarily delete. --Corvun 00:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful. Improve rather than destruct. The JPS 00:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Categorify. It's a good idea but it's far too big and unwieldy. I'd like a template of about half the current size, and the rest put in a category. Radiant_>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's pretty much the goal. If you have any ideas about what should stay and what should go, your input would be (greatly!) appreciated on either the template's talk page or the fantasy talk page. --Corvun 11:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful; however, trimming the current content to one level of bullets would make it better in my opinion. The "fantasy authors" and "list of fantasy authors" should be dropped to just "fantasy authors" and that promoted up one level so it remains. Courtland 01:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for the input (and the support!). For now I've divided the template into "articles" and "categories", with the main articles listed as the series and the categories listed in the same order below. Even with this redundancy, when this process is finished and everything cleaned up, it should cut the size of the template down by about 75%.
• Keep and correct if needed. Halibutt 16:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, still needs trimming. I personally find vertical navboxes to be intrusive and ugly and prefer horizontal ones at the bottoms of articles, but that's a content issue. -Sean Curtin 01:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I discussed my reasons for suggesting the deletion of this template at some length at Template talk:Fantasy#Why suggest deletion? with Corvun, the creator of this tempalte. I urge people here to take a look at that exchange. DES ^(talk) 05:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful. CanadianCaesar 07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 14 August PM to 17 August AM — 2 days
Removed from TFD 4 September PM — 22 days

[edit] Template:Zelda series and Template:Mario series

Why do we need these when we have categories? They're huge and useless. Andre (talk) 04:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Easy access to Zelda and Mario games. There. -- A Link to the Past 04:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Corvun 06:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful navigational template, Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but change that godawful color!--Kross 07:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but might I suggest that they are somewhat overly large? Using abbreviations may help, rather than repeating the phrase "super mario world" five times. Radiant_>|< 08:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful navigational template. It goes at the bottom of the article, so it's not like it's getting in the way of anything important. Nohat 08:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Categories can't be organized like these navigational templates can. BlankVerse ∅ 08:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. And I've changed the colors to something hopefully less garish. Coffee 16:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the colors are boring now, but there's no good reason to get rid of the template.Rhindle The Red 18:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree on the colors. Is there any way to see the CSS sheets used by wikipedia? ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:56, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
• Keep: Very useful navagation aide. I don't particularly care about the color much. Fieari 22:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see any reason why to delete these. These pretty much define the purpose of navigational templates. --Titoxd 07:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously useful. CanadianCaesar 07:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 09:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Navigational templates are more useful than categories, since they can list entries in the poper order while categories can only do alphabetical order. — P Ingerson (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very good tool, although it really needs cleaning up to include SMW2:YI and other things — P Ingerson (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2005 (BST)
  • Forgot to vote Keep. Also, Ingerson, Yoshi's Island IS there. -- A Link to the Past 14:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Very useful. Havok (T/C) 13:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't know how many times i've used this template, but i know its saved me a lot of time searching for various zelda related articles. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Flowerparty ^talk 01:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Simple but incredibly useful. Saved me many minutes of typing. PowerGamer6 20:28, 19 August 2005 EST
• Pwned... I mean Keep. Navigational assistant's despite redundancy only add's to Wikipedias ease of use. - UnlimitedAccess 15:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep without a doubt. Why get rid of something that aids in navigation? 69.250.25.213 17:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep very useful Hbdragon88 23:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful; the Mario and Zelda series are well known and contain lots of games in the franchise --RealWingus 00:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They are good for navigation through the Mario and Zelda series. --MichTheWeird 17:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep both, but change that color (Mario) and make the thing smaller (Mario); it dwarfs some of the smaller articles like Yoshi Topsy Turvy. --gakon⁵ (talk) 21:23, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep both I've said this before on other template pages, a template for a game series is VERY useful, especially for readers who glance over the categories link.Amren ^(talk) 20:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 16 August to 23 August — 8 days Removed from TFD 24 August — 9 days

[edit] Template:OriginalResearch (and Category:Original research disputes)

"The novelty of research or terms used in this article is disputed." This is a rather obscure (and mostly unused) form of dispute resolution, and we already have far too many confusing variations on {{disputed}}. Radiant_>|< 08:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Seems like a perfectly appropriate way to identify cases of alleged original research. Also I don't see how it's a form of dispute resolution, since it simply directs users to the talk page. Thus, unless it actually does overlap with another template, keep. -- Visviva 13:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. The real objection is that it duplicates Template:original research, which is more clearly phrased, and is named more in template style; compare {cfd} which is lower case throughout. But if someone wants to call it OriginalResearch, I have no problem with that. Septentrionalis 18:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. This one is too wordy and confusing. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:original research; there is too much in here that is said more clearly elsewhere.-Splash 19:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 7 August AM to 12 August PM — 5 days Removed from TFD 24 August AM — 17 days

[edit] Template:SOreligiousfreedomATW

• Delete. This template is massive, containing a link for every country in a world. Most of the links are red and likely to stay red, because we simply don't need a Status of religious freedom article in countries where it simply isn't article-worthy. It's kinda like having the article Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union, then having a template with 192 links to Involuntary settlements in (country). Coffee 06:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The template’s author hasn’t edited in six months. I have removed the red links, leaving the blue. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 08:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep updated version. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep handy. --Amr Hassan 20:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful. -- Karl Meier 10:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Or Replace with
  

[[{{{2}}}|{{{1}}}]]
[[:Category:{{{1}}}|Other articles]] in this category

[[Category:{{{1}}}|Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/August 2005]]

which wouldn't need updating when a new article is added. Septentrionalis 19:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 17 August AM to 26 August PM — 9 days Removed from TFD 27 August AM — 10 days

[edit] Template:Major Cities of Tamil Nadu

Very subjective box. People have started including their cities arbitrarily. District headquarters in Tamil Nadu or some such list would be more objective. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 03:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This might be a good time to Be Bold! and go ahead and edit the template, and perhaps even rename it. It doesn't sound like a reason to delete the template. BlankVerse ∅ 14:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Categorify and delete. There's no particular connection (linear series per WP:CSL) between these that is served better by a template than by a cat. (Or even by both a template and a cat).-Splash 19:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to Template:Tamil Nadu. This looks like the beginnings of a perfectly acceptable navigational template, much like Template:New York or Template:Milwaukee, Wisconsin --BaronLarf 17:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 4 August AM to 10 August PM — 6 days Removed from TFD 12 August PM — 8 days

[edit] Template:Lynch

Another director template, same reasons as the previous directors templates see the previous discussion here. Categorize and delete. ∞Who?¿? 18:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep!. I've used the same argument every time a template for a major film director has come up (and will keep using it). Many of the average vistors to the Wikipedia who will look at one film by a director will also want to look up one or more other films by the same director. Instead of forcing that to be a two step process (either going to a category or to the director's main page), it is much easier to work with a well-designed navigation template. BlankVerse ∅ 12:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for consistency. I very much agree with BlankVerse, and the deletion of the other templates does decrease the wiki's navagational functionality. However, if we are voting on this template, there is no reason why Lynch should have one if Spielberg, Hitch and Kubrick are denied one. The JPS 13:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Keep pending advanced discussion. The JPS 17:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Same reson as for the shark template below, interesting that BlankVerse has a strong keep for this and a delete for the shark one. The only different is that there are 350+ species of sharks, but there will never be that many wikipedia articles. I think we need to do something about nav templates, as it is now this is very chaotic and non consistant, I suggest to implement a list of related articles that can be under the 'in other languages' box. Then it will not take much space and can be much longer than a nav template today. Not sure if it can be done with wikimedia today, I asked at Wikipedia:Bug_report, no answer yet. Stefan 04:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep For better overview and navigation. --ThomasK 09:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There needs to be some policy on director's templates. The wiki should be consistent, and this template shouldn't be kept if Hitch et. al. were deleted. Again, I vehemently agree with the keep votes. The JPS 15:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep For ThomasK's reasons and the fact that any sort of easy-to-read template always makes the wiki more user-friendly and presents information immediately. I also urge very, very strongly to reinstate the other deleted director templates, which I felt were very helpful and I was shocked to see them go. It's a shame we have people who actually think that making the wiki less legible is a good idea. KEEP THESE TEMPLATES!!! Gsgeorge 16:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional delete. While I'm unhappy that useful director templates keep being deleted, it's unfair if this template stays and other director templates go. Either delete this template or undelete Spielberg, Hitchcock et al. --Titoxd 22:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a problem, yes. This TFD has generated quite an interest for the 'keep' camp, and it might be worth continuing it elsewhere to achieve some sort of consistency. Hopefully we can get the other templates reinstated, and the deletionists/anti-template brigade will leave us alone. The JPS 23:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Hitch, Spielberg, etc JW 22:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Stong Keep. The template aids in user naviagation, conveys information and is compact. "Consistency" can not be a reason to delete this template, since the other director template have only been remove recently, and discussion has only just begun. --Commander Keane 06:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Categorify and delete for consistency and easier navigating. Radiant_>|< 16:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clicking an additional link each time a user wants to switch articles is meant to be easier? Keep the category too: we should maximise the wiki's capabilities. The consistency argument (to which I was a subcriber) is redundant now that there are more keep participants (for a possible undelete and wider policy discussion) The JPS 17:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The "director" templates are useful; it was wrong to delete the others and they should be brought back. Atlant 23:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I can't believe this discuission is even happening. Like all the director templates, this is very useful and hurts nobody. If we're worried about space, just make it horizontal instead of vertical. The deletion of the other director templates was absurd, too. The Singing Badger 16:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 2 August PM to 9 August PM — 7 days Removed from TFD 10 August PM — 8 days

[edit] Template:NMGovernors

Why is this needed? Many of the pages don't even exist that are listed in the template. --WikiFan04^{Talk 3:11, 3 Aug 2005 (CDT)}

• Delete and listify, would suffice. ∞Who?¿? 08:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--BaronLarf 00:17, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep Jack Cox 02:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Listify replace with {sucessionBox} which would link to list. Septentrionalis 02:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Period for comment 3 August AM to 10 August AM — 7 days Removed from TFD 10 August PM — 7 days

[edit] Template:Seemain and Template:SeeMain

Note: Voting suspended. This is a cleanup of a redirected template. It has been discovered that redirected templates can not be identified as orphans through "What links here". The TfD process has to be altered before redirected templates can be deleted.

• Delete: Redirected in earlier TfD, has now been orphaned except for some Talk and User pages. SEWilco 01:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Stbalbach 02:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Template:main, or even better, template:see details is enough I think. This one seems to imply some kind of hierarchy on Wikipedia. Oleg Alexandrov 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note that the definition of Template:main was changed today. Template_talk:Main#Template_usage_changed SEWilco 04:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

• Note that this change was made by the original author (of both the template and the description) as a correction of a typographical error. The new wording reflects both the creator's original intention and the tag's overwhelmingly popular application. —Lifeisunfair 04:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Redirected. The cat is most decidely out of the bag, and redirects are cheap. Many people have learned to go looking for {{seemain}} when they mean {{main}} and it is too much trouble with very little benefit to try and cure everyone of this confusion. Dragons flight 06:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Despite the nominator's claim to the contrary, {{seemain}} had not been orphaned. I just removed it from nineteen articles, many of which are extremely prominent: Creationism, Final Fantasy airships, Gautama Buddha, Germany, Homosexuality, Human, Kashmir, The Legend of Zelda series enemies, Malaysia, Napoleon I of France, National Basketball Association, New Zealand, Portland, Oregon, Races of Final Fantasy, Slavery, Tutankhamun, United States, Wikipedia and WWE SmackDown! (video game). —Lifeisunfair 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: None of those articles appear in Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Seemain, which is only showing discussion and User pages that the bot ignored. (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

As stated above, I removed the template from all nineteen of those articles. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I suspect Whatlinkshere entries for a redirected template are created in the target template, thus Whatlinkshere:main probably contains some seemain references. The TfD vote can continue, this problem merely means that all cleanup deletions of redirected templates have to deal with such technical issues. (SEWilco 19:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

Last night, when the nineteen articles in question were listed on the "Whatlinkshere" page, {{seemain}} was not a redirect; it contained the TfD notice. As Radiant indicated, three of the titles (Germany, Human and New Zealand) appeared when users made unrelated edits to the corresponding articles (after I first viewed the "Whatlinkshere" page and began removing the template). —Lifeisunfair 19:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. A Redirect page does not allow the TfD template, so the apparently-orphaned redirect was replaced with the TfD template. When I reported the templates were orphans those articles were not in Whatlinkshere:Seemain, and appeared when edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (SEWilco 20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

I'm aware of the above. I meant that the redirect couldn't have been the cause of the glitch. —Lifeisunfair 00:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Along the way, I discovered the existence of ten additional templates that belong to this set: {{seemain2}}, {{seemain3}}, {{seemain4}}, {{seemain5}}, {{seemain6}}, {{seemain7}}, {{seemain8}}, {{seemain9}}, {{seemain10}} and {{seemain20}}. —Lifeisunfair 06:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

For whatever reason, articles containing {{seemain}} continue to appear on the list (without anyone adding the template). For the time being (until this problem has been resolved), I've restored the redirect. (And if you really stop to think about it, a TfD message in an orphaned template serves little purpose.) —Lifeisunfair 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

What "list"? (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

I was referring to this list. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I see. The articles which showed in Whatlinksher:Seemain were those which were edited after the TfD notice replaced the redirect. (SEWilco 20:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

• Delete those extra templates #2-#20; where did those come from anyway? As for the first one, I have no objection to the redirect. Templates sometimes get a longer 'whatlinkshere' when articles containing them are 'touched', so for an oft-used template it's not necessarily possible to find all links to it. Try using google as an alternate method.

Radiant_>|< 08:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The extra templates 2-20 are for multiple references, and will be converted later thus are not part of this TfD. (SEWilco 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

As noted below, the numbered templates (excepting {{seemain2}}) are extraneous. —Lifeisunfair 18:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep {seemain} and at least 2 through 4 of the others. Useful, and easier to maintain than typing in the same italicized sentence all the time. Septentrionalis 16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect {{seemain}} and {{seeMain}} to {{main}}; redirect {{seemain2}} to {{main2}}; delete all of the other numbered templates (which are extraneous, because {{main2}} can link to any plural quantity of articles). —Lifeisunfair 17:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect everything including {{see details}} to {{main}}. Vegaswikian 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep {{main2}} (I think it was easier to put this vote as an entry given the number of templates being discussed here, I am not voting twice.) Vegaswikian 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The JPS 11:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but delete all those starting from {{seemain3}}. We need a template for the plural form. The rest can be done by using {{seemain2|Foo1|Foo2]], [[Foo3]], [[Foo4}}. — Instantnood 11:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The numbered variants have been listed separately. —Lifeisunfair 14:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 14 August AM to 25 August PM — 11 days
Removed from TFD 1 September AM — 18 days

[edit] Template:Abuse

Delete, categorize, and Listify: Another large incomplete navbox. I suppose it is appropriate to its contents that it is also uncommonly bleak, but it is still unneccessary. Septentrionalis 19:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. — Xiong熊talk* 02:12, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
• Keep. — My message to the user Septentrionalis. Do not abuse your wiki-rights (one of them being the right to nominate a template for deletion) which you did abuse by ignoring your wiki-obligations (one of them being the obligation to RTF-M - here specifically -DC=Deletion Criteria). If you have not noticed yet, the incompleteness and bleakness criteria are not listed as valid critera for a template deletion. SorryButAnAbuseMakesMeReallyMad 08:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ~~ N (t/c) 23:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep CanadianCaesar 04:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete/modify Present state pretty POV - execution should perhaps not be listed\, check others Daemon8666 17:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or at least modify as Daemon8666 said above. A long with execution, I don't think spying belongs on there. Evil Monkey∴Hello 22:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly useful, even if it does need some thought as to which articles warrant inclusion. Dragons flight 23:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 16 August PM to 22 August PM — 6 days Removed from TFD 23 August PM — 7 days

[edit] Template:13colonies

This might be useful, if most of the names were not wrong, thus disseminating misinformation. See the number of redirects in the template. Attempt to make a template do the work of a category.

• Keep, why don't you just fix the errors instead of asking to have it deleted?

05:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, replace with Template:otherarticles Nominator vote. Septentrionalis 02:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Didn't see any redirects in the template, and even if there were I would have edited it. I also think new users and readers find templates easier than categories, so, useful. CanadianCaesar 02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The "wrong" names are an attempt to simplify the issue. The complicated issues are discussed in the articles and if you are dissatisified with the discussion, please feel free to amend. A useful bunching of topics. Templates and categories can overlap. It's not a crime. Creator vote. jengod 06:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It looks boring, but it provides a useful array of related items on a given theme. --Eoghanacht 12:38, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no problem having this template. No different in function than Template:United States. --tomf688^<TALK> 14:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. VFD is not the place to resolve issues with the content of articles, neither is TFD for resolving a disagreement with the way things are named in a template. Tomer ^TALK 20:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. TFD is not cleanup. If it's wrong, then by all means, please fix it. Firebug 00:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Firebug. --WikiFan04^{Talk 23:00, 25 Aug 2005 (CDT)}
• Keep. I agree with Eoghanacht's statement. – Friejose 19:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - for reasons above.--ben dummett 12:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 18 August AM to 29 August PM — 11 days
Removed from TFD 30 August AM — 12 days

[edit] Template:anti-war

Clearly and un-needed/un-wanted template designed entirely for POV pushing, Censorship, and Trolling, has appeared on dozens of un-related articles, and clearly must be deleted--64.12.116.6 14:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war for an explanation of this NPOV wikiproject. David | Talk 15:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I put it their. I have tryed to cearfully set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war to be a NPOV project. Can you give some evidence of POV pushing, Censorship, and Trolling? I belive that all the articles the template appears on are related by being about anit-war movments or ideas.--JK the unwise 16:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. --Carnildo 18:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a place for free speech or discussion. Agriculture 18:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Keep Wikipedia may not be a palce for free speech and discussion, but it should be. Agriculture 18:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As I mentioned on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Anti-war, "It is entirely possible to keep a NPOV while writing about peace groups and the movement in general. Additionally, some of the material being covered is historic in nature, like those articles dealing with Vietnam." Schuminweb 18:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keey per Carnildo. --Ngb 18:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - although the POV pushing part might be slightly possible. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in agreement with the ability to discuss opposition to war in an NPOV manner. Further, the identity of the nominator is hidden as the IP address is an AOL multi-user address. Anything nominated anonymously should be removed from here by an admin immediately, just as anonymous or unsigned votes are to be ignored in the consideration of whether or not to delete an item. Courtland 01:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • But not an unsigned or anonymous nomination. -Splash 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the charges made in the nomination don't seem to bear scrutiny. -Splash 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, having presumed that purpose is to inform, not persuade. (To make this clear to casual observer, I might suggest renaming the project). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep --Revolución (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 18 August PM to 29 August PM — 11 days
Removed from TFD 30 August AM — 11 days

[edit] Template:Ludwig van Beethoven

Delete: The point of this template appears to be easy navigation between articles about Beethoven. I don't think it helps particularly, though, for a number of reasons. The list of works calls for completion in order to be useful (because a bagatelle and two piano sonatas--in addition to the symphonies, of course--hardly deserve their own little template), which would not only be quite too huge for a template, but also already available in its right place (List of works by Beethoven). Listing the symphonies alone might serve a purpose for navigation, admittedly, though, but only marginally. The other articles (i.e. those not about individual works) are all linked from the appropriate section of the main page, like they should be, and as should be enough. EldKatt (Talk) 19:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep: I think this is very useful. I have taken the liberty of adding List of works by Beethoven to the template, though. If we keep the template, we should probably find a few more of his most prominent compositions to include. --Arcadian 20:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But probably remove the works other than the symphonies. Certainly the current selection is poor. 82.35.34.11 01:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but be merciless in deciding which works get onto the template. It might thus be necessary to junk the template at a later time if such agreement simply cannot be reached. -Splash 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I should've clarified this in my original proposal, but I'm only opposed to this template as a general Beethoven-related template, which would be POV-prone and hard to manage, since it can't be exhaustive. I'm quite positive to a specific "Beethoven symphonies" template (and "Beethoven piano sonatas", "Beethoven string quartets" etc, for that matter), though, which seems like a plausible result of the consensus so far. But I very much doubt the possibility of agreeing on a set of notable works for a template like this. Personally, I certainly wouldn't list Für Elise, for example, but I'm sure this would meet some disagreement, by virtue of it being such a famous little piece. EldKatt (Talk) 12:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I find EldKatt's argument completely convincing. There are so many famous works, and we couldn't possibly fit them all in a template of reasonable size. Opus33 16:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I find this to be a useful template --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm convinced by EldKatt; Arcadian wants "more prominent compositions", but a huge number of Beethoven's works are prominent; I think it would save time to modify Splash's proposal: be merciless and delete. FYI: I created the Beethoven string quartets and Beethoven piano sonatas templates. The only reason I think they are a good idea is because musicians refer to them by opus number: "Piano Sonata No. 21" is mostly known as "Op. 53" or "The Waldstein", and "String quartet No. 7" as "Op. 59 No. 1" or "Rasumovsky No. 1", so the template really does aid navigation. I would not oppose a "Beethoven symphonies" navigation template (although should that include Symphony No. 10 (Beethoven/Cooper)?) although I see less of a case for that since the numbering of the symphonies is simpler. I think the template under discussion here is unnecessarily trying to do the impossible. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, since it would be unmanageable to have all Beethoven's works in this template, and that would be the only reasonable way to proceed with it. I strongly support the idea of templates for subsets of his compositions, and Robert is right about the works being referred to by opus numbers ("hey, wanna get together tonight and play opus 131?" -- that's the way musicians refer to Beethoven's pieces). For completeness and consistency -- though I'm aware of the threat of Emerson's hobgoblins -- we could have templates for symphonies, concertos, incidental music, variations, and anything else by B. Antandrus (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 18 August PM to 25 August PM — 7 days
Removed from TFD 31 August AM — 13 days

[edit] Template:Hide

Note: The content of this template is invisible, the source code is

<div style="visibility:hidden; position:absolute;">{{{1}}}</div>

• Delete: Unused, useless. --Quuxplusone 04:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the above. -Splash 06:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• I suspect this is an attempt to create a template to be used in templates that produce conditional output (I created a template of the same name some time ago, which was deleted last April). I'll ask the user who created the template about this, but there seem to be some others (which, no doubt, didn't work either), specifically Template:/div=True and Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

It turns out Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True does work, and is used in Template:Canadian City (and has essentially the same content as Template:hide). Before closing this vote I suggest we wait for comments from the template's creator (User:BCKILLa - no edits since August 7). It may well be that Template:Hide is meant to serve as a less obscurely named pattern for similar templates (in which case, the other same-content templates could redirect to it). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. A template by this name has been deleted once before. [2]. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete useless and introduces potential for serious browser incompatibility. Note, there is an alternative, inote which does the same thing in a different way, just leaving an HTML comment, and which is used for invisible references in text. Mozzerati

Although the local effect is similar, template:inote has a completely different function. The use of Template:Hide (or Template:Canadian City/Disable Field=True) is to conditionally suppress some part of the output of a template. For example, Template:Canadian City has a parameter Motto which usually appears following a label (Motto:), see for example Calgary, Alberta. For cities lacking a motto, the label can be suppressed by adding a parameter Disable Motto Link (with the value True), see for example Burlington, Ontario. The "normal" ouput (without the suppression parameter specified) is of the form <div style="visibility:hidden;">weird junk with curly braces</div>[[Motto]]:</div> (so the div makes the weird junk invisible, but note the second close div in this case is unmatched). With the suppression parameter set to true, the "weird junk with curly braces" turns out to be an invocation of a template like Template:Hide which expands into another <div> matching the first close div. This makes the initial div apply to the Motto: label, making it invisible. One advantage of this approach is that if there's ever if-then-else syntax added to templates, the invoking template can be fixed without requiring any changes to any of its references. HTML comments do not nest, so there's no way using HTML comments to do precisely the same thing. This is an extremely clever workaround to a limitation of the existing implementation of templates. We could perhaps argue this is too clever, but I'm not aware of any policy prohibiting (nor even discouraging) excessive cleverness in templates. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Neat. This explanation or something similar should appear at Template talk:Hide, though. --Mysidia (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep based on Rick Block, though I tend to agree with the excessive cleverness. Once pages start looking like programming code instead of text many editors shy away. SchmuckyTheCat 21:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 19 August AM to 27 August PM — 8 days
Removed from TFD 1 September AM — 13 days

[edit] Template:Ccm

Due to a delay in notification, voting (which began on August 9) has been extended.

Template was suggested 17 July but no interest/response to develop and not adequate as is - based on music genre template Paul foord 14:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Looks good to me; if it needs to develop, let's develop it, not delete it. --BaronLarf 01:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and develop - as per what Baron Larf said. Halibutt 13:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, valid infobox type thingy, needs development. Alphax ^τεχ 14:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - excellent template. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if noone expressed any interest in using it, why have it hanging around? In the end, it will just be replaced by a redesign if someone wants such an infobox and the signs would seem to be that they don't. -Splash 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - now being used Paul foord 06:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep, used --MarSch 17:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 17:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep ditto. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 20:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete. I don't see how it can be developed to a useful enough standard to become a great template on its proposed subject. For example, how useful is it to point out those three typical instruments? If each pointed to an article such as "the drum in Christian music" then that would be a different matter, but I don't foresee those as realistic articles. It seems to me that a better solution would be to have one article on Christian Music and put the info in the article, with the instruments wikified as normal, and a see also at the bottom. Quite how Rock n Roll and Hip Hop justify places in a Christian Music template (again, without links to more specific articles, such as Christian Hop Hop) I fail to see. It's essentially a collection of bemusing links that completely fail to deliver a satisfying navigational theme. --bodnotbod 11:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Some points made here don't seem to reflect the contents of the template - under the fusion head are links to the Christian rock, Christian hip hop, Christian hardcore, etc. articles. May point to value of redesign but article on Christian music already exists. Maybe better design called for. Paul foord 13:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 9 August to 3 September — 25 days
Removed from TFD 4 September — 26 days

[edit] Template:R from CamelCase, Template:R from UN/LOCODE, Template:R from title without diacritics, Template:R to decade, Template:R for convenience and Template:R CamelCase

Apparently I missed some. Same reasoning as below. Radiant_>|< 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Template:R from title without diacritics for the same reason as Template:R from misspelling - these redirects attract links, but should be kept orphaned. Also merge Template:R from ASCII into it. —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And I've redirected Template:R CamelCase to Template:R from CamelCase; it was just transcluding it. —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all and nominate individually. Courtland 00:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep most. I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect. ∞Who?¿? 04:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Also see: Wikipedia:Redirect for a better understanding. ∞Who?¿? 04:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep redirects are a bit tricky to categorize normally. DES ^(talk) 02:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Almost all such redirects are useful, as I said below, but some could be merged. merge:
  • {{R for convenience}} with {{R R from shortcut}},
  • {{R CamelCase}} with {{R from CamelCase}},
  • {{R from title without diacritics}} with {{R from ASCII}}.

Keep the rest listed here. -- Paddu 19:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, with merges as suggested by Paddu. We really do need to explain the use of these better, though... JesseW 10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Helpful to select redirects. It might be worth noting that since creation, these templates worked in at least 3-4 different ways. Initially mainly "Whatlinkshere" worked and the text of the template was displayed below the redirect. Since the most recent Mediawiki version, categorization works (again). Personally I think they are good thing to include when a series of redirects are created by bot, e.g. Redirects from US postal abbreviation. Later, they can easily be identified. -- User:Docu
• Keep Potentially useful and not being abused. SchmuckyTheCat 22:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears to me that User:Instantnood has already begun to abuse the {{R for convenience}} in The Arts House at the Old Parliament.--Huaiwei 11:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Request for Comment That accusation requires some explanation. How is the use you mention an example of "abuse" of the template? Courtland 10:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 19 August PM to 30 August AM — 10 days
Removed from TFD 4 September PM — 15 days

[edit] Template:R for as of

Same reasoning as above, except that I was told this was an exception so I'm listing it separately. Its name is somewhat confusing, to say the least. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, useful for finding all the as of redirects, does not cause any problems. --cesarb 16:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've not needed to use this yet, but I can see it's utility. In particular, there are terms in biology and medicine and sociology and et cetera that have changed meaning over the decades or centuries, which would be one application of the template. Courtland 00:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• del, utterly confusing --MarSch 12:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — how else would you find all the as of redirects that are linked to from information that's needed to be kept updated? — Pt _(T) 08:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. See as of to know why. -- Paddu 19:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and clarify for MarSch's sake. (It would be easier if e explained what was confusing, though... ;-) ) JesseW 09:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even though the name was chosen when the text of the template was visible below the redirect. -- User:Docu
• Keep convenient to explain as of redirects --Wikiacc (talk) 00:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 19 August PM to 31 August AM — 11 days
Removed from TFD 1 September AM — 12 days

[edit] Template:R from alternate name and others

{{R from abbreviation}}, {{R from alternate spelling}}, {{R for alternate capitalisation}}, {{R from alternate name}}, {{R from alternate language}}, {{R from ASCII}}, {{R from plural}}, {{R from related word}}, {{R with possibilities}}, {{R to disambiguation page}}, {{R from shortcut}}, {{R to sort name}}, {{R from scientific name}}, and associated categories.

I just came across this scheme for categorizing all redirects to clarify what they redirect to. However, in 99% of all cases that should be immediately obvious from the relevant names, and in others the talk pages should suffice. Few people look at redirects anyway, and attempting to templatize and categorize them all is misguided and serves no real purpose. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

These help clarify the purpose of redirects, and keep editors from mistakenly deleting or changing them. Unfortunately during some MediaWiki upgrade they stopped displaying on the redirect page. Is it possible to make them show up again? —Michael Z. 2005-08-28 15:45 Z

• R for Remove. Also, they use a MediaWiki hack that doesn't quite work in other wikis. - Sikon 14:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Template:R from ASCII into Template:R from title without diacritics above. No opinion on the others. (And who cares whether they work on other wikis?) —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No opinion on {{R from CamelCase}}, {{R from UN/LOCODE}}, {{R from title without diacritics}}, {{R to decade}}, {{R for convenience}} or {{R CamelCase}} either, except to wonder whether they were omitted intentionally. 15:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Added now, see above. Radiant_>|< 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Delete these too. - Sikon 15:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - can't see the point. violet/riga (t) 14:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all for now and nominate individually; some I'd vote to delete, some to keep - but I don't want to consider them as a group. I make liberal use of some of these templates and do see a point to them in the form of descriptive classifications of redirects. Courtland 00:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep most. I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect. ∞Who?¿? 04:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Also see: Wikipedia:Redirect for a better understanding. ∞Who?¿? 04:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think categorizing these is a good thing, and if a question arises why a redirect is there, and it falls under one of these categories, it provides a good reference point. "Why does is there a redirect? Oh, I see -- its because of _______" IanManka 06:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It would stop redirects showing up in Special:Uncategorizedpages wouldn't it? -- Joolz 13:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes it would, which is another good reason to use them. ∞Who?¿? 16:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep redirects are a bit tricky to categorize normally. DES ^(talk) 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although some borderline cases might be better nominated individually. -Sean Curtin 04:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep most. For example, it is good to know which are redirects from misspellings, e.g. for people who want to copy Wikipedia or portions of it but would like have it in a context where having entries for misspellings don't make sense, e.g. for a paper version of Wikipedia or portions of it. There are similar arguments about a few other "R from..." templates. A few might be merged, but IMHO voting must be done on those individually. -- Paddu 19:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  OK, so "R from misspelling" is not included here. Replace "misspellings" with "alternative capitalisation" in my comment above. -- Paddu 19:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (or replace with a better way) Categorizing redirects is a good thing. I'd prefer something in the syntax of #REDIRECT inself, but the technique serves to document the reason for the redirect. Redirects have been abused all over the place (speaking as someone who recently decoupled feature film from film and agricultural subsidy from agricultural policy). BTW feature film had been a redirect for over two years...66.167.137.182 01:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC).
• keep appreciate the cleanup effort, but this is useful and used. Thanks, Radiant, for providing an opportunity for this demonstration of the consensus to keep these. Thanks! JesseW 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. -- User:Docu
• Keep, though some of them could be merged. There might be too many to choose from now. --Kaleissin 20:00:15, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
• Keep, though it would be nice if I could see it on the destination page TransUtopian 05:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment August 19 PM to September 2 AM — 13 days
Removed from TFD September 3 AM — 14 days

[edit] Template:R from UN/LOCODE

(insert section to make tfd-link to here work))

• Template:R from UN/LOCODE - Keep because no reason given by User:Radiant! that even was so ignorant not to put the tfd tag. How about talking to involved people first? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• To be fair, User:Radiant! gave reasoning in the discussion below this one, and this one is included in the discussion above, as there is no Tfdu template yet (umbrella template like {{Cfdu}} or {{Cfru}}), so this one is just used as a "pointer" for the tfd's. ∞Who?¿? 16:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep redirects are a bit tricky to categorize normally. DES ^(talk) 02:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Those copying Wikipedia content should be able to prune these kinds of redirects out. -- Paddu 19:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep for reasons given above and below. :-) JesseW 10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. -- User:Docu

Period of comment 19 August PM to 24 August PM — 5 days
Removed from TFD 3 September AM — 14 days

[edit] {{R from misspelling}}

Same reasoning as below, but I've moved it out since Cryptic makes a good point. Radiant_>|< 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep R from misspelling at the very least. Provides a handy list of redirects that should be kept orphaned. —Cryptic (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is useful in highlighting common misspellings (which I probably misspelled :) ) and there are cases where someone labels something as an incorrect spelling (can't screw that spelling up) which is actually an alternate name (for instance "canvas" and "canvass", the latter an uncommon correct spelling of certain defintions of the former). Useful redirect descriptor. Courtland 00:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think the point was to track redirects for a maintenance purpose. I dont know who created them, but I use them quite a bit. I think its good to have a category Category:Redirects which lists all of them, and they do not interfere with the functioning of the redirect. ∞Who?¿? 04:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• del, templates for categorizing!? Instead simply categorize! No templates needed. --MarSch 12:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A bare category can't duplicate the functionality of Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:R from misspelling. —Cryptic (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: Meaning, in my opinion, that without the "whatlinkshere" functionality, there's little hope of editing the referring articles to remove the misspelled linkage. Courtland 14:55, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is good to know which are redirects from misspellings, e.g. for people who want to copy Wikipedia or portions of it but would like have it in a context where having entries for misspellings don't make sense, e.g. for a paper version of Wiikipedia or portions of it. -- Paddu 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep as per paddu, courtland, etc. JesseW 10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Courtland. -- User:docu

Period of comment 19 August PM to 24 August PM — 5 days
Removed from TFD 3 September AM — 14 days

[edit] Template:Vote bar

While this is prettier than Template:Vfd votes was (tfd discussion), such things were still soundly rejected at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Regarding tally boxes. —Cryptic (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this. And if you're not supposed to use it on VfD, it certainly can be useful in other parts of Wikipedia that involve votes, such as simple yes/no polls. Besides, why do you think "VfD" isn't even in the title of this template?

Also, now that I've read the policy prohibiting such tally boxes on VfD sub-pages, you should know that I only added the vote bar as an ad hoc measure, since so many opinions were registered on that VfD subpage that I felt I had to add it, to make it unnecessary for other users and admins to have to read through all those opinions (almost 200 on that particular page) to simply track the general scenario.  Denelson83  06:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This vote bar has been insanely helpful at Wikipedia :Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. Karmafist 05:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete See here for my reason. --Mysidia (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I suggest using the template on a case by case basis. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly. It should be used only as an ad hoc measure.  Denelson83  06:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Kim Bruning 06:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Unable to comment, because Kim Bruning speedily deleted the template. Under which of the criteria did this qualify, Kim? —Lifeisunfair 10:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  AFAICT that page does not currently seem to reflect actual practice. :-/ Kim Bruning 13:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Apparently under the criterion that since Wikipedia is not a democracy this template is useless or so. No cause for speedy though methinks. --MarSch 12:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I speedied it because it's something that should never be used on wikipedia anyway. But good point: I forget that admin percentages are down relative to all the new folks, so you can't just ask the next guy over to take a look. (So adminship is temporarily a big deal , Very very annoying :-/). Here's an example of the template in use, and I've left it undeleted so you can pick it apart.

The sky is green: 114

The sky is blue: 78

Kim Bruning 13:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Mysidia. ~~ N (t/c) 13:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but only if such a consensus is reached via the TfD process; this is not a speedy deletion candidate. Kim: I recommend that you formally enter your vote (and allow another admin to close the debate). —Lifeisunfair 14:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Vote changed. (See below.) —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  You've probably heard this over and over and over, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, so this is not a vote in the first place.(It's a consensus finding poll). Even then, VFD, TFD and CSD don't override every other policy or practice, else wikipedia would grind to a halt. Kim Bruning 14:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC) (PS. Specifically, WP:NOT was written and reviewed by 100s or even 1000s of wikipedians over a period of years, while this tfd poll is conducted by a handful of wikipedians over a couple of days. Figuring out where consensus lies is left as an excersize to the reader ;-) ) Kim Bruning 15:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is the prerogative of all Admins, to turn their adminstrative power into the ability to impose their will on the community. An admin should not function as a judge-jury-and-executioner, but as a member of the community who is no more or less special in the validity of their opinions as any other non-admin. Figuring out whether you have crossed the line into inappropriate behavior unbecoming of an admin is left as an excersize to the reader. :( Courtland 15:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use admin perogative, like you said, I'm just an editor with a couple more buttons. In this case, there is sufficient (actually overwhelming) consensus to delete, because of existing policy, which is supported by thousands of wikipedians. Does that help? Kim Bruning 19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Invoking majority rule regarding the "votes" to delete this template when you've been touting that this is not a democracy doesn't help, no. Courtland 20:25, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, in this case I'm referring to the inertia of getting all those people to change their mind, there was never any vote for WP:NOT, AFAIK. Kim Bruning 23:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Please consult a dictionary, and you'll find that the word "vote" doesn't necessarily imply that a decision will be reached via a numerical count. Used as a noun, "vote" can mean "a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue" or "a means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot." Used as a verb, "vote" can mean "to express one's preference for a candidate or for a proposed resolution of an issue; cast a vote" or "to express a choice or an opinion." Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition —Lifeisunfair 16:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, wikipedia jargon, my fault. A vote in wikipedia parlance is a majority vote (the root of all evil), while a poll is an opinion poll, which is a nescessary evil. Kim Bruning

I didn't refer to this discussion as "a vote"; I unambiguously referred to "your vote" (id est, your formal expression of preference for a proposed resolution of the issue). This page is the template equivalent of Votes for deletion, so please don't lecture me on "Wikipedia parlance." Please also refrain from arguing the widespread belief that VfD is misnamed, because it isn't.

And even if I had used the term in the context that you suggest, I still wouldn't have been incorrect; "vote" ("the act or process of voting") != "majority vote." —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

2. Yes, WP:NOT was written and reviewed by a multitude of Wikipedians, but so were the deletion policies that you've unilaterally decided to circumvent. I believe that this template should be deleted, but not until the correct process has been followed. I was under the impression that you had realized your error, but it's clear that I was mistaken. I respectfully request that you once again undelete the template (and leave it undeleted, pending the outcome of this debate). —Lifeisunfair 16:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually the CSD was only reviewed by a handful of wikipedians who weren't really using process too well, so a lot of folks think that the current CSD rules are pretty weak. On the other hand, the fact that wikipedia is a consensus community is a given based on the fact that we're a wiki. We've all accepted that rule by editing here, basically. :-) So rather than unilateral circumvention, a better term in this case might be might be kilolateral uncircumvention. Let's not have TFD dictate wikipedia policy. Kim Bruning 19:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I referenced "the deletion policies," not any particular deletion policy. Secondly, you claim that the CSD were "only reviewed by a handful of wikipedians who weren't really using process too well," and that "the current CSD rules are pretty weak," but who are you to decide this, and why haven't you raised these issues on the talk page (to which you've yet to post a single remark)? And as I note below, the concept that this template violates the spirit of WP:NOT is your personal belief, and should not be imposed upon the entire community. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but at no point does this template state that the result must be followed - it is merely an indicator. I don't want to cause a fuss, but you are almost violating WP:POINT on this, and you have violated the TfD process. Because there are a few people wanting it to be undeleted I am going to do so - call it partial consensus if you will. violet/riga (t) 19:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it Counts Votes, that sucks quite enough. It's probably ok to undelete it temporarily, but you'll have to watch it carefully to make sure it doesn't get transcluded anywhere. (And explain to and warn every person who does so). Kim Bruning 19:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing any consensus that this template "should never be used"; that's based entirely upon your arbitrary assessment of its potential applications and your equally arbitrary interpretation of WP:NOT. Any template can be misused, but that doesn't mean that we should employ the pre-emptive measure of deleting all of them. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete although it is pretty, and shouldn't have any effect on the closing admins decision, I think it would only make users vote in order to sway the decision, w/o reading the discussion. The discussion is the whole point, and if its going one way or another, maybe its becuase users changed their votes, and you would never know that if you stared at the pretty bar and didn't read the discussion. ∞Who?¿? 19:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have two distinct reasons for keeping this. Reason number 1: While I agree, not a democracy, I also feel that there should not be any prohibition against trying to summarize the state of a complicated discussion. In my mind that is likely to involve counting votes (for good or ill, we all do pay attention to how much support each side has). That said I wouldn't endorse using it on any but the most complicated couple percent of votes. Perhaps having a guideline that there must be 50+ participants before it can be used. Reason number 2: I feel this comparison bar is a neat hack that is likely to be useful in article space. Large parts of the real world are a democracy and certainly Wikipedia talks about that. We could use this to show the outcome of real world votes. Not to mention comparisons where there are two elements but which are not neccesarily votes. Republicans vs. Democrats in Congress? Size of Earth vs. Size of Sun? Men vs. Women as CEOs? Okay, so maybe all of those aren't necessarily good ideas, but I believe the widget could be useful even if there was/is consensus for never using it on VFD. Dragons flight 19:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • To be quite honest, I did not think of its use in that manner. I think it maybe useful for showing outcome of things outside of wiki. Although I somewhat agree on large participation discussions, it may help see where we stand on the issue, I still have reservations about using for Wiki related discussions/votes, per my comments above. Iff it is only used for external outcomes, I would probably support. I would say that it could be used on some Wiki related discussion if there were guidelines, but I feel that borders m:instruction creep. ∞Who?¿? 20:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to explain bit better why deleting the template is useful in this case: Basically, every time this template is transcluded, it violates WP:NOT, or, (if you're actually a sane human being), it violates basic wiki-principles. So by keeping it either blanked or deleted, you kill a large number of birds violations with one stone. Everyone can at least blank a page, so I'm not sure why the first people to spot this problem hadn't already done so.

Perhaps becuase some people realize that their personal opinions and interpretations are not sacrosanct, and that following the correct process (instead of imposing said beliefs upon the entire community) might facilitate productive discourse, thereby bringing to light alternative perceptions and previously overlooked possibilities. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, one other thing I'm demonstrating here is use of consensus rules to quickly get things done that need doing. Everyone has this power, so that means you too. Apply sane reasoning to the problem, and negotiate what you want. or just go ahead and do it :-) You actually applied some of that power today, where you got me to temporarily undelete the template and subst an example here. But note the reasoning above as well, that's why I'm keeping it deleted for the rest. If you'd like a copy of the template someplace if you need to examine it further for some reason, give me a yell. :-) Kim Bruning 19:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

All of your arguments are based upon the (contested) claim that the template unequivocally violates WP:NOT. What gives you the authority to issue such a proclamation? —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is not supposed to be run by votes, no, but this template doesn't pretend that it is. It is simply a tool used to highlight the results of a vote. I'm afraid that voting is commonplace and very much a part of Wikipedia, however - you're taking place in one now. Voting happens all over and is not always a bad thing - it can show consensus much easier than lots of text can. Note that I've not voted on whether this should be deleted, so this isn't a comment on that. violet/riga (t) 19:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a poll to figure out what consensus is, not a vote. There's actually a rather non-subtle distinction. Kim Bruning 20:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

So . . . you also possess the authority to override dictionary definitions? —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If there are votes cropping up all over wikipedia, then there is a significant danger of it failing to be a pedia for very much longer. There was a reason not to have votes, remember? Anyway, I'm glad you're taking over this particular tfd. Have a nice day. Kim Bruning 20:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Violet/Riga is "taking over"? My, how gracious of you to relinquish your self-appointed command. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename to something less specific (such as {{ratio bar}}), and avoid using the template in most (if not all) voting situations (especially those in which more than two options exist). I initially voted (yes, voted) to delete, but Dragons flight has convinced me that this template has legitimate applications. —Lifeisunfair 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment from some of the input from Kim above, it's pretty clear to me that this is an example of Kim's violating the WP:POINT guideline, in particular when he says things like "Hmm, one other thing I'm demonstrating here is use of consensus rules to quickly get things done that need doing" which seems to imply that his actions here are meant in part to teach us a lesson about how Wikipedia should be run. Courtland 01:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm actually an individual who favours precision over nebulous scenarios, and this vote bar is an expression of my desire for precision. The term "consensus" on Wikipedia really needs to be rigourously defined. And nowhere in this template did I say that the numbers it shows are binding. It is only an indicator, nothing more. Admins do not, and must not, have to rely on it alone to decide how to close a poll. If they want to read through all of the opinions, then there is nothing I can do about that. All I did was create a simple indication of what the scenario looks like at the present time.  Denelson83  01:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Dragons flight and Lifeisunfair. I find their arguments quite convincing. DES ^(talk) 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the recent discussion and series of polls on extending the CSD drew quite a bit of participation and comments, as well as a number of votes. Peopele were fairly claer, IMO, that they were reluctant to extend the CSD overly, and that they expected the current CSD to be treated rather strictly, not bent. This was not a speedy deletion candidate. DES ^(talk) 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Further comment: Kim_Bruning and I have agreed that there are other legitimate uses for this vote bar. I just added it to 1995 Quebec referendum as a canonical example.  Denelson83  03:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• comment. Had a chat with Denelson83 today. He pointed out uses for the template outside wikipedia: namespace (for example: 1995 Quebec referendum). Ok, well I agree with that (as also per Lifeisunfair and Dragons Flight). The template will have to be carefully gaurded against abuse in the wikipedia: namespace though. As long as people do that, I'm ok with it. Kim Bruning 03:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is just another thing that will mislead people into thinking it is. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have volunteered to guard this template and make sure it is only used under appropriate circumstances.  Denelson83  07:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Should be deleted for the exact same reasons as was Template:Vfd votes. -Sean Curtin 03:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC) Weak keep if renamed. As long as we try to keep this out of the realm of VfD and other WP votes and polls, it's fine by me. As a nitpick, I think that the bar itself ought to be shorter in height; it seems almost like a space filler on my screen. -Sean Curtin 22:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong delete. To reduce all of a discussion down to a colored bar is an absurd reduction and very un-Wiki. BlankVerse ∅ 06:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • After seeing it in use in an article, I am now further opposed to this template. It's one of those cases there a picture is not worth a thousand words, and in fact, doesn't provide a better "picture" than the raw numbers or percentages. If it could be done as a bar graph it fould be helpful, but not as this template. BlankVerse ∅ 07:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, see WP:CENT for two polls regarding usage of such templates, to which people were heavily opposed. Radiant_>|< 08:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Here. Let me give you another way to use this vote bar. I will use it as a summary to list reasons given for keeping this template contrasted with reasons given for deleting it. Do not interpret it as anything more than an innocent summary. And I sincerely hope this isn't an example of a WP:POINT.  Denelson83  08:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Reasons to delete: 7 (77.78%)			Reasons to keep: 2 (22.22%)
▲

Violates "WP is not a democracy" doctrine May influence opinions It simply IS a template Bad choice of name Looks bad where it is used Gives illusion consensus is not used May get overused, causing general clutter

Other uses besides internal votes Acts as a summary

• Rename to {{ratio bar}} as per  Denelson83 's suggestion. While I agree for a number of reasons that its use in VfD pages would be at best unhelpful, there are a number of other reasons to want to use such a bar. My only worry about the template is that the use of '▲' (U+25B2 Black Up-Pointing Triangle) might cause some problems for older browsers, but that's a question of the template's comntenet, not its apprpriateness. Caerwine 22:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• My 2 cents: I don't think admins should speedily delete anything while their VfD lag time still lasts, unless they can point to a specific WP:CSD rule. To quote WP:ADMIN: "Administrators are not imbued with any special authority [...] it should be noted that administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users." (I see the template has already been undeleted, but I still want to be clear on this issue.)
  (No vote on the current template) --IByte 23:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: A way we could discourage abuse of this template would be to make sure it is only inserted into appropriate articles with the "subst" qualifier.  Denelson83  23:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. As a very visual person, something like this would always help me understand arguments better. Its not just for policy, and I don't see what this has to do with being a democracy or not. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 23:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  Eh... wait. How would a two-colored bar help you understand arguments? Summaries of arguments people are using are always helpful and we should certainly use them more, but they don't need two-colored bars. JRM · Talk 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  Some people are more easily able grasp information in a visual manner than a textual one. There's no harm is using graphics where appropriate and there are situations where I feel this template would be appropriate. Caerwine 00:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  That's not quite what I asked—I don't understand what information is being grasped in this way. How many people voted for A and how many for B, yes, obviously. But Páll said it would help him understand arguments better, and that I don't quite get. In case of the ratio bar, it seems obvious you could drop the whole bar and keep just the summaries (mirrored on either side of the page if you like). Counting the "percentage" of reasons offered isn't meaningful in any sense. If this is something you "just can't get" if you're a textual person, I apologize; I'm not trying to belittle or disparage arguments here. JRM · Talk 02:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  This is what I mentioned earlier, if anyone is using a visual aide to get the feel of where the discussion is going, it could be inaccurately persuading their vote on the discussion. If I do not understand a particular discussion, or do not feel like getting involved by reading the entire thing, than I don't get involved! The visual meter destroys the whole point of the discussion. I would only want such a bar to stay around if NOT ever used on Wiki related discussions, ie. presidential polls and such. ∞Who?¿? 06:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy. OK, it's just a template and I mean it no harm, but I'm not going to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the underlying issue. If Denelson feels strongly about stewarding it, he should adopt it in his userspace. It's not even good on polls, as these are supposed to gauge whether an idea meets overwhelming (dis)approval, so you avoid arguing about things nobody really wants to argue about. If there isn't, you don't need a colored bar to tell you that's the case (as it'll be blindingly obvious), you need to poll on something else. Ad hoc, schmad hoc. Yes to attempts at clarifying large, unclear opinion dumps. No to attempts at highlighting where the percentages lie. And we really should go back to the drawing table on the whole "Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's run by consensus" thing, as consensus is hard while democracy is easy. I get the feeling people aren't seeing any added benefit to consensus (or aren't seeing consensus at all) and are thinking this democracy thing looks pretty good in other places, so why not use it here? JRM · Talk 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... Now that just might be a good idea for me to move it to {{User:Denelson83/Ratio bar}} or something.  Denelson83  02:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Even if this isn't ever used on VFD (and, if it is, it should be used only in extremely crowded VFD discussions), it has numerous applications in the rest of the encyclopedia, as noted above. Any time it is necessary to visually display a ratio between two figures, this template enables it to be done easily. Also, I feel that Kim Bruning's speedy delete was highly inappropriate and a violation of Wikipedia policy. Firebug 00:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  Oh dear. So according to you I didn't just apply policy properly, I actually violated it. I think I just arrived here from an alternate universe or something, this is so wierd :-/ . *Sigh* very well, could you point out which policy you think I violated? Kim Bruning 19:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename. Although I don't think it's necessary for votes, it has a number of other uses. Aquillion 20:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• 
  I am now getting an uncomfortable amount of mutually contradictory information regarding this policy. This Wikipedia Signpost article includes a tally of keep vs. delete votes for the Wikipedians for Decency WikiProject. I attempted to apply the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" doctrine to it by removing the tally, and here's the message I got from the editor of the Signpost:

---

"As I understand it, Template:Vote bar was rejected because it was unneeded, and it assumed, in many cases, that there was a specific spot between keep and delete. All I did is report on what the unofficial vote tally was. That is not wrong, nor is it a double-standard. If you wanted to create your own page where you kept tallies on controversial votes, that would be fine.

"In any event, please do not edit the Signpost unless to fix an inaccuracy or a typo. I at least deserved the respect of having you talk to me on my talk page or in the Newsroom, rather than finding out on a Discussion page 3 days after you made the change. ral315 05:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)"

---

With this message, I am now seriously opposing the policy against internal vote tallies on Wikipedia. There is clearly a hypocritical atmosphere here, and it isn't fair.

You know what, that does it! I had no choice but to put this template into my userspace. It is now officially known as User:Denelson83/Ratio bar.  Denelson83  07:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

---

• COMMENT er, what does this have to do with VfD? IT's a bar comparing two amounts out of a whole, could be used anywhere... like in the election pages comparing the amounts a Democrat or a Republican gets. 132.205.3.20 15:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. I know I'm probably on the wrong side of the crowd here, but there are other uses for this template than a VfD vote. Please consider that before deleting this template. Misuse of the template doesn't mean the template is useless. --Titoxd 23:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, violation of m:Polls are evil, WP:NOT, and, arguably, WP:POINT. James F. (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.. As per others, this has the potential to be used to undermine WP:NOT a Democracy by giving a certain person's interpretation of discussion the 'color' of an official ballot poll. Also:
  • Encourages the fallacy of representing discrete data (numbers of votes) as if they were continuous in nature. A bar graph in column form would be better, pictograph ideal.
  • Doesn't seem to adequately represent contests with more than 2 parties where a plurality 'wins' the contest.
  • All stated "legitimate use" examples would be equally or better served by using Microsoft Excel, Apple Keynote, or similar Open Source packages to generate a chart suitable to the article and upload as an image. Template programming mechanics are simply not well-suited to this use. (Seems like hammering a nail using a banana)
    • Excuse me, since when is Microsoft Excel or anything else by Microsoft an Open Source package? Or did you mean an open source package of similar functionality? DES ^(talk) 19:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes I realize that most of those are criticisms calling for improvement rather than deletion, but I think that these shortcomings detract from any legitimate use such that it cannot justify the potential for negative use per the first reason. Kwh 19:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP This thing is neat... now if only I could figure out how to use it :\. Whether or not majority votes are banned or whatever has nothing to do with this template. Just doing it for fun on a talk page (as it obviously has its uses there) is by itself enough reason to KEEEEEEEPPP Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Good reasons to delete: 1 (10%)			Good reasons to keep: 9 (90%)
▲

OK, I really think this is awesome now, LOL (gets messed up if one side has 0 votes though) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Can be misused, and often shouldn't be used. Might be useful on occasions, and I see no benefit to deleting it. And WP:WIN does not allow admins to delete articles that contravene it. And the definition of "vote" as "majority vote" is fascinating, and ridiculous. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and all that. I guess Kim might argue that it still has thorns, but that's his problem :-). [[smoddy]] 22:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful for many purposes, especially for summarising closed VfD discussions. --Misza13 17:40:58, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

• Keep. Cool! Vacuum c 02:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 21 August AM to 3 September AM — 13 days
Removed from TFD 3 September AM — 13 days

[edit] Template:Chem-cat

Delete: A convenient and systematic way to crowd the article namespace with suggestions for editors, which (last I checked) were deprecated. Also, if you're going to add this template to a page, you might as well just fulfill the suggestion and skip the extra step. --Smack (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, agree with the above. - SimonP 15:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Might be reasonable if placed on a talk page. Presumably should be placed only by an editor who is not sure what the proepr subcat is. weak keep if restricted to talk pages and properly documented. DES ^(talk) 16:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but only if the template is moved from every article it is currently on to the articles' talk pages. If not moved, then delete. BlankVerse ∅ 21:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The template is used at the bottom of the article, onobtrusively. The chemistry category now has 172 articles. If I knew the appropriate subcategory for these articles, I would go ahead and take care of it myself. The category has had the "cleancat" tag, on its talk page, since May 1. Maurreen (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a good idea but it's better taken from the category (and WikiProject:chemistry) than by sticking a template on each related article and asking 'can someone else please help'. Radiant_>|< 00:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's just in the way and superfluous. ~K 00:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Questions: For the sake of curiosity, how does this template have less value or make any more of a problem than, for example, the stub or wikifacation templates, when those needs are evident in the articles? And for the sake of efficiency, can anyone suggest a more effective method to accomplish the same thing, especially for those categories without a project? For example, Category:Computing got Template:Cleancat on 22 June. I requested help with Category:Computing at Talk:Computing on 27 July. The main cat still has more than 150 articles. Maurreen (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  Your time would probably be better spent recategorizing than slapping a template on each article. I don't really believe there is such a thing as overpopulation of a category. And if someone doesn't know where to categorize an article, we would want them to put it in a general category so that someone more knowledgable could come along and recategorize it properly. —Mike 02:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  I think putting a template on the category would be useful (e.g. "this category is getting too large, please move items to its subcats"). Cleaner-uppers could more easily work from there. Radiant_>|< 13:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  comment: 150 articles ... that is certainly not an example of overpopulation of a category in my opinion. On the other hand, 1,500 would present more of a problem. Courtland 01:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  It usually requires significant expertise in a subject to expand a stub, and it can take a lot of work to wikify an article. IMHO, fussing with categories is fairly quick and requires only superficial knowledge. What we need is a tag placed in the category page that marks it as too large. --Smack (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• It might be useful to generalize this to accept a parameter to the category. Or perhaps simply a template which says: This article is not categorized specifically enough. Or perhaps not. As with article text, people will come along and fix this. Eventually. --MarSch 17:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as too specific, but I strongly encourage the generalization of this to a talk page located, {{cleanup-subcat}} tag. Hope that helps. JesseW 06:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Too specific. Not very useful. -- Reinyday, 15 August 2005
• Delete. The template {{verylarge}} should be used as a general solution; this template places the category into the "cleanup" cateogory Category:Overpopulated categories. Courtland 01:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Constructive. -- Visviva 01:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't seem to be used by any pages in the main namespace. --Ixfd64 06:08, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
• Delete - one should be able to put a template on the category page that needs cleaning out, which would then automatically propagate as a note on the pages categorized there. Doing this manually, and for one specific category only, is not the right way. --Joy [shallot] 22:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment I have acted on the suggestion of the template in those cases where it had been placed on articles. I have also placed a note on the Talk page of the template asking whether it has now completed in the service it was designed to perform. I still think that this can be deleted, but it is stated to perform a service and I'd like to determine whether suporters for its being kept believe it has in fact served its purpose and is no longer required in the clean-up arsenal. Courtland 01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment We get a lot of people placing articles into the general chemistry category because they know it is chem-related, but a lot of people are hesitant to categorise it any further (we have hundreds of sub-categories!). As such, it is useful. My concern is, how are the people (who are unfamiliar with chem) to know that this template exists? If there are plenty of people who would use it, we should keep it. If it's too obscure/hard to find, then delete it. Walkerma 22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment discussion at Template_talk:Chem-cat has culminated in the agreement that this can be restricted to talk-page usage rather than appearing in the main article space. Courtland 01:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 13 August PM to 1 Sept. PM — 19 days
Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 22 days

[edit] Template:Future building

This template is overkill and an inappropriate adoption of the future events template. There's nothing "speculative" or unexpected about construction plans. If construction has occurred, there's nothing dramatic that should happen. The information contained in this article is essentially useless. The articles of every country in the world, every world head of state, and every living person covered in this encyclopedia is in more danger of being outdated that some building under construction. --Jiang 11:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agree with the above. Any good article should already make clear what items are just proposals. - SimonP 22:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, there is speculation, in Burj Dubai's case. --WikiFan04^{Talk 22:56, 25 Aug 2005 (CDT)}
• Keep. Serves its purpose like the expected/planned product template. Andrew pmk 19:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It must be clear from the text that it is discussing something that will happen in the future. If it is retained it should be toned down to be less visually intrusive.Saga City 06:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An article about proposed construction is not speculative. The construction is proposed, and the proposition itself is worthy of encyclopedic note. --Mm35173 22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Skyscraper fans are prone to be overenthuistic. It is an excellent idea to have a standardised warning. CalJW 21:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 21 August AM to 4 Sept. PM — 14 days
Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 15 days

[edit] Template:Sectio

Used by Template:Taxobox sectio entry as an inserted template. The content used to be [[Section (biology)|Section]] but is now just Section. I do not see the purpose of this template in its current state, the text can just be subst in the other template. ∞Who?¿? 09:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Sectio and perhaps because it is part of a set of templates that have a similar usage ?? GerardM 10:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep. It is part of a series of templates for the taxobox that allow the taxobox to be more easily copied to other language 'pedias. If the nominator had contacted any of the editors before making the nomination, they would have know that and probably not nominated it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I only nominated it because it only contains plain text with no variables now. It seems that can be subst instead. Also, I did contact both editors after the nomination, which is standard practice. I would have contacted before if it were using a set of variables but seemed unused obsolete in that format. ∞Who?¿? 19:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• del, this just makes taxoboxes more confusing --MarSch 11:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as people are using it. JesseW 18:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 23 August AM to 26 August PM — 3 days
Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 13 days

[edit] Template:Interwiki-category-check

Er, I can't see how this is useful, all it does is add a category to the main namespace to do with editing, and on a minor issue - the order of categories?!?!?. Dunc|☺ 11:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is used by Pearle and Whobot when doing mass re-cats. It checks for bad interwiki links, and labels them for human intervention. (I think I got everything, Beland could explain better). ∞Who?¿? 20:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This template is in active use. It may seem simple, but it's a convenient way to find all the articles in recent runs where a bot couldn't properly edit an article. These articles need manual attention so they can be automatically edited in the future, and so that they comply with Wikipedia style standards. It's not the sort order of the categories that's checked, it's that the interwiki and category and stub tags can be parsed properly, and that they are at the end of the article. Parse failures (which are what is tagged) are usually an indication that the article is messed up, often that it needs to be split into multiple articles. I usually get around to fixing these within a few days of doing a run, but I do need some way of finding them. -- Beland 01:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • In which case, you create a list of affected pages and dump it elsewhere - don't use the categorisation system, which is for something else entirely! Dunc|☺ 16:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• If this is a personal template, it should be userfied and the resulting redirect deleted. --MarSch 11:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. BlankVerse ∅ 13:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - userfy if that is feasible and only Beland is using it, otherwise, just keep. JesseW 18:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If Beland is using it for maintenance, it's a good thing. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 24 August AM to 2 Sept. PM — 9 days
Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 12 days

[edit] Numbered Seemain series

This entry concerns the following templates: {{seemain2}}, {{seemain3}}, {{seemain4}}, {{seemain5}}, {{seemain6}}, {{seemain7}}, {{seemain8}}, {{seemain9}}, {{seemain10}} and {{seemain20}}
Due to a delay in notification, voting (which began on August 15) has been extended.

Mentioned in the discussion on {{Seemain}}, it seems prudent to separate the discussions since people probably have different opinions here. Delete these, there are overly many of them and they're not very pointful. Radiant_>|< 10:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete reasons from earlier discussions. Vegaswikian 22:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as below: they're useful. I feel more strongly about 2 to 4 than the rest though. Septentrionalis 19:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 2, 3, and 4. For lists larger than 4 I think there needs to be considered a split to the article section to which the list is attached. In cases where such a split is not warranted, then either a section "see also" or reference to a sectionized "see also" would be useful. In fact, the creation of a {{seemain4plus}} could be considered which would be identical to {{seemain4}} except it would include a reference to the page's "see also" section using an internal bookmark-link to that section via #See also. Courtland 00:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect {{seemain2}} to {{main2}}. Delete all of the others. The {{seemain2}} template serves a valid purpose, but it's 100% redundant with {{main2}}. The remainder are extraneous, because {{main2}} can accommodate any plural number of article links. —Lifeisunfair 00:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect {{seemain2}} to {{main2}} and delete the rest. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The claim about {{main2}} accomodating any number of text links is based upon {{main2|Article1|Article2]], [[Article3]], [[Article 4}} (SEWilco 02:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC))
• Comment: For the record, I strongly object to SEWilco's attempt to "cancel" this vote (which happens to pertain to templates that SEWilco created) because Radiant neglected to engage in the virtually pointless task of inserting {{tfd}} tags that no one will ever see. The {{ccm}} example (below) is a different story, but I doubt that the outcome (keep) is going to change. —Lifeisunfair 17:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there should be no notification then have the TfD process modified. Perhaps speedy deletion of templates would save a lot of pointless consideration. (SEWilco 20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

I don't claim that "there should be no notification," but the insertion of the {{tfd}} tag into unused templates doesn't notify anyone of anything. Radiant's failure to complete this busywork is a flimsy excuse to "cancel" a debate (particularly one concerning templates of your own creation). Wikipedia rules generally should be followed, but common sense should prevail over a miniscule technicality. —Lifeisunfair 21:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You're claiming the templates were unused yet neglect to mention that you made them be unused yesterday. (SEWilco 21:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Of course I did! They had to be orphaned before the {{tfd}} tag could be added (per your insistence). For the record, the article count was as follows:

{{seemain2}} — 15

{{seemain3}} and {{seemain4}} — 1 each

{{seemain5}}–{{seemain20}} — 0

—Lifeisunfair 21:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that you just reverted my edits. Do you not understand that this disrupts legitimate articles by inserting a message that most readers won't understand (because there's no obvious "template" below the text)? —Lifeisunfair 22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What is your understanding of "notification" which requires hiding messages? You also did not mention your older similar "minor" edits. (SEWilco 22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

What the heck are you talking about?! —Lifeisunfair 22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The instructions for tfd say: Please include "tfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead. You minor-edited articles to remove usage of the templates, some edits immediately preceding your addition of {{tfd}} to the templates. How do you expect notification of, and participation in, the TfD when you hide it all? (SEWilco 23:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

"The instructions for tfd say: Please include "tfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor."

Yes, and that's precisely what I did. My edit summary for all ten templates was "tfd tag," and I didn't mark any of these edits as minor.

"If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead."

And yet, when I moved {{seemain2}}'s TfD notice to the talk page, you reverted. Evidently, you're determined to disrupt fifteen articles via the insertion of a contextually nonsensical message. And over what do you wage this battle? A template (which you created, of course) that's patently redundant with {{main2}}. I mean, do you even deny that?

"You minor-edited articles"

The above instructions refer to the insertion of the {{tfd}} tag into the templates, not edits to the articles that contain them! I marked these as minor, because the replacement of one template with another that generates virtually identical output has no major effect on the article.

"to remove usage of the templates, some edits immediately preceding your addition of {{tfd}} to the templates."

That was the point! As I've explained, this was to avoid disrupting the articles via the insertion of a message that makes absolutely no sense to readers (because it refers to a seemingly nonexistent "template"). Earlier in the month, I removed a few other instances, which I stumbled upon when attempting to orphan {{seemain}} — the parent template (which you blanked and proposed for deletion after an earlier TfD consensus was to redirect to {{main}}).

"How do you expect notification of, and participation in, the TfD when you hide it all?"

What did I "hide"? —Lifeisunfair 01:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You hid the TfD notices. And I'm not complaining about the TfD on the templates, I have been making sure they get deleted. I'm complaining about your bypassing the TfD notification process. (SEWilco 02:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

"You hid the TfD notices."

I'm the one who added them! The fact that they aren't displayed as prominently as you would prefer (id est, disrupting numerous articles without conveying any useful information) doesn't mean that they're "hidden."

"And I'm not complaining about the TfD on the templates, I have been making sure they get deleted."

I honestly don't know what the above statement is supposed to mean.

"I'm complaining about your bypassing the TfD notification process."

Please cite one step that I've bypassed. —Lifeisunfair 03:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect 2-5 and Delete the rest For brevity's sake it would best if the core title was {{main}} and not {{seemain}}. Once one gets past five articles I can't see the utility. {{main4|Article1|Article2|Article3|Article 4}} has the advantage of being more intutitive and shorter than the kludge involving {{main2}}. It has the additional advantage that if it is decided to add a conjunction to the main series of templates, it won't break. {{seemain10}} is an interesting attempt at designing an adaptable template, but until or unless templates can be designed that will gracefully accept a variable number of arguments, I can't say I like {{seemain10}}'s approach. Caerwine 21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I prefer the text on {{seemain}} and they are not equivalent; except to those who don't mind having "See Main article", with inconsistent capitalization, all over the place. Septentrionalis 02:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note: While formerly the parent template of this series, {{seemain}} presently is a redirect to {{main}} (per TfD consensus). —Lifeisunfair 03:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep {{seemain2}} for the plural form of the word "articles", delete the rest. — Instantnood 15:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the pre-existing {{main2}} template serves exactly the same purpose as {{seemain2}}. Also note that {{seemain}} already has been redirected to {{main}} (per TfD consensus). —Lifeisunfair 17:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 15 August to 25 August PM — 10 days
Removed from TFD 5 Sept. AM — 21 days

[edit] Template:Idw

• Delete. This type of message intimidates me every time I'm sent it. Is it really necessary to send the uploader of an allegedly-copyrighted image such a harsh warning every time such an image is put on WP:PUI?  Denelson83  22:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not intended to be intimidating, it's intended to give the uploader a chance to defend her image. Keep, but please reword if you find it harsh or intimidating. Septentrionalis 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, such a defence would be utterly pointless, as "fair use" is still a very touchy issue here. As well, it's messages like this that indirectly led to the RFC against me. Please note that at the time I write this, my wikimood is reading -6 (ornery). Such minor criticism left on my talk page could send it even lower.  Denelson83  22:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I've seen IfD's for other things than copyright. However, if filing this has reduced your Wikistress, good; I trust editing the template will take care of the rest of it. Septentrionalis 22:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't have a wikistress level, Pmanderson. I have a wikimood, which is completely different.  Denelson83  22:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
          • As you will. Septentrionalis 22:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Redwolf24 22:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's harsh (and frankly I dislike the box around it; it could just be a regular paragraph) then make it less so. But it's only fair that the uploader of an image be informed of its being deleted, so this template is entirely necessary. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been bold. Septentrionalis 22:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think most Wikipedians have thick enough skin to endure a teeny bit of criticism. However, it could use a de-uglification (simple text would be nice). — Dan | Talk 22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because it is commonly used and useful, and saying you're in a bad mood isn't an excuse for it, Denelson83. Superm401 | Talk 22:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• While it's ugly and fairly unpleasant to recieve, this template is one of the few that gets nominated here that actually serves a useful purpose. →Raul654 22:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I find this factual, not harsh. If you do reformat or reword this, similer changes should probably be made to {{idw-cp}} which i use far more often. DES ^(talk) 00:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Edit so as to be less obtrusive. There is little need for a message any more obtrusive than the {{TFD}} message. This template seems quite an overkill and I can see it's deep-sixing wikimood (or elevating wikistress) with each application. As an aside, I think that the {{CFD}} and {{VFD}} notices could be significantly reduced in size/invasiveness without reducing their impact or noteworthiness as well. Courtland 00:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC) input altered from "delete" to "edit" Courtland 14:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Revise it, if you feel like it, but something like this is required for notifying the uploader of an image listed on WP:IFD per the image deletion guidelines. I know why this requirement exists and I'm still not convinced it is strictly necessary, but as long as the requirement to notify is in place, we need some template to put on uploaders' talk pages. --MarkSweep 07:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The only change that I'd make to the template is to add a second parameter to list the reason why the image was nominated for deletion. BlankVerse ∅ 07:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you disliked the tone of the message you could have edited it. -- Joolz 23:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as it's quite useful. (added without signature, but determined to be from User:ScribeOfTheNile on consulting page history)
• Keep. Reword it if you have to. But having a template around makes it easier to warn uploaders about upcoming image deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 04:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as it is useful for an uploader to be informed if an image they uploaded is IFD'd. --Wikiacc (talk) 00:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - I vote for maybe a rewrite as well. NOT a delete. Very handy! --None-of-the-Above 19:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Note: I tried to make it a little more pleasant. I made it a slightly more pleasant color (prisons are often painted a pale green as it is a relaxing color), added a "thank you", made the font readible (why so small?), and got rid of the big bad bold "WARNING". I think it still serves its purpose, and won't give anyone a heart attack. --Fastfission 22:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Vacuum c 16:19, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- Are we all meshugga? Crazy people who shouldn't be let out of the box? Stay on the farm, don't bother the nice people, now come back inside for din-din and take our meds?

I can't believe I'm reading a proposal to delete a tool to provide notice that something has been proposed to be deleted! Oy! and oy again! And on what grounds? It intimidates me, it's too harsh -- so, of course, there is nothing at all that we can do except stick the thing in the trash! Never mind that Somebody might actually want to know!

Tsa on this crazy Project and tsa on you crazy people! This goes beyond bad-faith; you want to take the tools away from the workers! Maybe you don't like the way those tools are used? You can't talk to other people, ask them maybe to use the tool another way? All you can do is smash and destroy! What next, you'll start Wikipedia:Words for Deletion so people can't even say what they think!? — Xiong熊talk* 22:41, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Not deleted. dbenbenn | talk 18:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 25 August PM to 3 Sept. PM — 9 days
Removed from TFD 5 Sept. PM — 11 days

[edit] Template:vandal1

I've observed this template, and feel it to be redundant with {[tl|test1}} through {{test3}}. I also feel it is worded a bit harshly and can be construed as biting the newbies. It also causes confusion when a person edits the section on a page this template is added to. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 04:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, doesn't strike me as harsh (which is a fixable problem anyway), and naming the article involved is a good idea (especially for shared IPs). I don't see what the problem with section-editing would be. ~~ N (t/c) 21:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep, testing is not vandalism, so they are not forks --MarSch 14:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment 27 August AM to 28 August PM — 1 day
Removed from TFD 8 Sept. PM — 12 days