From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The current archival system does not separate deleted/non-deleted templates (in use since January 4, 2006)
| << |
December |
>> |
| Su |
Mo |
Tu |
We |
Th |
Fr |
Sa |
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| 7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
| 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
| 21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
| 28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
| << |
November |
>> |
| Su |
Mo |
Tu |
We |
Th |
Fr |
Sa |
| |
1 |
| 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
| 9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
| 16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
| 23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
| 30 |
|
| << |
October |
>> |
| Su |
Mo |
Tu |
We |
Th |
Fr |
Sa |
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
| 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
| 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
| 26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
| << |
September |
>> |
| Su |
Mo |
Tu |
We |
Th |
Fr |
Sa |
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| 7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
| 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
| 21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
| 28 |
29 |
30 |
|
| << |
August |
>> |
| Su |
Mo |
Tu |
We |
Th |
Fr |
Sa |
| |
1 |
2 |
| 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
| 10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
| 17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
| 24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
| 31 |
|
| << |
July |
>> |
| Su |
Mo |
Tu |
We |
Th |
Fr |
Sa |
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
| 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
| 20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
| 27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
| << |
June |
>> |
| Su |
Mo |
Tu |
We |
Th |
Fr |
Sa |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
| 15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
| 22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
| 29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[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] Deleted
- Template:OoP mess - Completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This serves only to incite problems related to the Israeli POV edit war. -- Netoholic @ 15:35, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
- This was not my intention, but Neoholic is not the first to think so, so I guess I could use some help in formulation. My intention was to solve the following problem: so many moves and literal copies have been made, it became difficult to track the authorship of text bordering on GFDL violation. Netoholic, would you suggest an alternative formulation? Feel free to edit both the template and the text in my subpage. Gady 15:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I reformulated the template to be less contentious. Netoholic, is that OK? Gady 16:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think its just not useful. The message only appears on a few pages and is too limited to be used outside of this particular issue. This isn't what templates are for. -- Netoholic @ 17:16, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
- Would you prefer if the text were replicated between these (now 9) pages? Gady 17:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- delete. inappropriate to draw personal attn --Jiang 05:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Replicate the text instead. —AlanBarrett 06:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I don't understand the logic here. Why replicate the text? This very discussion shows that this would do nothing except incur extra work. Somebody thought the formulation was contentious — I changed it. In one place. Claiming that templates should only be used when there are (say) at least 50 uses is the computer programming equivalent of saying "do not write a routine unless it's used in at least 50 places". Gady 20:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful information used in many articles. Jayjg 23:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It continues to serve a purpose on talk pages to draw readers/editors attention. Under no circumstances replicate the text; that serves to increase the maintenance load without any benefits to the 'pedia as it is read. -- Chris j wood 14:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. —Lowellian (talk)[[]]
- Note: I have left a message on Gadykozma's talk page asking him to cast a specific vote. Please wait a few days for this vote! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep (sorry, should have known better) Gady 14:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Template:WWIIEquipStub - unused stub template. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 05:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Template:Inclusion - proposed use for this template was rejected, now obsolete and unused. --Michael Snow 17:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Michael Snow is correct. The proposal was to reject the use of the {{inclusion}} template. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Template:Nintendochar - A huge box for the bottom of Nintendo character articles like Zelda. Unwieldy and unnecessary with Category:Nintendo characters and its subcats. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- This box is a crime. Delete it with haste. Snowspinner 23:54, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps if we shrink the font down another few percent... No, just delete it. -- Netoholic @ 00:22, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
- delete, too huge --Jiang 05:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I was a big editor of this, but it's gotten too big. Delete. Andre (talk) 23:14, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should be split into Nintendo universes? Like Mario, Zelda, etc. However, as it is, delete. - Vague Rant 12:57, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Instead of deleting, merge the characters into one link and put on the template (for example, Mario Characters), or shrink the template down with another <small>, or both. ––67.81.178.64 4:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- <small><small> is illegible. Mrwojo 16:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: The category is enough. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:36, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Far too large! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Decision Delete. 8 votes to delete, 1 anonymous vote to keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Template:Religion - orphaned, POV, and useless --Jiang 06:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- D I don't think its POV, but certainly a better case for categories. Delete redir at MediaWiki:Religion too. -- Netoholic @ 06:16, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
- Delete: It is POV, just like all those various other earlier religion templates. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:18, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: all the things Jiang said. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Decision: unanymous decsion to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Template:Violence - misuse of templates; articles related as such should be categorized --Jiang 06:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- D Not a "misuse" just an early template created before categories. Delete redir at MediaWiki:Violence too. -- Netoholic @ 06:16, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
- Delete: I think it's not useful or necessary. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Decision: unanymous vote to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Template:PremierCollegesofIndia - what is "premier" is POV and poorly defined and we dont need a box for poorly related institutions. --Jiang 06:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- D replaceable w/ categories. Was previously up for deletion (see Talk also). If deleted now, take care of Talk page and redirects at MediaWiki:PremierCollegesofIndia and MediaWiki talk:PremierCollegesofIndia. -- Netoholic @ 06:29, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
- Delete, better with cartegories. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Decision: unanymous decision to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Template:FiveStarUniversitiesofIndia much like above. Delete redirects at MediaWiki:FiveStarCollegesofIndia and MediaWiki:FiveStarUniversitiesofIndia. -- Netoholic @ 06:30, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
- Template:Battles is no longer used; it was agreed in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles to use the category system instead. (There's a redirect at MediaWiki:Battles to be deleted too.) Gdr 19:13, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
- Decision: no objections to deleting, so will be done. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Template:Protectedwho - I have strong feelings against a template like this. I feel like it's existence will only foster more ill-will during an edit dispute. Disputes are a problem for the community - listing out the specific "combatents" seems petty. -- Netoholic @ 18:28, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
- Agree with the above, delete, and keep the personalities on the talk page FT2 18:45, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: agree with Netoholic. Also violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference even more; readers don't care who is arguing. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:36, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: for reasons given by Netoholic and Whosyourjudas -- Chris j wood 00:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointing fingers will just make such problems worse. Josh 03:51, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - absolutely. I agree 100% with Netoholic on this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Template:EMspectrum - orphan. Not really a template. RickK 00:04, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree. Also, it is unnecessary since it is essentially a less functional duplicate of Template:EMSpectrum. Josh 03:51, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete (Comment by Ta bu shi da yu on 05:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC))
- Delete. Quickly! --03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Comment by Whosyourjudas)
- template:bogan-stub. silly and unencylopedic. clarkk 11:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete absolutely! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I highly doubt that we have enough "bogan-related stubs" to warrant a template. Josh 05:41, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Not deleted
- Template:Controversial3 - essentially yet another version of Template:TotallyDisputed -- Netoholic @ 18:17, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
- Template:Controversial2 - unused and duplicated by using other disputed tags -- Netoholic @ 18:20, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
- I disagree strongly. The difference between "This article is totally disputed" and "parts of this article are disputed, while others have reached concensus" is not trivial. I can't help but think that this is an attempt to avoid discussing your attempts to remove the Controversial3 tag from the 2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities page. --Spud603 19:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Disagree with deletion (reasons below), and note that Netaholic's actions seems to suggest he wants a overstated tag rather than an accurate one on the article. He also seems to have something against Templates, judging by the number he's voting to delete above. FT2 20:07, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Also disagree with deletion and second Spud603's claim that Netoholic listed Controversial3 for deletion in leui of debating its applicability on the election controversy talk page. This may be a pattern, Netoholic also listed election controversy images for deletion without talk page mention. Netoholic removed links to the page from other articles without mention, attempted to orphan the page when at least a half a dozen people disagreed with him. And now the page itself is listed for deletion, there is little doubt there is a systematic pattern. After others have catogorically rejected is interpretation of wikipedia guideliness he proceeds anyway. In my opinion he has not bothered with consensus building or debate, which has worked against him because some of his claims are valid. I refer to all relevant users' histories in this matter to back up my claims. Zen Master 20:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree with removing this very strongly. These seem quite reasonable! Not everything is totally disputed. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Granularity of dispute is to be encouraged. - Amgine 06:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NETOHOLIC WILL YOU STOP UNILATERALLY REMOVING OTHER PEOPLES (INCLUDING MY) VIEWS FROM DELETION VOTES AND EDITS YOU HAVE PROPOSED! YOU HAVE PULLED THIS KIND OF STUNT ON ABOUT 4 ARTICLES AND DEBATES NOW - LEAVE IT ALONE!!!
- Well, I don't think the shouting is necessary. I tried to move this very nice explanation to the template's talk page. The vote section here is limited on space, so I was trying only to make it more useful. If you disagree, you could have asked me to undo that move, or done it yourself without interjecting angry words. -- Netoholic @ 19:51, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
- No. You don't remove comments relevant to a vote, to a completely different page, and then ask "why are you annoyed, I was only trying to help?" I accept you (or someone) left a pointer, but I think on a VfD or TFD thats wrong. The way it comes over is that if you dont like it, you delete it. If you want to talk, then we can move this to a talk page or wiki-IRC though. But right now thats not once but *many* deletions you've "just done" that way, and right now thats one too many for me. You delete and unilaterally edit too easily ignoring the need to check 1st, is all. Stop it - NOW - and try not to delete wiki-significant stuff without checking 1st in some way. FT2 22:11, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
- FT2's comment on {{Controversial2}} and {{Controversial3}} templates:
- I have been struck that many good articles become gridlocked under LOCK or NPOV tags. Thats not the wiki way. I concluded that a big part of the problem is that most people with objections tend to use only a few (fairly strong) templates, when in fact neutrally these may not be good descriptively. I wrote my conclusions on Village Pump (Policy) here on Nov 9, which summarises the problem, cross references it, gives examples and shows how more appropriate templates can help resolve the issue. I wrote a comment on Nov 10 at the end of Template_talk:Controversial (please also read) noting there were different ways an article could be controversial, so 2 or 3 templates to fairly refect each were needed. This is important, because to wrongly tag an article is in its own way, more misleading than to wrongly write it - at one stroke it adds an entire POV which if not accurate is a problem. It also polarises debate.
- Example of this approach at work: one article was suffering an edit/revert war, principally over whether the subject matter was POV and what should be covered by the article. Facts within the article were not disputed. The edits moved between "NPOV" and "nothing". I re-tagged the article to a tag, {{TitleNPOV}}, that explicitly said there was a dispute over neutrality of the title - and since then the effect has been that productive debate has resumed, with both sides feeling this is a more accurate description and hence respectful of their views, in effect by tagging it correctly as "this title or scope is in dispute but the contents are not", a consensus was created which previous templates had failed to do.
- As a serious wiki-ist involved as best I'm able (when I have the time) in
-
- It is my experience that a correct tag permits compromise and co-operation. Hence I created these two tags plus another Template:ActiveDiscuss to allow articles being worked on or subject to dispute to be marked as "actively being developed" or "partly disputed", so that future wiki-ists can actually build articles and not get caught up so often in edit wars over one side tagging everything as disputed, the other side untagging everything as OK. The truth's normally in between, and Wikipedia will gain from having a few templates that allow contributors to say this. FT2 19:47, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Will an admin make a decision on this template? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Reasons for tag:
- The tag was created as NPOVNPOV. I modified and renamed it to deflect dispute into collaboration. It reflects a very pragmatic approach and reorients debate to the article with a strong request to the effect "now you've both had your say, agree where you stand by choosing a better tag between you". It is quite likely to work, because theres a real difference between removing or changing a tag someone else put there which you disagree with (edit/revert war) and adding a tag to say its disputed (no edit/revert war). Right now articles end up as "totallydisputed" being the one thing that's agreed on beyond which you cant go. Fewer edit wars = more focus on article. Yes they shouldnt get that way but we all know huge numbers at any time do. This might just be the way to seriously reduce that and ebncourage article collaborators to compromise and talk instead of lock it up while they squabble. Please see more specific notes on talk page. FT2 23:31, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Delete. The fact that someone put a dispute tag on an article is fairly good evidence of a dispute, no? Snowspinner 19:39, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- It can (and regularly has) also lead to article status being seriously misrepresented as regards the actual debate. And also sometimes it has ended up with the article PROT or VPROT in that state for a long time, locked and misrepresented. FT2 01:08, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Unsure This template disputes the original dispute; that is, disagrees that the article is actually in dispute. e.g. non-involved party applying a dispute when a talk page discussion gets lively, but when none of the involved parties have called the article in dispute. OTOH, if it is not in use... Amgine (added siggy)
- Keep (Logically it wont be in use till its been round a while) It is highly non-trivial to be able to say "the above tag is disputed". It's useful and it serves a genuine purpose. The circumstances Amgine mentions are one example. Tags do get disputed and whatever should happen, that's the reality. There's a real benefit to having a way to say "I am leaving that tag for now but I do disagree" in order to avoid an edit war. FT2 23:31, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Confusing and unnecessary. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 22:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep In lieu of responsibility to the community and the accuracy of our work, some individuals will use tags as a means of silencing or derailing information. Unless I am missing something, this circumstance is not well addressed by other means. As the topic's importance increases, the likelihood of this mendacious behavior occuring increases. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. "Not in use" is not a reason to delete; "seems extremely limited" is just your own POV and not true. It's quite a useful template, and I'd even go so far it's just as necessary to have this one as it is to have templates for NPOV disputes etc. -- Schnee 23:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - POV disputes often (usually?) involve an argument over whether there's any POV issue at all. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Although I'm not completly convinced by its usefulness, I don't see a reason to delete the template. Let's wait a bit and see if it will be useful. --Conti|✉ 23:43, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I am definitely convinced. CheeseDreams 00:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I definitely think this template has some merit. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Decision: 3 for deletion, 1 unsure, 7 to keep. Template is kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Template:Pub-stub - Not useful. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 10:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Rubbish it's very usefull, pubs are and important part of the social fabric of the UK. Their importance needs to be documented both indivdually and as a group.--Jirate 14:09, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
- Jirate, is there a project on pubs, or even a group of people who will be adding to these articles? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Not that I know of. However it is inevitable that some Pubs will be added anyway and by having the stub it would atleast give some idea what is expected.--Jirate 14:57, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
- Delete -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
- redirects to Template:Delete. Some shortcuts are overkill. -- Netoholic @ 17:41, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
- Keep, saves typing 3 characters which accumulates to a lot of time on RC patrol (sorry for the late vote, perhaps this could stay around a bit longer to give others the chance to give their opinion). --fvw* 14:10, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant. jni 12:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've temporarily duplicated delete on del so the TFD header can be added. With any luck that'll catch enough attention to finally get this decided with an appropriate number of votes for a so oft-used template. --fvw* 14:09, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
- keep, obviously. The redundancy is good, folks use it and it makes life easier for them. Dunc|☺ 14:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I just used it. Why make everyone type the extra "ete" whenever they find junk? Dave6 08:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful. Estel (talk) 13:01, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep When I found out this link existed, I wondered why I hadn't bene using it before. Saves loads of time on long patrols [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 13:05, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
- keep - useful, and just {{d}} might be even better - {{db|}} exists, right? --User:Whosyourjudas
