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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log | Not deleted

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

Shortcut: WP:TFD/L

1 2008
2 2007
3 2006
4 Old archival system (until January 3, 2006)

[edit] 2008

[edit] 2007

[edit] 2006

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

Deleted: 2006: January; 2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December

Not deleted: 2006: January; 2005: January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December

Combined: 2004: September - October - November - December

[edit] Template:Numbers (3 E2), Template:Numbers 200-300

(split from the above, since not all templates are equal) Radiant _* 09:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Template:Numbers 200-300, Template:Numbers (3 E2) currently in use. -- User:Docu

- Now replaced by the more general number templates I mentioned. Thus deprecated once more. And that 3E2 is used by 360s is not the point since 360s itself isn't used. Radiant _* 07:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

- The two templates were used for 235 (number) and 311 (number). Which ones are "the more general number templates I mentionned" ? Your initial post doesn't mention them nor did you outline the changes on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers ? I just note that you removed the two templates from the articles without replacing them by anything else on 07:11, Apr 11, 2005. --- User:Docu

Keep: I, too, would like to see the more general template before voting to delete this. Until then, I'm voting to keep this, but I think that only the 'important' numbers should be there (i.e. those with somewhat unique mathematical properties, or those that have some other importance). I may change my vote after seeing the "more general" templates. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The template I meant is Template:Numbers_0-1000. I did mean to add it earlier but it slipped my mind (sorry), it's added now. My reasoning is that most numbers >200 do not have (or need) their own articles, so a template that is mostly redlinks is not very useful. Hope that helps. Radiant _* 09:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, numbercruft(?). These templates aren't useful at all. These templates are only used at the moment within each other, or as filler within infoboxes. What would be useful is one containing important numbers, like pi and e. --bainer 12:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Portal

Inappropriate linking of articles to the wikipedia namespace. Violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references --Ji ang 03:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep, it's a good reason to use a self-reference. "Avoid self-references" is not policy, only semi-policy, anyway. --SPUI (talk) 09:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This ties into current debate at Cricket and Talk:Cricket. It seems like that people in general like these portal pages, want them linked to from main article pages but don't want them the portals themselves in the main space. Thus a cross-namspace link seems to be the only way to go. Remember that we can workaround usability issues by using "external link style" of linking if necessary. Pcb21| Pete 10:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, certainly as its being used at the moment it is linking to articles from the wikipedia namespace. This is perferctly fine (its the other way that isn't). Thryduulf 10:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, of course. Neutrality^talk 21:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but change the formatting. Preferably along the lines of User:Smoddy/portal, as this explains what is going on. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 22:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - for reasons see Template talk:Portal. But if this must be kept, it should be redone in a way that does not make it a self reference. Template:Sisterproject does this well even though it started off as a self reference violation. Long term we need something like interwiki links for these types of things. --mav 04:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - concur with Mav. →Raul654 06:21, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
ANNIHILATE! —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 07:25, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Keep. If you don't like the self-reference, then restrict it to the talk page, or stick the portal in the main namespace while making sure the portal doesn't self-reference. But as long as you have portals, there's nothing wrong with a template that generates links to them. JRM · Talk 13:52, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Comment. This is one of the times I can sort of understand having the self reference. I'm leaning toward delete, but not very strongly. -- Dpark 20:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Can't think of a reason I'd want to delete this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Templates should be more or less immune to "no self reference". {{stub}} gets away with it...
- {{Stub}} is fundamentally different since it it not supposed to be on the article permanently. A future version of MediaWiki may also have meta tags whereby anything with a stub, clean-up, POV or any other template that indicates there is something wrong with the article would be marked so that third party reusers could choose not include those in their version. ---mav 16:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment - mav went and deleted all the uses of this. They should be restored if this is kept. --SPUI (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep--Cyberjunkie 07:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I am the creator. -MarSch 14:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep The self-references policy deals mostly with "See Wikipedia article: Foo" problems rather than special, consistent approaches to categorization. In this case, I think its quite useful although the "Wikipedia" branding is unnecessary. I've implemented a similar template scheme for Category:Unsolved problems - for various science fields. -SV|t 19:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — Dan | Talk 21:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kings and Dukes of Poland, Template:Presidents of Poland, Template:Prime Ministers of Poland, and all other Polish officeholder-related templates

These templates are pointless and unsightly. They should be replaced with succession boxes, list articles, and categories. john k 20:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

What are "all other Polish officeholder-related templates", please ? Could you also be more specific about "pointless" and "unsightly". Are these just your personal opinions or based on any firm argumentation ?

There's a ton of other ones, but they're hard to find - just about any notable Polish office has one, though. As to pointless - current policy suggests that for lists as long as, say, the one for Kings and Dukes of Poland, a succession box, rather than a series template, should be used. As for unsightly, they are especially unsightly in a) articles where most of the article is the template (of which there are several); and b) articles where the person has three or four such templates to their name. john k 20:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep - useful and nice-looking. Also, could you be so kind as to list the "other Polish officeholder-related templates" here? If we are to vote on their future we should at least be informed of their names. Halibu tt 07:16, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they all are, but there are a ton of them - foreign ministers, heads of the Communist party, communist period heads of state, various offices in the PLC...I just don't know what all the names are. john k 20:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I find the templates useful and placing a monarch/president article in a wider context. Lysy 08:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. While the templated do stand out in the small, stubbish articles, they are perfectly fitting to the larger articles, and eventually all of the relevant articles will be large, FA-quality. Personally I find them more useful then the primitive and rather ugly succession box. For a compromise, they may be split into smaller ones - for example, kings could be split into Piast, Jagiellon and election era, thus making the template smaller. And yes, do list the other templates you are reffering to. I see no problem in having everything - template, list and category (succession is made unecessary by the template). I prefer the template. Somebody may prefer the list or category. Why should we deny one person his favourite method of navigating? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. These are enormous and easily replaced by categories. — Dan | Talk 02:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep--Witkacy 21:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A textbook example of the inappropriate use of templates. Proteus (Talk) 22:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
As much as I hate to say it, this nomination is not in order. Every such template must be referenced; we can have no "un-named co-conspirators", no blanket indictments. Such would open a door to evil abuses.

That said, these are seminal Polish-steam-locomotive-engineer-family-tree templates, and I will entertain all such nominations favorably. — Xiong 熊 talk * 09:45, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Czechia-geo-stub/Template:Czech-geo-stub

The former was marked {{db|replaced by the better Template:Czech-geo-stub}}. Not a speedy candidate, especially when it's not an orphan. One should be a redirect to the other; no opinion on which to which, though. —Korath (Talk) 16:09, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Starky 16:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It was, by the way, Starky who applied the speedy message, and has in the last hour been going on a "Czechia"-purging rampage, his first edits ever. —Korath (Talk) 17:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  - I have not been going through a "Czechia-purging rampage", I was just replacing instances the old template with the newer shorter-named template, which doesn't gratuitously use the neologism "Czechia" for the Czech Republic. Starky 17:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - It's not a neologism. Grutness|^hello? 00:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Czechia-geo-stub. "Czechia" is a dubious neologism that should be avoided. NoPuzzleStranger 19:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm adding Template:Czech-geo-stub at this point, at least until this mess is straightened out. At the very least, it's a cut and paste move. —Korath (Talk) 19:19, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Oops - without knowing about this debate, I've just redirected the (incorrect) Czech-geo-stub to CZechia-geo-stub. There was quite a bit of debate about the naming of this stub before its creation, and it was decided that Czechia was a far more acceptable name for it than Czech. Delete Czech-geo-stub, keep Czechia-geo-stub, as per WP:WSS. Grutness|^hello? 22:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Where was this debate? NoPuzzleStranger 00:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - IIRC, some of it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (which is where stub creation debates usually occurs) and some of it on various Usr talk pages. Grutness|^hello?
    - There's nothing about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, and private discussions don't count. So what would be "incorrect" about Czech-geo-stub? If you want to claim some previous consensus, you will have to document it. NoPuzzleStranger 10:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. For me (as a Czech user) is Czechia quite acceptable - also our government officially encourages people to use it. Miaow Miaow 23:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If you take a look at Category:Geography stubs, you'll see that no other geo-stub category uses the adjective form of a country name, they all use the noun form. So if we are to remain consistent, we have to call this Czechia-geo-stub or Czech-Republic-geo-stub, and the former is much less cumbersome. — Ливай | ☺ 00:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Ливай. When stumbling on pages that need a stub-tag, this is much easier to do if stub-tags are predictable in form. The stub-tag itself doesn't have to be in brilliant prose or use 100% correct terminology, as we can let it display any message we like. / Uppland 11:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Those last two comments are obviously bogus. Either we want to be correct, then it has to be Czech-Republic-geo-stub, or we consider that too cumbersome and divert in some way from the correct form, in which case the most appropriate alternative is to use the adjective, not some controversial and obscure word that is not found in any respectable English dictionary. What kind of argument is it to say we have to use a noun because we use nouns in all other cases, but we don't have to use the standard name even though we use the standard name in all other cases? And how is "Czechia" predictable? How would anyone predict a word which is used in only 0.2% of all references to the country in Google News? "We can let it display any message we like" - well then, why not Czech-geo-stub? NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep both as long as both add the same stub category and people avoid replacing one with the other, there is no harm having two of them. -- User:Docu
Keep. And let's finally have the decency to call countries what their governments ask us to call them. As for NoPuzzleStranger's fascinating comment about a "dubious neologism", could he please explain what makes a neologism dubious? As a professional linguist I find that beyond my understanding of how languages work. When a new entity appears, such as a new country, it needs a name, and a neologism is normal and proper. "Czechia" is a neat one, and is no more lumpish than "Slovakia". --Doric Loon 12:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The only official name of the country is Czech Republic. It's dubious because it's controversial even in the Czech Republic itself, and it's virtually never used in English. We don't popularize neologisms here, we follow existing common usage. Whether's it's "neat" is therefore irrelevant. NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BTW, if you are voting here, you should also make your opinion heard on the talk page of the Czech Republic article - a vote is going on there about possibly renaming that article Czechia.
- Already did, although that proposal is almost frivolous - there's no chance Czech Republic will be moved to Czechia. NoPuzzleStranger 13:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Same reason as Doric Loon. Every other country in Europe has a free-standing name, why not Czechia? Besides, the official name is Česká republika, which only translates to Czech Republic (Okay this justification is entirely contrived, but I've seen worse around these debates). --Bastique 20:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I don't know about that - there's hardly been a rush to change the name of articles about La République Française from France to French Republic... Grutness|^hello? 09:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment As a compromise, couldn't we just use something like CS-geo-stub or CR-geo-stub, like in NI-geo-stub, BiH-geo-stub....?Lectonar 08:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Or Cz-geo-stub... yes, that would work (though there would still be a problem with category names). Grutness|^hello? 07:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please ignore any statements made on this topic by NoPuzzleStranger. He is trying to declare his personal ignorance a rule. Czechia is not a neologism, but a normal word and all relevant English language experts have confirmed that it is the only correct version in the English language. The word has been used since the Middle Ages (it is even written in the St. Vit Cathedral in Prague) as what is called by experts the territorial designation for the Czech territory, and an abrreviated name for the Lands of the Bohemian crown/Czech Republik etc. (just like France, Germany, Slovakia, Poland etc.). It is derived from the Latin Czechia (hence the CZ and CH), just like Moravia or Bohemia. Is is nowadays used in some English encyclopaedias (those with better information), on maps, in the offficial UN country list, by Czech authorities, e.g. in the US government analyses of Czechoslovakia of 1987 (-as a proof) and by all those who have basic information in this field. The English "Czechia" is also prescribed by all Czech regulations and norms regarding geographical names. The word is not really disputed in Czechia itself (the article we have here as a link in Czech Republic is just the author's personal opinion), there are only some people who are used to the older names that were relevant in the 1980s – namely Czechoslovakia and Czech (Socialist) Republic (as a constituent republic of Czechoslovakia – hence the "republic"!). Nevertheless the Czech equivalent exists since the Middle Ages as well, it is in the Dictionary of the Czech language (1978) etc and is used in TV news , newspapers, taught in schools etc.. Even if we admitted that the name was disputed in Czechia itself, the problem in Czech is completely different from other languages – the problem is that in Czech the word for Czechia (Česko) is very similar to the word for Bohemia and at the same time identical with "Czecho-". (which sounds like an "unfinished" Czechoslovakia), but that has nothing to do with English or other languages. In sum, there is absolutely no reason for not using Czechiat, it is even ridiculous and an error not to use it (which is unfortunately the case in most English-language media). Juro 23:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please also note that User:Starky, who has voted on this and is outspoken on topics related to Czechia/Czech Republic, seems very likely to be a sockpuppet of NoPuzzleStranger. Grutness|^hello?

06:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: The two listed templates now both redirect to {{Cz-geo-stub}}. Grutness|^hello? 04:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Selfref, template:sr

People seem to think that just because they do it with a template, it's OK to litter the article namespace with wikipedia references. (This is currently linked from articles like VFD, CFD, Variable, sandbox, etc) This was nominated before by netoholic and voted to keep (3-2), but 5 votes is, um, trivial. Self references pollute the database, and we should be purging them, not encouraging them. →Raul654 02:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, the main reason to avoid self-references is to make it easier for mirrors (as well as for good style, but this would ideally appear either at the top of an article (with the disambig and other notes) or somewhere else where it's not intrusive. This makes it easier for the mirrors, as they simply blank this one template. "Avoid self-references" is not policy, only semi-policy, anyway. --SPUI (talk) 09:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- And all the other 'one templates' that are also self references that you constantly promote? Your logic would only work if there were just 'one template' to deal with. There are not and that is an undue burden on our reusers. --mav 04:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep the template, although I'm not sure it should be used in all the places it currently is being. Thryduulf 10:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. For crying out loud, there has to be some way of recording in an article that the subject of the article is relevant to Wikipedia itself. Take ISBN for example: at the top of the article you have:

For information about using ISBNs on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:ISBN.which is informative and unobtrusive. How else should anyone find out about the ISBN feature in Wikipedia? --Phil | Talk 13:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

- Visit the help page. Links to the Wikipedia namespace will likely not work on mirrors and if they do, then those mirrors are not called Wikipedia. --mav 04:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — Dan | Talk 18:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Our reusers are not called 'Wikipedia'. --mav 04:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. --Jiang 06:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Seriously, what is that supposed to mean? Avoid self-references is a guideline, not policy. --SPUI (talk) 07:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) comment refactored by User:Matt Crypto.
ANNIHILATE! —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 07:28, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Keep, this is a way to help avoid self-references. --iMb~Meow 08:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
DELETE. There is no need for this. All you need to do is replace any use of the term "Wikipedia" (in links or in text) with {{SITENAME}}, which automatically replaces that variable with the sitename, which in this case is Wikipedia and will vary for third party sites hosting the content. Problem solved. --brian0918 08:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AskFactMasterism is definitely not what is wanted. --iMb~Meow 09:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. — this complements the "no self references" policy for the same goal -- to make life easier for reusers. — Matt Crypto 13:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Move to talk. The usages I've seen were all useful to contributors, not readers. Nobody is going to look up capitalization to know how Wikipedia does it—if they do, they should be prepared to use the talk page. That said, I'm beginning to think we need a reader version of the MoS. What we have now is prescriptive; we need something descriptive to readers in areas where there might be surprise (capitalization isn't it, but people might like to know why titles are used the way they are used, for example). This reader-oriented MoS can be written as a reference to a collection of articles; it needn't mention "Wikipedia" at all. JRM · Talk 14:12, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Keep. ✏ OvenFresh ² 19:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As said above: mirrors simply blank this one template.--Patrick 12:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- That would only hold water if there were just one of these types of templates. Why should mirrors have to go to that trouble to seek out and blank so many templates? What about mirrors that use an HTML version of our database? Templates don't exist as special pages then - their content is just part of each page they are displayed on. --mav 16:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  - Sr can be changed into selfref, though that is not needed, because if a mirror blanks selfref, sr is also blanked. Perhaps other templates such as stub messages can make use of selfref, so that they are blanked automatically also. Are there mirrors that use an HTML version? Doesn't that mean that they have an edit link, link to the Community portal, etc., even if these do not work?--Patrick 22:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The wrong solution to the wrong problem. — Xiong 熊 talk * 13:51, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
move to talkGeni 13:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep: a good way to avoid further self references. -- User:Docu
Delete, move helpful links and reference to Talk pages.-- Netoholic @ 05:49, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
Keep. It serves a useful purpose. -Willmcw 05:16, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This template was previously nominated, and was kept. Therefore, this template should be given some extra time before a final decision is made. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is appropriate in some instances. Remove it from inappropriate instances and there is no problem. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Also note that it is "avoid self references", not "not a single solitary god damn self reference or the whole world will end and mav will weep salty tears". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As Dante Alighieri notes, the template is fine and has valid uses. Whether or not it is used inappropriately is a different matter. Personally I don't see why we need to pander too much to mirrors, and, like others have said, they can simnply avoid the template. — Asbestos | Talk 21:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It got me from ISBN to Wikipedia:ISBN as cross-references are supposed to do. Mirrors copy Wikipedia at their own risk anyway (as far as content goes); this is just one more. (Furthermore, if there is a ever a bot-enforceable policy against self-reference, as some want, this will make it practical.) Septentrionalis 17:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep - SoM 22:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Actually, I would agree with 'delete' iff the equivalent could be built into the UI - e.g. "An article with this name is also present in the following namespaces: Wikipedia:Article ....". Until the wiki can do the cross-references itself, this template is necessary in order to identify such cross-references / self references. IMO, users should be able to expect to put something like "Vandalism" into the search box on Wikipedia and easily get from there to Wikipedia:Vandalism. Stoive 19:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Linear algebra

Very nice template, created at the beginning of 2004. However, since May 2004 we have the categories system which takes care of grouping related items; in particular, we have Category:Linear algebra which contains all the articles listed in this template. As such, this template is obsolete, and is just a link farm. I suggest it be deleted. Oleg Alexandrov 18:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: instructions above (should not be removed from pages prior to listing) were not followed. The template can be viewed within any of the articles it references via the article history. -- Rick Block 03:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Right. I removed the template from all articles before I put it here for deletion. I was not awre of the requirement. Sorry. I also hope that my arguments for removing the template are still valid. Oleg Alexandrov 05:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep, navigational infobox. People from Wikiproject Maths won't be very happy to see this disappear... Alphax ^τεχ 10:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I would not be so sure. See discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Template:Calculus -- is that needed? about a related template. Oleg Alexandrov 19:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete, offers no meaningful distinction from a category. R adiant _* 11:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It does add meaningful distinction from a catagory. It's a very organized See also section for the LinAlg pages. I've found this useful in the past while simple browsing so I recommend it be kept. -SocratesJedi | Talk 14:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Creationism2

This is a duplicate template of Template:Creationism. Joshuaschroeder 18:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Summary: Many think that this template is superior to Template:Creationism, but this means that this template should be deleted and replace the original. One person believes that we should have two templates for creationism, but this is somewhat different from normal wikipedia operating procedures. Therefore no legitimate arguments have been made for keeping this template. It has also been pointed out that the normal procedure for templates are to have the vertical top templates for series and not topical templates. Joshuaschroeder 20:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I moved this here from its VFD listing. No vote—Wahoofive (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that fits with the theme of today's nominations... Del-ete and restore Template:Creationism to the articles it's been removed from. Creationism articles aren't a series, so should use, at most, a footer navigation bar like the original (see Wikipedia:Navigational templates) . -- Netoholic @ 22:58, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Keep -- I'm happy with the new version, though I can't imagine why it was forced to assume a new name. I'd be just as happy to see all creationism-related articles merged into one, tagged on top of page as Patent Nonsense -- but we have to live in the world with others. — Xiong 熊 talk * 09:34, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Keep "restore Template:Creationism?" I did not (to my knowledge) remove the other template, nor do I think one is appropriate for all cases - shorter articles should use the horizontal footer. I disagree that the footer is always "better," or that the sidebar is always "better." Redundancy may be an issue for some, but I likewise dont think that critera alone can decide which of the above is better. Is anyone concerned about the content? I noticed some people removed these - maybe the classification as creationism is thought to be inappropriate ISO? -SV|t 09:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete This template just looks horrible. Bring back the original. Bensaccount 15:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete This page contains all sorts of factual inaccuracies, and is extremely biased in favor of evolutionism. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that it was written by someone who has not investigated this issue, or who is hostile to what Creationists believe. The Young Earth Creationist page is especially filled with POV.
- Please take the entire Creationist dilemma to WP:RFC once more. It pops up everywhere, doesn't it? Abstain but pick one template and not both. R adiant _* 20:31, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - the logic of setting out the topics/articles looks clearer than the older template, and takes account of the controversial kind of creationism having been moved to abrahamic creationism.- dave souza 23:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename Template:Creationism, replacing the old one. More logical outline of topics, more accessible, more attractive. Ungtss 00:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The author of the template could take up their discussion on how to do this on the talkpage. Creating an entirely new template is inappropriate and effectively bypasses wikipedia protocol for editing. We wouldn't stand for someone creating a second article about a subject and just adding a "2" to the end, why should we stand for someone doing that to a template? Joshuaschroeder 16:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

it's true that protocol was not followed in this case, and that ultimately we only want one creationism template. but considering substance over protocol, i think this is the superior template, and should replace the old one. Ungtss 23:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Then let the deletion of this template proceed and bring the refinement to the talkpage of the creationism template. Joshuaschroeder 15:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Something needs to be done as this article is so filled wiht POV that it is a JOKE, and makes Wikipedia look bad. Truthteller

Keep It's pretty ℬastique▼^talk
Delete. Agree w/ Netoholic. Soundguy99 16:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:For

A template designed to make "For X, see Y." links at the top of pages. Bad use for a template, and needlessly more complex than simply typing the sentence itself. -- Netoholic @ 18:23, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Keep. Useful, elegant template. Firebug 23:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep more adaptable than template:otheruses, though it should be aligned to the right. -SV|t 02:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Useful (as long as it is not vandalized). If you don't want to use it, ignore it. — Xiong 熊 talk * 10:20, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Keep. More flexible and more useful than template:otheruses. BlankVerse ∅ 05:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Note It makes no sense using templates for standardization if the templates themselves are laid out differently. We should either adapt this to fit template:otheruses or call this one from template:otheruses. — Sebastian (talk) 18:51, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Footer Movies M. Night Shyamalan

No need for a template that serves the same purpose as Category:M. Night Shyamalan films - the chronological order is not particularly important but is available at M. Night Shyamalan anyway. violet/riga (t) 18:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with the rationale presented by the nominator. Phils 10:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Although I personally don't like this template, I don't see that it violates anything at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Also see template:Kubrick and template:Alfred Hitchcock's films (there may be more). Even without the category, I would expect a reader interested in a particular director's films to follow the link to the director (where I would expect to find a list of his/her films). Perhaps template:infobox_movie should be expanded to include links to the next/previous films by the same director. -- Rick Block 15:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep - There are templates for Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock movies. I can't see why there shouldn't be one for M. Night Shyamalan movies as well. Carioca 04:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wrongtitle

1. Contradicts naming convention to use English: "Paul Erdos" is correct in English. 2. Asserts or assumes a biased view that English representations of foreign names and words are "wrong" 3a. Its use for diacritic-modified Roman alphabet-based characters is trivial - and based toward only Roman-based alphabets. 3b. Its applied use is not consistent across languages to apply to Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, Farsi, etc. The distinction is POV, or otherwise immaterial. 4. Emphasises a technical limitation which is not by consensus "a difficulty", but rather is "not yet a reality" for English. 5. Use in extremely trivial cases - for example on articles dealing with the Unix command lowercase convention. Initial capitalization is trivial IMHO. -SV|t 21:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful and informative. Not all english is ISO 8859-1 with a leading capital letter. --W(t) 21:29, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Have you looked at the what links here page? I daresay less than 10% of those articles fall under any of your five complaints. The article on C++, for instance, should be called "C++". In any case, to call the uses of a template included in over a thousand pages "trivial" is wishful thinking. TreyHarris 21:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- I would agree to limiting its use for that purpose alone - where common English-used characters are not availiable - not for uncommon foreign diacritics. -SV|t 21:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC) PS: Im looking at the list and most of these do fit under one or more of my 5 points: Unix software trivial lowercase (sed, ed) etc. Trivial name lowercase limpbizkit mIRC iD Software H2G2 ircII arXiv.org . Cases like e (mathematical constant) are likewise easy to explain and therefore trivial. All of this points to one thing: the notion that the first letter uppercase convention is a software flaw. Even if it was a fact of using ISO-8559, it would still be problmatic to distinguish beween uppercase and lowercase titles - for searches etc. Pi will not (by current policy) ever be named π - because we dont rely on disambiguation to point us to proper complex titles. Maybe somday complex redirects will be transparent (hide the "redir from" tag in the sidebar maybe) but IAC they are avoided. -SV|t 21:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  - Then I would suggest you have just stated your willingness to withdraw your nomination for deletion, have you not? Feel free to visit any pages where you feel the use of the template is in error; but we do not delete templates just because they are sometimes misused. TreyHarris 21:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    - No, its common to list items that need renaming on TFD. Agreeing tentatively with your assessment I would propose that it be renamed from something far less general - to where it can only be applied in particular cases, and hence evaluated on a separate basis: ~:unixname, ~:trivianame, ~:mathname etc. -SV|t 22:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
      - That has already happened with the most common usage of this template, with {{titlelacksdiacritics}}. The most logical one to be split next would be something like {{titlelacksinitiallowercase}}. --cesarb 23:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Umm. What on Earth? Of course we're not going to delete this. James F. (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, of course. "Paul Erdos" may be correct English, but it's not the name of Paul Erdős. --Pjacobi 21:54, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
- Of course your expressing your bias - and this bias is evident by virtue of its not being consistently applied. "Mao Zedong" is not the name of 毛澤東 either. How to make its use consistent with anything? -SV|t 22:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  - Máo Zédōng is a transliteration, and therefore a unique and reversible rendering of 毛澤東. --Pjacobi 22:56, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    - Uh, no. It's not a transliteration, it's a transcription of the Mandarin pronunciation of the name (Mao himself would have pronounced it differently), and it's definitely not reversible. --MarkSweep 00:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, several articles should start with a non-capital (e.g. ebay) or some kind of nonprintable. Radiant_* 21:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Thats a trivial use of the template, which assumes that in the future there will be a difference between EBay and eBay. This is separate from encoding AIUI, and will likely not be in the future, because that would mean that most articles would need a redirect from its lowercase to its uppercase. -SV|t 22:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

After multiple edit conflicts — can anyone else be allowed to get a word in edgeways?

Keep. I frankly don't follow much of what User:Stevertigo says, but this is a template that many editors have found useful. (By the way, User:Stevertigo misplaced the "tfd" template, thus making a mess of article on which Template:Wrongtitle is used. Could he be more careful in the future?) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- - If you are complaining that the "TFD" template is too large for its purposes, then I would suggest you support the use of smaller version such as template:tfds and template:tfdss - both of which are here on TFD. -SV|t 22:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- This was deleted by User:Stevertigo ([1]), accidentally, I hope. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  - You beat me to restoring your own contribution to this thread. Considering the nature of the edit in which this was deleted, it is unlikely it was accidental. Courtland 22:25, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    - Bullcrap - Ive had my share of edit conflicts on this page, and your comment violates WP:NPA. -SV|t 22:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I would point out that more than one developer has pointed out that this template makes it possible, once the English Wikipedia moves to Unicode and a different notion of case preservation, to automatically rename mistitled articles. Getting rid of the template at this juncture would be quite unfortunate. TreyHarris 22:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- Very good point, but this will not apply to first-letter capitals would it? See comment on eDay 3 above -SV|t 22:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  - Of course it will apply to first-letter capitals. The Unicode conversion and the initial-lowercase conversions will most likely happen at different times, but the same principle applies. Sooner or later, the first-letter-capital requirement will go away—hopefully by making English Wikipedia case-insensitive but case-preserving, but maybe (shudder) by making English Wikipedia fully case-sensitive like the other Wikipedias. In any case, if I understand the 1.4 code correctly, there will continue to be punctuation characters that are disallowed from titles (e.g., |, since that would break wikilinks). The disallowed-character and initial-capital rules are closely intertwined, and it seems quite senseless to make a user-visible template like this one split hairs over MediaWiki internals. TreyHarris 22:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    - Thanks for your comments - If 1.4 will allow for initial lowercase, how will redirects/disambiguation be handled? "It seems quite senseless to make a user-visible template like this one split hairs over MediaWiki internals." I agree completely. Further, if there is such a template, it shouldnt be so generalized - people have been giving "I never use it for" arguments up and down, but if you look at the list, its mostly trivial: lowercase is trivial - sorry, I dont care if its math, unix, or limpbizkit - its trivial. Get rid of that, and maybe it could be useful - but IMHO the diacritics are likewise trivial and as you say "Mediawiki internals"-SV|t 06:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- the utility of this template is obvious to anyone who has dealt with anything but "newspaper english". Considering the points made in the nomination, it is not clear to me that this nomination was made in good faith. To invoke POV concerns in this context around this template is patently ridiculous. Courtland 22:25, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
Strong keep for all the reasons already given above. Besides, it and {{titlelacksdiacritics}} cannot go against policy, since they just mention the title the article would have been moved to if that were possible. All the normal page title guidelines still apply. --cesarb 23:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep - The misuse of a template in some articles should simply be a cause to modify those articles and not to delete an otherwise very useful template. Some pages, such as C++ will never be able to be titled correcty (since + has a special meaning in http requests), and in many cases of proper names begining with lower case letters (such as iD Software or unix command names) neither a POV issue OR trivial, and your assertions to that end are a POV issue. This request for deletion is, in my most humble of opinions, utterly rediculous and without any merit what so ever.

Unsigned comment by 82.35.85.74 (talk · contributions)
- It's true that + has a special meaning in form submissions (but not in HTTP itself), but that's not a problem since all browsers will escape all plus characters before converting the spaces. You can see it if you do a search for +. --cesarb 00:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, delist - WP:POINT - retaliation from Stevertigo regarding the templates he created being nominated below. -- Netoholic @ 00:10, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Strong keep. Are you out of your mind? --minghong 00:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, delist - From a NPOV (I did just read the proposed for deletion templates created by Stevertigo) it seems like a retaliation indeed like Netoholic says above. The purpose of this template is so clear that even the deletion proposal is nonsense.
Obvious keep. Delete if and when En successfully switches over to UTF-8 and case-preservation. --MarkSweep 00:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete I hate this dog. Almost as much as the dog who took a perfectly fine and well-titled article on the Erdos-Borwein constant, moved the article page to one without the diacritical, and then had the gall to add the "wrongtitle" template! Grrr. It *used* to have the right title, until the joker wronged it! Hmm actually, that article uses the titlelacksdiacritics template. Maybe that should be VfD'ed too. linas 00:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
KEEP!! The person who proposed deletion does not understand how this template is used. The article titled pi should begin with a lower-case letter and even in English, it is usually written with a Greek letter π. So should the one titled [vi]. So should n-body problem; the letter n in that case is case-sensitive mathematical notation (and it should be italicized while the rest of the title is not). So should p-adic number. This is not about languages other than English. Michael Hardy 04:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Oleg Alexandrov 04:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? This is the stupidest listing I have ever seen. Keep, of course. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 02:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep You've gotta be kidding me.--LBMixPro ^{(Holla back!)} 05:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
You're joking right? This is a serious nomination? Clear and Present Keep, fer Chrissakes - this is a very well used, very useful template. Grutness...wha? 07:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep I think the phrasing is really yucky right now, though (but that's an entirely different discussion). The only drawback I see is that it can induce people to be creative about renaming articles... —Mulad (talk) 06:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep! BlankVerse ∅ 10:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delist of Template:Wrongtitle deletion

Never heard of such a thing before, but could we make this a speedy delist please? Literally thousands of pages now have an ugly {{tfd|Wrongtitle}} box at the top of them above the {{wrongtitle}} template. Please vote Agree (speedily delist this deletion nomination; keep the wrongtitle template) or Disagree (don't speedily delist; let the vote go on). TreyHarris 01:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- Agree Courtland
- Agree. Concur with the speedy delisting. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- Disagree
  
  Courtland, you added both an "Agree" and a "Disagree" in a single edit. Would you strike one or the other, please? :-) TreyHarris 03:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- ~~Disagree~~ Agree. Keep this template; sure it's ugly, but it's the best way to do what's needed. --'Net 04:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  
  I think you're misunderstanding the point of this poll. "Disagree" means you do not want to speedily delist this deletion. I.e., you want the deletion votes to continue for the next week. "Agree" means that you agree with everyone else that this is a stupid listing and should just go (24 hours after 01:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC) when I posted this poll). I hope you won't mind my changing your vote to what I think you intended; change it back if I'm wrong. TreyHarris 05:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Agree I don't even have to explain. --LBMixPro ^{(Holla back!)} 05:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note: I've just done this. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Twoversions

Just another form of template:Pseudoprotected (below) for revert war losers to tag articles with before crying in their beer. Not in active use. It uglifies articles. SchmuckyTheCat 19:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Also, transwiki uglify :) R adiant _* 19:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Please read also Wikipedia:Two versions. — Insta ntnood 19:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment too verbose - Pseudoprotected doesnt seem like a good title anyway - twoversions is superior. -SV|t 21:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep Revert wars are best avoided and this template can help to do so. Firebug 23:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Has potential to help avoid edit warring, I think it's sufficiently useful. JYolkowski // talk 02:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. prevents edit wars by allowing the "second place" party to have "their version" available for convenient consideration until the dispute is resolved. Ungtss 02:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of the template actually being used as such; it seems mainly used to force one's own version to the top and tell the other side to stop arguing. R adiant _* 07:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — Dan | Talk 02:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep -MarSch 14:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep Agree with Firebug --Hunter 14:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Ungtss. BlankVerse ∅ 15:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Ted Wilkes 23:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:VFD

Inappropriate, overused, and oversized for what it means and does. All there needs to be is a category tag in it. Adding a cancerous growth on a template (not to mention chopping it down and removing it from articles before voting: I mean you CC) is just a way of prejudicing the decision in favor of removal by making it as useless and unappealing as possible. -SV|t 02:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Withdrawn - Er, I um... meant... TFD not VFD. :\ thats what I get for editing way too late. Apologies to all. -SV|t 00:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment. WP:TFD is not WP:RFC. JRM · Talk 02:18, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Don't disrupt Wikipedia (yes, adding spurious and trollish nominations to TFD counts as disruption) to illustrate a point. This is "templates for deletion", not "templates for improvement". — Dan | Talk 02:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm with JRM and Rdsmith on this one. Interpret that as keep, if needed. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I know VfD can be frustrating, but the VfD is the best thing we got atm. (aside from quick del. ;) ) Cat ^chi? 02:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Comment "best thing we got atm" - this implies there should/could be some improvement. "this is not templates for improvement" - what is? Where is this templates for improvement office you say my post should be at? "trollish nominations" - FY-INAT, thanks. See Wikipedia:Huge message boxes for "trolling" -SV|t 02:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  
  Let's see. Template talk:Vfd, Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Village pump, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the IRC channel and probably half a dozen places more I haven't thought of. Don't put things up for deletion unless you want them deleted. I know many people think that the best thing you can do is propose the most extreme measure as to provoke the most extreme reaction, but I happen to disagree. JRM · Talk 02:40, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  
  Nearly forgot: there's always being bold. That's sure to get a reaction too. JRM · Talk 02:40, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  
  There is also the recently created, but currently participantless Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates, which could (should?) become a good forum for handling some template issues be handled here at TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 12:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  - By BB you mean 'edit it [my]self?' Thats certainly a good idea. I do agree that TFD (like other VFD) shouldnt get abused with inappropriate listings, but I respectfully disagree that with the numbnut assertion that I was just trying to make a point. Instead of passing the buck off to other venues, I had thought it would be a good idea to start the process of trimming down the template here, by consulting people - admittedly not to "delete it," per se but neither to simply make a point either. I will start work on it now, as you suggest. Regards,-SV|t 09:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, of course - WP:POINT, since this is User:Stevertigo "getting back" for a number of his template creations being TFD'd on May 10. -- Netoholic @ 02:37, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Keep - WP:POINT. Firebug 04:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, of course. WP:POINT. The current large amount of text is as a result of newbies complaining that the original vfd template wasn't conspicuous enough. RickK 05:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- In fact it used to be much larger (cf. [2]), and has been trimmed a great deal in recent months. — Dan | Talk 21:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't like the template much, and I didn't like it when I saw this tag pop up on the first article I created as an anon. But we must have a visible tag to warn users that an article may be deleted in a few days. Sjakkalle 07:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, WP:POINT. But it may need yet another rewording. R adiant _* 08:00, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or, at worst, rewrite so as to be unobtrusive and not prejudgemental. If there is difficulty getting enough attention before debate ends, perhaps the period of debate should be extended, or concerned parties directly notified -- but this is not within our purview. Meanwhile, less obtrusive, less judgemental. (And yes, this is the only Templates for Improvement bureau -- badly named and hastily operated.) — Xiong 熊 talk * 09:02, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Ha. Be bold or die! JRM · Talk 09:06, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Keep as an integral part of Wikipedia. Thryduulf 09:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Definately rewrite the ugly, bloated template, but keep. BlankVerse ∅ 12:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment I
- yeees?
Keep. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:JSTOR

Template used to generate a link to an external site. -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Look, I'm sure the source is legitimate and valid. What I'd like voters to consider is whether Wikipedia should have templates for each and every potential legitimate web source. A better, and already existing, mechanism to use is meta:Interwiki map. -- Netoholic @ 02:45, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

vote tally for a lengthy posting ... Courtland 23:49, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

keep: 6
- SV, xiong, angela, dunc, stalbach, silsor
delete: 3
- snowspinner, filocht, courtland

I'm inclined to say keep; JSTOR is a valuable independent resource, and having a quick way to add the links has some value. Whether it should be transcluded or subst:ed into articles is another question. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep Academic journal since 1985 - not arxiv, but worthy.-SV|t 02:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ - Wikipedia users who are not part of an academic institution can't access JSTOR anyway. FreplySpang (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain - I don't like the template, but I see that it is similar to citing a journal article that is not generally available outside academic institutions. FreplySpang (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- It is a little misleading to provide a link to a restricted external site. But I suspect most public and college library users can access it. The concern is ameliorated by the fact that the template links to JSTOR itself, which explains. It should not be substituted, because all such citations should follow exactly the same format, and that format may be improved in future. — Xiong 熊 talk * 09:16, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Keep. Using the interwiki map in that way will make it a lot harder for reusers of our content to have working links. They're more likely to have a copy of a template on the English Wikipedia than a copy of the interwiki map from another site. Angela. 12:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- If we're too terribly concerned about reusers, then consider this: they are more likely to want to have plain article text, so they don't have to maintain the templates for (eventually thousands of) external site links. I know this may be seen as slippery slope fallacy, but are we going to get in the business of creating and implementing a template for any and all potential external link targets? Why not just post the external link simply, and avoid using a template altogether? -- Netoholic @ 14:54, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Delete - templates obscure things for inexperienced editors. Unless there's a really pressing need to edit something simultaneously on multiple pages, or to generate boilerplate text that appears on thousands of articles, we shouldn't use a template for it. Snowspinner 15:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete: why, apart from the odd notion that most readers will be using a PC in a library with access, would we be linking to a restricted access journal in the first place? Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:15, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. It is useful to a significant proportion of users. With regard to the ideology of this whole project, it is worth noting that JSTOR is a charitable organisation that aims to disseminate information, much like the Wikimedia Foundation, but that because of its specialist role in publishing old journal articles they have chosen a different funding route. That funding route does unfortunately penalise individual users, but without it there would simply be no JSTOR. For comparison purposes, the Internet Movie Database is owned by the <sarcasm> really socially conscious</sarcasm> Amazon.com and is extensively linked to by template:imdb. In addition, having a template keeps the external links looking uniform and professional. Dunc|☺ 15:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I access JSTOR from my home computer for free. Anyone can, just get a library card from a participating library. The arguments that this is only usable by a subset of people are incorrect, it is open to anyone, for free, who knows how to get a library card. I believe the JSTOR article mentions that. Also as an aside, please weigh in on the current dispute on Talk:JSTOR if the image should be on the left or right side, it would be helpful to have other opinions than just Dunc. Stbalbach 16:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, harmless template, useful. JSTOR is an acceptable way to assist users in finding journals. What is this, the Template Inquisition? silsor 13:49, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. Templates are a pain in the ass. They're confusing to new editors and they strain the database. When there is a pressing need for standardization (Like the stub templates) or a meaningful level of complexity (Pink box templates, infobox templates) it's one thing. This is not sufficiently complex to make putting {{random stuff}} into an article a meaningful timesaver, and so instead we just leave what is, albeit a small one, a database drain and a confusing chunk of text in an article. Snowspinner 14:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There exist a number of specific-source templates, found here. I've only checked a couple of the resources, but the trend is for these resources to provide their information freely to the public (not public domain, but public access). This cannot be said for JSTOR, which serves as my primary basis for calling for deletion ... consistency in the templated access to specific external resources. A second reason is that the template seems to provide less information to the reader than {{Journal reference}}, which could be used to cite the same manuscripts citable using {{JSTOR}}. Courtland 22:01, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tfdnotice

A template designed to post notices on people's pages about templates being nominated for deletion on this page - created by someone who believes there is "extreme" and "rabid" deletionism on WP:TFD. Misuse of the Template namespace. -- Netoholic @ 15:01, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

- Comment "misuse of the template namespace?" Really? An informative notice to people who may not have looked at the thing (to see an oversized sticker on it) is somehow a misuse? It looks more like a courtesy! And the choice to not use it looks more like laziness and discourtesy. -SV|t 05:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete as overkill. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and we really ought to have a policy against vote stacking. R adiant _* 15:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, seems convenient. Kappa 15:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful template. There's nothing wrong with letting people know a vote is taking place. Nor is there any reason for the Template namespace to be so jealously guarded. If multiple Wikipedians could find a template useful, it should be retained. Firebug 19:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Seems harmless, but is probably unnecessary. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep (Disclosure: I am the creator.) -- I find it interesting that a template whose purpose it is to call attention to this process is itself attacked here. The most effective defense of this process' legitimacy is widespread use of {{tfdnotice}}. Have we something to hide? — Xiong 熊 talk * 23:37, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
Delete. — Dan | Talk 00:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Template creators should be notified when their templates are nominated at TFD, as a common courtesy if not by policy. It is helpful to have a template that facilitates that. (And any affected WikiProjects, article talk pages, etc. should be notified as well.) BlankVerse ∅ 03:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Note that if the creator still cares about the template, he would have it on his watchlist. Radiant_* 09:05, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  - Even with the template in their watchlist, the template creator might miss the placement of the TFD notice, either because there were more edits after the placement, or the person who added the TFD notice may have forgotten to fill out the edit summary. BlankVerse ∅ 12:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    - Okay, that's true. However, while notifying the template's creator would be the polite thing to do, the existence of this template in no way guarantees that or even makes it likely. Radiant_* 13:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
      - Anything that makes the task easier to do is welcome in my book. I suggest that we should keep it for now, and see if anyone besides its creator makes use of it. If nobody uses it, we can always revisit the issue in a few months. BlankVerse ∅ 15:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Misuse of templates. --Carnildo 20:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep if only for the reason that it would require being used, and then become a part of TFD policy. Yes, it would require some courtesy - poo hoo. -SV|t 05:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete because helping people who like to spam my talkpage to curry my vote serves to make me stabby. Snowspinner 03:20, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I appreciate the purpose of improving notification of deletion nominations. However a template is the wrong way to proceed. For one thing, what will happen to talk pages when we delete this, or if its wording is changed? A "subst" template may be acceptable, since it is unchanging once saved. -Willmcw 23:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's a nice courtesy to let them know. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox pope/dead

This is a holdover from an odd bit of formatting used in Template:Infobox Pope to distinguish between living and dead popes (hiding the death information in living ones). Since this is likely only ever going to be one living pope at any one time, this is unnecessary and we can handle Pope Benedict XVI as an exception. This makes the template easier to implement, and saves a few bits and some processing power. -- Netoholic @ 02:41, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Keep. Templates are more elegant than special-case hacks, and processing power is cheap. Firebug 02:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete Snowspinner 02:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, useless. R adiant _* 09:05, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this is a useful technique: when editing the infobox, uniformity of the resulting lay-out (apart from the lines about the death) for the current pope and the former ones is maintained. This is not the case if two different infobox templates are used, or if for the current pope no template is used.--Patrick 15:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment - this makes sense if the drag on the server is significant but people have claimed different things - is there a definitive answer? Trödel|talk 14:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep.
Delete - archive on talk -SV|t 05:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep — Dan | Talk 14:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep I am voting keep since I didn't get a definative answer re drag on the server Trödel|talk 23:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Article resources

No vote. Stevertigo tagged this template with {{tfd}} on Apr 27, 2005 but as far as I can tell it was never listed here. —Miles←☎ 21:16, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comment I dont recall tagging it or why I would. Remove from list here. -SV|t 04:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Quoted

Not actually in use. Do we need really a template for this? R adiant _* 11:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep: request referral There are already several dedicated templates for citations (see Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Citation_templates) and there already are also templates for referral to Wikiquote (see Wikipedia:Sister_projects#Wikiquote). My feeling is that we should stop the deletion voting process on this one and refer the question of utility and desirability to WP:FACT and, potentially, to Wikiquote contributors. I'll toss a note into WP:FACT, as I'm a (currently not active) member of that project. Courtland 23:58, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

I've put my request for input up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check#On_the_topic_of_Quotes_..._template_up_for_deletion ~~Courtland

Keep - necessary at least for use on Nationalism. Granted its policy to be segregationist with quotes, but I would prefer to let Einstein slide. -SV|t 01:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Nationalism doesn't use Template:Quoted. Neither does anything else. I do think that Courtland's suggestion of asking around is a good idea. R adiant _* 10:54, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- What exactly is the matter with this template? Is it that it has not been used much in 4 days? I have tools I only use once every six months, but I don't throw them out. How do you even know it has not been used -- perhaps it has been substituted. Is it that it was created by someone the nominator does not personally like? Or is it just for the feeling of blood rushing to the head as another useful tool is damaged with an ugly tag? Keep, keep, keep and censure bad-faith nominations. — Xiong熊talk* 07:50, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
- WP:NPA. WP:FAITH. WP:POINT. You should seriously consider reading them some time. R adiant _* 09:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:sofixit

The only use for the template is to add some boilerplate text to a discussion. From the "What links here" link, it looks like several editors aren't even using "Subst:" when they use it, so I was soooo tempted to edit the template into something completely different (and some vandal or problem editor might not be able to resist that temptation). The information in the template should probably be turned into a Wikipedia namespace article, but it shouldn't be a template. BlankVerse ∅ 09:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Of course. Or turn into a Wikipedia namespace article (with something other than the rather snotty "sofixit" name). BlankVerse ∅ 09:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting. It seems somewhat in use as a Wikipedia meme, usually written as {{sofixit}}... (i.e. not linked to or substed, merely brackets within a nowiki tag) I've added sofixit as a redirect a while ago, not sure what to do with this one. R adiant _* 09:21, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, of course, because of the running jokes associated with it (plus, it's often useful on Talk:Main Page and other places where one encounters confused anons). — Dan | Talk 12:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful for encouraging boldness. --W(t) 13:08, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Keep - useful boilerplate text - plus the running joke necessiates the template ;) -- Grun t ҈ 01:24, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
Keep. It's a useful boilerplate text to use when newbies complain about something they could fix themselves (and usually referenced indirectly as {{sofixit}} when the one complaining is not a newbie). --cesarb 23:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is indeed a meme but it's also a truism in that the template should be put on each and every article in Wikipedia, which undermines the utility of the template. Another example of a template that would be useful under the argument used to defend this one would be {{addtruth}} to boilerplate the truism "when adding to this article, please add non-fiction" or {{bekindtostrangers}} to boilerplate "assume good intentions" and "no personal attacks" rolled into one. Courtland 10:36, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
Keep -Frazzydee|✍ 11:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Should not be used to tag articles, and is thus only useful on talk pages. If editors want to use it on talk pages, they surely can type the message themselves? →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:51, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
Create an article in Wikipedia namespace instead. This is mostly referred to on talk pages, like other policies and semi-policies. Firebug 07:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Historic. ;) Kim Bruning 10:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Andre (talk) 21:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:VfDx

A special template that indicates how many times an article has earlier been nominated for VfD sounds to me like needless instruction creep. R adiant _* 10:50, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

vote tally (9 May to 12 May) ... Courtland 23:53, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

keep: 2
- rossami, superdude
delete: 3
- alphax, carnildo, dan

I thought so too until I was asked three times within a week for instructions on how to create a second (or third) nomination without screwing up the prior archived discussions. Most times, nominators just blank the prior discussion - creating confusion for everyone. Whenever I discover them, I try to repair the nomination. Preservation of the prior discussions is important. So far, I've resisted forcing my procedure into any of the policy pages because I am also concerned about instruction creep. But making a template available to someone who wants an easy way to repair the nomination seems like a pretty cheap solution. I'd like to argue to keep the template as a harmless and occasionally helpful variation of an approved version if someone will step forward and promise to keep it's wording in synch with the main VfD template. Rossami (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good reason... but given this template won't be widespread in use (there aren't that many articles VfD'd twice), wouldn't it be easier to explain to move-and-refer-to the previous VfD, than to explain to use this template? R adiant _* 07:55, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes, votes for deletion that occur again on an article that has been nominated before might get jerked up. Therefore, I created a variation of the deletion template to disambiguate that. So keep it. --SuperDude 18:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Since {{vfd}} is always substitued (or at least should be), it is a simple matter to edit the resulting text to include a number in the linked VFD page. Since it will (almost always) be out of synch with {{vfd}}, I say delete. Alphax ^τεχ 00:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Most people who are nominating an article for its second (third, fourth) VfD aren't aware of earlier VfDs, and won't know to use this template. --Carnildo 07:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — Dan | Talk 00:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Since {{vfd}} is always substed, it doesn't hurt to have a handy template like this, especially since editing text in the normal vfd template requires saving the page and then editing it again. Zocky 17:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete, although it might be helpful to have a little box to put on the top of an article's talk page that says "This article has been listed on VFD n times" -Frazzydee|✍ 16:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Alphabet

This template, which a list of every alphabet organized by 'genetic' origin, is included or at least intended to be included on every alphabet page, such as Hangul and Latin Alphabet. We don't really have "article series" anymore—that is why categories were invented, so this template amounts to nothing but needless clutter. The list, organized by genetic origin, can be included on Alphabet if need be. Nohat 00:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

this looked like it was in need of a vote tally ... Courtland 23:36, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

keep: 10
- sukh, netholic, tezeti, SV, Bastique
- 1/2 in favor of modification: jpbrenna, radiant, porges, dab, trodel
delete: 5
- gwalla, sebastian, puzzlet chung, Pjacobi, oleg alexandrov
categorify: 2
- xiong, blankverse

Keep - I think the way it structures the relationship between different alphabets is quite handy. Especially say for example with Gurmukhi how it shows its relation to Brahmi descendants and modern day Indic scripts. Although maybe we could have one specifically for Indic scripts if this is a bit broad? Sukh 00:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, but does that structure need to be repeated on every single page about an alphabet? Nohat 01:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Well it may be good to split it off into sub-sections - for example, one from Brahmi scripts would be useful. Sukh 10:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Extremely useful for navigation. Would you delete the World War II Theater template too?

(anonymous vote)

Oops, that was me, --Jpbrenna 03:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC) I didn't realize I was signed out. How about this, I'll change it to Keep but Modify so we can stick it at the bottom of the page. Also, Sexy it up a bit (add more colors,border, etc.) so it looks cool, like the WWII Template mentioned above.

Something like this:

This article is part of the Alphabet series.

Poorly Attested Early Alphabets

Proto-Canaanite Script

Phoenician-Derived Scripts

Hebrew alphabet | Aramaic alphabet

Independently Formulated Alphabets

Armenian alphabet

Keep - of course we still have article series. This presents the information in a timeline. Could use a little cleaning up, but this is a good template. -- Netoholic @ 01:43, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Keep тəzєті 01:47, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This template is so large that it squashes articles into long, narrow columns. It would be much more useful as simply a section in alphabet, rather than an overgrown navbox cluttering up every article on a writing system. — Gwalla | Talk 01:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. While i agree with Sukh that it's a nice table, i disagree with anonymous that it's necessary for navigation. You can easily keep the hierarchy open in one window and just open other articles in a new window. Moreover:
- It doesn't compare with the World War II Theater template - is about 4 times as big.
- Due to its longish shape you can't put it at the bottom in the same way as the World War II Theater template.
- It is far from being complete and therefore likely to grow even much further.

Sebastian (talk) 02:00, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

no vote - it is useful, but it is also far too big. Is there any way of breaking it down into smaller sections, or perhaps reorganising it as an article in its own right, to be linked to from the articles which currently have the template? Grutness...wha? 02:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep but reword, template is impractically big. R adiant _* 07:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This template is too large, and interferes with other floating frames like image, table, etc. It takes down article readability eventually, which is not the general point of the index boxes. --Puzzlet Chung 15:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Modify - Split it into smaller sections and insert into the relevant articles (e.g. the alphabet's ancestors and descendants). The full list can be inserted into alphabet. porges 00:31, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I like this template wherever I see it. Ive been studying up on some of these, and have found it literally both handy and dandy. Might use a little cleanup though. -SV|t 04:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete, much too large. Navigation using categories, lists or the main articles is better. --Pjacobi 12:01, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
keep, but do not include every alphabet known to man! only include the most notable alphabets, for goodness' sake, do a List of alphabets article if you must, but a template must be concise. dab (ᛏ) 12:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Categorify — Xiong 熊 talk * 03:35, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
It's very, very, very long! It overwhelms most articles that it is put in. The current version should be coverted to a category, plus it probably could also be used for a new article (List of alphabets—which I just found out already exists, but the current article isn't as organized, nor is it annotated with dates—merge into List of alphabets). Then something like User:Jpbrenna's example should replace the template. BlankVerse ∅ 04:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

We already have Category:Writing systems and subcategories and List of writing systems. --Pjacobi 11:11, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

it's not supposed to be equivalent to any category. It's supposed to give an overview over selected important alphabets, and their genetic and chronological relations, which cannot be achieved by a category. Details shold be delegated to an article of course. templates take a position somewhere interemediate between mere category and full-blown (non-"List if") article. What should really be "categorized" are the countless "List of" articles which contain no information beyond alphabetical enumeration. 11:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Useful ℬastique▼^talk
Delete Too huge. In this case the categories do a better job. Oleg Alexandrov 07:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep but reorganize. Trodel 14:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:This

"This article is about 'this'"... do we really need a template for that? Btw nothing links here. R adiant _* 12:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - useless. --mav 14:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete ridiculous. -SV|t 19:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep ~ this does seem superfluous, though not without usefulness. There are many pages that refer to disambiguation pages or alternative meanings and I don't think those referral messages are currently templated (correct me if I'm wrong there - thanks). Having a standard format would be useful and would augment the templated disambiguation system. However, it's use could lead to an erosion of the current disambiguation system if there are not clearcut usage guidelines that distinguish it from {{dab}}. It's use probably falls in two places; the grey area where a set of meanings haven't yet made it to the level of needing a disambiguation page (e.g. Crib, Whitewash), and the term after the disambiguation page is made to refer to it (e.g. Cigar). A better solution for the latter would be to evolve the disambiguation template, though. Courtland 23:46, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Keep iff there are no other templates that do the same thing. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Courtland -Tombrend 19:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:delete

Nomination withdrawn, per plethora of keep votes. R adiant _* 08:56, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

keep - the burden knowing whether something or deleted or not should be on the admin, who should record that in the deletion log. Some things are such patent nonsense that a reason for deletion doesn't need to be stated. Dunc|☺ 15:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, but we do have {{nonsense}} as well! Joe D (t) 15:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
keep because it has the most sensible name, but possibly move either Template:Deletebecause or Template:Nonsense here. Joe D (t) 15:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, sometimes the reason for speedying something is blindingly obvious ("i rox- luv u brit! lolz!"). -Frazzydee|✍ 17:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, don't be silly. --W(t) 18:40, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Keep. Silly. Andre (talk) 21:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Dunc. This probably demonstrates something about the utility of template talk pages, because this template gets used a lot and yet nobody responded to Radiant's query. FreplySpang (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Not all talk pages, just template and other "little-component" pages. This is a known issue, and can be solved using RFC or the village pump. --W(t) 21:24, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Right, that's why I said "template talk pages". I was thinking this might be a useful data point for the debate over where the TFD tag should go. FreplySpang (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops, so you did. You must type very illegibly or something :-) --W(t) 23:13, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Keep, I find this template to be useful. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Dunc. The burden rests on the admin, not the user who tagged the article. Besides, in my view, all admins should know all of the criteria on WP:CSD anyway, and thus should be able to also judge such articles on sight. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is often very useful. Glaucus
Keep. I shouldn't have to come up with a "reason" on blindingly obvious articles. The only reason I don't delete those is that I'm not an admin. Kelly Martin 23:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I echo the sentiments of the above user(s). Mr Bound 23:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep For 99% of speedy delete candidates, it should be considered an insult to the sysop's intelligence to have explained to him or her the reason why it is a candidate. --EvilZak 23:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep no need to explain your deleting reason if it is so obvious to deserve speedy. Howabout1 00:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Useful. -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think this is a very one-sided debate, and have a feeling i have seen delete on TFD b4. hmm... THE KING 01:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Rick K 04:37, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful template, it's a hassle to have to give a reason to delete obvious cases. Sjakkalle 07:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Using DB implies there should even be discussion...Harro5 07:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Torture-stub

Only used for one article, and no associated category was created for it. BlankVerse ∅ 06:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 06:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
This article is a torture stub. You can help wikipedia by putting it on the rack and expanding it. (Delete). →Raul654 06:39, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Ironically, while BlankVerse was nominating this template here, I was busy creating a category for it and populating it. I doubt that this could get to 100 articles, but I don't see any real reason for its deletion, and it now has 27 articles. Grutness...wha? 07:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Redirect. I'd suggest we merge the content into crime-stub and make this a "permanent" redirect (defensible) as a subcategory of crime that is useful to label but not sufficiently broad to justify it's own category (for non-stubbidocious folks, stub templates almost always exist as a template-category pair). Torture is generally considered criminal, though governments would have you believe that it's not when done in the interests of the state. I was going to vote for keep, but think that there's been sufficient talk around the confusions of policy, semi-policy and guidelines that I'd turn technocrat for a moment and recommend abiding by the 100 article threshold for the existence of stub categories that's part of the WP:WSS ~~policy~~ ~~guidelines~~ recommendations. Courtland 10:13, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
- Quite a few of the items don't really qualify. Although you could argue that the methods used in, say, the Spanish Inquisition and French Revolution were crimes against humanity, I'd be a little dubious about listing those items under crime. It's worth noting that quite a number of the torture-stubs I found were listed under history-stub,. and that's probably where any others will come from as well. In any case, the 100 stub guideline is for the creation of new stub templates - there is no such limit for the deletion of old stub templates (quite the opposite, in fact - Stub categories may be resorted but should not be deleted if the stub category reaches less than 100 articles, according to the Wikipedia:Stub sorting policy page). The new proposals don't deal with it at all - they deal with stub template creation, not deletion. Grutness...wha? 11:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  - Good points about content appropriateness, but I wasn't referring to "crimes against humanity" but simply to "crimes as generally accepted" in terms of violence against the individual without invoking torture as a tool for social change. I'll take up the discussion of the 100 stub guideline over at WP:WSS.~~, at Wikipedia_talk:Stub_sorting_policy. Courtland 16:49, 2005 May 21 (UTC)~~ I've put down my thoughts on this at Wikipedia_talk:Stub_sorting_policy#Back_to_the_100-stub_article_threshold. Courtland 17:10, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
    - My personal opinion is that although there are articles that are very clearly about a torture-related subject, that the stub itself will likely lend itself to POV problems. To avoid those problems, it should be deleted.
  - I don't think this has ever happened at Category:Torture, which has been around a lot longer... Grutness...wha?
Keep - SoM 01:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types has some more really ridiculous stuff... --Conti|✉ 21:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Not ridiculous to the WikiProject on Colour - which is the only reason that stub exists! Grutness...wha? 01:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
How about rewriting the crime template text as This crime or violence-related article... so that it could encompass a broader field? So I guess my vote is delete. Wipe 04:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PD-Germany

The text is wrong, or at least very very misleading. The law cited applies to nearly none of the pictures suitable for an encyclopedia (it's for the likes of passport photographs or maybe a few holiday snapshots). See the template discussion page. --AndreasPraefcke 17:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC) (I have editited your nomination to conform to en:Wikipedia:TfD standards. --Xiong.)

Delete -- Wikipedia is not local. It is unclear to me that a photograph, say, taken within the national borders of Germany is protected merely by German copyright law -- or, for that matter, that a photograph taken within US borders is protected by American copyright law only. The entire area of copyright law is a morass and its application to a website hosted in the State of Florida yet used throughout the world not a matter which anyone is qualified to address -- the law simply is not settled, and may not be for many many years. For now, I rather suspect, any assertion of {{PD}} is either sufficient -- or not. — Xiong 熊 talk * 09:40, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

for comparison:

This work is in the public domain in Germany and other jurisdictions. According to the Urheberrechtsgesetz (UrhG) (copyright Laws) of Germany, photographic works are copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the photographer (UrhG §§ 2, 64), and then enter the public domain.

This file has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide.

This license tag is deprecated!

If this work was uploaded with this template after 1 June 2008, it should be tagged with {{subst:nld}}. If the copyright status of this work cannot be confirmed as free, and usage does not meet requirements of the non-free content policy, it should be tagged as possibly unfree or listed for deletion.

Comment: Please read also User:Quadell/copyright. — Insta ntnood 16:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

No objections to deletion. However, during cleanup:
- This one never had the TfD warning slapped on it, so I'm leaving it. Noel (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Apparent invalid nomination, thus kept. R adiant _* 09:51, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Table suffixes

Since it has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetic (nor can I conceive of one) this should be changed to a category instead. R adiant _* 09:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, better served by a category. - SimonP 17:13, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it makes browsing between different lists of suffixes easier. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 10:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I generally don't like long template with article series, but this one is fairly concise. Keep. User:Docu
Keep for above reasons. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete if a category is going to replace it. — Timwi 10:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I agree with the reasons given by Gerritholl and Docu. Lexor|Talk 11:23, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
It seems that most of the articles on this templates are linkfarms and thus really categories. One also redirected to List of English suffixes. I think that each suffix should be a subcategory of Category:English_suffixes. That would then nicely collect all links which are now in this template. Thus it can then be deleted.--MarSch 15:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete - English has lots of suffixes. I don't see why these particular ones merit a showcase, or really what they have in common. A category and/or list is the way to go. FreplySpang (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep Revolución 22:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I don't see anything wrong with this. Rhobite 22:15, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- - RELISTED because it has no consensus. HOWEVER, some 'keep' voters seem not to have considered that the suggestion is to categorify rather than delete. Were I not the nominator, I would have closed it as such and converted it to a category. But since I am, let's discuss a bit more. Radiant_* 07:31, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    - The vote shows no consensus for deletion, and indeed, a majority supports "keep", so relisting is not justified. -- Netoholic @ 13:02, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Limitedgeographicscope

Offensive POV. For a new user to come and see this slapped on their article would be a major turnoff. It also perpetuates an unsupported contention that there is systemic bias in Wikipedia. Rick K 23:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. We can find ways to bridge the various geographical divides on Wikipedia, but this is not the way. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is phrased in a non-offensive way and it serves to make clear that an article can be limited in scope. I don't see what's POV here, let alone what's offensive. I've never seen it being slapped on brand new articles; it has done good work in making editors aware of the fact that many seemingly well-developed articles still can have large gaps. Just an hour ago (before this TFD nomination) I added it to Beekeeping, which is actually a rather nice article, but which unfortunately overlooks the history of bee-keeping and the phenomenon of bee-keeping in the non-Western world. Also, I fail to see why the inherent systemic bias of Wikipedia would be an 'unsupported contention'. I'm working in the field of African languages and linguistics. I could create and expand lots of articles every day, week after week, on subjects in that area that absolutely need to be covered by any encyclopedia. What is that, other than the clear result of systemic bias? — mark ✎ 23:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
There has been claims by users on here that there is some type of geographical bias on here, that many articles are slanted in a American/English/Aussie/Canadian point of view. What Rick is saying that by slapping this template on various pages, it is saying that this idea is very true, thus turning off users who might come from areas where they might not have our viewpoint, so they will go away. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Are you really saying that users having a different viewpoint or coming from a different part of the world would go away because of this template? To the contrary, I think it encourages them to contribute to make the article more comprehensive in scope. — mark ✎ 00:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This template should be used more often. For one, it warns readers that the article they are reading is centred on, well, usually the Western world. If anything, another template should be created, to allow for explanatory text. -- Ec5618 00:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, we don't need templates for everything. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 03:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, bad idea. We already have too many cleanup-related mechanisms, and that means that something tagged for some-kind-of-cleanup is unlikely to become noticed. That is a bad thing. R adiant _* 09:02, May 25, 2005 (UTC) Convinced by the below, so keep. R adiant _* 13:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Comments

Note that this template is tied to WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias; articles tagged for this are noticed by participants of this project. In other words, unlike some comments here suggest, this template is not floating around in space or going unnoticed.
I also want to point out that there is a subtle difference from cleanup here: articles like Shopping cart, Water resources, or Sociology of clothing wouldn't seem in need to be tagged for cleanup. In fact, the articles look generally well written, properly wikified, referenced even — but the limitedgeographicscope tag is there to point out that the articles give the impression that the subject only occurs in, or is only relevant to, the United States or the Western world. This is important to point out, because sometimes editors are not sufficiently aware that they are writing for a much larger audience than the States or the broader Western world (cf. what Jimbo said about our goal). — mark ✎ 09:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete POV, and this can be slapped on half of Wikipedia articles. Grue 10:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Care to elaborate on how this is POV? Did you look at the three examples I gave above? Is it just a point of view that they are geographically limited in scope, or is it simply a matter of fact? Also, I don't think the fact that many articles are limited in scope is a valid reason to delete this template. (It might even be a reason to use it more widely.) — mark ✎ 11:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, helps to build NPOV. Kappa 10:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep! "Unsupported contention"???? Although I can't remember where they are, I've seen several notes on Wikipedia User pages where the users have compared Wikipedia coverage of various international topics to those in other encyclopedias, or have used other ways of measuring the Systemic Bias present on the Wikipedia. The template absolutely should be kept. I can think of dozens of more articles where the template needs to be added, where the text is only about the Western world (or sometimes only about the US and/or UK), but the topic itself is applicable to many places or cultures around the world. This template is only put onto an article's talk page, where it will only be seen by regular Wikipedia editors. BlankVerse ∅ 10:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this is a very useful template. In the same way that having several types of stub, having several types of cleanup tag help things get fixed - this is very different to wikification, for example. The articles its placed on can be very high quality with regard to the topic in one part of the world (and not necessarily just the western world, it could be anywhere) but signifcantly less so elsewhere. Thryduulf 11:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, if you look at the pages it's applied to you'll see that Wikipedia has loads of pages full of systemic bias: I slapped it on gay rights (well, the talk page) yesterday because it hardly discusses anything outside the English speaking world. Joe D (t) 11:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Particularly useful as far as cleanup templates go and actively watched; trying to delete this is madness. Ambi 12:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but only if its is placed on the talk page. - SimonP 12:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
The delete arguments are mostly bogus:
- Those saying "delete, POV" - this is bogus - NPOV does not apply on talk pages, where this template should be used.
- The other deletion reasons tend to be some vague notion about too many templates. I partly agree - but that doesn't mean this particular one is delete-worthy.
Finally, I think there is a small amount of deliberately disrupting WP to make a point in this nomination. Anyone who's interacted with RickK is likely to know that his attitude is not likely to sit comfortably with CSB project members attitudes. Part of the reason for this nomination was to take a pop at those people. Pcb21| Pete 13:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have listed it, if the "limited worldview" POV weren't attached to it. This is a deliberate slap in the face to those editors who don't kowtow to the idea that everything American and/or Western is inherently bad. RickK 21:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  - WP:NPOV requires that all viewpoints are represented fairly, both western and non-western. Kappa 01:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    - RickK, you do realize you can edit templates too? I see nothing wrong with the current wording, but if you disagree, a better solution would be to propose a different one. - Mustafaa 03:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      - I did. It was reverted and I am currently under a barrage of criticism for having done so. Rick K 23:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  - Well again, NPOV doesn't apply on talk pages. However the idea that supporters of this template think "everything American and/or Western is inherently bad" says more about you than the template. Pcb21| Pete 07:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  - Nonsense, the template is not saying "delete references to America because there's too many of them", it's saying "add references to the rest of the world because there aren't enough of them". Joe D (t) 10:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and keep on talk pages. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. To take one of many examples, an article which covers the history of circumcision without even mentioning African animist and Australian Aboriginal traditions of circumcision has a problem that needs addressing, even if its coverage of circumcision in parts of the world better known to most Wikipedians were featured-article quality. - Mustafaa 19:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, It certainly helps with CSB. --Dmcdevit 19:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and of course only have it on talk pages. Wikiacc 19:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Ojw 23:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Deeeeeelete. — Dan | Talk 23:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
keepGeni 01:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep Potentially very useful. Interpreting this as somehow "anti-western" is perverse. It doesn't even mention "the west". Peregrine981 03:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Encourages an international perspective on articles that may otherwise be any kind of centric (Eurocentric, Afrocentric, etc.) Ziggurat 05:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep and strong agreement with Pcb21|. This is bordering on a fatuous listing, IMHO. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:01, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I do not understand how this template is anymore POV than {{cleanup}}. How User:RickK can claim that it "perpetuates an unsupported contention that there is systemic bias in Wikipedia" is beyond completely me. Perhaps he should look at the CSB Wikiproject and also explain why there are 92,100 pages[3] in english Wikipedia mentioning 'United States', only 21,000[4] mentioning China and 17,000[5] mentioning India. Unbelievable. TreveX^talk 19:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Just keeping score, there are now 4 votes for delete and 19 for keep. TreveX^talk 19:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. The template is not only useful for adding non-Western perspectives to articles, it is also useful for adding non-Northern perspectives. -- B.d.mills (Talk) 02:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Can't conceive of any good reason to delete this template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep. James F. (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Without this, people will slap POV tags on articles that aren't classic POV, but rather needing expansion. This template fits nicely... more accurate than POV, more specific than NeedsExpansion. Feco 23:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but RickK had an excellent point that the template can discourage new contributors if used indiscriminately. Often, the wider scope can be directly added into the article quite easily, which will encourage further contributions. It would be nice if there was a friendlier (less implicitly critical) alternative to this template.Wragge 10:14, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
- If you will take a look at Template talk:Limitedgeographicscope, there is now an ongoing discussion about rewriting the template so that it will help encourage editors to add more information to an article. BlankVerse ∅ 10:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks BlankVerse, the contributions at Template talk:Limitedgeographicscope seem to have anticipated this point. Since RickK says he can "live with" these changes, is this template still up for deletion? Wragge 10:53, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

RickK hasn't withdrawn his nomination, but the votes show a clear consensus for keeping the template, so it really doesn't matter. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen so many Strong Keep votes, or such a high percentage of Strong Keep votes as this one. BlankVerse ∅ 12:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)