Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/July 2005

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log‎ | Deleted
For an index of all TfD archives, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.

Template:Privileged access edit

Tagged 16 July 2005 by Netoholic. Just listing here, did not see any discussions in the logs for July, if I'm mistaken, please remove. ∞Who?¿? 08:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • del, unused --MarSch 11:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 16 July to 26 August — 41 days
Removed from TFD 4 Sept. — 50 days

Template:LAME edit

We shouldn't advertise our past transgressions. The existence of WP:LAME is more than enough. This will only stir the pot. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wasn't this nominated last week as well? Delete, irrelevant meta-data. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almafeta 12:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People are getting way too enamored with this sort of thing. I like WP:LAME a lot, but I don't want it advertised on every article it lists. (Would consistency require that it be added to the talk page of the Main Page, for example? Say it isn't so. :-) JRM � Talk 12:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another edit war template!? Template:editwar is sufficient. --JB Adder | Talk 01:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inflaming recently-hurt egos by leaving a notice on the disputed page calling their efforts "lame" sounds like poking a beehive with a stick. -- Titoxd 05:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sadly useful. And some users need a clue-by-four to get thier attention. --Calton | Talk 02:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neither amusing nor instructive. -Jmh123 15:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not all edit wars are lame. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    that's sort of the point isn't it? This is to recognize the edit wars that made it into WP:LAMEBorisblue 14:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have a sense of humor! Borisblue 14:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has nothing to do with an encyclop�dia and all to do with the vanity of some individuals. (Have you ever noticed, BTW, that those who insist that a particular edit war is "lame" nevertheless participate in it. Clearly their edits are principled. But everyone else's are lame! lol) Fear�IREANNf\(caint) 21:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I have a sense of humour. But I don't think emblazoning a label across a page suggesting participants - some of whom may've made good-faith efforts to resolve (the) situation - are lamers or should have their actions viewed as pitiful. In my view, it's not 'wikilove', not 'wikiquette' and not called for. Whitehorse1 00:48, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Dihtest edit

Apparently was a test at some time, no longer used. --Tabor 01:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Used on a test for main page. Actual templates used on main can just as well be used for this. del --MarSch 11:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no longer useful or used. -Splash 14:16, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stwarn edit

Essentially the same as {{test3}}. Not transcluded anywhere. --Tabor 00:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • del fork --MarSch 11:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unused fork. -Splash 14:18, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Footer President of Iran edit

It was a specialized version of succession box used for four presidents -- I transferred them all to the typical succession box so this can now be deleted I believe. gren 20:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • del unused --MarSch 16:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if it has been rendered obsolete. -- BD2412 talk 22:32, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Template:Belizepics edit

Unused, nonstandard nav template for a set of images. Images are now in gallery pages at Photographs of the Belize flora and Photographs of the Belize fauna. --Tabor 01:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • del unused --MarSch 11:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unused template. -Splash 14:15, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Potuspov edit

Template no longer applies. "The 2004 U.S. presidential campaign is underway. The race will likely be heated and partisan..." --Tabor 01:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • unusable del --MarSch 11:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete now redundant and anyway no good given the language it uses. -Splash 14:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Template:The Irish Guards history edit

Nav template not used by any artiles. All the links on it redirect to the same article. --Tabor 00:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • del unused --MarSch 11:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not even used on the article to which all the links redirect. -Splash 14:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete serves no purpose jamesgibbon 18:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Redlink edit

template content: "[[{{{1}}}]]". unused. need I say more :( --MarSch 11:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Wipe this pathetic template from the face of the galaxy. - Sikon 12:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - was this just a test or something? I wonder how you would put a template on a redlink article?! -Splash 14:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: BJAODNed it. - Sikon 14:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep After some really long user edit history digging... [1] (near middle of page), you can see User:Eequor created this template for use in Wikipedia:Glossary. It was originally added here Red link one minute after it was created, then later moved to Broken link, as a demonstration of the bugs in templates and "red links". I think it is important to demonstrate this, as she did, and it was certainly not a joke. <>Who?¿? 17:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't get it. It is used to link to the page it is on, so it gets unlinked and bolded. I don't know if that is different from how it worked then (aug 2004), but I have not a clue what bug this demonstrates. --MarSch 18:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The template points to the page its on, so you know that the page exists. Its demonstrating how pointing to a page in existance,that it will still show the link as red. However, after self testing, I think the issue has been fixed. Change vote to Neutral, as I maybe wrong. <>Who?¿? 28 June 2005 04:19 (UTC)

Template:Ongoing edit

A redundant smaller version of Template:Current. As I recall, we decided to get rid of smaller versions of templates before. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Similar miniature templates we got rid of include:
Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a clearly redundant template, per the near-unanimous precedents given above. -Splash 17:43, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; redundant jamesgibbon 18:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{Current}} violet/riga (t) 18:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a template designed as information for the casual Wikipedia user, so the briefer version will only confuse them. BlankVerse ∅ 08:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • del, Has anyone noticed that Template:Current is protected? I remember that another template {{disambig}} was forked which was protected. We need to get rid of these protections. --MarSch 16:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • MarSch, according to the protection log, this template was protected at 23:24, 25 June 2005 because of an edit war [2]. It should be unprotected when the conflict dies down. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 28 June 2005 05:55 (UTC)
      • Some of the more frequently used templates are perma-protected to prevent abuse (and also because editing them would cause a performance hit). This is apparently not one of them, but FYI. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 12:11 (UTC)

Template:Justmerged edit

Institutional creep, anyone? This seems to be made for sloppily/lazily done merges, in which case most people wouldn't be looking for a template anyway, and the types of mistakes it tries to cover are ususally caught by article editors without the template. Delete and go back to going all the way with merges. --InShaneee 20:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unnecessary, since it encourages 'others will do it for me'. That is, to a certain extent, the nature of a (the) Wiki, but it's like sticking L-plates on articles and would deny them credibility until, by some hazy process, it had been determined whether the tag could be removed. -Splash 23:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

 !

delete, redundant with other templates --MarSch 16:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Template:Unix edit

Pointless and unused (nor should it be used). There's no way anything like this could be useful, given that the entirely ambiguous nature of the topic (what is the topic exactly, anyway? :). --Joy [shallot] 18:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and add to the linked articles. Navigational templates of this type are useful. Firebug 08:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A navigation box for Unix commands that is mostly redlinks! Possibly useful for this manual on Unix commands over at WikiBooks if it was more comprehensive, but not here in at en.wikipedia. If the Unix commands are covered at all, it shouldn't be in individual articles, but in a single article titled Unix commands (which is currently a redirect to a more general article on computer commands instead of on Unix commands). BlankVerse ∅ 08:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Actually some of those broken links could be fixed instantly. But, a selection of articles that would be useful and neutral is impossible to make. Cf. Talk:Unix. --Joy [shallot]
  • del what BlankVerse said --MarSch 16:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, kinda pointless and ugly. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2  28 June 2005 05:23 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a general knowlege base, and a template promoting such should be deleted. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 21:25 (UTC)

Template:Stubnotice edit

Don't tell me, I know - I've just come from sfd. This isn't a stub per se, it's a deprecated metatemplate, which the good folks at sfd think should be handled here instead as it is outside their page's scope. It was first suggested for deletion in May on WP:WSS/C, and now I'm suggesting it again here. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • apparently for marking categories as containing stubs. unused del --MarSch 16:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikiacc (talk) 19:28, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no practical use. --Sn0wflake 22:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (or move back to sfd; just joking :) )Lectonar 29 June 2005 13:02 (UTC)
  • Comment: This template was to be put on categories. It would define what the category is about (eg. "this category contains stubs related to foo"). -Frazzydee|✍ 4 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)

Template:swwiki edit

This template was usable when starwars.wikia.com was just opened, but by the moment every worthy SW-related Wikipedia article has already been copied to SWW, so the notice is no longer needed. - Sikon 13:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • If a new star wars related article is created, would this template not be possibly useful on it? DES 15:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: The template is still on quite a few talk pages. Has the info from those articles been copied to the SW Wiki, and then someone forgot to remove the template, or what? BlankVerse ∅ 16:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • used keep --MarSch 16:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I agree with the nomintor's reason, but a list of things that a (non wikimedia) wants to copy should be kept on their wiki, not ours. Delete. --W(t) 16:59, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with Weyes that this template does nothing to help improve Wikipedia. - SimonP 18:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a sisterproject. Radiant_>|< 21:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete template not needed in this project. -Splash 23:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, it helps the Wookieepedia and not Wikipedia, but it is used nonetheless. The creator of the template, WhiteBoy, will have to explain his reasonings for actually creating the template. I guess its not as important now as it once was, and the Wookieepedia is up to 4000 articles now.
  • Delete, the star wars wikicity isn't a sister project. If they'd like to copy an article there, then by all means somebody involved with that wikicity can come on over and copy it, but I don't feel that this template is necessary. -Frazzydee|✍ 4 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Template:Merge2 edit

Redundant with the various {{cleanup}} tags, and potentially confused with the various {{merge}} tags. Created in March 2004, but presently used in only one article. —Lifeisunfair 16:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete redundant. Also unclear what the template means: most articles are in 'separate' sections so this presumably means 'in seperate pages' which is handled ok by the existing merge tags. The one article it's used in doesn't even have a talk page which the template urges the use of. -Splash 17:46, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the wording is highly ambiguous. My initial interpretation was "separate pages" (due to the "merge" terminology), but I now think (though I'm far from certain) that it's suggesting that sections of a single page be merged, presumably referring to articles in which the sections are redundant and/or disorganized (making the template redundant with the various {{cleanup}} tags). —Lifeisunfair 18:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • del unclear template, thus unusable. --MarSch 16:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unclear. Authors, remember to document usage in the Template talk page. (SEWilco 3 July 2005 03:28 (UTC))
  • Keep- seems pretty clear to me. Unless I'm mistaken, it would be used on an article with too many sections. I've seen a few of those while browsing- I just didn't know about this tag. -Frazzydee|✍ 3 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

Template:Fictional SW charcter edit

We already have a template (several, I believe) for Star Wars characters. Not to mention that the anon who created it didn't do it right. Kross June 29, 2005 18:01 (UTC)

  • Delete As currently implemented, this template is so broad that it conveys no useful information. It is not clear how the creator intend it to be used. There is no documentation on its talk page (which does not exist) and the template is not currently in use. DES 29 June 2005 18:47 (UTC)
  • Delete - all SW characters are fictional! Yes, really. -Splash June 29, 2005 19:14 (UTC)
By "fictional," I suspect that the author meant "non-canonical." —Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons cited above. This template is a useless mess. —Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)
  • del, useless template --MarSch 30 June 2005 12:43 (UTC)

Template:WAEduGov edit

  • Image copyright tag created based on a mistaken interpretation of law. The actual extent to which RCW 74.39A.200 places material in the public domain is so limited as to be of no real use to Wikipedia. The only use of this template was erroneous, and its continued existence would most likely just cause similar mistakes to recur. --Michael Snow 29 June 2005 17:22 (UTC)
    • Delete. I agree: it isn't likely that we'll get any material that's covered by that section of the law. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 17:29 (UTC)
  • Delete The law cited by the template covers only training curricula and material, except competency testing material which none of the images currently linked to the template appear to be. Nor are we likely to use much content that falls into that category. DES 29 June 2005 18:44 (UTC)
  • del based on above arguments. --MarSch 30 June 2005 12:42 (UTC)

Template:Genera edit

  • Template from an article on vfd, onlu used in that series of lists.--nixie 28 June 2005 05:50 (UTC)
  • keep, useddel unused --MarSch 28 June 2005 16:33 (UTC)
  • Delete, iff VFD deletes the relevant articles (which by present voting seems likely) Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 07:47 (UTC)

Template:PC edit

Fork of Template:NPOV. --cesarb 30 June 2005 20:38 (UTC)

  • Delete until Political Correctness becomes an official policy or guideline. Joe D (t) 1 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)
  • Delete, and hope that such a day never arrives. —Lifeisunfair 1 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
  • Delete BlankVerse ∅ 1 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)
  • Keep There needs to be a template for political correctness disputes. RJII 1 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)
  • Delete. Political correctness has no place in Wikipedia.--Kross July 1, 2005 02:45 (UTC)
  • Delete, who likes politics anyway? --MarSch 1 July 2005 13:35 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for free speech; all articles should be as unbiased as possible, and removing bias should remove the non-PC parts of any article. Rob Church 2 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)
  • Delete Whitehorse1 | May 24 2024 06:35 (UTC)

Template:WikiHash (directory) edit

Used in one place. In experimental state. --MarSch 30 June 2005 12:36 (UTC)

  • keep The intent of Template:WikiHash (directory) is to provide a comprehesive table of all the Wikiportals and the WikiProjects that maintain them. It is a subset of Wikipedia:Community_hash - a Community directory being constructed by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Community. See the rough draft on WikiProject_Wikiportals project page. Thanks. Quinobi 2 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)
  • Oh no, a template created in the last week is still in an experimental state! Dele— erm, I mean, Keeo. +sj + 4 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)
    • Template space is not a big sandbox. Test edits should be done elsewhere as should works in progress.--MarSch 4 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete. It's not a template—it's a mess. Furthermore, it can never become a proper template. If anything, it might be turned into some documentation oh the WikiPortals in the Wikipedia namespace, but it absolutely should NOT be in the template namespace. BlankVerse ∅ 4 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)
  • Keep for a reasonably sized development period. This was begun on June 28th, and I believe it is entirely reasonable to give users a few weeks to perfect complex templates before deciding "it can never become a proper template". That said, there do need to be some serious reforms if I am going to ultimately support keeping it in template space permanently. Recommend renominating in ~2 weeks. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 07:59 (UTC)
    • This is nonsense. Testing and developing can be done in user space.Templates which are in template space should be usable. And this template is not that. --MarSch 6 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)
      • You are free to feel that way, but I disagree. By your logic, stubs and articles in the earliest stages of development should only exist in user space as well. There is little harm in letting people spend a couple weeks flushing out their ideas, as long as they aren't making a mess of real pages. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 03:21 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stbalbach 7 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)
  • Userfy as a compromise. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 09:28 (UTC)

Template:0/5 0.5/5 1/5 1.5/5 2/5 2.5/5 3/5 3.5/5 4/5 4.5/5 5/5 edit

Thought it would work well... only to find out that templates inside templates don't work... too bad. -- WB June 30, 2005 02:44 (UTC)

  • del Don't test in template space. templates inside templates do work --MarSch 30 June 2005 12:59 (UTC)
    • I really didn't know that. Now I do. -- WB June 30, 2005 20:37 (UTC)
      • FYI, the images are probably copyright violations from Amazon, and are listed on WP:PUI. Rhobite June 30, 2005 20:39 (UTC)
  • I guess I don't see what's wrong with the templates....they show up fine for me. Cburnett July 3, 2005 07:04 (UTC)
    • For me also. At least I see 5 stars filled in or not as the name suggests. --MarSch 5 July 2005 11:42 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - he's the original creator, says they were a mistake, and wants them deleted. -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)

Template:Coolmerge edit

Accurately described by its author as a "clone" of Template:Merge (in one of its alternate states), this evidently was created as a joke of some sort. —Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 02:04 (UTC)

  • I'm not seeing where it is indicated that the template is a joke...could you clarify, Lifeisunfair? I'm also tempted to agree with Uncle Ed's comment—the new template has a pleasing appearance and more gentle wording than the default Template:Merge. I'd hate to lose that nifty little icon, too. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 30 June 2005 02:45 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the template was created as a joke, because it's a flagrantly redundant "clone" of the {{merge}} version that I designed (including the icon) as a compromise between two others that various users favored. (Thanks for the compliments!) MeltBanana and I jointly authored the neutral wording, which I just reintegrated into the standard templates. If you prefer my style, you should express this opinion on the talk page, but we can't have a separate, "cool" version of each template. —Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 04:05 (UTC)
  • Indeed we only need one merge template - I like {{coolmerge}} more, however, so merge with {{merge}} (i.e. replace {{merge}} with this in the most GFDL-compliant way) :). -- grm_wnr Esc 30 June 2005 08:31 (UTC)
I appreciate your preference for my design, but the issue of which style to use is presently in debate on the "merge" template's talk page (and should be decided there). Irrespective of the outcome, the redundant template should be deleted. Also note that any stylistic change to {{merge}} also affects {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}}. —Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the merge templates were always put on the talk pages, then this template would be okay, but since they are usually put on the article's main page, they shouldn't have the box or the graphic. BlankVerse ∅ 30 June 2005 11:26 (UTC)
While I'm neutral on the issue of "colored box" vs. "italic text" (and created this design purely to serve as a compromise between two extremes), it should be noted that numerous article namespace notices incorporate such a style. This template, incidentally, never should be placed on an article's talk page (to which it actually links). —Lifeisunfair 30 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)
  • del, great clone. Great image :) mergeinto merge. Proceeding to template talk:merge. --MarSch 30 June 2005 12:47 (UTC)
  • Better than the original! If one of them goes, it should be {{merge}}. Grutness...wha? 30 June 2005 13:17 (UTC)
  • Merge (how appropriate). I do prefer this look. Please discuss at WP:TS what templates should look like. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 13:46 (UTC)
  • Delete - Merge suggestions are not critical, nor are the articles necessarily bad, just likely redundant. Such merge notices do not need to be in obnoxious colored boxes unless there is a dispute. They are routine, simple notices. Would only support colored boxes if moved to the Talk page. -- Netoholic @ July 3, 2005 14:56 (UTC)
  • Merge with Template:Merge. Nuff said. -69.120.133.201 6 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)

Template:Mayor edit

Phased out and replaced with more functional and standard succession box template. Currently unused. --tomf688(talk) July 1, 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Delete. Redundant, Template:succession box does the same and is more generic. - Sikon 2 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)
  • del, unused and superseded --MarSch 2 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia usage edit

Yet another self-reference template. Used on exactly one article, Barnstar. BlankVerse ∅ 1 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)

  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 1 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
  • del unwaranted attention for use in wikipedia, and tfd'd, save page=preview? --MarSch 1 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
  • Delete. --tomf688(talk) July 2, 2005 19:24 (UTC)
  • Delete. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 18:04 (UTC)

Template:Cleanarticle edit

delete: Made redundant by Template:Cleanup. One user made the template a redirect, then another replaced the redirect with the message "This template redirected and is redundant to Template:cleanup, and should not be used. Someone please take the time to open a vote for template deletion. I have removed all links to this template, redirecting them to template:cleanup", but neither nominated it for deletion, so I'm doing so. - dcljr (talk) 1 July 2005 05:37 (UTC)

  • del, fork --MarSch 1 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
  • delete, being that second user –MT 1 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)
  • Delete. --tomf688(talk) July 2, 2005 19:24 (UTC)
  • Delete - redundant by Template:Cleanup. Rob Church 2 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)

Template:California Geography edit

Replaced by Template:California and no longer used. BlankVerse ∅ 1 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)

  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 1 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)
  • del, unused and superseded --MarSch 1 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)
  • Delete. --tomf688(talk) July 2, 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Template:Sane and its redirect Template:SANE edit

Unused templates. m:Instruction creep. BlankVerse ∅ 4 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)

  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 4 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)
  • del School article needing evaluation. Apparently stillborn project with last and first edit at 30 okt 2004 and last edit at talk 13 nov 2004 --MarSch 5 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)
  • Delete, worthless. The only "evaluation" school articles get is a quick run-through of VfD with a conclusion of "keep" or "no consensus". --Carnildo 6 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
  • Delete, not needed. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 09:51 (UTC)

Template:Alert edit

Currently used on only a couple of Talk pages, in one TFD vote, and subst:'d for one template, Template:Editing, before that template was turned into a redirect. Unnecessary and ugly. BlankVerse ∅ 4 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

*keep ugly and useful --MarSch 5 July 2005 11:31 (UTC) For a better version I refer you to the talk page. redirect as per violet/riga --MarSch 5 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

  • Redirect to {{comment}}. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)
  • So nice to see others beating me to the punch. Delete. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)
  • Delete strong Created by somebody as "my ferst timplayt"??? Whitehorse1 | May 24 2024 06:35 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even sure that Template:Editing should exist, as it is probably rarely used, and can be userfied, for personal use. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)

Template:Parliament Malaysia Seats edit

This template which was created by an anon user, is only being used in one article at the moment. Imho, this doesn't deserve to be a template. --Andylkl (talk) July 4, 2005 09:09 (UTC)

  • del single-use template --MarSch 4 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)
  • del subst in the meantime. - Ta bu shi da yu 6 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)

Template:Revertwarinprogress and Template:RWIP edit

Redundant with {{protected}}. --cesarb 4 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

  • Or with {{twoversions}}, if you're not an admin. Delete. --Cryptic (talk) 4 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)
  • Delete (& thanks) — Davenbelle July 4, 2005 03:27 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template is there to evade protected or two versions. It hopes to encourage people to use talk. It did halt the revert war in Muhammad aside feom Davenbelle's habit of reverting my edits. Revert war was over when I used the template, my bad. --Cool Cat My Talk 4 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)
The template has no sign of authority. It just tries to calm already high tensions. Protected often fails to resolve problems as people are "forced" to talk, so they scream at each other instead. Dual versions also fail as both parties want "their" version instead of discussing a single version. So this is a bold attemt to hopefully solve conflict. It may be usefull. Give it some time. --Cool Cat My Talk 4 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)
  • {{yetanotherunnecessarytemplate}} →Raul654 July 4, 2005 04:14 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless. Add to the 'list of most pointless revert wars' :) Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:12 (UTC)
  • del fork --MarSch 4 July 2005 12:07 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant IMO. Whitehorse1 | May 24 2024 06:35 (UTC)

Template:Sisterprojects edit

Unused duplicate of Template:WikipediaSister. Not to be confused with Template:Sisterproject. Uncle G 2005-07-04 01:53:58 (UTC)

  • Comment actually Template:Sisterproject is a blank, why not redirect that one also to Template:WikipediaSister. That way there is no ambiguity. I have no problem with deleting these either. --MarSch 4 July 2005 12:02 (UTC)
  • Delete Could redirect, but why bother with excess template space, also alleviates the problem of the wrong template being used if there is only Template:WikipediaSister. Would recommend deleting both (..project & ..projects). <>Who?¿? 8 July 2005 07:50 (UTC)

Template:Siterprojects edit

Unused, mis-spelled, duplicate of Template:WikipediaSister. Not to be confused with Template:Sisterproject. Uncle G 2005-07-04 01:53:58 (UTC)

  • Delete mispelled and unused duplicate template. Jtkiefer July 4, 2005 07:18 (UTC)
  • delete this ambiguous template --MarSch 4 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)
  • Delete If it's a duplicate and incorrectly spelt could probably speedy it. Either way: vote delete. Whitehorse1 | May 24 2024 06:35 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete ambiguous or not, mis-spelled is useless. <>Who?¿? 8 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)

Template:Censorship edit

This template currently consists of a picture of Idi Amin and a warning that information from this country may be subject to censorship. The inclusion of Idi Amin is POV. It's a pointless template because there is some censorship of information from every country in the world, and if information about a country is censored, the articles can simply remark upon it. David | Talk 3 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)

We need templates for free speech. Censorship in all the countries is not in the same degree: in a democracy or in a dictatorship. Censored information from a country must be remarked by this censorship message. So I don't agree to deletion. --Mac 3 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

  • Delete inherently POV template. One person's "censorship" is another's "telling the truth". One person reverting someone else's edit is censorship if you're sensitive enough. As the nominator says, the article may simply remark on the fact of censorship if it needs to. It is also badly designed and written in poor English. I'm not going to {{sofixit}} because I think it should be deleted. -Splash July 3, 2005 18:49 (UTC)
    • Don´t think anyway about deletion. I want this template.
  • comment brand new template, unused yet. Surely it was created with at least one use in mind?--MarSch 4 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)
    • The template was created by an anon who has been doing some odd editing recently.
  • Delete. I can't see any good use for the template, but I can imagine plenty of inappropriate uses for it. BlankVerse ∅ 4 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)
  • Delete. - POV --ghost 5 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV, and it isn't even funny. -- Titoxd 07:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sofixit2 edit

Joke template. BJAODN Delete. --cesarb 3 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)

Changed to delete, agree with below. --cesarb 3 July 2005 13:58 (UTC)
  • del insulting fork --MarSch 3 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)
  • Delete unecessary joke template. Jtkiefer July 4, 2005 07:23 (UTC)
  • Delete Not quite BJAODN material, and simply an unused, unneccesary template. --JB Adder | Talk 01:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who is ever going to use this joke? -- Titoxd 07:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sanfrancisco edit

Unused and useless. BlankVerse ∅ 2 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unusued. Template was never changed since it was created in April. Besides, if we were going to use one like it, it should be named {{San Francisco}} instead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 2 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • del, unused. inappropriate use of a template. --MarSch 3 July 2005 13:47 (UTC)
  • Delete this utterly useless template. —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)

Template:Live edit

Redundant to Template:Current. Even the wiki code currently has the following message commented out: "BE CAREFUL WITH THIS TEMPLATE, REMOVE IT AND REPLACE WITH {{current}} AFTER DONE". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 2 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

  • Keep: while I agree that whoever made this template did so a little hastily, Template:Live (if edited a little) could serve an important distinction from Template:Current. Template:Current can be used as it currently is (simply to refer to major events which are simply in the news), whereas Template:Live is for a live event for which realtime article updates are appropriate. --Jacj 2 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
    • Currently, all I see is instruction creep. Where do you draw the line between something that is "live" instead of "current"? A current major news event could suddenly become "live" for which realtime article updates are appropriate, right? (like the exact time when the verdict for the 2005 trial of Michael Jackson was announced)). So how do you judge when to switch the tags. Also, isn't articles marked with Template:Current updated in realtime anyway? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 2 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)
      • Live events are a subset of current events. Re: judging when to switch the tags - whenever a "current event" becomes an ongoing event where developments are happening sufficiently rapidly that a large number of edits in quick succession would be needed to keep it up to date. The difference between a bog-standard "current event" and a "live event" is that a live event requires repeated and very frequent editing. If a user feels the distinction is too difficult to make, they can use Template:Current. --Jacj 3 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is no useful distinction from Template:Current. Current is suitable for all pages for which a steady stream of news is currently being made available; whether the event is a concert or a conventional news story is not important. – Smyth\talk 2 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)
  • I personally agree that Template:Live and Template:Current could serve two different purposes. The former should be used to indicate that an event is occurring "now", while the latter ought to indicate that the subject is of current public interest. While the distinction is arguably blurred, I believe that we should keep the template if we can draw a clear enough distinction between the two that will be understood by all. Rob Church 2 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant to Template:Current - the difference, if any, is tiny and utterly unimportant. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)
  • Keep useful as a finer resolution version of Current. The Iraq War or Korean Conflict is Current, but not nearly as time sensitive as an event such as the Olympic Games, which produces many information events (hourly? daily?) while taking place. (SEWilco 3 July 2005 03:47 (UTC))
    • Note that I added Usage instructions in Template talk:Live based on previous comments. (SEWilco 3 July 2005 03:47 (UTC))
      • Creator here, I concur with this. The intent is to have something that signifys something that is being updated by the community constantly. For example, as Live 8 was going on there were constant updates with the acts. As election results come in, for example, {{live}} would be appropriate. For the Michael Jackson trial, where there is only one update to be made (guilty/not guilty) it would be a 'current' event). I believe the Olympics is a PERFECT example of where this can be used over a longer period of time, with constant updates on what is going on.
  • Delete, do not make template forks. Feel free to reword template:current to improve it. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 08:21 (UTC)
  • del fork --MarSch 3 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)
  • Delete, fuzzy redundancy. -Sean Curtin July 3, 2005 22:34 (UTC)
  • Keep, important distinction - Aaron Hill July 4, 2005 06:20 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant. — Dan | Talk 5 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 9 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
  • Keep, if the instructions given above are used properly. -- Titoxd 07:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see an important distinction between the two events. I do not think there should be two templates that perform this function, both redudancy and mis-use are considerations. Although {{current}} is linked to a lot of articles, what about editing it, and adding a parameter for live or current. Then its usage would be {{current|live}} or {{current|current}}, which would display the appropriate state of the article with different parameters. It may sound ridiculous, but accomplishes both tasks with one template. <>Who?¿? 07:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like a plan! Oh and it should also ensure that those using just {{current}} don't end up with the live message, but that's only a minor niggle. GarrettTalk 12:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
added "nowiki" tag, as i think Garrett accidentally forgot it. <>Who?¿? 15:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete, I support Who's all-in-one plan, as it will certainly be easier to use AND can be switched between the two functions just by changing the word (instead of hunting around for the correct alternate template as I've done on occasion). GarrettTalk 12:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC - please read the talk page discussion before making substantial changes edit

and also Template:Controversial note (merged by --MarSch 5 July 2005 11:40 (UTC))
Not necessary. - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)

  • Keep. Why is it not necessary? Proto t c 5 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not necessary because there are better-known templates that have the same function (and a shorter name). Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 10:31 (UTC)
    • In that case, I change my vote to delete, thank you for explaining that. Proto t c 5 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
  • del, blank template, unused --MarSch 5 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)
  • Delete, if you need to add a note to editors that's invisible to readers, use HTML comment tags. Joe D (t) 5 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)
  • Delete, templates != comments -Frazzydee|✍ 5 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's better than comments because you can (1) use Special:Whatlinkshere and (2) see it in the "Templates used on this page" list. JYolkowski // talk 6 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
    • You can do this with Template:Controversial, which is added to the talk page. This template is a) badly named, and b) not necessary as it duplicates the effort of Template:Controversial. - Ta bu shi da yu 6 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)
      • The point of the template is to point out to editors that don't read the talk page that the topic is controversial. A non-badly-named template like {{skdfwieur}} won't have the same effect. JYolkowski // talk 6 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)
        • You can do the "what links here" thing with a talk page template--the talk page should have a template anyway, so you don't need another one in the main namespace for looking up what links here. If you really have to leave a note to editors in the article you can then do so with comments. Joe D (t) 6 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inappropriate use of template. Templates are heavy on system resources. Stbalbach 7 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
  • Delete not necessary. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 07:33 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wasn't very effective with its purpose. Like other's said, the current controvercial templates for the talk pages are good enough for linking, and if one wants to warn the writers of the article being controversial, they can use HTML comments in its place. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 11:18, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


Template:Uncyclopedia edit

1) Inappropriate banner add for a 3rd party website. 2) Makes it appear as a member site of the Wikipedia projects, same style and look. An example of what it looks like is here, bottom of page. --Stbalbach 6 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)

  • Delete. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 6 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep only if it's changed to Template:Memoryalpha format and used in the External Links section as User:ElvisFromUncyc suggested below. Keep I created the Uncyclopedia template so people who want to make funny, sarcastic, and even biased comments can put up their thoughts at the Uncyclopedia site, instead of filling up the talk page. I found this article, "Uncyclopedia joins Wikia", saying that it is a first-party site hosted by Wikicities (it used to be 3rd-party hosted). If it is not a 1st party site, I will certainly change my vote to Delete, as I don't want to support outside sites. Read more about the Uncyclopedia here. Hopefully, this template will promote actual satirical humor, instead of just the stupid stuff that's on most of the pages. -Hyad July 6, 2005 06:51 (UTC)
  • Wikicities sites are 3rd party, it's just a hosting service and doesnt control content. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)
  • OK, Stbalbach. I updated my vote. I know I said I would change it to Delete, but making it the like the Template:Memoryalpha seems to be the best compromise. I realise now that the Uncyclopedia is a 3rd party site like Memory Alpha, but it is still very popular, so I think it should have its own template. Maybe in the future, the creators could relinquish their copyright and it could become a 1st party site like Wiktionary. -Hyad July 6, 2005 21:21 (UTC)
  • Delete. We are a serious encyclopedia. I feel that in almost all cases it is a bad idea to put this kind of satiric humor in the article name space. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 07:07 (UTC)
  • Keep for use on talk pages only --Henrygb 6 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a sister project. Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 09:53 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fredrik | talk 6 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dragons flight --MarSch 6 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for use on talk pages and user pages. Uncyclopedia is not a sibling project, but since it's one of the more popular parody sites with a community that overlaps with Wikipedia to some extent, keeping the template doesn't do much harm. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 6 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)
  • Keep just for the lolz Tom k&e 6 July 2005 13:16 (UTC)
    • Your voteing on the use of banner adds, not if it should be linked or not. It can still be linked in external links like all other external sites. Why does this site deserve special treatment and stand apart from all other 3rd party websites? Stbalbach 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite. Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia (by design, its mandate is different) but there are a couple of cases where a link to uncyclopedia.org or even comedy.wikicities.com may be completely appropriate:
    1. A template to indicate an article which should be moved to Uncyclopedia, to BJAODN or to another humour site as it doesn't fit in with the main Wikipedia, much like {{dictdef}} indicates something would belong more in Wiktionary.
      A BJAODN template was deleted by consensus recently. See the log. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 15:17 (UTC)
    2. A link from pages in main article space which are in some legitimate way humour-related, such as You have two cows, List of backronyms or BJAODN, to the corresponding pages on the other wiki --carlb 6 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite into Template:Memoryalpha form as per it's TFD becaue of (2) above. --ElvisFromUncyc 6 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
    • It may be desirable to rewrite the template to indicate *which* page at Uncyclopedia: is the link target? As written, it appears to assume both pages will have the same name, an issue if using this on user pages. --66.102.74.170 6 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
      • It should be noted that I mentoined nothing about only using on talk pages, I don't have a major problem using it on the main article page (where appropriate), the satirical portrail of a subject can I think cast light on the way people view the subject, etc. therefore I think some of the Uncyclopedia articles can be usefully referenced. I would consider changeing the template to say "A Spoof article on XXXXXX is available here" however.--ElvisFromUncyc 6 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
        • Please tell us your thoughts why it must be a banner add and not in the external links like every other 3rd party website. Why is this site special and set apart and given special treatment? Stbalbach 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am concerned that some of the people voting keep may not have an appreciation for how Uncyclopedia works. The point of the template in its current form is to link Wikipedia page X to Uncyclopedia page X where the Uncyclopedia version is intended as a humourous rendering of the topic. Consider some examples: uncyclopedia:Oscar Wilde, uncyclopedia:Darth Vader, uncyclopedia:laser, uncyclopedia:France. While enjoyable, I don't see making article space links to any of these as being appropriate. The Uncyclopedia doesn't really have the equivalent of humor pages to link to, since all pages are humor, so there doesn't seem to be any way to use the current template only on BJAODN or other wikipedia humor pages. Also, since Uncyclopedia intends to cover all encyclopedic topics some day, even placing it only on Talk pages would quickly get to be abusive as it would be everywhere. I'm not opposed to linking to Uncyclopedia in appropriate places, but the function intended by this templates seems inappropriate to me. If people can figure out how to rewrite this to make it useful, then by all means show us. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 15:17 (UTC)
  • Comment. Keep in mind what you are voteing for: the use of banner adds for a 3rd party web site. The article can still be referenced in the external links section. Please justify your keeps of using a banner add and making it stand apart and special from all other external links. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
    • I don't see how this is a "banner ad" (if by "add" (sic) you mean "ad" like the animated .GIFs on commercial websites) --carlb 6 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
      • I think it's pretty clear what a banner ad is. The only sites that get this special treatment are Wikipedia sister projects, not 3rd party external links. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
  • Delete. The template gives a misleading idea of Uncyclopedia's relationship to Wikipedia. If someone wants to link an article to the article's parody on Uncyclopedia, then add it in the External links section of the article.--Alabamaboy 6 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a sister project, and even if it were, I don't think it's appropriate for articles; link these from External links instead. A template used in this manner wouldn't be such a bad idea, maybe something like this: "A spoof of this article on Foo can be found in the Uncyclopedia, an encyclopedia parody site." AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 6, 2005 19:20 (UTC)
  • Keep and make the template clearer that it's a parady and an external link (no right float or border?). "Many a true word said in jest" -- we're not bound to use it if the link isn't funny. Ojw 6 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)
    • Whats your rational for giving this external site its own banner, when others dont get one? Do you favour this external site over others? Stbalbach 6 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
      • Must you ask this question of everyone who disagrees with your vote? I already read your comments chastising 4 other people for their votes. This is not a "banner ad" (300x75 pixel flashing red banner at the top of an article) but a link which I already said should look more like an 'external link' and using the template to more easily keep track of such links, and change their format/wording when appropriate. In short, telling everyone "you're voting for banner ads" in response to any 'keep' vote is not helpful Ojw 20:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Uncyclopedia should never be linked from any article here on Wikipedia, except Uncyclopedia of course. It is not an encyclopedic source in remotely any way, so not even a revised version of this belongs. Uncyclopedia is a funny site, but that's all. -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a sister project (Wikicities is part of a for-profit venture and unrelated to Wikimedia) so it shouldn't have a sister project box; does not contain encyclopedic information, so it shouldn't appear in external link sections except in its own article. —Cryptic (talk) 6 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete. See about Unencyclopedia: "Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and utter lies." Iff kept, it should be rewritten (Template:Memoryalpha-style with no boxes and making it VERY clear that it is parody wiki!), and ONLY used on Talk and User pages. BlankVerse ∅ 6 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as advertising. --Carnildo 6 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)
    Contrary to popular misconceptions, advertising has never been a criteria for speedy deletion. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 00:07 (UTC)
    It is. CSD includes "vandalism", which includes "Adding inappropriate external links for self-promotion." I wouldn't call this vandalism, though ;-) - Fredrik | talk 7 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)
    Curiously, WP:CSD lists "pure vandalism" (which I would say this is not). Vandalism lists spam as a form of vandalism. Spam then tells you that advertising should be taken to VFD. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 00:22 (UTC)
  • Delete. Uncyclopedia's goals are irreconcilable with Wikipedia's, as admirable as they may be; there is no conceivable case in which a link to an Uncyclopedia article could provide background information—background noise at best. In fact, if by some mistake an Uncyclopedia article did provide useful information, this would probably be fixed quickly. Even putting a link on the talk page shouldn't be done. This is even ignoring the (fixable) formatting issue that misleadingly suggests Uncyclopedia is a sister project, which it isn't. JRM · Talk 7 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising, inaccurate, inappropriate. --tomf688(talk) July 7, 2005 00:55 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a sister project. If users want to use it, they should userfy a version of it, otherwise they can use an ext link. Also, Wiki is not an advertising agency, and this template does nothing to enhance the encylopedic value of Wikipedia articles. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, the parodies on Uncyclopedia are often hilarious, but linking to them from the main article space is a perfectly dreadful idea; and as others have said, it's not a sister project. Antandrus (talk) 7 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per Antandrus. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising for another wiki is still advertising. - SimonP July 7, 2005 17:17 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Sn0wflake 7 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not change to plaintext version. We should only ever link to an external site when it provides more information on a topic, or demonstrates the topic. Uncyclopedia does not provide information about anything. Joe D (t) 7 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
  • Delete - most of the articles about subjects in Uncyclopedia have either nothing to do with the ones at Wikipedia, or they contain content which may anger supporters of a particular subject. I suggest this be deleted for the sake of Uncyclopedia. If one must add a link to it, they can add it to the External links sections, making sure they state it is a parody. As others said, linking to it isn't a good idea either. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) July 8, 2005 00:41 (UTC) --updated July 8, 2005 06:55 (UTC)
  • Extremely delete. While sometimes the site is funny, there's no reason to give it any kind of special place here, and it there is not going to be any real information there. Eric119 8 July 2005 05:25 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to disagree with many of the contributors that say that spoofs, humour or satire have no connection to any particular subject and examples should ‘’’Never’’’ be referenced in a Serious article on a subject. The definition of wiktionary:satire is that it is often used to provoke or prevent change, numerous examples of this include much of work of Mark Thomas and Chris Morris to take to UK examples (I'm sure other countries have similar examples although none spring instantly to mind). I agree that many articles on Uncyclopedia do not and will never have any use in an serious encyclopaedia, however there are some which I think could be useful linked to, off the top of my head (and not necessarily a good example) Uncyclopedia:Making up Oscar Wilde quotes is certainly a form of commentary about the phenomenon of numerous "witty" quotes being misattributed to Oscar, an example from wikipedia itself is Paedophilia#See_also (the link to Brass Eye 2001 Pedophilia Special. I also think the continuous banging on about not being a "Sister Project" is getting rather tiresome, most keeps now refer to changing the template to the same form as Template:Memoryalpha, I am starting to conclude that those still objecting to the template for this reason are simply attempting to muddy the waters and feel that their "Satire is not useful" argument needs propping up </rant>--ElvisFromUncyc 8 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)
Comment Although I appreciate all users contributions and input, ElvisFromUncyc registered just to vote on this article; see Special:Contributions/ElvisFromUncyc; and is plainly from the website this template would support. It is nice, that he at least made some other contributios to "support", the peoples effected by the latest terrorist attacks. <>Who?¿? 8 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)
I never hide the fact that I'm on Uncyclopedia indeed I think my choice of username proves that I could have choosen something entirely generic and would have done but felt that this would be slightly disengeniouse (once this is over I'll probably do that), however I have been a long time "lurker" on wikipedia and carried out odd edits here and there, just never got round to registering (lazy I know), equally, working for a UK local authority, having friends and family in London as well as being British I felt that I had every right to say what I said, I'm not ashamed of any of my edits Special:Contributions/ElvisFromUncyc (note: Some of the edits of Special:Contributions/212.50.162.251 especialy the borderline, IMHO, vandalism are not mine due to it being a shared IP - I know, I know I should have registered, of course you'll have to take my word for that)--ElvisFromUncyc 8 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - to keep this is to allow effectively external advertising for a non-sister project, and to provide spoof links for all the encyclopedic articles we're trying to collect. Spoofs of an encyclopedia have no place in that encyclopedia. -Splash 8 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as per above points mentioned. --Andylkl (talk) July 9, 2005 05:35 (UTC)
  • Delete. (SEWilco 9 July 2005 05:53 (UTC))
  • Delete I am also very tempted to line Uncyclopedia up for deletion too, for blatant advertising and non-association with WikiMedia. --JB Adder | Talk July 9, 2005 06:05 (UTC)
    • If any info about anything that weren't part of WikiMedia were deleted from article space, there wouldn't be much left... you would have turned en: into meta: at best, a blank page at worst. Surely you jest? --carlb 9 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)
      • I did say tempted, and I almost did (I retracted at the last minute). The article itself is nothing more than an advertisement; you can tell that from the first line. While for non-association...it does come across to me (others may see otherwise) like it is associated with Wikipedia, and WikiMedia in general. About the only connections I see it has is its use of MediaWiki and the parodying of Wikipedia, and they aren't enough to form an association with WikiMedia. --JB Adder | Talk 00:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Otherwise we could easily claim to link to, say, WikiAfterDark within reason. Hedley 14:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just that--there's no reason why wikis should get nice boxes and other sites shouldn't! Any site should be allowed a pretty box! Joe D (t) 14:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep. Should never be used in an article itself, only on a talk page. Motor 15:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: In line with my "conditional keep" vote above: perhaps it should be edited to say something like: "Feeling frustrated? Blow off steam on uncyclopedia". :)
(just for clarity, Motor added and forgot to sign this comment) <>Who?¿?
  • Comment: Wording change would depend on where the template was intended to be used (as, if it were kept, most would want to limit its use to talk pages, humour pages, user pages or some narrow combination of these to keep it out of serious article text). A "portions of this text are parody and may therefore be more suited to Uncyclopedia or another venue" might make sense for talk pages, but for user pages? Wording would differ completely. --carlb 16:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uncyc admin: Inappropriate to directly link with shiny box from article pages on Wikipedia. If they want to use an external link, that's fine, but the box is just distracting and can mislead users. MemoryAlpha format if they really want, but I think only to make it clear that it's a parody, and decrease misleading people in external links only. --Chronarion 12:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep Uncyclopedia, in my opinion, does indeed deserve a special place apart from all other 3rd party web sites of every kind. As someone who is primarily a Wikipedia reader, and not often an editor, if Uncyclopedia has a paralell/parody article, I'd like to know about it. At the very bottom of the original pages only but I'd still like to see it there. Yes, this is somewhat biased. So how about we try to come up with a compromise? A better one than the current Template:Uncyclopedia which just makes me go "Bleh!" I have alot of fun on Uncyclopedia, I guess I'm an Uncyclopedian, yeah. But it's like ... well it's becoming a part of the history of this site. (Wikipedia) Like a heritage. The free space that anyone can edit, Creative Commons style. Yes, there are alot of other wikis out there. But Uncyclopedia is, no question, the nemesis and opposite parody of Wikipedia. Either Wikiland embraces that heritage or it becomes, or rather stays a dark faceless void. And you know Wikipedia was founded by the Communist Party right? Nerd42 22:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles related to Nikola Tesla edit

This is a template in the main article namespace, as of now included in Nikola Tesla and Magnifying Transmitter. This is not only unusual, but also irrating and inspires some fear, that it will finally end up in any article in Category:Nikola Tesla. --Pjacobi July 6, 2005 19:59 (UTC)

  • Take it to WP:VFD - TFD can't handle this (not a page in the Template: namespace). I suggest transferring the content directly into the pages using it, and VfD it. Using transclusion to populate text into multiple articles is a big no-no, and most of the links are completely irrelevant. -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
  • Oh God, it's the Tesla cruft again! KILL IT! KILL IT DEAD! Snowspinner July 6, 2005 20:35 (UTC)
  • Moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of articles related to Nikola Tesla <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 10:43 (UTC)

Template:Relate edit

"this article's relation with <foo> needs explaining". Barely in use, and sounds like an overspecialized 'cleanup' kind of template (of which we should not have overly many imho). Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 09:58 (UTC)

  • Delete. Slapping pseudo-editor commentary tags on articles is rarely helpful. Stbalbach 7 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is what {{todo}} is for. Joe D (t) 7 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Template: Verylarge or Template:Overpopulated category? edit

Surely we don't need both of these templates... So, do we reword {{Verylarge}} to exclude categories, or delete {{Overpopulated category}}? Grutness...wha? 6 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)

  • What links here might be useful. Suggest rewording {{VeryLarge}}. - Ta bu shi da yu 6 July 2005 02:30 (UTC)
  • Keep VeryLarge and Delete Overpopulated category. VeryLarge is well established and can be used for any page, the other is some new duplicate. Joe D (t) 6 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
  • redirect OC to Verylarge --MarSch 6 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)
  • We already talked about {{verylarge}} here, and it was changed and kept. I suggested that it be split between verylargecat and verylarge, but this was ignored. Overpopulated category was created later. We need to decide whether we want to split per article/category distinction. If we don't, the newer template needs to go; if we do, then the older template needs to be split up in two and the newer one redirected to the other part. --Joy [shallot] 6 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)
  • OC is redundant to Vl. Just redirect Oc to Vl to avoid future redundancy. --SuperDude 6 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)
  • Redirect OC to VL. --tomf688(talk) July 7, 2005 00:58 (UTC)
  • Redirect OC to VL. Stbalbach 7 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)
  • I second Joy's suggestion that {{verylarge}} be split into {{verylargecat}} (or {{largecategory}}) for categories, with the original template kept for use on articles. OC should be deleted and redirected to {{verylargecat}}.--  Cyberjunkie TALK 9 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)
  • Keep Both The distinction is useful, and "overpopulated" defiens the key characeristic better than "very large" for cats. DES 05:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that do you suggest changing the wording of VL? It currently covers both articles and categories, so there's not much of a distinction, other than that OL can be used on only some of the things that VL can be used on. Grutness...wha? 09:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I do. rewrite VL to apply only to articles, leave OC alone, and do not create VLC or LC. DES 14:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Overpopulated and redirect the other one. Revas 02:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verylarge and Delete Overpopulated. "Overpopulated" sounds like something a sci-fi movie synopsis might read, or a prediction of the future, while "very large" is quite appropriate. IanManka 02:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Croboysteinia-culture-stub edit

Delete: This is a ridiculous fictional template. Unsurprisingly, Croboysteinia gets 0 google hits. Utterly useless, utterly nonsensical. Scimitar 23:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category edit

Apparently created to alert readers that Wikipedia has a category related to this article. But that's what, um, well, categories do. An orphan and probably just some kind of newbie mistake. Delete. --Dmcdevit July 7, 2005 20:00 (UTC)

  • Delete --Phoenix2 7 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • Delete a confused newbie mistook. -Splash 8 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with nominator. -Frazzydee|✍ 8 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)
  • Delete. --tomf688(talk) July 9, 2005 06:07 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Fem isa images edit

Delete: Unused. Apparently its goal was to keep the images linked, which is already achieved on their see also section. Nabla 2005-07-07 19:20:51 (UTC)

Template:Gugu and Template:Gaga edit

Template used by no article which has been on the database ever since February and provides no context of its possible use. Delete. --Sn0wflake 7 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)

  • Added {{Gaga}}. Identical to Gugu by same contributor. Apparently intended to be used on the mean time between failures and failure rate, but quickly rejected by those communities. Delete. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 03:34 (UTC)
  • Delete What were they supposed to imply? This is merely a waste of template space. --JB Adder | Talk 00:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Kubrick & Template:Alfred Hitchcock's films & Template:Steven Spielberg's films edit

These templates were mentioned on Tfd Template:Steven Spielbergs films. I feel these should be categorified, as some are bulky and detract from article.

Mentioned objections:

  • providing the chronological guide to the films - Can be put on List of foo and referenced via See also.
  • useful navigational tool - Categories are better used as such, due to the fact they are not limited, you can follow a category web to other sections, and its easier to include articles.

Similar but non-related templates, ie.. Template:Starwars, is a group of similar movies, not limited to one director, writer, producer, etc..

This would keep two seperate templates from appearing on one article. Example: Jurassic Park would have Template:Michael Crichton films with Template:Steven Spielberg's films, as they are both very notable. <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)

Update: {{Kubrick}} and {{Alfred Hitchcock's films}} were listed for deletion on July 4th. {{Steven Spielberg's films}} was added to this vote on July 10th as the result of a dispute on the disposition of its previous TFD. This strikes me as too much of an 11th hour rewrite, so I am boldly resetting the clock so that there is reasonable time for reconsidering {{Steven Spielberg's films}}. Dragons flight 21:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete with ultraviolence. Good point. In some cases, such as the ones you listed, they just take up space, and the would be better served by categories. The funny thing is there are already categories for these (at least for Kubrick) --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 4 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inappropriate use of templates. Categories is the right tool. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)
  • Delete. Information is duplicated in article. Slark July 9, 2005 03:43 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Template:Kubrick, however, should be rewritten to be more like Template:Alfred Hitchcock's films. BlankVerse ∅ 9 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)
    • Comment: Kubrick has now been redesigned. It is less bulky than when nominated. The JPS 13:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Chronological lists of auteurs' films are essential navigational aids surpassing the mere alphabetical abilities of categories. Most Films of x director books present the films in chronological order. I agree that a redesign of Template:Kubrick to conform to the horizontal style of Spielberg and Hitch would be better. They are far from bulky, considering the amount of information they convey. Common sense is needed for a resource such as templates; they should be reserved for 'significant' directors.
    To which of the many articles, Slark, are you referring? The JPS 9 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

Votes added after Spielberg was included

  • Categorify & delete. (added the third per talk page comments) Radiant_>|< 20:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep on Spielberg, 8 keep, 7 catify and 1 delete should not be reason for deleting or revoting. As before, I support condensing it, perhaps to something like this potential alternative version. Keep Kubrik, but use a horizontal style. Make Hitchcock a list page, it is awkwardly large to convey no information except a chronological listing. Dragons flight 21:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorify and delete: the chronological list of films can be put on Steve Spielberg's/Hitchcock's/Kubrick's article. Motor 23:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorify, listify in the relevant articles, and delete. -Sean Curtin 00:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorify and delete. --Conti|✉ 01:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. These are both harmless and useful for navigation. There is no reason we should not have these both in categorizes and on templates.--Pharos 01:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why are we even voting on this again so close to the previous TfD which resulted in keep? The Spielberg films template is up to date, used on all the films, and on Spielberg page so they are all in sync. The alternative to a template would be unlinked films (or categoried) and a separate list on the Spielbierg page which would become unsynced very fast, as they were before we put the template in. Elfguy 02:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and delete all. Keeping would result in many films needing multiple directorial templates, and shortly after that we'd have producer templates, too. Categories work fine, and are at the bottom of the article like the template would be so nothing is lost. -Splash 02:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three, although reformat the Kubrick template. With directors as important as these three, the odds are that many of the people who are looking at one of their films will want to look at other articles on films from the same directors. These templates save multiple clicks, especially since going to the categories is just an alphabetic list. If the Wikipedia category feature was powerful enough to allow for annotations, these templates might not be as necessary, but I would still vote to keep them. BlankVerse ∅ 04:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful for browsing. --tomf688(talk) 04:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorify As original nominator (kubrick & hitchcock), I extend vote to cover all three. Do not object to complete deletion. <>Who<font color=#00Ff00>?¿? 04:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and delete all big & ugly RustyCale 15:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three, and other directorial templates that might exist. Authors and painters do not have such templates, and there is no reason for such large templates to exist when the information is easily accessable. MechBrowman 00:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: There is not always a strong an interest in the chronological sequence of authors' and painters' works as there is for major directors. The JPS 19:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and delete all: bulky clutter on movie articles and easily accessible via categories or from the director's article. Autiger 00:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything is easily accessible when you know where it is. A section on the main pages might seem obvious to us now, but we are designing these pages for other people. I do not understand why these templates are considered bulky: they contain a lot of information within a small amount of screen space. Note that I have redesigned the Kubrick template in line with the other two. It looks much better in the articles now.
      Keeping the categories is fine, but the alphabetical list is far less meaningful to film fans and researchers than a chronology. Unless there could be a special version of the {{Infobox Movie}} dedicated to auteurs The JPS 19:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I guess it's more accurate to say I think they're more cluttered than bulky. I find them difficult to read as they try to cram so much into the space with a smallish font. Admittedly, of the three, Spielberg's is probably the most readable; Hitchcock's the least. I should probably dislose that I'm not a big fan of these sorts of templates generally. Based on my understanding of how linky (inline) the wikipedia is, my first inclination, if I wanted to see more Spielberg films would be to click on Spielberg's name to read his article where I would expect to find a filmography. Autiger 05:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If they are kept then would you think splitting Hitch's films into decades and adding years (like Spielberg) would make them less cluttered? I'll defend the small fonts, as they are not meant to be 'read' as such. The JPS 13:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that years and possibly decades would help the Hitchcock template if kept. Autiger 18:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in format like {{Alfred Hitchcock's films}}. --Laura Scudder | Talk 16:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Unless I'm mistaken, this TFD is not yet complete. Who is removing the Hitch template. I am concerned that might bias the TFD on the basis that "they aren't used." The JPS 00:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no bias towards the subject. I skipped directly to "Holding Cell" to see what maintenance had to be done. As it looks, this update was done on the 10th, which means the Tfd was closed yesterday. I am not sure why this is still here, and did not see it. As you can see below, the maintenace instructions are to categorify. That is all I was doing. ∞Who?¿? 00:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake, I apparently omitted removing them from the TFD mainpage. Corrected now. Radiant_>|< 07:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Template:European Commission President edit

Delete: This was a unnecessarily specialized (old looking) version of Template:Succession box that I have now migrated to the generic template so it can be deleted. gren 05:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prime Minister of Portugal edit

Delete: This was a unnecessarily specialized (old looking) version of Template:Succession box that I have now migrated to the generic template so it can be deleted. gren 05:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anarcho-capitalism edit

Delete: An unused and unnecessary template created by a now-banned problem user. --Tothebarricades 21:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete. unlinked, dubious utility. Avriette 21:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Survey edit

Does not seem to be an appropriate use of templates (requests to "answer my survey"). Personal projects like this should be in userspace if appearing at all on Wikipedia --Tabor 22:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy if possible, otherwise delete .-Splash 00:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: it appears to have been posted in the wrong place (the title of the e-mail refers to the Sandbox).
  • Userfy if possible. Delete, no matter what else happens. BlankVerse ∅ 04:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nominator. Superm401 | Talk 15:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Article note edit

Not used in any article. If intended for "subst:" use, it sure seems a lot more difficult to type {{subst:Article note|text=something}} than to type :''something''. --Tabor 22:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redundant. -Splash 00:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. - Sikon 04:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Text edit

TfD notice for Text is also on Template:Mapquest because the latter may use the former.

Huh? Note: the "What links here" page returns a couple of templates that call for a "text=" parameter, but they long predate this brand-new template. I don't think those intended to include this template. --Tabor 22:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I am wary about putting {{tfd}} on this template, in case it is now inadvertently being substituted anywhere. --Tabor 22:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very difficult to understand template. -Splash 00:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely useless template. View source to see what I mean. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unexplained and unused. (SEWilco 02:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - it is not a sub-template of Template:Mapquest, which just uses a parameter called "text". An old bug used to make such parameters as {{{text}}} appear and link to non-existent templates because of the way the innermost curly-braces were interpreted. Template:Text serves no purpose. -- Netoholic @ 16:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mapquest template author note: That, was a parameter, like Netoholic stated. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rambot-cruft edit

Delete: This page violates a number of the critera for having a useful page. It goes beyond the usual "stub" message. See Old version vs. New version for the source of what triggered this request. Listed below are reasons from the deletion policy and criteria. See also User:Supersaiyanplough for the reason behind this.

  • Templates should be helpful and noteworthy and Article duplicates information in some other article. - The articles already contain internal references and page histories. The template serves no additional informational purpose, even as changed by myself.
  • Templates should not be POV - The old version of the page is clearly showing bias towards a single user's personal view of the usefulness of the so-called "rambot" articles. These articles are firmly established as acceptable with lots of precedent. I need say nothing about "cruft" being POV.
  • Dispute over article content - Obviously this is the whole point of the banner. He doesn't like the content of the articles.
  • Annoying user - Possibly this, but considering the rambot was mentioned by name, this seems like a direct attack from one user to another "user".
  • Article is a candidate for speedy deletion - Considering that this is an attack on the rambot itself (and indirectly at me, because the rambot was only the tool for what I was otherwise going to do without it anyway), insults and such are grounds for speedy delection under current policy.
  • Don't know what the name for it would be, but a long time ago other "banners" were added to the articles and they were shot down as being clutter and "spam". This should probably apply in this case.
  • Possibly more, but I figured that this would be enough to state my case. — Ram-Man

(comment) (talk) 12:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • That's a ridiculous template. Let's delete & redirect it to {{geo-city-stub}} or whatever it was called. Radiant_>|< 13:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just delete; don't redirect from that god-awful name. —Cryptic (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant with template:geo-stub and not very veiled personal attack. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no redirect, name serves no purpose, doubt it would ever be used again, as with template. <>Who?¿? 21:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with haste, for all the reasons already given. older≠wiser 22:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, veiled personal attack and redundant as well. Replace with geo-stub where relevant. I'm sure most Rambot articles aren't actually short enough to qualify as stubs. -Sean Curtin 23:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does there need to be a speedy delete criteria for templates that says No personal attacks? BlankVerse ∅ 05:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, it wasn't meant to be an attack on User:Rambot, but the articles aren't very encyclopediac as they stand, so should i just change it to ot specify Rambot and just say "Improve"? Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 06:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{geo-stub}} instead, but as stated above, they may not even qualify as stubs. I don't think people want 30,000 articles to have the stub warning in them anyway. It just turns into WikiSpam. The point is to spend time improving them, not stating their faults. The same applies to any page in Wikipedia, as so many are far from complete. A large chunk of articles no longer represent the original rambot article anyway. Many cities have external links and/or geographic coordinates. The articles are slowly improving. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 13:59, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite. This should be worded in a similar way to the "This article contains info imported from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica" boilerplate. --carlb 00:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Slightly insulting, not quite BJAODN material. --Titoxd 06:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Judaism-Attention edit

Found this huge thing on Michael Lerner (rabbi). Eek! Process creep, and no purpose whatsoever for the general public. Recommend deletion, or that Wikiproject Judaism people cut it down to a light footer tagline. Doesnt Template:Judaism-stub serve this purpose already? -SV|t 20:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to have a judaism-specific {{attention}} template? I'm not in favor of a delete if there's a reason to have this. Do other projects have their own specific attention template? Avriette 20:17, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't find any other "attention" templates, other than the generic one and this one. [3] --Tabor 22:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is useful. The stub listing is really not as compelling as a template. Even novice users are more likely to contribute when there is a template imploring them to do so. It spurs curiosity, and creativity. I say keep it. --jonasaurus 02:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a need for only one {{attention}} template. 2) A very weak 2nd choice: Iff kept, make it a Talk page only template. A better choice, instead of that, would be to add {{subst:Template:WikiProjectNotice|Judaism}} to the Talk page. BlankVerse ∅ 03:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per BlankVere's first reason. Superm401 | Talk 15:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant with {{attention}}. -Splash 02:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: redundant with {{attention}} and {{Judaism-stub}}. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is why we have {{stub}} templates. --JB Adder | Talk 23:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • So.. what about when an article of a specific domain needs attention but is not also a stub? --Mysidia 06:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies about that. I only just realised that when I checked the only article linking to it. (Special:Whatlinkshere is a marvellous device, methinks.) But yes, like everyone else has said, if it needs to be attended to, then {{attention}} and the other various, more specific article notices ({{NPOV}}, {{copyvio}}, etc) are sufficient. --JB Adder | Talk 00:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep mostly because I think the rationales for "delete" here are the reverse of the "keep" votes for the similar Template:Cleanupcsh listed above. Tomer TALK 07:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Quantity edit

(See also Template:Structure below.) This template basically contains a list of articles about numbers. The articles themselves are not that much mathematically related. I don't see much the reason for grouping these links in the template, or otherwise, why this cannot be accomplished by a cateogory. It was agreed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Templates for thought that this template is not very valuable. Oleg Alexandrov 23:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Oleg Alexandrov 23:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete linas 01:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not 100% that the template has no use, but I'm convinced enough to cast this vote. -Lethe | Talk 03:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Radiant_>|< 09:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't really see what purpose this could possibly serve, since there is no mathematical correlation between articles just because they deal with quantity. --NicholasTurnbull 12:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A useful navigational aid for getting between articles about kinds of number. --Mysidia 13:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Topics listed in the template are too diverse. I think very few readers will want to read all (or most) of the articles listed one after another, and those that do want that can follow links. So, the template has little use and hence should be deleted. Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It sure looks pretty, but doesn't seem very useful. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 13:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It did look useful at first glance, but after actually looking at the specific topics, I can't imagine it being useful as a navigational aid; more of a "browsing for fun" aid, for which categories easily suffice! —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:42, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What on earth do octonions have to do with "quantity", anyway? -- Dominus 04:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Structure edit

Same reasoning as in Template:Quantity right above. Oleg Alexandrov 23:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Oleg Alexandrov 23:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete linas 01:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This goes hand in hand with the other math templates. -Lethe | Talk 03:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Radiant_>|< 09:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, same as my comment above. No relationship between articles. --NicholasTurnbull 12:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I believe it is a useful navigational aid between some topics in Mathematics. --Mysidia 13:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the same reasons as above, except that in this case the topics listed are even more diverse. Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 13:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Worldperks edit

  • Listify/delete. The list of partners can be have been added to the main Northwest Airlines article, but the template is superfluous. WorldPerks is NWA's frequent flyer program, not an airline alliance. That is, America West Airlines and Garuda Indonesia may partner with Northwest, but not with each other. The template is thus meaningless unless we assume every user is an avid Northwest frequent flyer or we create such a template for every airline's partners, in which case the NWA article alone would contain no fewer than 29 templates of comparable size. - choster 22:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given above. A way to group airlines that are Worldperks partners would be to use Category:Worldperks. That would work for all frequent flyer plans and allow people to find participants without creating a template for each program and without duplicating airlines in several templates. While the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines is off to a slow start, better solutions could be discussed there if someone feels the need. Vegaswikian 00:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • let the page remain. an encyclopedia is always better with one more peace of useful article. we could start a page on frequent flyer programme and link it there while letting the page remain. i hope my suggestion will be seriously considered.i do not wish to see world perks go. it will be a lose to visitors of wikipedia.Sghan 08:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)thanks[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons given above. A category should be sufficient. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • this discussions here are redundant...you all admins are already firm on deleting whats the point....:s Sghan 09:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, we are not all admins. Second of all, nobody is voting to delete the article Northwest Airlines, this is simply a vote on a template used by a handful of articles. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • ok whatever you decide ok? wiki although very very useful are full of saudi like people(you people know who you are) who control this place like their regimeSghan 09:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excuse me. How is voting on something like a regime? The result of this vote will not result in any information being lost, just look at the Northwest Airlines article to see how that will be changed since the template was already removed from there. Do you realize how much work will have to be done if the vote here is delete, so that vote is forcing someone to do a lot of extra work? As it currently stands if the vote is delete, someone will need to edit every aricle that has that template and update the article and then probably add the Worldperks category to those articles and maybe even add that cat to the programs other partners to complete the task. If you look at the oother votes on TfD, as in most other delete discussions, you will find some that are kept since nominators do make mistakes so being here is not the kiss of death. Vegaswikian 17:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed the inline infobox since the information was added to, and placed in a heading within the body of the article. Vegaswikian 19:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No information would be lost by the removal of this template, so it really would affect nobody. Please research before complaining that we are voting to remove information, when in fact, no such vote is taking place. This is simply a vote on a little-used template that doesn't particularly apply to most of the articles it is found in. This template is found in a total of nineteen articles, so I can't see it's removal as creating much "extra work", either. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't see why such a template would really be useful since the appropriate parties should already be mentioned in the Worldperks article. --NicholasTurnbull 12:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify or delete - I agree that it's pointless to have a template for every single airline's frequent flyer program (and Northwest isn't so special as to need one when no other airlines have them). However, making a list of partners might be a good idea; then the same could be done for other airlines. Converting it to a category would create the same problems as the template, since airlines such as Lufthansa have over 30 partners, including the 18 other Star Alliance members, so some airlines would be in way too many categories. Dbinder 16:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: There is no WorldPerks article; it redirects back to Northwest Airlines. There are only a handful of articles about FF programs as they are rarely referenced independent of the airline (except some unique cases like Aeroplan, or historically notable programs like AAdvantage). The contents of the template can now be found at Northwest Airlines#Frequent_Flyer_Program.-choster 22:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why the redirect is up for deletion, it only loops beteeen the redirect and the NWA article. Vegaswikian 19:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:^ edit

Orphaned, AFAIK, never used. Wish we had speedy template deletion guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 20:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Phoenix2 03:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Strange; not useful. --NicholasTurnbull 13:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oleg Alexandrov 15:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quinobi 23:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC) I think it's safe to say that was an accident[reply]
  • Delete +sj + 16:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC) As you can almost see in its html comment, this was part of an abortive project to identify 'half-decent articles'. That classification will be done someday, but probably under a more elegant method; the rest of the project was deleted, this was just missed. +sj + 16:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One-character answer to a one-character template: ? --Titoxd 06:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current sports edit

A specialized version of {{current}} only used on a few pages. Unnecessary m:instruction creep. BlankVerse ∅ 07:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 07:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have some issues with current itself, but don't want it deleted. This however is just redundant. Superm401 | Talk 15:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I also have some issues with the use of {{current}}, but it mostly from the numerous inappropriate uses of the template (as well as the template remaining on some articles way beyond their original currency. The main thing that is need with that template is a good pruning. BlankVerse ∅ 07:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 19:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This sort of thing tends to lead to out-of-date category groupings; when is "current"? --NicholasTurnbull 13:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Skinheadz, Template:Nationalist Movement, Template:Richard Barrett edit

These three templates are very similar. They are navigation boxes chiefly composed of external links to a White Nationalist website. They have never been used in any article (though copies of the boxes were inserted and later removed from relevant pages). -Willmcw 21:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Dragons flight 22:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all as Dragons flight, and boy does that guy look like a sourpuss! GarrettTalk 22:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, useless links --MarSch 12:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete as per WP:NOT. -- Titoxd 06:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phi Delta Theta infobox edit

Converted Phi Delta Theta to use Template:Infobox Fraternity instead of this standalone template. Now orphaned. -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you redo it? I made changes to the template and reinserted it. Can you put it back with the changes? Otherwise, I have no problem with the deletion. AriGold 19:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Phi Delta Theta to change the data, edit Template:Infobox Fraternity to change the format. The main article looks good now. -- Netoholic @ 20:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. AriGold 20:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unused --MarSch 12:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lame edit war edit

Amusing, but unfortunately completely silly and possibly rather inflammatory. I propose it should be deleted. --NicholasTurnbull 12:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete {{Twoversions}} and {{Editwar}} are plenty. Editing wars can be frustrating, though I doubt the template is too inflammatory, I think it is just not needed and the other templates are more appropriate for an encyclopedia --Mysidia 12:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the link this template provides is not relevant to whatever article it would be put on. Radiant_>|< 13:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, have I missed something? This template is very plainly for talk pages, as what links here shows. It is not meant for an encyclopedia. It is meant for discussion about the encyclopedia. As such, keep. smoddy 20:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes more sense, but only two talk pages actually use it.. most of the articles listed at Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever do not, and I really do not see why they should, for that matter. --Mysidia 00:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, there is currency in that. I presumed it had been substituted in. As its hardly used, delete. Weakly. smoddy 10:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almafeta 12:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate template. (See Template:LAME, also on (tfd) above.) Can't see a need for more than one of this, as they're so similar in content. --carlb 00:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Template:LAME, above. --Titoxd 06:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violet/riga (t) 08:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is good for people involved in edit wars to realize how others see them. A second one is good for those who don't get the message first time.Dejvid 23:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I know I'm in the minority here but seriously, what's wrong with a little humor to try and diffuse an edit war now and then? Especially the really lame ones... --Shawn K. Quinn 01:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanuplo edit

(also the generated Category:Cleanup leftovers)

This "leftover" designation seems all-but abandoned. They now use Template:Cleanup-date. -- Netoholic @ 19:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete tl and cat, but replace current uses with {{cleanup-date}}. This has been superseded. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, good idea but doesn't actually work. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have converted all the pages using this template to use cleanup-date instead, and fixed navigational links to point to Category:Cleanup by month instead. Should be ready for deletion. -- Beland 23:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-serious edit

(also the generated Category:Wikipedia serious cleanup)

This template is in serious need of deletion. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-s & Template:Cleanuplite edit

More miniature versions of an established template. Orphaned, not worth redirecting. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Cleanup seems to do a better job in explaining the work needed. Vegaswikian 19:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I added Template:Cleanuplite after your vote, please confirm whether you agree with that one's deletion. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Cleanup still explains what to do in a better way. Vegaswikian 19:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, cleanup does the job fine. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup, oh wait, I mean delete! Agree. --Dmcdevit�t 07:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete forks. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe keep cleanuplight -- it looks slicker for marking just a section for cleanup. --Mysidia 22:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-nonsense-serious edit

Funny, but not an appropriate template. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Netoholic. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{delete}}. If something is patent nonsense, there's no point in cleaning it up except with a flamethrower. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a needed template, as nonsense falls under the criteria for speedy deletion. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only possible use I can see for this is as a decoy that can be used by sysops so that they can see which articles link to the template so that the articles can be speedy-deleted. Unfortunately, such use will catch articles for five minutes until someone figures out what the admins are doing and the template becomes useless. Then, I vote delete. -- Titoxd 06:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...funny...did anyone bother to look at the choice of image for this template?  :-p Tomer TALK 06:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Merge-tasks edit

Orphaned, no purpose. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, goodness knows what that was meant for. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything would link here, I'd say redir to {{merge}}. Since that isn't the case, delete. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • del, no clear usage --MarSch 07:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions spoiler edit

Unused, and far, far too specific. —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • del unused --MarSch 12:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Warning: Results of this TFD vote follow. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. way to specific, though i do love Jeopardy!. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "What is a rake?" Tomer TALK 06:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Change edit

(see also Template:Space right below) Not a very useful math template, uniting topics as distinct as arithmetic and calculus (the former is not about change by the way). Calculus is a subset of analysis, so both should not be in that template. I believe this template is not very helpful. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Templates_for_thought seems to confirm that. Oleg Alexandrov 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if the project that would use it thinks it's not wanted. As the nominator says, it groups together things that don't have any particularly convincing relationship. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. linas 17:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dominus 13:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Space edit

(See also Template:Change right above). This template puts together a lot of articles having rather little in common, like Trigonometry, Algebraic topology, and Functional analysis. I doubt the concept of space is so important in trigonometry and also in fractal geometry listed there. In short, I don't think that template is terribly helpful for navigating between articles. Oleg Alexandrov 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USNavyAwards edit

Previously only linked to one article. Really no point to keeping it. Actual table has been copied to that article. K1Bond007 22:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete author made good use of the table on article, no furhter need for template. ∞Who?¿? 23:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MathematicsCOTW edit

This template is obsolete. It is replaced by Template:Wikiportal:Mathematics/Opentask. --R.Koot 18:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Simple housekeeping rather than a decision on content or display. Pcb21| Pete 21:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obsolete. -- Titoxd 05:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Template:Wikiportal:Mathematics/Opentask. BTW, this template is really ugly, I suggest something like Template:GCOTW. See below: -Hyad 08:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  This article is a candidate for Gaming Collaboration of the week. Please visit that page to support or comment on the nomination.
Have you looked at the new template? It is already merged :). And it's meant to be put on the WikiPortal, there's a different template for articles (which looks like the one above). --R.Koot 11:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is the current mathematics collaboration of the week! You are encouraged to edit this article, so that it may meet a higher standard of quality.

Oleg Alexandrov 12:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Israel and Template:Israel infobox edit

Template:Infobox Country is used in the Israel article instead. 500LL 15:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - there are a lot of these one-use country infoboxes, and we shouldn't delay deleting them as they migrate to Template:Infobox Country. -- Netoholic @ 18:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and netoholic. Tomer TALK 05:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ImportantLabeledEquation edit

A dotted box style for displaying equations. The mathematicians over here seem to think that an equation is better off without any box around it. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Dotted_framebox_around_formulas (that was discussed in other places too). Oleg Alexandrov 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quentin Tarantino films edit

Another directors template, incomplete at that, that should be categorified and deleted. ∞Who?¿? 18:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for consistency. Although in favour of these in general, if Hitch, Kubrick and Spielberg had to go, then so does this. The JPS 19:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Phoenix2 20:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorify and delete per nominator. -Splash 22:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't mind, I created it based on the Kubrick one. --User:Cammoore 15:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like the director's work but disagreed with the directors template concept overall; including here. Whitehorse1 00:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Rikondakizoc edit

Looks like a nonsense template created by an anon IP with a minor history of creating nonsense articles. --Icelight 15:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Do we have speedy delete for templates? This would qualify under it... --Titoxd 00:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charleston County School of the Arts infobox edit

Template for a single school article, should be substed, there is no reason for this code to be in a template rather than the article. Joe D (t) 16:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. A single use template can be acceptable as a seperate entity if including it into the text of the page directly would interfere with editting the main page because of the size or complexity of the template's content. For example: {{Timeline Geological Timescale}}, {{Planet Infobox/Earth}}. This is fairly marginal on those grounds. No vote yet. Dragons flight 20:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The size and complexity of this particular template are only a concern because the template is needlessly large and complex. It was originally written in HTML; just by running it through this converter, I trimmed about 200 bytes off, and made it noticably more editable. Why a single school needs its own huge, fancy infobox is beyond me. Subst and Delete. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Subst and Delete seems a reasonable suggestion. Vegaswikian 22:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikt edit

A keystroke-saving template that doesn't. "{{subst:wikt|whatever}}" is five more characters than "[[wikt:whatever|]]", and this template shouldn't ever be used unsubsted. —Cryptic (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect to {{wiktionary}} (which superceded this) seems to be have been removed. May as well delete, as unused. Pcb21| Pete 16:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately confuses the issue of links into Wiktionary by addition of a cryptically titled template. Further, it is my understanding that even {{wiktionary}} is now considered to be obsolete owing to the switching off of the article-title capitalisation rule in the software implementation for the project; {{wiktionarypar}} is the favored template for use now. On a side note, I would be suprised if the original template does not undergo some change to accomodate this software environment change. Courtland 02:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What exactly does "subst:" do? -Hyad 05:50, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Subst:" is short for "substitution", which writes the contents of the template into the base text of the page itself. If not used, the method used is "transclusion", which links to the template and copies the most recent version of the message on the fly. With transclusion, templates can be updated and the changes will reflect instantly on the pages using the template; with substitution, this does not happen. --Titoxd 06:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not unused. Its purpose is to be subst-ed, which means it will always appear to be unused. If I need to link several words to their entries in Wiktionary, I am going to want to put [[Wiktionary:|]] on my clipboard and paste it into the article to create stuff like [[Wiktionary:一|一]], [[Wiktionary:二|二]], [[Wiktionary:三|三]]. But notice how each of those includes the word in question twice, so I'm going to have to go over them copying and pasting them. If I instead put {{Subst:Wikt| on my clipboard, I can save a load of time. I can quickly turn 一, 二, 三 into {{Subst:Wikt|一}}, {{Subst:Wikt|二}}, {{Subst:Wikt|三}}, which will gracefully convert into 一, 二, 三. This is a handy template that I have used several times. Check out Chinese numeral; it previously had a code printed next to each character. I turned that into a direct link, which is much better. If I create something, you can assume it's because it's useful. Don't delete it. — Chameleon 03:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the above. User:Cryptic has pointed out that the pipe trick makes the template unnecessary. It can stay deleted. — Chameleon 11:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sopranos edit

A very long list of Sopranos character articles, redundant with Category:The Sopranos characters. This template is rather large, obtrusive, and unnecessary. Postdlf 19:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, category is far more useful. - SimonP 22:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Postdlf / SimonP. -- Lochaber 13:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Calculus2 edit

Old version of Template:Calculus. I doubt it is worth keeping it. If somebody would really like to see how the calculus template looks like, one could see the page history. Oleg Alexandrov 13:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atten and Template:Atten lite edit

Delete created by an anon, and unused; also broken. Look like a suggestion for something to be used over at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, but none of those pages have a table that needs this. I left a message on the anon's talk page just in case.-Splash 00:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: there are some uses of {{arttalk}} which give a visually similar effect, and so the nominees are also redundant with this. -Splash 01:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UNmembers edit

Delete: Something that is much better served as a category. Only used on two articles. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • The information in there is useful, but just looking at the behemoth is scary. Categorify or listify, then delete. -- Titoxd 05:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Huge template that really doesn't add anything to either of the articles it's found in. Since, with the notable exception of the Holy See, all UN-recognized nations are now full UN members, this template is redundant. Tomer TALK 05:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorify and Delete: I think there may be an implementation problem (over 200 member states) but we can have subcats for the purpose. Septentrionalis 17:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nearly all countries are UN members, it's almost like having a Template:Countries. I would suggest that it would be better if a template listed countries which aren't UN members, which is considerably fewer. -- Joolz 02:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What's the point in having a category which will include 99.9% of countries? The only places without UN membership are Vatican City and... err, possibly Somaliland/Somalia, I can't think of anywhere else ofhand (maybe Western Sahara too) -- Joolz 18:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taiwan is no UN member either. Aecis 12:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now we need a "countries of the world" template. �Cantus…☎ 11:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --*drew 11:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CG 10:56, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Template:2004Earthquake edit

Delete after subst:ing. This (badly named) template is just article text (which is forbidden in Wikipedia:Template namespace) about deaths in the tsunami. Only added tfd notice to talk page, but will leave notices on the articles' talks. -Splash 19:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst. As far as I know, the outcome of the article text/template debates was that they should be strongly discouraged and used only as a temporary solution, rather than forbidden per se. I assume the point of this was to be able to efficiently update the death toll across multiple pages. But now it's July and I think we can probably be done wiht this. Dragons flight 21:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Useless template. Should have just used plain text --Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 03:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Delete That's worthless. You can just type it in, why bother making a template it. --Genocide2st 08:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Useless template. --*drew 10:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was actually very useful at the time, as the death toll kept rising and it was easier just to change this template than a dozen or more articles. However, it's time is past - Subst: then delete. Dan100 (Talk) 17:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Song dynasty emperors edit

This template, and also Template:Song dynasty emperors1, have been superceded by the generic Template:Succession box template group. I've moved all articles that used them over to the succession box format. Bryan 19:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete redundant per nominator. -Splash 17:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:End Spoiler edit

Unused, poorly worded (I read this as "Details of the ending or end of plot"), and redundant to Template:Endspoiler (which is itself undocumented and barely used, but might be worth salvaging). —Cryptic (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Noteworthy Artscene Groups edit

Should be deleted per WP:CLS#Article_series_boxes. Lists six out of nine arbitrarily selected groups from Category:Artscene groups. Only two users have ever edited it, it's clearly POV. --ZeroOne 13:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even if such a list were compelte, it seems to serve no purpose that a category wouldn't serve better. But to mark out a particular set of artists or groups of artists in any genre as "noteworthy" seems far to POV to me. DES 14:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DES. -Splash 18:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DES. ∞Who?¿? 11:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warning edit

"This category lists articles that may be illegal in some jurisdictions". That's very nice, but WP:NOT censored so this doesn't require a template as such. Also, looks like article text, and isn't actively in use. Radiant_>|< 10:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is probably an issue that requires the Foundation to get involved in. There is definately information on the Wikipedia that is illegal in some form, and other info that is probably borderline. Is it better to have the warning, or should we assume that only the laws of the US apply? BlankVerse ∅ 14:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be handled by a general disclaimer. Who is to decide which articels need this warning? Are we liable if we put it on soem articles but not others? If a vandal removes the wrning for a time? This template is not the way to handle such issues, IMO. DES (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, until the Foundation resolves this kind of thing for us. At which point, add a mention somewhere prominent in the interface. -Splash 19:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The big problem area I see is Nazi-related stuff being displayed in Germany, but this is the sort of thing that needs an official decision by teh Foundation, not an ad-hoc tagging effort. --Carnildo 22:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like another disclaimer template. --cesarb 14:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 4 August PM to 6 August PM — 2 days

Template:Pt edit

Seriously wastefull use of template space. This: {{pt}} creates this: pt:. Used on one Portuguese article and the category. I'm not sure I want to see one for every language, besides {{en}} and {{es}} are for other things. A difference of typing 2 less characters. delete. ∞Who?¿? 08:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 23 August AM to 2 September PM — 10 days
Removed from TFD 4 September PM &mdash 12 days

Template:AubreyMaturinSeries edit

The pages that this navigated among have now all been merged, so this tempalte is no longer needed. DES 21:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well done! Delete then. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Privileged access edit

We have a general disclaimer. Usage not worthy of a template. -- Netoholic @ 21:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: there's a general disclaimer as Netoholic says, and WP:NOT a FAQ, either, which this has overtones of. Also, WP shouldn't make 'recommendations' in the way this tl does. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless. People who can't handle BOFH status in Linux generally aren't given it anyway. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • You forget that linux impementations are not infrequently installed on single-user computers as replacements for/alternatives to Windoes. In such cases the user generally has full rights, but may not know as much as s/he ought to about the dangers of some commands. DES 17:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep this is important info about such commnds, but might be better ingtegrated into the article directly. DES 17:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree to some extent about WP not making recommendations (but weakly, because I think there can be exceptions). More to the point, this template will not make this warning appear where it is most needed. It is currently just linked from chown, because it requires root access. But many commands which don't necessarily require root access are much more dangerous if invoked as root, for example rm. I think the general comment on superuser is enough. 80.229.160.150 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Splash, Netoholic. Pcb21| Pete 21:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This kind of thing would be suitable for a programming manual, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only describes operating system commands for encyclopedic purposes. Someone who has superuser access to a computer system knows or should know what he's doing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dangerous edit

We have a general disclaimer. Maybe a joke creation? -- Netoholic @ 20:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per Netoholic. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad idea per se but I can't really think of a place to put it, and from its talk page neither can the creator, so delete. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We're describing stuff, not advocating it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thats sorta funny but delete its useless. Jobe6 05:20, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Policysuspended edit

I'd say redirect to Template:Notpolicy, but that one was deleted too. -- Netoholic @ 20:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — there's no page this could apply to. Either it is policy or it is not. I suppose this is intended for a hypothetical current policy which is being repolled with a view to removal. Even then, it would presumably remain policy until consensus decided against it - it wouldn't be 'suspended'. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, m:instruction creep. We don't suspend policy ("hey, I don't like the NPOV policy, how about we suspend it for today?"). We do have disputed guidelines but that's entirely different. Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Splash above. -- Titoxd 04:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- If a policy is suspended, then remove the {{policy}} tag from it to indicate that fact. --Mysidia 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TPOV edit

Since when do we have a problem with POV templates? Redundant with {{tfd}} and the Edit button. :) -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm. Nothing links here. But POV is not a case for {{tfd}}, it just needs reworking and the tag indicates that (on a talk page, I presume). The nomination argument applies equally well to articles, so we could do away with all the POV templates on that basis, which we clearly can't. I'm inclined to suggest a weak delete, but I'd be interested in other arguments too. -Splash 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fork. Wow, is it general cleanup day in template land? Not that I mind :) Radiant_>|< 08:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I created this because I thought a certain template was non-neutral and I thought a POV notice would be of use. It was a little ad-hoc but I used it at least once. — Phil Welch 08:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --minghong 09:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- or at least it should not be in a box and look more like Template:tfd, so it is clear that it is a dispute about the template and not the article that uses it.. I cannot think of a likely situation where this applies.. the meaning of having many of the templates on an article is inherently POV at a meta level.. take {{cleanup}} it represents the opinion of a few editors who think an article needs to be cleaned up, a vfd tag on an article represents a point of view by as few as 1 persons that an article merits listing for deletion, a POV tag in and of itself is POV. There is the issue of uses of a template and what is expressed by its appearance in a specific spot versus its contents in general. So templates are allowed to be POV, and if someone makes a {{sucks}} template with text "This subject really sucks" or "This is a sucky stub", then the right tag to add to it is {{tfd}} not {{tpov}}, or EDIT and fix the text, since templates are short enough to do this easily -- with long articles, it may be rather difficult to edit them into NPOV. --Mysidia 22:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Deleted/July_2005&oldid=1089183330"