Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to current discussions

Shortcut: WP:TFD

Deletion discussions Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review Deletion policy Process - log - tools Guide - Admin guide

edit

Purge the cache to refresh this page

On this page, deletion of templates (except as noted below) is discussed. Templates are used to insert blocks of common material into multiple pages, often for standardization purposes.

Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised.

Template undeletion is not discussed on this page, but on Deletion review.

Please note that stub templates should be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

Deprecated and orphaned templates can be listed here.

[edit] What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD)

Speedy deletion

If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion for general items or templates, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at TfD, tag it with {{db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Stub templates

List, normally with the corresponding stub category, at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

Policy or guideline template

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, it cannot be listed at TfD separately. It should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline takes place.

Userboxes

List at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, regardless of what namespace they reside in.

Template redirects

List at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion.

Renaming a template

List at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

So what's left for TfD?

Other templates not listed above, including most templates in the template namespace. A nomination here may be appropriate whenever one or more of the following apply:

1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);
2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template;
3. The template is not used, either directly or with template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks);
4. The template does not satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement.

Templates for which none of these apply may be (and often are) deleted by consensus, nor do these criteria apply in all cases (for example, templates meant to be transcluded in user space, like other content there, need not meet NPOV).

If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

[edit] How to use this page

To list a template for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace TemplateName (do not include the namespace identifier "Template:") & template with the name of the template to be deleted)

I	Edit the template. Enter the following text in the top of the template or inside the box (where applicable): {{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} or {{tfd-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} This code will work as is; there is no need to replace PAGENAME with the actual page name. Please include "nominated for deletion" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead. Also, try to minimise page disruption by using the Preview button to check the revised template, as its new look will be visible on all pages that use it. Do not blank the template. If you are nominating multiple templates, set the parameter TemplateName to the name of the header of the deletion discussion. If a template is meant to be substituted, wrap the {{tfd}} or {{tfd-inline}} in <noinclude> tags. For example, <noinclude>{{tfd|TemplateName}}</noinclude>.
II	Create its TfD subsection. Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of TfD for today's entries. Add this text to the section, at the top: {{subst:tfd2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. — ~~~~}} Note that TemplateName should be replaced by the template's name excluding the Template: namespace. Suggest what action should be taken for the template.
III	Give due notice. Please consider adding {{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}} — ~~~~ on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion. This is especially important if the TFD notice was put on the template's talk page.

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template.

Also consider adding to your watchlist any templates you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

[edit] Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual action (for example, Keep or Delete).

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This can be roughly "translated" into merge, and means the template text should be merged into the articles that use it (done by adding the subst: prefix to the template call, hence the name) before the template page is deleted.

Keep in mind that only very rarely are templates here orphaned (made to not be in use) before nomination. It is unhelpful to vote "keep until orphaned" or similar. Please instead phrase it as "delete" or "delete after orphaning".

Contents 1 What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD) 2 How to use this page 3 Discussion 4 Current discussions 4.1 June 15 4.2 June 14 4.2.1 Template:Resolved3 4.2.2 Template:Infobox Havana 4.2.3 Template:American Campaign and Service Awards 4.2.4 Template:Ultima 4.3 June 13 4.3.1 Template:Fu-re-in-why 4.3.2 Template:PD-IsraelGov-Military-Army 4.4 June 12 4.4.1 Template:World Trade Organization (WTO) 4.4.2 Template:English 4.4.3 Template:Stutz timeline 4.4.4 Template:ION California 4.4.5 Template:Series in Jump SQ. 4.5 June 11 4.5.1 Template:VIZ company (Press Releases) 4.5.2 Template:Shueisha 4.5.3 Template:TMTC web 4.5.4 Template:Multi-file start 4.5.5 Template:Common French surnames in Puerto Rico 4.5.6 Template:PleaseseeDRV 4.5.7 Template:EW50 4.5.8 Template:Indefblockedipbecause 4.5.9 Template:Blockedtroll 4.5.10 Template:Di-no source-caption 4.5.11 Template:Fb team abb Sporting 4.5.12 Template:FPArchiveBarOctober2005 4.5.13 Template:First Great Western color 4.5.14 Template:Hoofdpagina/Rechterkolom einde 4.5.15 Template:Hoofdpagina/Projecten 4.6 June 10 4.6.1 Template:View all arch 02 4.6.2 Template:Jtdirl 4.6.3 Template:Places in Bedfordshire/small 4.6.4 Template:Sjtestpurpose 4.6.5 Template:AFC ribbon 4.6.6 Template:Uwc2007 4.6.7 Template:Not-censored 4.6.8 Template:Jordan Blogs 4.6.9 Template:Seth Rogen 4.6.10 Template:John Smith Quintet 4.7 June 9 4.7.1 Template:Infobox Province of Argentina 4.7.2 Template:Infobox Province AR 4.7.3 Template:Disambig-guidance 4.7.4 Template:Fairproduct 4.7.5 Template:Nn-warnhead 4.7.6 Template:Fairlogo 4.7.7 Template:Tuck surnames 4.7.8 Template:Recent-vandalism-only-ip 4.7.9 Template:Comic-ovrsize-img 4.7.10 Template:Vandalism-only-ip 4.7.11 Template:Infobox Cardinalstyles 4.7.12 Template:Infobox DTV 4.7.13 Template:Adwnote 4.7.14 Template:Intro:pink floyd 4.7.15 Template:Test5 4.7.16 Template:Tempblockeduser 4.7.17 Template:Ublock 4.7.18 Template:MIPblock 4.8 June 8 4.8.1 Template:Electionpeople 4.8.2 Template:Smile 4.8.3 Template:WikiProject Video Games 4.8.4 Template:Cvgproject 4.8.5 Template:Cvg-proj 4.8.6 Template:Infobox Province of Cameroon 4.8.7 Template:Infobox Mongolian Province 4.8.8 Template:Infobox Dominican municipality 4.8.9 Template:Detroit Tigers shortstops 4.8.10 Template:WP:gaming the system 4.8.11 Template:Female bio 5 Old discussions 5.1 June 7 5.1.1 Template:Index only 5.1.2 Template:People by name Z 5.1.3 Template:Trollshere 5.1.4 Template:Longtitle 5.1.5 Template:Il lupo e l'agnello (Aidone) 5.2 June 6 5.2.1 Template:Nodb 5.2.2 Template:Creationism2 5.2.3 Template:Universities in Canada 5.2.4 Template:Non-free official document 5.2.5 Template:Infobox Mexico City Borough 5.2.6 Template:Infobox Metropolitan Area of Mexico 5.2.7 Template:Euromarks 5.2.8 Template:Non-free diagnostic 5.2.9 Indian Selected Article/Image/List templates 5.2.10 Template:Infobox Administrative Division 1 5.2.11 New York City subdivision infobox templates 5.3 June 5 5.3.1 Template:Big Brother 2008 (UK) 5.3.2 Template:Image-license 5.3.3 Template:Image-license-fairuse 5.3.4 Template:Bbblock 5.3.5 Template:Mo icon 5.3.6 Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted 5.3.7 Template:The Sextet Organization 5.3.8 Template:Needsinfobox 5.3.9 Template:Damaged 5.3.10 Template:Ongoing Custom Aircraft 5.3.11 Template:Ongoing event 5.3.12 Template:Current territorial changes 5.3.13 Template:Current football season 5.4 June 4 5.4.1 Template:Anonymous and the Internet 5.4.2 Template:PD-Mexico-NIP 5.4.3 Template:Japan Automotive Industry 5.4.4 Template:Spam1MrB 5.4.5 Ordomag subtemplates 5.4.6 Template:Newvoterip 5.4.7 Template:Possibly-unfree-mural 5.4.8 Template:Gal to l 5.5 June 3 5.5.1 Template:Foreignchar 5.5.2 Template:WA U.S. Routes and Template:WA Interstate 5.5.3 Template:PD-PCL 6 Completed discussions 6.1 Closing discussions 6.2 To convert 6.3 To orphan 6.4 Ready for deletion 7 Archive and Indices

Administrator instructions

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] June 15

[edit] June 14

[edit] Template:Resolved3

Template:Resolved3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Duplicate of {{Resolved}}. This template also uses unicode that does not display in all browsers (as opposed to {{Resolved}} which uses an image). — — Edokter • Talk • 18:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I can't see any occasion when there would be a valid reason to use this. – iridescent 18:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment- Isn't this used for resolved problems at AN/I? It seems useful to me; as for the unicode, we can always replace it with something that will show. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No, {{Resolved}} is the most commonly used template on AN/I and other boards. — Edokter • Talk • 22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as discussed on the help desk talk page, it is easier for loading speed if we use it in the help desk. It is used now by help desk regulars. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 09:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Havana

Template:Infobox Havana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Used in only one place, Havana. It was replaced with infobox settlement. Also it has a redirect that should be deleted. — Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:American Campaign and Service Awards

Template:American Campaign and Service Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template duplicates content on Template:US interservice decorations, Template:US navy department decorations, Template:USAF decorations, Template:USArmy decorations, and Template:USCG decorations; is less complete and lacks the visual appeal and organization of the others. bahamut0013♠♣ 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ultima

Template:Ultima (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Actually a merge/deletion request with {{Ultima-Sidebar}}. Duplicate of content with different layouts. — — MrDolomite • Talk 00:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect, obviously. No need for TFD. — CharlotteWebb 01:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like this needs to be worked out before going to TfD, or just redirecting, like CharlotteWebb suggests. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge {{Ultima-Sidebar}} into {{Ultima}}, remove all article references to the former, and redirect it to the latter. To my knowledge, navigation boxes are much more common than sidebars, and I haven't yet seen any other video game article series that uses one of the latter.
  • Additional arguments in favor of keeping {{Ultima}}: it appears to contain links to all Ultima-related articles, which {{Ultima-Sidebar}} doesn't; it is also present itself in all Ultima articles, which {{Ultima-Sidebar}} isn't; none of the main articles (about the video games themselves) can contain {{Ultima-Sidebar}} because the top-right angle is occupied by the mandatory {{Infobox VG}}.
  • Arguments in favor of keeping {{Ultima-Sidebar}}: only the artistic quality, especially, the logo. Perhaps integrate the latter into the navbox? --Koveras ^☭ 07:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 13

[edit] Template:Fu-re-in-why

[edit] Template:PD-IsraelGov-Military-Army

Template:PD-IsraelGov-Military-Army (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

There is no basis in the laws of Israel that its government works are PD. — -Nard 00:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - agreed. Usually, they have some type of restrictions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 12

[edit] Template:World Trade Organization (WTO)

Template:World Trade Organization (WTO) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This navbox is unnecessary and clutters up the pages of "Economy of Foo" articles. If people want to navigate through countries that are in the WTO, they can click the WTO link in the economy article. — Mangostar (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The inconvience this creates to users outweighs the very marginally benefits that come from having this as a template. Weygander (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Often the main articles on various countries fail to mention membership, which is why the bottom navboxes are useful for a quick glance at a country's political/economic allegiances. If there is clutter, then the navbox can be set to be closed by default. -Mardus (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:English

[edit] Template:Stutz timeline

Template:Stutz timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This timeline template has been around for a while, but it is not being used by any articles, and it does not appear useful enough to be used. — Vossanova ^o< 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - article links show it's a dead template. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ION California

Template:ION California (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This and the following several templates only navigate between one and four articles - generally two or three; therefore, they are not particularly useful. — —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• {{ION Florida}}
• {{ION Georgia}}
• {{ION Iowa}}
• {{ION Kentucky}}
• {{ION Michigan}}
• {{ION Mississippi}}
• {{ION Missouri}}
• {{ION New York}}
• {{ION North Carolina}}
• {{ION North Dakota Stations}}
• {{ION Ohio}}
• {{ION Oklahoma}}
• {{ION Pennsylvania}}
• {{ION Tennessee}}
• {{ION Texas}}
• {{ION Virginia}}
• {{ION Washington}}
• {{ION Wisconsin}}

• Keep California, Florida, New York State, Texas, delete all the others. This was a good faith effort, however most of the intrastate templates don't have enough stations to justify them being broken out on their own. Nate • (chatter) 20:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep above, and throw in Wisconsin, Tennessee, Ohio and North Carolina as those states have 3 or more affiliates in a state. Delete everyone else. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 15:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Series in Jump SQ.

Template:Series in Jump SQ. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Completely unnecessary template. There is no need to stick a template in every series as it runs in the magazine, then have to remove and shift around as they go in and out of the magazine. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 11

[edit] Template:VIZ company (Press Releases)

Template:VIZ company (Press Releases) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Unnecessary template. Press releases already cited by {{cite press release}} and there is no valid reason to just put a press release in the External Links instead of using it as a reference if it adds anything to an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Shueisha

Template:Shueisha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Inappropriate and unnecessary "template". Words kind of escape me on its current state (as a note, it has since been reverted to an earlier version, but the deletion reason still stands). Regardless, Shueisha is one of the biggest publishers in Japan. A template of their works is not an good use of a template at all. It would be like making a template with every book published by Random House. Far better handled by the existing Category:Shueisha. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete the number of works is indeed very large, making a category better suited for this. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. While I would have voted to delete the pre-cleanup version of this template in a heartbeat, the current one doesn't look half bad. It's definitely useful as a navigation tool between the company's magazines.--Nohansen (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If the table is defaulted to hide, it is a pretty good template. Samuel Sol (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Deleting templates does not solve any pressing problems and this is a reasonable, useful template. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TMTC web

Template:TMTC web (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Unused template that implements and external link. Thetrick (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It appears the template is nothing but a spamlink. If I am right, it qualifies for a G11, so speedy delete as blatant spam, unless someone else objects. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Multi-file start

Template:Multi-file start (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Test template with 1 use on user page. Thetrick (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Common French surnames in Puerto Rico

Template:Common French surnames in Puerto Rico (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

List or table masquerading as template. 1 use in an article. Thetrick (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also not used --T-rex 23:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PleaseseeDRV

Template:PleaseseeDRV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template for controversial user page deletions? Not used. Thetrick (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:EW50

Template:EW50 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template with 1 instance in creator's user pages. Thetrick (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: It is substituted, which is why it won't show in "What Links Here". I (the creator) have used it excactly 50 times, obviously.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I withdraw the nomination, though it would be terribly helpful if you put the template in some category or another. --Thetrick (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Indefblockedipbecause

Template:Indefblockedipbecause (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Unused template that is unlikely to ever be used, we, in practice, rarely, if ever, indef block IP's, and I don't see any use for this template. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 04:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK, Delete. We already have the indef blocked IP template anyways, so I will agree with Steve that there is no need for this template. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  20:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Things like tor nodes, open proxies, and colo IPs are sometimes blocked indef. So it does have some use. MBisanz ^talk 06:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep per MBisanz. While it's somewhat redundant, it still has some use, such as for WP:NOPs. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I checked the use of this template, and it seems it isn't used on any pages at all. That's the reason I nominated it for deletion. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 04:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Blockedtroll

Template:Blockedtroll (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Unused template, derivitave of {{Indefblockeduser}}, seems there's no reason for this template, at all, and is unlikely to be used. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 04:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Steve, we'll just use indefblockeduser template anyways. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per DENY. MBisanz ^talk 08:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Just use {{indefblockeduser}} or another useful variant. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Di-no source-caption

Template:Di-no source-caption (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Unused template. Might have been a test page. Also has a doc page. Thetrick (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fb team abb Sporting

Template:Fb team abb Sporting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template that includes 1 wikilink. Might have been the start of a navbox. 1 article and 2 userpage instances. Thetrick (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I spoke too soon on this. There's a whole forest of these bitsy templates out there being built by some football project, and this one just happened to have been tagged as uncategorized (though the other I looked at didn't have a category). Still, only one article use. --Thetrick (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:FPArchiveBarOctober2005

Template:FPArchiveBarOctober2005 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Old POTD archive nav template. Appears to be unused. Thetrick (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:First Great Western color

Template:First Great Western color (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Unused template for a color code. Thetrick (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

notification left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Slambo (Speak) 12:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, will be superseded by {{National Rail colour}}. Mackensen (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Per Mackensen. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  20:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hoofdpagina/Rechterkolom einde

Template:Hoofdpagina/Rechterkolom einde (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Test template in a foreign language. Thetrick (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hoofdpagina/Projecten

Template:Hoofdpagina/Projecten (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Test template in a foreign language. Thetrick (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 10

[edit] Template:View all arch 02

Template:View all arch 02 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Test template. Thetrick (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Jtdirl

Template:Jtdirl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Entirely unused template that might have been a user sig. Thetrick (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Places in Bedfordshire/small

Template:Places in Bedfordshire/small (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Test template with 3 instances. Thetrick (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sjtestpurpose

Template:Sjtestpurpose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Test template in use on one user page. Thetrick (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AFC ribbon

Template:AFC ribbon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This seems to have been a test template. It currently exists only on one user's talk page. Thetrick (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Uwc2007

Template:Uwc2007 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Uwc2001 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

In consequence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart, these little-used templates seem to have become rather pointless. —  Sandstein  18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Not-censored

Template:Not-censored (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This isn't a maintanence template, nor is it a talk page template. By contrast, template:censor is for talk pages. But Not-censored is designed to sit on articles that might be censored - forever. Templates in articles are for fixable problems; finished articles should be free of all these. The template thus has no valid use, and tricks misguided editors into slapping it into articles where it doesn't belong (which is how I found it.) — WilyD 17:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Templates in articles are for fixable problems - exactly. --- RockMFR 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Week Delete. I think it's important to be vigilant about preventing the censorship of ceratin articles, but your reasoning is pretty hard to dispute. Weygander (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No, it's a sectional template like the sectional neutrality template. There are articles where only a particular section would attract censorship and it is important to remind the prudes that they are not to be removing content for censorship reasons (they don't always look on the talk page). --Dragon695 (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep i see no reason to delete it as it clearly might be appropriate for some articles and section of articles. SUVx (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I found the tag added to the UFO article by the previous editor (SUVx), an account opened today to create the illusion of support for deleting the dictionary definition of "UFO" from the lead of the article. SUVx claims to be a newbie, but shows remarkable hostility and knows where to find templates like this! I think this shows the potential for abuse—ironically slapping "censorship" on any article where the editors don't allow POV pushers to censor things they don't like. kwami (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

everybody can use the help and search function to find appropiate tags. right?! right! and you still fail to provide evidence for your hostile claims against me! STOP it already! i'm now here and disagree on a few issues with you. take it as it is! do you always treat newbies like that?! what sort of communitey is this?! SUVx (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Jordan Blogs

Template:Jordan Blogs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused spamy template. Thetrick (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Seth Rogen

Template:Seth Rogen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Actor templates are not needed and have been deleted in the past per precedent set with Matthew McConaughy and others and Nicole Kidman — Darrenhusted (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Rogen has also written films, although many of these do overlap with Judd Apatow and Evan Goldberg. Alientraveller (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:John Smith Quintet

Template:John Smith Quintet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template created on non-notable topic by a sockpuppet of blocked sockpuppeteer User:Chris funk bass. All links are redlinks other than those that point to terms that should be disambiguated. Mattinbgn\^talk 04:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No use as all the links are redlinked. I can't find anything notable about the subject. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 9

[edit] Template:Infobox Province of Argentina

Template:Infobox Province of Argentina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No longer used, all prior instances have been updated to use the standard {{Geobox}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as unused.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Province AR

Template:Infobox Province AR (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No longer used, all prior instances have been updated to use the standard {{Geobox}}. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as unused.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Disambig-guidance

Template:Disambig-guidance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant to {{Disambig}}, usused MBisanz ^talk 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fairproduct

Template:Fairproduct (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Old, non-standard FUR. Fails to link to article, or en.wiki NFCC policies. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nn-warnhead

Template:Nn-warnhead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Poorly formed, old warning, redundant to {{Nn-warn}} unused. MBisanz ^talk 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fairlogo

Template:Fairlogo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Poor redundant version of {{Logo rationale}} MBisanz ^talk 21:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tuck surnames

Template:Tuck surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused, obscure template that is better kept an article (which I made it). MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I created it with content from a Dab, surely bcz i used it (or intended that it be used) elsewhere, most likely in LoPbN, now deleted. No objection to deletion.
  --Jerzy•t 21:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  

[edit] Template:Recent-vandalism-only-ip

Template:Recent-vandalism-only-ip (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Obsolete, non-standard template that is really ugly and redundant to other templates. MBisanz ^talk 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Comic-ovrsize-img

Template:Comic-ovrsize-img (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant to {{Non-free reduce}}. ViperSnake151 15:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Vandalism-only-ip

Template:Vandalism-only-ip (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant to Template:Repeat vandal. — Spellcast (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete seems like a redundant template. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Cardinalstyles

Template:Infobox Cardinalstyles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is transcluded on all cardinal pages, but the only individual information it contains is the see of the cardinal. The rest of the template (the three styles) are filled in automatically and identically for each cardinal. So this template contains extremely little specific info for the articles it is placed on, while the general info is not very encyclopedic and not important for any individual biography (the "correct" way to address cardinals is a topic for the general Cardinal (Catholicism) page, not for each individual page). There is no use for this template on the pages of individual cardinals (there already is a template infobox cardinalbiog, which contains the see and much more info, so nothing is lost by deleting this template). — Fram (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This template is very important it shows a lot of vital information about how to address Cardinals. I have changed the design so that now Your/His Eminience is not defualt. Unless you have any other issues then this template should no longer be up for deletion. Additional;ly Cardinal Biog is an infobox that goes up the top of the page look at Elizabeth II she has two infoboxs one for vital and one for a stlyes. This template is needed vey much. The Quill (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Until now, all cardinals had the same style of address. What you have changed, if I understand correctly, that instead of automatically putting those styles, you now have to manually add them. However, in reality, all cardinals still have the same style of address of course. The information on how to address cardinals may or may not be vital, but it is certainly not vital information for every individual cardinal, but for the position of cardinal in general, and should be adressed there. Fram (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Fram for deletion. There is really limited value for cardinalstyles to stay. A side-tracked suggestion, though, is to add an entry in the cardinalbiog infobox for the pastoral arms of the cardinal, which is currently lacking of in both infoboxes. Raphaelhui (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with The Quill, if anything, the styles box adds to the formal nature of the page and helps make pages with less information look more like a professional encyclopedia. I disagree with what Raphael said, the styles are used for political purposes as well when addressing members of religious orders, just like politicians in some countries. Usually, people having an audience with high ranking members such as cardinals are given the correct protocol for addressing. The styles maybe in the main cardinal page, but doesn't detract from the professionalism in the individual pages. JFonseka (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete in its current form. It is a good and basic point that the general form of address belongs at Cardinal (Catholicism). Such a template for cardinals should rather be built around the titular churches. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I complitely disagree with who want to delate this template. If the problems is that it countains only a few informations we'd better to improve it instead of thinkink about its delation. Moreover it's also aesthetically beutiful. --Andreabrugiony (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox DTV

Template:Infobox DTV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template contains information that is largely redundant to a pre-existing template, {{Infobox Broadcast}}, and was created in ignorance of the efforts of other editors to reach a consensus on how to include information on the upcoming U.S. switch from analog to digital broadcasting in the existing template. It was composed in the singular POV of its creator, without input from other editors of related articles. — Rollosmokes (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Redundant template that was used wholly in order to get around the semi-protection of Infobox Broadcast currently in effect. No need for it at all. Nate • (chatter) 07:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Purpose of template, explained here long before the WP:3RR problems at {{Infobox Broadcast}}, is to deal with the 1800 full-power US TV stations which will be shutting down analogue broadcasts on February 17, 2009. Your suggestion of renaming or changing the analog field in the existing template to make them go away at the end of DTV transition will not work if they're on the existing template, as that edit would also remove the analogue field from non-US stations and low-power stations, both of which are remaining on-air after the full-power US analog shutdown and which are also using {{Infobox Broadcast}}. The fields which are similar, or dissimilar, between the two templates are clearly defined in Template:Infobox DTV/doc, try looking there if you're uncertain of the purpose of this template. --carlb (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- per Rollo and Nate. -- azumanga (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete redundant, per everyone above. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/my contribs/e-mail me} 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- completely redundant; template was created to circumvent existing infobox template. --Mhking (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Adwnote

Template:Adwnote (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Replaced by Template:Adw. Old and non-standard. tgies (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - other template is far clearer and makes this one obsolete. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Intro:pink floyd

Template:Intro:pink floyd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be old and abandoned. I think someone was trying to come up with a clever way to discourage editing of the opening paragraph of Pink Floyd. Dates from March 2007. — A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete this one is obvious. In mainspace generally people don't put mere texts into templates. Chimeric Glider (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unused.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unused and not template-esque. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 04:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Test5

Template:Test5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-standard, ancient blocking template. Superseded by more specific templates that actually explain how long someone is blocked for and the exact reason they are blocked. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Then redirect it. This is, if not the first block template, then very nearly so. I for one can't be bothered to remember whatever cryptic, unintuitive name the one currently in vogue's at. —Cryptic 02:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (without redirecting). There's never been consensus that the old templates have been "superseded," and it was agreed that they would be retained for those of us who prefer them. There is absolutely no need to restrict user warning/block templates to a strict "standard," and this one does contain parameters that enable one to specify the block's duration and the title of the page on which the user caused disruption. —David Levy 07:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not see the section for the variables. MBisanz ^talk 07:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Old test templates have been kept because some people prefer them. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tempblockeduser

Template:Tempblockeduser (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Old template, used on 3 pages. Confuses the level of permanence of a block per Arbcom (which requires a community decision to overturn) and a block by administrators, which any administrator may overturn. Superseded by other, better templates. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ublock

Template:Ublock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused, old, nonstandard blocking template. Doesn't describe unblock reasons, block length, etc. Superseded by UTM scheme. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:MIPblock

Template:MIPblock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-standard obsolete blocking template. Superseded by UTM, not in use in current scheme, fails to describe how to be unblocked. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 8

[edit] Template:Electionpeople

Template:Electionpeople (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Besides being large and unwieldy, I am not quite sure what this template is about. "Election people" is way too generic and can refer to anything in any country. It seems an arbitrary selection of some bloggers, academics, and officials who at some point had something to say about elections. I don't see any defined criteria for inclusion. As such it is not really appropriate for a navigational box. Renata (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with the points raised here. Clearly the template has grown somewhat unwieldy and would be better served as a collapsible box. The initial reasoning behind the box was to bring attention to the topic of election administration (which related WP entries were in great need of). The template was intended to highlight notable persons whose primary profession or research area involved the administration of election. (not just anyone "who at some point had something to say about elections"). I think the template has proved useful and would suggest looking for improvements rather than deletion. Electiontechnology (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My major point is that most navigational boxes have very objective scope and very clearly defined criteria: films directed by Doe, cities in municipality x, winners of y competition, etc. This template is very arbitrary and subjective. You don't have navboxes for, say, residents of Paris or international law scholars. Who and why decided that blogger A should be included, while blogger B should not? Renata (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not "most" is accurate or not, but there are a number of examples that show otherwise: Template:PoliticalCampaigns, Template:Politics, Template:Electoral systems, Template:Elections, Template:Voting. WP entries must contend with the issue of notoriety and relevance all the time. I'm all for clarification and suggestions for improvement, but I must oppose deletion. Electiontechnology (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment The template suffers from:

1. Non specific naming
2. No guide for use on the talk page
3. Opaque rationale for including new, or dropping old names
4. Apparently, or non-obviously lacking a key article that it serves to guide navigation for the reader

The connection between the various articles the template is on is threadbare. Analogously, we could have a template entitled "Law People" and have 20 academics, police commisioners, a few lawyers, plus a few advocacy organizations, and a couple of inventers of police equipment and security equipment, to an equally confusing lack of consequence. If there exists an article on electronic election fraud, voting machines, and related controversies for the U.S., this template might have a future, if related to that article.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Smile

Template:Smile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Useless chain letter. The only reason it wasn't deleted last time was because a bunch of Esperanza members came. This template contributes absolutely nothing to the encyclopedia. --Rory096 19:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a nice way to just say hi, with a cute smiley face. I don't think it really hurts Wikipedia at all. Beam 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Actually, it contributes some very important values to the project: civility, friendship, appreciation and happiness. I cannot imagine anything sadder than killing a smile. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP I really like this and I think it is a very nice way to send some greetings. Please don't delete this, it is very coveted and many people like it. It really isn't bothering anybody, and is a nice thing to have. Thanks Smuckers (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• strong keep- see my talk page for a slightly inventive use of this at the top of the page. It also fosters community and has a more focused intent than the biscuits etc. It's not a chain letter as no-one need pass it on unless they want to. I've more often seen people use it as a one-off to be friendly to, for instance, a new-ish user, rather than people forwarding it for the sake of it. Sticky Parkin 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - It brightened my day when someone originally put it on my talk page and I have since found it a simple way to say hi, thanks, or commit a random act of kindness towards fellow Wikipedians. It absolutely contributes to the concept of WikiLove and should be kept. It is not a chain letter as no one is forced to pass it on/use it; if you want to be a Grinch that's your prerogative. MissMJ (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't see this as a "useless chain letter" - it's actually a rather pleasant way to address another Wikipedian, promoting civility and friendship. It is frequently used in the context of WikiLove for other Wikipedians. While it doesn't directly contribute to the encyclopedia, it certainly promotes the values of the wiki and keeps users in a friendly atmosphere. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 21:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Yes: Keep! It's nice to recieve this. To be honest (and ironic), your userpage doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia, but it stays. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It actually did (in a very literal sense), until Tim Starling disabled that form thing. Indeed you're right though, which is why I don't bother to maintain my userpage and just keep it very simple, and don't actually use it (see my sig). --Rory096 21:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I've never quite understood this. I've come across people who spam them. If you genuinely want to be friendly, you should talk to people, not give them some template. If you want a policy- we're not MySpace. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • With that logic we should get rid of all templates. And perhaps barnstars while we're at it. — _Maggot^Syn 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. We need more ways, not less to promote wikilove. Oh, and Topic Ban Beam from TfD for this obvious bad-faith nom. --Dragon695 (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Beam did not nominate this, I did. Are you accusing me of bad faith? --Rory096 19:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Template messages are pretty generic, but I wouldn't consider it something to delete over. If you want to encourage people to write individual messages, great. -- Ned Scott 10:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject Video Games

[edit] Template:Cvgproject

Template:Cvgproject (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is not used anymore. There are other redirects that are also short and are used more. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect residue and Delete, pointless cat - need to redirect the residue links and delete. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a redirect, you can always slap a deprecated tag on it, but editors will remember that this is the tag for the WikiProject, and deleting it will not help tagging articles. 70.51.11.11 (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I wish there was a way to see the last time it was used...? But no one uses it anymore. Even if one person uses it, they can get used to another one (which is shorter and easier btw), right? MrKIA11 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep First, this is the wrong forum to discuss the deletion of redirects. Second, redirects are cheap. --Farix (Talk) 02:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Redirects are cheap. -- Ned Scott 10:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cvg-proj

Template:Cvg-proj (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is not used anymore. There are other redirects that are also short and are used more. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect residue and Delete, pointless cat - need to redirect the residue links and delete. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a redirect, you can always slap a deprecated tag on it, but editors will remember that this is the tag for the WikiProject, and deleting it will not help tagging articles. 70.51.11.11 (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I wish there was a way to see the last time it was used...? But no one uses it anymore. Even if one person uses it, they can get used to another one (which is shorter and easier btw), right? MrKIA11 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep First, this is the wrong forum to discuss the deletion of redirects. Second, redirects are cheap. --Farix (Talk) 02:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Redirects are cheap. -- Ned Scott 10:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Province of Cameroon

Template:Infobox Province of Cameroon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No longer used, does not offer anything that the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} ot {{Geobox}} cannot do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete not transcluded, redundant. --Qyd (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Mongolian Province

Template:Infobox Mongolian Province (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No longer used, does not offer anything that the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} ot {{Geobox}} cannot do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete not used, redundant. --Qyd (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Dominican municipality

Template:Infobox Dominican municipality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No longer used, does not offer anything that the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} ot {{Geobox}} cannot do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete not used, redundant. --Qyd (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Detroit Tigers shortstops

Template:Detroit Tigers shortstops (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I can see the value of it, but at the same time I think this is overtemplating. If one were to keep making templates like this articles would start having 10-15 of them. Should be listified then deleted rather than being in a template. Wizardman 15:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that I don't really have an opinion on whether to keep or delete this myself at this point, looking at the rationales. Just opening discussion. Wizardman 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I can understand the concern about overuse of templates. I, too, would not want to see a single player having 10-15 template, as that becomes distracting. However, I think that's a question of when to deploy a tool, rather than when to have the tool available. There have been many great or popular shortstops in Detroit history, and many of those guys don't have a lot of templatss applied. For guys like Alan Trammell, Donie Bush, Billy Rogell, Ed Brinkman, and Tom Veryzer, I think use of the tool is very helpful and not distractin. I note, too, that this particular template has been quite popular. According to the "groks" page view counter, it has received 250 views since December, 2007. And several editors have been working to keep it current. In the end, I think the way to deal with the problem is to be judicious about where such a template is applied to avoid the 10-15 template problem, but not to throw the template out with the bathwater. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep – I echo Cbl62's comments above. If there were templates for every baseball position, then I would agree with deletion. However, there is only this template and the {{Detroit Tigers second basemen}} template. I'm not sure the original reason for why these two positions were chosen to make templates from, but I can imagine it was partly due to the Alan Trammell/Lou Whitaker connection (sharing the field from 1978–1991), along with the fairly-long tenures of the players over the years at the two positions. – X96lee15 (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Embedded list. The "Related topics (navigational lists)" section says: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article.. I don't think these kinds of navigational boxes are useful for the reader, as these players are not all part of a series, or subpages of a Detroit Tigers shortstops article, for example. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WP:gaming the system

Template:WP:gaming the system (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused template that might be for WP:GAME, but seems unfinished. — Thetrick (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no conceivable use.  Sandstein  21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Female bio

Template:Female bio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be an article in the wrong namespace. Brianga (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Basically an article in template namespace. Very odd. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Move to article space and AfD from there, if required. Being in the wrong namespace is not, by itself, a reason for deletion.  Sandstein  21:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, the content is also in article form at Bianca Gascoigne. Brianga (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  In that case, delete as misplaced content fork.  Sandstein  19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Close and move to article namespace and yes, AfD it. — _Maggot^Syn 05:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. — _Maggot^Syn 01:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - obviously a screw up. --Qyd (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] June 7

[edit] Template:Index only

Template:Index only (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Another cryptic template, with no apparent use and no pages linked to it. It's been around almost as long as the one below; but, with a few edits in the interim. Neier (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - The title and lead would tell what the article is about, making this template unnecessary and somewhat redundant. If there were some confusion about the list, we could type it ourselves as very few people would be confused after reading the lead, making this template useless. DA PIE EATER (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:People by name Z

Template:People by name Z (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused, and contains nothing but red-links to other templates. Somehow, this has survived for almost four years... — Neier (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as unused. I can't find other people by name X templates.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Trollshere

Template:Trollshere (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Near-identical to Template:TrollWarning, which was deleted after TfD. The template is transcluded on 7 pages total, 3 of which are talk archives. dorftrottel (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I thought it was a humorous way to stop the trolls.Tourskin (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sure you created the template in good faith, but other people (me included) see the problem that trying to be 'funny' actually encourages trolls. Moreover, it encourages ABF in regular users; and calling someone a troll, as opposed to matter-of-factly stating that some is trolling is never useful, and it's a personal attack. We're an open encyclopedia project, and unless someone is evidently trolling, we should welcome their input. If and when someone is trolling, it's self-evident and other should then be encouraged to deny recognition. Very simple and straightforward. This template can only lead to more heat, never to more light. dorftrottel (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per Dorftrottel's comment. Could cause undesirable results, and may in fact end up actually feeding the trolls. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 10:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• This would require modification to comply with the guidelines on talk-namespace templates; putting big, red-font templates at the top of Talk: pages does not seem like a good idea to me... (as Dorftrottel said, it may have the opposite effect). Oh, anf delete. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 11:35, June 8, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not that helpful in identifying problems. Maybe userfy? MBisanz ^talk 08:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Longtitle

Template:Longtitle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The problem is not so much that there is a technical restriction than the fact that extremely long article titles would violate a style guide. I suggest we delete this template to avoid bothering the reader with notices about our style guidelines. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Moderate delete I agree that we should keep Wikipedia's workings and the encyclopedia itself apart as much as we can, and so having things like that doesn't improve or add to the articles at all. Maybe if it were placed on talk pages it wouldn't be so bad, but as it is, it isn't terribly usefull. It's only used on a couple mainspace pages, so deleting it wouldn't have a large effect on anything. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep makes sense on a page like Clerks: The Animated Series episode five (which might need to be merged for unrelated reasons). -- Ned Scott 05:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if we could put the 4-line title in the heading, the question is, would we really want to? It would look terrible. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Take my example, most of the other episode articles (while having long titles) don't have one nearly as long as it could have been if they had used the original episode title. It might seem strange, but a reader might wonder why we didn't use the original title for consistency. I don't really see this as encouraging the use of long titles, but rather explaining to the reader why one wasn't used, even if it made sense (as rare as it might be). That being said, I don't feel strongly about this, and it really won't bother me if the template was deleted. I can see the use for it, but I can also see your point. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • To clarify though, the reason isn't that there is a technical restriction, the reason is that it would look terrible. We don't have to explain to the reader that a four-line title would look terrible; it's rather obvious, and we don't have hatnotes like this for two- and three-line titles that would be technically permitted but aren't used for the same reason. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
        • A good point. Consider me neutral while I ponder this. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)--Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Remember the dot made a very good point. This template is not needed. --Kildor (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Il lupo e l'agnello (Aidone)

Template:Il lupo e l'agnello (Aidone) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be a story in some Italianate language (not Italian, Latin, or Corsican, as far as I can tell). Unused, and I've no idea what it would be used for. I'd have asked the creator of it, and given him notice that this was here, but his user page makes it clear that he's stopped editing WP. Any clues, anyone? If not, deletion is the only real answer, I'd think. — Grutness...wha? 02:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless it can be established that it has a specific use. I take it that this template has something to do with the town Aidone, but its not being used there. Also, do we usually keep things like this that are not in english? — _Maggot^Syn 10:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • FWIW, at a guess it looks like "The wolf and the needle", and seems to be telling some kind of folk tale. I suspect that there may be some clue in another deletion listed on the creator's user talk page. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• The pleasure of figuring out the story behind this does not justify any kind of keep, so delete as wrong namespace+wrong language. BTW: Is it Sicilian language maybe? The wolf and the lamb? --Qyd (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Lamb makes nore sense than needle, and ties back in to the user's talk page discussion. And you're right, of course, it makes no difference as far as deleting the template is concerned. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• It was being used in Gallo-siculo, as were several other templates with other Gallo-siculo dialects, see this diff before the user left. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 6 - discussion of Lupus et Agnus is relevant; one of the intended template series was accidentally created in main space and deleted for being purely in Latin rather than English, and also available at the Latin Wikisource [1]. I'm closing the DRV as gently as I can. GRBerry 15:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 6

[edit] Template:Nodb

Template:Nodb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The {{underconstruction}} and {{hangon}} tags is perceived to be the way to tell an admin to "wait". This is redundant to both of those. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - besides Peter's points, the wording on a template that a reviewing admin should contact the article creator before deleting implies a policy or guidelines that doesn't exist. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I understand the sentimet, but this doesn't fit with our deletion policy Fritzpoll (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm a bit torn on this. Often times, the construction tag and hangon tag are routinely ignored. This seems, on the surface, to be a way to say "Stop, let me finish!" in a new way. I won't explicitly "support" this new template, but I wont' explicitly reject it either, as I feel it is a good faith attempt at finding a new way to stop the epidemic of tagging 1-minute-old aritcles for speedy deletion, before they even have a chance to breathe. All that to say, a "deleting admin", or a "new page patroller" really should be attempting to contact the article creator. As far as policy, I don't think there is one, and believe me, I've deleted the obvious without warning or talkpage myself. I would say though that this template could be a good way, if revised a bit, to avoid WP:BITE (I know it isn't a policy, but still, it's a good idea...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with what you're saying, Keep, and certainly I've seen a fair few bitey tags over the past weeks. Not sure this template helps though - most of the tagged articles are by new authors who don't even use {{underconstruction}} - in which case, how will they know to use this tag? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Disregarding the discussion here, why hasn't the creator of this template, or the template itself, been notified of this discussion? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he has - there's a TfD notice on his talkpage from PeterSYmonds Fritzpoll (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete duplicates {{hangon}}... an admin should basically treat {{hangon}} like this tag in most cases. This tag discourages the useful discussion of the hangon tag (i.e. explaining how the improvements will be made rather than just making empty promises) --Rividian (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - only established users who know about the speedy delete criteria, know they can create draft articles in userspace, know about the "show preview" function and know about the {{underconstruction}} template are going to know about this template which would seem to make it unnecessary. Guest9999 (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears redundant to underconstruct and hangon. — _Maggot^Syn 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Universities in Canada

Template:Universities in Canada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Provincial templates for Universities already exist. A national one is not required, and is extremely large. Delete — GreenJoe 17:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Similar templates exist for other countries (such as the UK and Ireland) with templates for its subdivisions (e.g. Template:Scottish Universities, England, Wales). The UK template is even larger (see Template:Universities in the United Kingdom) than the template for Canada. If this template is deleted then so must all templates like it. Tolivero (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not a reason to create it. See WP:WAX. GreenJoe 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep I think this template is very useful and informative. I recommend keeping it. It is smaller than other templates of lists of universities and as stated by the creator other countries have national lists. Bmpower (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This is a great templete, it is very informative and is not "extremely large". In fact, I think that each of the Provincial templates for Universities should be deleted. Why have 10 separate templates when all the information is neatly and concisely displayed in this one. 82.41.24.85 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC) — 82.41.24.85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep, I don't see an issue with retaining a national master category. Not everyone cares about looking them up/associating between them based on Canadian provinces. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A template is not a "master category". Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A template for national universities is useful in Canada because we don't have too many here. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Considerably preferable to province-specific templates. Risker (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Further Comment It's really poor wiki form to remove all transclusions of a template while it's under discussion. Please refrain from doing that again. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm unclear on why this is necessary; no article on Wikipedia will ever need to have both this and a provincial template on it simultaneously. And the ones in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland don't need country-specific and UK-universal templates at the same time, either. It's pure WP:TCREEP. Delete as unnecessary duplication of existing template schemata. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Then why don't we get rid of the provincial ones then? This one is much more useful and can replace all the provincial ones. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • How is it more useful? Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, for one thing, the provincial ones were silly on the lists of universities by province, since they essentially repeated the content of the list. Some provinces/territories have only a few post secondary institutions, all of which would likely be referred to in the article, so there was little to be added by including a province/territory-specific template. Risker (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. This is a useful template. I say keep it and delete the provincial University templates. Dbalderzak (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the provincial templates are as large as I would go, beyond that the templates become large and the similarities between the schools, that you are trying to capture by grouping them, become less. I'm assuming, for instance, that a school in British Columbia may have more in common with one in Washington to the south, than with one in Quebec within the same country. Reasoning that the national template should be kept because the provincial ones don't look good on list pages does not make sense to me because there is no compulsion for there to be a template on any page.

(As a side note, I would consider the United Kingdom a deletion candidate, but not necessarily the Scottish one for the same reasons) Hippo (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As a reply, a University in BC would have much more in common with one in Quebec than one in Washington. This is due to the public education system in Canada. DigitalC (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, I probably shouldn't have introduced comparisions with the U.S., what I really meant was in a geographically vast country such as Canada is there a sufficient connection between the schools to capture in a template, or is a just a grouping on a country for that reason alone. People mentioned Scottish universities and they are distinct compared to English ones because degrees make four years to obtain in instead of three. Hence, the UK template is also limited in usefulness That's the sort of reasoning I'd like to see. The provinces should be fine because you would expect them to interact because of they proximity (though that may be an over simplification for Canada). Hippo (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep with modification: The template should be modified so that different provinces can be hidden, and as such won't be as large. Otherwise, it is a perfectly valid template. DigitalC (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a preference necessarily, but isn't that skirting the issue. With autocollapsing boxes you can just put all of them on the page if you really want to and get the same effect. Hippo (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DigitalC (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Non-free official document

Template:Non-free official document (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Another "possibly non-free" image copyright tag (see also #Template:Non-free diagnostic below). Seems to be mostly used for a dozen old passport covers, most of which are asserted to be in the public domain. It might make sense to turn this into a non-copyright restriction tag similar to Template:Trademark or Commons:Template:Personality rights, essentially just retaining the current paragraph about "Additional legal restrictions outside of copyright law", but I'd like some more opinions on this. At least it shouldn't be kept as is, since currently bots are tagging any images marked with it for deletion due to a missing non-free use rationale. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Change to restriction tag. He obviously copied it from the Currency template, noting it says "In these cases, their use on Wikipedia is contended to be fair use when they are used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself" (emphasis my own). ViperSnake151 17:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm confused by its purpose. Maybe something like Commons:Template:Personality rights could work, but the wording would need to be much clearer and very different to this. Hippo (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Mexico City Borough

Template:Infobox Mexico City Borough (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused, does not do anything the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} or {{Geobox}} cannot do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Ptcamn (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Metropolitan Area of Mexico

Template:Infobox Metropolitan Area of Mexico (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused, does not do anything the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} or {{Geobox}} cannot do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Euromarks

Template:Euromarks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not a useful navbox. Europe has tens of thousands of notable landmarks, and more than 100 World Heritage sites. Even if bloated to the point of ridiculousness, the selection in this navbox will always be arbitrary and indiscriminate. Also, Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. For a useful navbox of landmarks, compare Template:World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom.  Sandstein  16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, for all the reasons given by nominator: far too broad scope means inclusion in this template will always be arbitrary and POV. Terraxos (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. By the definition in landmark, this template could list half the buildings in Europe. Hippo (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The definition of the template is probably the modern definiton, this. -Sneaky Oviraptor18 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)— Sneaky Oviraptor18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not aware of the definition of landmark ever changing, and you just linked back to the same article. Anyway, from Wiktionary:\

1. a recognizable natural or man-made feature used for navigation
   • Anyone have any weird landmarks they often remember seeing along roads in the olden days? — [2]
2. a notable building or place with historical, cultural, or geographical significance
   • Putting together a list of landmarks for Bangalore was not the easiest task." — [3]
3. a major or important item, denoting a change of direction or marking a beginning or an end
   • He called the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and the recent elections in Afghanistan landmark events in the history of liberty. — [4]

Beyond construction in the last few decades, I imagine it would be hard to a part of Europe that doesn't have historical, cultural, or geographical significance to some person or party. Hippo (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Non-free diagnostic

Template:Non-free diagnostic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A "non-free image copyright tag" only used on two images (Image:C5-C6-herniation.jpg and Image:LumbarDiscHerniation.jpg), neither of which is actually claimed to be non-free. The designation of this template as a non-free image copyright tag may be in error (it was originally created simply as Template:Diagnostic), but even if this is corrected, the general purpose of this template still seems questionable to me. For background, this template was created in July 2007 by Sfan00 IMG, and seems to be related to this discussion (see user contribs). I'd like to nominate this template in order to seek consensus as to whether it makes sense to retain it and, if so, how it should be properly phrased and categorized. At least it shouldn't be kept as is, since currently bots are tagging any images marked with it for deletion due to a missing non-free use rationale. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete To narrowly defined for the non-free criteria. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. per nom, and I wonder if there aren't more issues than just copyright when considering potentially sensitive subjects such as medical images. Hippo (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Selected Article/Image/List templates

Template:Indian selected article

Template:Indian selected picture

Template:PGoISA

Template:PGoISL

Templates use a star-shaped image that mimics the bronze star symbolising featured content. An earlier version of these templates was deleted in March 2006, and the topic was also discussed at Portal talk:India/Selected articles here, where it was agreed not to be appropriate. The star in this template and the FA star are difficult to distinguish when used on pages due to size and similarity of colouring. Risker (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Change 1st one like other three plus change icon I think only the first one is objectionable as it puts a small star on top-right corner and this star can be easily confused with FA star. My proposal is to change the 1st one like any of the other three. Basically, these templates look fine on talk pages. And there are many more like them under Category:Article_talk_header_templates. GDibyendu (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  Completely removing these templates does not sound reasonable. Particularly, when other portals are using such templates on talk pages of non-featured articles. Check Talk:Jack the Ripper, it shows that it was a "showcase article" for London Portal (this portal maintains its own DYKs also it seems, though I didn't check deeply). And this article was never FA, not even GA. I think for India Portal, we should change the icon also to avoid confusion, it should not be a star. GDibyendu (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Delete Agreed as per User:Thunderboltz's comment below. GDibyendu (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete them all, there was a previous delete discussion, talk page consensus not to use them, and they aren't in widespread use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  In that case, delete all under Category:Article_talk_header_templates. GDibyendu (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete – The only two community-endorsed content-reviewing processes currently in existence are the Featured Content group and the Good Articles process, and a much-publicised poll on the usage of icons to indicate the latter status has resulted in the rejection of the proposal due to a lack of consensus. I imagine that opposition would be considerably greater against a process which is limited by the bounds of a single WikiProject, especially considering the similarity of the icon with that of featured content. This icon not only can easily confuse most of the users of this encyclopaedia into thinking of any page transcluding it as having featured content, but through this confusion it has the potential of negatively affecting public perception of the featured-content high standards, something hurtful to one of the most important institutions of Wikipedia and therefore undoubtedly unacceptable. Waltham, The Duke of 06:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as extremely misleading, and per previous deletion discussion. This particular template was deleted as a fork in March 2006. Kafka Liz (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I personally believe we either delete all stars or icons on pages or none. There is absolutely no reason I can think of why a wiki should privilege certain forms of selection over others. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Featured articles are selected through a process endorsed by the community, and many editors participate in the selection; a significant percentage of the candidates fail and the rest are rightly deemed the very best that the encyclopaedia could offer to our readers. Why should we not distinguish these? It makes little sense to me to compare this process to a selection by a WikiProject, which severely limits both the article topics and the range of reviewers. Waltham, The Duke of 09:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • *Shrug* There are enough objections to the FA process and criteria for me to think that monopolies aren't the way to go - even if such monopolies on opinion were the wiki-way. Frankly, I look forward to a time when selection and review are carried out by different criteria, some general, some specific to article area, some focusing on style and others on content and sourcing, and the reader is given the choice of knowing which. This seems like a reasonable step in that direction. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

*Replace Image and Move : I suggest replacing the image with another one and moving the templates to the article talk pages -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 08:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I Agree to thunderboltz. The parameter portal=yes is good enough . I propose to delete the First 2 templates . What about the last 2 ? They point to another portal right ? -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 16:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Replace Image and move to Talk page: As long as this is on the Talk pages and not on the article page, I think we should be ok. Talk:Jack the Ripper is a good case in point. --Madhu (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Delete - As per User:Thunderboltz's comments below. --Madhu (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with that idea, provided that the template is on the talk page only and the image selected didn't resemble any of our current article assessment images; a photographic image such as the one on Talk:Jack the Ripper would be suitable, I think. Risker (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. --Madhu (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete—Agree that they are confusing. Besides, these templates are no longer necessary as {{WP India}} now contains provisions for tagging selected pictures and articles with the portal-picture=yes and portal=yes parameters.--thunderboltz^(TALK) 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be addressed on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics as well. I'm not against moving the template to the talk pages but we need to make sure that there is a reasonable process for selecting articles. I notice one candidate article waiting in the selected article list and that's been there, unlooked at, since 8th April. I'd propose deleting the templates if there is no active selected article process. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into the appropriate Wikiproject's talk page header template ({{WP India}} I presume). Hippo (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Administrative Division 1

Template:Infobox Administrative Division 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No longer used, offers no benefit to the standard {{Geobox}} or {{Infobox Settlement}} templates. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unused, can't see any value. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Jaakobou.
• Delete. per the above. Hippo (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York City subdivision infobox templates

Template:Infobox New York City borough (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Infobox New York City Manhattan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Infobox New York City Queens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Infobox New York City Staten Island (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These look like forgotten orphans. All the appropriate articles use {{Infobox Settlement}} instead. Once deleted, the Category:New York City subdivision infobox templates will be empty and can be deleted too. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unused, no need for them. DigitalC (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. redundant. Hippo (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete These are unused and using the a standard box is better. Raptus Regaliter Cattus Petasatus (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 5

[edit] Template:Image-license

Template:Image-license (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These are from the old license template standardization effort (they were originally subst'd, thus no transclusions). With the advent of {{imbox}}, existing uses have all been replaced and they have been rendered obsolete. - AWeenieMan (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The template wasn't simply for standardization, it also provided machne-readable data about licenses for tools like User:zocky/Picture Popups. If that functionality is duplicated in the new template, then delete, otherwise fix the new template to provide the same information, and then delete. Zocky | picture popups 09:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would drop a note for User:Davidgothberg regarding the machine-readability part, as {{imbox}} is largely his doing. I don't know if he incorporated such things or not. I do know that practically every license template has been updated to use it though. - AWeenieMan (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Image-license-fairuse

Template:Image-license-fairuse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These are from the old license template standardization effort (they were originally subst'd, thus no transclusions). With the advent of {{imbox}}, existing uses have all been replaced and they have been rendered obsolete. - AWeenieMan (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Bbblock

Template:Bbblock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Obsolete template, superseded with standardized user warnings project. The template doesn't even tell someone what they are blocked for or how to request unblock. It is returned here from an extended DRV after parties indicated the prior 10 day TfD was insufficient notice. MBisanz ^talk 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Has been widely used, though hard to track due to it being a template that is designed to be subst'd. I use this template all the time. The user warnings project is not policy, and many styles of templates exist. As for some of the nomination specifics: "The template doesn't even tell someone what they are blocked for", the template clearly says that the block is "for vandalism of Wikipedia.". As for giving the templated person more information, it also contains links to the person placing the message, and the blocking policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean there are no wiki links to what vandalism is at Wikipedia or how long they are blocked for. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just updated the template, it now contains links to what wiki vandalism is, AND the current users's block log. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep We've kept several "non standard" template messages like this in the past (such as the older "test templates"). -- Ned Scott 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• delete We should decrease the number of forks of blocking templates, as they should be as standardized as possible. And what does "bb" stand for? "Bad boy"? if so, then it should be speedy deleted. _→AzaToth 08:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • One might assume it stands for "blackbox block" according to the edit summary of the template creator, and in that it has the image of a black box on it. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Consider for instance that you had been blocked for vandalism and you notice this template. Lets say you want to know more about Black box but you find it rather ambiguous. Is that the impression we want to give when using the template? A blocking template should be concise, to the point and informative. I don't get this when viewing the template. But thats just me. — _Maggot^Syn 14:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. While the name only appears misleading, I don't see a particular use for it when we have other block templates for this specific purpose. I agree we should standardize and there has to be a line in the sand "somewhere" so why not here? — _Maggot^Syn 13:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If an established administrator wants a separate template, he/she can have one. There is no policy that specifies that standardized templating is required, thus there is no reason to do so. There are better things that need doing then worrying about templates like this one. --Dragon695 (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mo icon

Template:Mo icon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I believe this template should be deleted because language templates here should serve a linguistic and not a political purpose. I will not deny that Moldova, as per its constitution, declares that the Moldovan language is official there. However, from a linguistic point of view, that does not make Moldovan a separate language. While it's legitimate for us to have a "Moldovan language" article, it is not, I believe, our duty to accommodate that particular viewpoint by declaring certain documents, written in Romanian, to in fact be in Moldovan. If you don't take my word that the two languages are the same, here are some quotes to back me up (note that Moldovan is now written in the Latin script as well):

• "The notion of 'Moldovan' language exists only politically and bears no more linguistic meaning than the 'Austrian' or 'American' languages". Maximilian Spinner, Civil War and Ethnic Conflict in Post-Soviet Moldova, p.5.
• "The 'Moldovan' language is essentially Romanian, a Romance language, written in the Latin script until the Russians imposed their alphabet after taking over in 1940". Michael E. Brown, The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict, p.113.
• "The Moldovan language is Romanian". James Minahan, Miniature empires, p.276.
• "To underscore the separateness between Romanians and Moldovans the Soviets mandated that the Moldovan language, indistinguishable in its spoken form from Romanian, be written in the Cyrillic alphabet". Bernard A. Cook, Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia, p.296.
• "The 1989 Moldovan language law made Moldovan (Romanian) the state language and restored the Latin alphabet". Alexei Arbatov, Russia and the West: The 21st Century Security Environment, p.133.
• "Linguists in both countries agree that Romanian and Moldovan are essentially the same language". Tanja Schultz, Katrin Kirchhoff, Multilingual Speech Processing, p.7.
  

Again, I see this as a solely linguistic question; since the languages are the same, we should use only one template, while of course recognising in the relevant articles that Moldova calls the language by a different name.— Biruitorul ^Talk 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

*Speedy delete good proposal.--Flueras (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(user blocked as sockpuppet of banned user Bonaparte) Khoikhoi 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment it depends on where it's used. It might be useful if it was only used to identify text written in Cyrillic during the Communist era -- that would definitely serve a linguistic purpose (and it would be informative, e.g. if a document is written both in Cyrillic and in Latin characters then I'd like to know the distinction as to click on the [ro] icon instead of the [mo] icon). However, for text written in Latin characters it's superfluous, as it doesn't bring any information to the reader. --Gutza ^{T T+} 17:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, or documents from Transnistria today. It's a good point you make - but in practice, the template is used only for Latin texts, and is ripe for revert wars and accusations of POV-pushing if we change it to Romanian. Maybe one solution would be to delete this and have a new (Moldovan Cyrillic) template? Biruitorul ^Talk 17:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- there's no way to differentiate between written "Moldovan" and Romanian, this term and template is used only to make a political point. No serious linguist accepts the idea that Moldovan is different than Romanian, however politicians did use the term, but by no means the term is used by everybody in Moldova to name the language they speak. As further proof even Moldovan declaration of independence called the official language "Romanian". AdrianTM (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This template is one of many that follow the format of {{languageicon}}. These templates use the ISO 639 Language codes, and ISO 639 has separate entries for Romanian and Moldavian (sp) languages. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, there is an ISO code, but nobody can tell them apart. How does one decide which icon to use? Given that, what's the logic of choosing one instead of the other, since the reader gathers no information from that choice? This is like trying to label text "NZ" vs. "AU", even assuming they did have ISO codes associated -- how could you tell which is which, and what information is being conveyed to the reader by the choice between the two templates? --Gutza ^TT+ 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  To add to Gutza's point: if you look here, based on the fact that it's called "Moldavian" and written in Cyrillic, it becomes clear that the code refers to the Soviet-era and Transnistrian "language", not that used in Moldova today (which is Latin script). So I wouldn't have a problem if this template, or a (Moldovan Cyrillic) one, were being used for Soviet and Transnistrian documents. What is a problem is that currently, it is being used for Latin script texts. And if I start replacing those usages with (Romanian), I fear the start of more revert-warring, despite this being a technical, not a political issue. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  Since the difference between them is political, I use it to choose the template: If the source explicitly says that it's in Moldovan then I use the mo icon template, otherwise default to ro icon. I understand that the usage of the term "Moldovan" is going to be governmentally enforced in autumn, therefore I believe that the usage of mo icon is justified, because Wikipedia can't tell governments which language name to use - it's usually the other way around. Now, the article Moldovan language, on the other hand, can explain that it's just another name, purely political etc. --Illythr (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  A government can decree that another language exists (as has happened in Moldova), but if the languages are still the same, then it's not incumbent upon us to recognise the "new language" as being separate. I suppose the closest analogy would be Serbo-Croatian, but even there, the differences (perhaps exaggerated) between Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are large enough to warrant an article - something that would not be possible for Moldovan (the Moldovan-Romanian dictionary aside). The point is: historians and linguists - the experts - consider the two to be the same, and while our article on the Moldovan language serves to point out the fact that it has another name in Moldova, I believe, for the reasons outlined above, that documents written in this language, acknowledged by experts to be the same as Romanian, should be labelled as such, particularly given the edit-warring possibilities. However, as I have stated, I would also be willing to use the "Moldovan" label for texts in Cyrillic. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  Illythr, I can understand how you've reached this position, but I have below few thoughts about when it's wrong to use a political criterion on technical things, even if the criterion addresses them. adriatikus | talk 05:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Upon further consideration I tend to agree with Biruitorul -- as it stands, this template is calling for trouble (edit wars and endless debates on whether a particular source is RO or MD). It's easy to imagine a Moldovan author who becomes successful and moves to Romania -- or vice-versa, a successful Romanian author who moves back to his home town in Moldova -- think of the pointless edit warring ("he's not longer writing in Moldovan, since he lives in Romania" -- "nonsense, his style hasn't changed one bit, he's still writing in Moldovan", and so on). --Gutza ^{T T+} 09:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  Hehe, good point. :-) --Illythr (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Saying a website that states is written in Moldovan is written in Romania would be original research, unacceptable for Wikipedia. When the language is not explicitely mentioned, we should use both language icons for Moldovan websites.Xasha (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• This reply is the first one written in Maka-maka language on this web page. Please ask and admin to warn or ban me for not using the English language when posting on WP. Thank you (the end of the Maka-maka language text) adriatikus | talk 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment above, and the one below, show that supporters of deletion have no respect for Wikipedia policies, and all they want is to impose their personal view, even if that means violating WP:OR and WP:FORUM.Xasha (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not about WP. It's about not losing common sense. As about you shifting to general guidelines (that's metadiscourse, my dear, dribbling argumentation) instead of giving a single objective counterargument, I suppose it means you have none. adriatikus | talk 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: There was also an easier way to respond: your two rules are actually one, and it's about articles, not talk pages. But let's keep the subject in focus, don't we? adriatikus | talk 15:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PS2: Oh, if you miss a ban, keep generalizing. adriatikus | talk 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This template appears only in articles, so WP:OR applies. What you're doing here is also discouraged per WP:FORUM (read the "Discussion forum" part) and WP:SOAP.Xasha (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I did. I'm right. BTW, you're only replying to post scriptum. adriatikus | talk 15:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Firstly, we are not talking about the colloquial spoken language, or the local varieties (we have no tags for Texan American English, or British English). So a Mo icon would be linked to the standard Moldovan language. The standard language in the Rep. of Moldova in regulated by the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, which not only calls the language Romanian, but it has addopted the orthographic rules of the standard Romanian language as they were published by the Romanian Academy [5]. This means that there wouldn't be a scientific criterion by which a text to be labeled Mo or Ro. Thus we have a language, called by linguists Romanian, and by the current government of Moldova Moldovan. I understand the right of every state to give what law it pleases, but if I go to Chişinău then it means that "by law" any valid sentence I would pronounce in Bucharest would automatically become spoken in another language. There may be some arguing that there are similar cases when the same thing, like e.g. a place name, is differently named in different languages. How is that thing named in WP? By its internationally recognized name. I think the world has nothing to do with the nightmares of the Moldovan Communists, nor their laws are automatically standards. So we have a thing, named by linguists Romanian language, and known as such by the world. Should we trust Voronin claims [6]? adriatikus | talk 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the only reason that would sustain using Mo icon is the legislation of Moldova, let me propose a thought experiment: let's suppose we're back in time, about 70 years ago. What would be Wikipedia's policy regarding Jews who want to edit Germany related articles, since there was a law given by a democratically elected administration forbidding Jews the right to teach Arian children? There are 3 reasons I'm proposing this thought experiment:

1. law systems are not absolute reference points by themselves; the law has to have a rational judgment supporting it;
2. something absurd enforced (the 'Moldovan language' name seems to be enforced by law from autumn) by a government which is democratically elected automatically has its supporters - what I mean is truth and right judgment aren't matters to vote for;
3. the situation resembles what's happening in Moldova: social/ethnic engineering by trying to "scientifically prove" and "enforce by law" a thesis that fits the rulers;

adriatikus | talk 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think what I say is not NPOV, then read this page from the Jamestown Foundation about the policies launched in 2001: "PCM [Party of Moldovan Communists] relaunches the Soviet experiment", "Russification and Soviet language policies". No wonder they fit the above example, coincidentia oppositorum after all. adriatikus | talk 04:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted

Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Outside the scope of wikipedia, more than 10 articles are using it. _→AzaToth 14:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_13#Template:Infobox_FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted - Previous discussion have already said Keep and I affirm this. This is a spam TFD. As far as the number of articles, it just a matter of cataloging all the criminals that ever been on the list. Azatoth should take the initiative of doing this if there is too little "inclusion" and it says "Top Ten". There are only usually 10 people on the list and the template gets replaced once they are removed. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Very, very useful template, which really can't be replaced. Reverend X (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Needsinfobox

Template:Needsinfobox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I created this back in 2004(!) for use in WikiProject Albums; it's now superseded by a parameter in the {{album}} template. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Needsinfobox shows only project and talk pages linked to it. — Catherine\^talk 10:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Comment: When using the needs-infobox parameter in {{WPBeatles}}, {{Needsinfobox}} is added under the banner instead of using one-line {{WPBannerMeta}} version. Sole example I could find is Talk:Sgt. Pepper Knew My Father. Not sure how to fix that. I've suggested a conversion at Template talk:WPBeatles. --Geniac (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PeterSymonds (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ongoing Custom Aircraft

Template:Ongoing Custom Aircraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This orphaned template, as far as I can tell only has had one article that it was placed on. The information it might convey is better stated in the lede and body of the article, hence the template is superfluous. Probably better suited as a category, not as a temporal template that takes up prime space at the top of an article. — Yellowdesk (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - seems unnecessarily specific for a template, and doesn't convey any useful information that couldn't be presented in the lede. Terraxos (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Current football season

Template:Current football season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template substantially duplicates the fuctionality of {{current sport}} and {{current sport-related}}. Another example of needless temporal template proliferation. In the last month or two, a number of other templates that copied the functionality of {{current sport}} have been reveiwed and deleted:

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_19#Template:Current tennis tournament

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_21#Template:Current sport delay

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_21#Template:Current PW

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_29#Template:current motor sport

— Yellowdesk (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This template was created because the {{current sport}} and {{current sport-related}} feature a soccer ball and clock icon which have nothing to do with American football. There's really nothing wrong with having different templates based on different sports.

• I note that a changed graphic does not change the fuctionality of the template and its relationship with the source it was copied from, and {{current sport}} allows the editor to specify the logo, hence my assessement that this is a redundant template. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This template is redundant. If the icon of the current sport template is a problem, take it to its discussion page. --Kildor (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Logos are part of the function; that's why we include them. Do not confuse the reader by suggesting he's at the wrong article. Merger, with a logo index would be useful, but it should not be a precondition. (Renaming to American football would be harmless.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is an argument for proliferation despite same fuctionality. An argument used as well for the former template "current motor sport" -- "logo doesn't work for this sport." I suggest the argument is unpersuasive, and note that {{current sport}} permits logo substitution by the editor. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 4

[edit] Template:Anonymous and the Internet

Template:Anonymous and the Internet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Navigation template made up of very loosely related topics. Most of it is already linked in Anonymous (group), and the topics it links to don't necessarily have to be linked back. — Wafulz (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful navigational template across relevant and correlated topics. Cirt (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up. For example, "raiding targets" is unencyclopedic. Shii (tock) 22:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but improve, as Shii noted, raiding targets and the categories in general don't seem very encyclopdic, but with improvement, I believe this could prove quite useful to people who wish to navigate topics related to anonymous. Broooooooce (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unless it becomes encyclopedic. DigitalC (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC). [Significant changes have been made to the template] DigitalC (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Cute. An inferior Wikipedia compilation of a few ED templates. At least the meme section has already been taken out, prior to which this template held the honor of being the only template on any wiki to link to both Scientology and a man's gaping anus. Seriously though, this template has little navigational value because the Anonymous movement is of transitory interest to the *chans/ED and the notable real-life raids were coordinated on sites like enturbulation.org, which aren't even included. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment as creator. The template was intended to link Encyclopedia Dramatica to the rest of websites where users identify themselves as members of "Anonymous".

1. The unappropiate links were already removed by other users.
2. Looking at Wikipedia:Navigational_templates, "Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" I think that the answer is "yes".
3. Anyone saying that Anonymous is a passing fad among *chans/ED should provide a source for that :D
4. The inconsistencies can be mended by normal editing, examples:

• some of the linked articles lack references to Anonymous: griefer needs to have a reference to this Wired article, to link it to the website articles
• Vigilante refers to Anonymous, but Internet vigilantism doesn't, see cnet news blog for link between the topics
• the information on how the topics are related exists, but it's spread over the articles linked on the template, instead of being all explained at Anonymous (group)
• lack of a link to enturbulation.org is an editorial problem, not a deletion reason WP:SOFIXIT
• the linked articles should link to Anonymous article, see reasons above
• after the memes' removal, it's not challenged that all links are now relevant to the topic linking them

--Enric Naval (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• ""Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" I think that the answer is "yes"." I'm unconvinced that someone reading Scientology would want to go read Second Life, for example. DigitalC (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Heh, only that those two articles don't use this template. Indeed, none of "raiding targets" links are supposed to use it on their articles (basically, they would be removed for "undue weight" reasons or something). --Enric Naval (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly which articles is this template designed for? I don't see how a few links in the relevant "see also" sections can't render this template obsolete. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's for articles where Anonymous has played a relevant role. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, the purpose of all nav templates is improving navigation by replacing long lists on the "see also" section and other places, as stated on their guideline page. (removed a few arguments I had made, since they were all already clearly stated on the guideline page) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• From the guideline to layout: Links in a "see also" section should be integrated into the article. This seems like arbitrarily highlighting topics.-Wafulz (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• "should be worked into the text where possible, and usually removed from the See also list unless that would make them hard to find." Also, the nav template helps to remove links from that area, and makes the links relevant to the template's topic easier to find, and this specific template is collapsed by default to avoid highlighting the links. If you think that a specific link inside the template is arbitrarily chosen, or that the template is displayed on an arbitrarily chosen page, then fix it. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• (unindent). Okay, let's take a look at the links here and see how many of them would be hard to find:

• Reunion places: These could all go in "composition." Some are already there.
• Organized operations: Project Chanology is in the lead, and they have only had one organized operation, so this seems completely pointless.
• Raiding targets: eBaum's isn't mentioned as a raiding target in the article. Epilepsy forums has its own section. Habbo is mentioned once. Scientology is in the lead. Second Life isn't mentioned in the article.

• Some of the links are in an existing "see also" section. If it were up to me I'd nuke the template and just have a "see also" composed of the minor links at the bottom of the template.-Wafulz (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep- with some modification. The Myotis (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Cirt. Z00r (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I wouldn't have much of a problem with this template if it was for use solely on Anonymous (group), but I don't feel it's particularly appropriate to add it to many of the articles it links - for example, on Facebook. (The fact that Anonymous makes use of Facebook is a notable feature of Anonymous, but not of Facebook.) I don't think most of these articles need to be linked to one another; and most of them are linked from the Anonymous article already. Essentially, this seems like a template which links together various loosely-related articles by one not-particularly-significant association, and so is probably not needed. Terraxos (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• they were added a day or two ago. Let's see if this moving to a different section helps. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• DeleteThe user who created this template is really spamming pages with it.Killhammer (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - rename it - there is nothing like "Anonymous and the internet", because there is no Anonymous outside of internet, so name of this template doesn't make much sense --89.24.32.73 (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No. Shut up. The template is essential regarding information on 4chan and Anonymous, and is perfect the way it is (perhaps with some further additions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.69.112 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As pointed out above, the template is a random collection of loosely assorted topics. Q ^{T C} 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete What the above poster said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.252.223 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a social networking site and this template is therefore completely inappropriate. The selected categories are advertisements for websites to attack (or that have been attacked) and where to find information on which websites to attack. Beyond that there is no real cohesion within the template itself about what this topic is. On that token, it makes many presuppositions about the subject of Anonymous which may qualify as original research or synthesis. The "We Are Legion" logo is equally inappropriate as it takes the appearance of an advertisement. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that the "We are Legion" thing was inappropriate and so I removed it. Cirt (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Places to make publicity and calls for action" appears, on its face, to violate WP:NOT#HOWTO. In consideration of the controversy surrounding these issues and to maintain our objectivity, that too should probably be removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nevermind, all four of the subtopics are egregious violations of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#HOWTO, so the whole thing should just be deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• [7] I reformatted a bit more and fixed up/removed some more inappropriate wording. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• How are YouTube, Something Awful, Facebook, etc related to Anonymous given that these are not image boards or wikis dedicated to image boards? Trying to tangentially relate all of these articles together by saying that "these were once employed in some medium by a group of people to deliver a message" isn't a good enough reason to group them together. This just isn't a very well developed set of topics or interests concerning Anonymous and this template isn't functionally useful as a navigation tool. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I did not create the template, those items were all already there. I just rearranged it so that it would not have "egregious violations of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#HOWTO". Now it has subject headings which are a lot simpler and more workable. Cirt (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I just found it useful. 74.7.31.106 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is really better termed as a "4chan related" template, that's what the links in it indicate anyway Weygander (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's getting there, but more cleanup is needed if you want this to pass CfD. Definitely needs /b/lackup --Dragon695 (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As pointed out above, the template is a random collection of loosely assorted topics. I also take issue with how it vaguely implies that the linked articles are related, perhaps strongly so, while in fact the different linked articles might actually relate to quite different communities of ‘anonymouses’. Essentially this template is just another incarnation of the ‘Anonymous is one person’ meme and I doubt its usefulness on Wikipedia. Shinobu (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PD-Mexico-NIP

Template:PD-Mexico-NIP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is only transcluded on two images, and is deprecated. It should be subst'ed and deleted or replaced with {{pd-because}}. Also, as a note, if an administrator would like to place a deletion notice on the page, it would be appreciated (it is, inexplicably, protected). The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ Also properly tagged. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Japan Automotive Industry

[edit] Template:Spam1MrB

Template:Spam1MrB (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused personal spam template not part of current warning scheme. MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If it really is no longer used then delete, but this template should be substituted. Agathoclea (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a one-off personalized version of other templates, and the person who created it for their own use is no longer active. MBisanz ^talk 22:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ordomag subtemplates

Template:Ordomag/+ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Ordomag/0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These were once protected as high risk templates. They are no longer high risk. They are redundant.

The risk had come through the transclusions of {{ordomag/+}} on

• Template:Ordomag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Ft to m/Rs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Ft to m/Rm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Ft2 to m2/s (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Ft2 to m2/m (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Ft2 to m2/s2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Ft2 to m2/m2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Ft to m/1s (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Ft to m/1m‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Ft to m/2s (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Ft to m/3s‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Ft to m/2m (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Ft to m/3m‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

and thence on {{convert}}, {{ft to m}}, {{ft2 to m2}}, {{bbl to t}}, etc., and then on to hundreds maybe thousands of pages. {{Ordomag}} has recently been updated and the subtemplates of {{ft to m}} and {{ft2 to m2}} which had been transcluding {{ordomag/+}} directly have been switched over to the new version of {{ordomag}}. This eliminated the need for the entire array of {{ordomag}}'s subtemplates as noted on template talk:ordomag#Improved version.

I've moved the subtemplates to preserve history. I moved the old codes back just in case but clicking on What links here varifies that there are no remaining transclusions of these subtmplates. Though they could probably go under CSD G7, I'm putting them up for deletion here just to be sure since they were once considered high risk and so the deleting admin can varify that they are now zero risk. JIMp _talk·cont 05:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Newvoterip

Template:Newvoterip (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bitey template that disenfranchises new users from actively contributing and creates a hierarchy between new and established users. MBisanz ^talk 05:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --DA PIE EATER (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Seems to go against forming a consensus, and listening to arguments rather than counting (or not counting) votes as well. DigitalC (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and prior consensus at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_8#Template:Newvoter. Sadly, this template is accurate, but would work better as a modified welcome message. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While it is true that it might be a little harsh, it does speak the truth. I can see it being particularly useful for actual votes that have suffrage requirements. --Dragon695 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Possibly-unfree-mural

Template:Possibly-unfree-mural (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Highly specific PUI that is already covered by existing PUI templates. Not currently in use in image tagging system. Redundant to generic tags. MBisanz ^talk 05:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Gal to l

Template:Gal to l (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template doesn't work since it tries to call a non-existant subpage. It isn't worth fixing since {{convert}} will do the job. It has only one transclusion & that's on user talk archive. JIMp _talk·cont 02:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unused, and redundant to an existing template. Terraxos (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 3

[edit] Template:Foreignchar

Template:Foreignchar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Foreignchars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Restored and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 2#Template:Foreignchar. Previous TfDs: TFD1, TfD2. Happy‑melon 09:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Without the template, there is more likely that some editors will move artices. By making accented characters, ligatures and the like more palatable to those who would normally run screaming from them, we increase accuracy, increase the knowledge and increase the degree of respect. I find it odd that your stated intentions are so completely at odds with your voting. The alternative orthographies are taken from the languages' own methods for dealing with limiting situations (for use in URLs etc.) (Plaguarised from User:Stemonitis in Tfd1) As Boson said after the previous discussion, adding something like "also known as" is not appropriate, as it is often not true; the use of "transliterations" is often just a keyboard convention not used in print, which is the reason the use of a hatnote was favored. Agathoclea (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  I'd like to add that it is now possible to blank the view of the template by using css. Agathoclea (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Well, either it has a known transliteration, in which case "also known as" is quite apropriate. Or it has no common transliteration, in which case there is no need to add it to the very top position of the article. As someone said in a previous discussion: The use of {{foreignchar}} in a hatnote gives unwarranted prominence to a minor point. --Kildor (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As I see it, use of the hatnote was a tacit compromise that avoided move wars and long discussions on the use of certain German characters. The standard template, usually used in a hatnote, has a similar function to other redirect and disambiguation templates in that it provides information about the article name and also provides assistance on using the encyclopaedia. It provides a standardized link to the character concerned and it provides a (not easily achieved) consensus description of the usage of the convention, viz. The title of this article contains the character <character>. Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as <name>. This is not the same as saying that the subject is "also known as" or that the representation is validly used in any language except when the character is unavailable (or similar). The actual situation may be slightly different for different examples, but the consensus description seems to fit many different cases that should otherwise be described in the relevant article without the benefit of a single discussion on the different possibilities. Take as an example the German town of "Fürth". It contains the valid Latin-1 character "ü". The only correct name in print (in German and English) is "Fürth". It is never correctly known as "Fuerth" (or, at least, to claim that it were would be eminently POV). However, there is a convention that search engines will find "Fürth", when looking for "Fuerth", it may be used when typing with an English keyboard, etc. There are several smaller towns called "Fürth" which are referred to by a disambiguation hatnote. There are also towns called "Furth" (no diacritic). An American user not knowing how to type "ü" and not aware of the "ue" typing convention, or not noticing the diacritic might type "Furth" when looking for "Fürth". He or she would then arrive at a disambiguation page that links to the different towns called "Furth" and also points out that the user may be looking for "Fürth". Clicking on the appropriate link will lead to the article on Fürth, which until recently had a hatnote explaining how to avoid the labyrinthine process next time (by typing "Fuerth"). This hatnote has now been removed because the template was deleted. It should be replaced, preferably using the template. We could have a similar (but slightly different) discussion about Düsseldorf, Maß, Gerhard Roßbach, etc. This comment is rather long, but it still simplifies the situation. I would rather not have this sort of discussion on every article containing one of the German Latin-1 characters normally used in English texts about Germany, i.e. ÄÖÜäöüß.--Boson (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. As the issue that this template addresses affects many articles, it is entirely appropriate to address it with a template. I wouldn't go so far as to say that alternate spellings are never appropriate in any language "except when the character is unavailable," especially regarding ß, but that would be a question of how the template should be worded, not whether the template should exist at all. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 01:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Agathoclea. In addition, if anything, this template educates the reader on the important issue of the character they may not be familiar with. Before they decide to complain about being confused. --DerRichter (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as in many cases there is no any standard way to write it without diacritic --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 05:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I was there when this template was made and I always thought it was a nice little compromise. Haukur (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Helps to avoid confusion. --Komischn (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Shouldn't this TfD be closed by now? RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete: Routinely abused by editors who wish to enforce unEnglish spellings on this English Wikipedia. Does more harm than good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WA U.S. Routes and Template:WA Interstate

Template:WA U.S. Routes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:WA Interstate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I don't see the point of this; we already have Category:U.S. Highways in Washington and Category:Interstate Highways in Washington. — NE2 14:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The templates are used for navagation purposes between all of those highways. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 15:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to navigate between two of them (which I really don't see why you would), you can click on the category link. --NE2 15:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CLN. Clearly, having a navbox for a category is fine. No opinion on template. --Izno (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do other states have these templates? (At first glance, the answer appears to be no, but I could be wrong.) I don't much see the use of them, but the same logic that applied to state highway templates (that you could use the browsing in the infobox to navigate) doesn't apply here. -- Kéiryn (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Happy‑melon 09:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

reinstated tfd notices Agathoclea (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep per WP:CLN points 2 & 3 Faster to navigate than a category. Give immediate information to equivalent elements. Also additional information like deleted highways is supplied, which is not visible via a category system. Additional Navboxes are fine when there is a finite number of targets not all of which might have their own article yet. Agathoclea (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So, have we reached a concensus yet? Contact me when we do. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 01:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Former highways are in Category:Former state highways in Washington. --NE2 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm closing this as a "Keep" because there are 2 keep votes (Me and

Agathoclea). — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PD-PCL

Template:PD-PCL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is no longer considered to be a valid license tag on commons. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PCL. Pleases rename as Template:PCL which can be used as a source tag but images tagged only with this template should be considered not to have a license. /Lokal_Profil 10:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Completed discussions

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Holding cell (edit)

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages, by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'.

[edit] Closing discussions

Closing procedures:

• Wikipedia:Deletion process#Templates for Deletion page

Closing in progress:

• None Currently.

[edit] To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals get put here until the conversion is completed.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

[edit] To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

GargoyleBot is a replacement for ^demonBot2, and is available for many large-scale orphaning or replacement projects.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 14

  • Template:Auto HP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (replace with {{convert}})
    • Note: Template:Auto hp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached and have been orphaned can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 26

  • Template:FootnotesSmall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

  Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 14

  • Template:Auto kW (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (replace with {{convert}})

[edit] Archive and Indices