Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Not deleted/December 2005

Template:User NoSanta

Note that the accompanying category has been listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.

I consider this to be unacceptable and POV. --Santa on Sleigh 17:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I see nothing good coming from this template, plus it'll pull in some bad vibes. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 17:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Andylk. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - all userboxes are POV - the whole point is that they illustrate the POV of the user. Also, if you're deleting this one then surely you should delete {{user Santa}}. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 18:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - This is in use on several user pages already. User boxes don't hurt anyone, you choose if you want to use them or not. Many userboxes are POV, does that mean we should delete them all and take some fun out the personal side of Wikipedia which people enjoy on their userpages? — Wackymacs 18:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I see two viable options: 1. We keep this template, which is no better or worse than any of the dozens of other humorous user tags that have sprung up. 2. We userfy all of the silly things, and dump them onto a page from which people can manually copy them. Personally, I would prefer the latter, because it appears as though the Wikipedia:Babel project is being taken over by comedy. Somehow, a practical means of displaying useful information has become an online car bumper. And for heaven's sake, we need to put the kibosh on the accompanying categories. "Wikipedians that don't believe in Santa"? "Wikipedians who drink Pepsi"? Come on! —David Levy 18:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment — This isn't part of Babel at all, though it uses the same design elements. It's part of Wikipedia:Userboxes. --AySz88^-^ 19:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment — I'm aware of that, but the two are used interchangeably, and the latter is beginning to crush the former under its weight. —David Levy 19:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete pointless template only intended to upset children. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • And I suppose this page should also be deleted because it might upset children. Daykart 19:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't hurt anything, I highly doubt that anyone will be hurt more by this when we have userpages such as SPUI's and Deeceevoice's. Blackcap (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - but definitely scrap the accompanying categories. Userboxes are intended to work alongside Babel, but no together with it. Templatising the boxes just enables users to easily share common templates without the excessive text. The deletion of this template would put a searing knife through large parts of WP:UBX, because it is of fundemental importance to that project that userbox templates can be freely created. As for upsetting children... I presume you're joking. If not... well I can't imagine you're being serious so I'm not going to make a fool out of myself any further. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 18:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My thorough forensic analysis revealed a blatant violation of WP:AUM. Adrian Buehlmann 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the above (though frankly it's not that big a deal) Radiant_>|< 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unless you are also going to delete all the other userboxes intended as "humour" (which probably by now make up about 50% of all existing userboxes) laug 18:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Violation of WP:POINT by Santa on Sleigh who obviously has a vested financial interest in maintaining the myth. Bah, humbug! to all deletionists :) --Cactus.man ✍ 19:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it now no longer violates WP:AUM because I subst'd {{userbox}}. Alternatively, one can put the User ____ templates on the list of templates to be subst'd (so the {{userbox}} template gets saved instead of User ____), but it'd probably be better to subst the userbox template into the individual User templates, since I don't think {{userbox}} changes at all. One might want to premanently protect {{userbox}} as well. If it is expected that {{userbox}} will never change (and if the template becomes permanently protected), WP:AUM might not apply in this case. --AySz88^-^ 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — per Cactus.man _→AzaToth 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If this template is unacceptable POV, then clearly so is the account used by the sockpuppeteer who nominated it for deletion. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:17, Dec. 28, 2005
• Keep - Userboxes are supposed to display a POV or an aspect of a user. They are designed for userpages, a place where users are supposed to tell people about themselves, and usually where POV is not taken into account since it is considered that a user can do what they want there, providing its not breaking any of the wiki laws. As for WP:AUM - yes, it does break it, but so does the whole userbox/babel system, so I presume if this template is deleted on those grounds, Template:User en is going to have to go, and I'm not sure the 4500+ people who use it will like that. If you look on the average userpage, WP:AUM is utterly undermined with the usage of babel box templates for userbox organisation. If userboxes are to be restricted to language only - then it destroys part of the culture of wikipedia, and I feel that would be a great regression in wikipedia status, as well as holding no full reasoning. Also, I feel the template is not POV in many aspects, it mearly shows what the user believes: it does not say it is wrong, or that he doesn't exist. I feel this template's removal would do a great injustice to the wiki, and where would the line be drawn - would userboxes and babel be altogether removed, or would Wikipedia just lose its sence of community? Should this template be removed, it will only complicate the managment of userboxes (I for one certainly have enougth to do) and members would be forced to use Template:Userbox to create the desired effect, or would Template:Userbox have to go, and users will have to waste even more of their encyclopedic writing time fiddling with div's - and yes that would lead to less server strain, but is it really worth it for that work and effort? Oh, and the nominator will have to be banned for a POV username, which is far more noticeable. I also notice how the nominator is using the Template:User Santa on their userpage - is this nomination to promote his/her point of view? Ian¹³_ID:540053 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment — Actually, templates like {{User en}} had substed {{userbox}}, so it didn't break WP:AUM at all. --AySz88^-^ 19:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment —Yes, but it's usually used in a bable-box, and that would be a voilation _→AzaToth 19:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Comment That's what I meant. (Thanks _→AzaToth). Ian¹³_ID:540053 19:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Much less scary than GWB. Integral to Userbox project. --Dschor 19:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment — I suppose the George Washington Bridge would be icy this time of year. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:28, Dec. 28, 2005

• Keep, bad Santa, Bad Santa! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the entry on autofellatio would be more harmful (as well as the plethora of wikipr0n) to children than this tag... -- Jbamb 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Ummmmm, I'm Jewish? And atheist? And a skeptic? Daykart 19:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - If we delete this, we might as well delete all the other userboxes while we're at it. --D-Day 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - If we delete this, we might as well delete all the other userboxes while we're at it. Zocky 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  I'll drink to that. Let's act unilaterally! Rob Church ^Talk 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - with prejudice. Despise userboxes. Rob Church ^Talk 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — No harm, it's Wikipedia project content, not encyclopaedic content and so is acceptable to show a users' POV.

Similar to how Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild purports that "Islam is one of the greatest religions in the world". --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking at the original user, it seems to me that this might be just a joke nomination. --AySz88^-^ 20:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, userbox-creep. android79 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Of course userboxes have POV. Nominator uses them, what's the problem? This vote looks like a for-against vote regarding userboxes in general. Maybe that's something to consider - but not here. Ifnord 22:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not doing anyone any harm, if people want to state that they don't believe in Santa then they should be able to by using this template. I do however support scrapping the accompanying category. --Cooksey 22:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Template only intended to upset children. Mark¹ 22:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - we have other userboxes based on users' religious beliefs. Guettarda 22:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep harmless humor on userpages. --Chris 22:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Userboxes do noone any harm. (Third edit conflict... grumbles) ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 22:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - (edit conflict, grr) per ian13 - Trysha ^(talk) 22:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Complete and utter nonsense. Soltak | Talk 22:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Its a user box! If someone doesnt like someone else's userbox - tough. Its the user's choice what he/she puts on their own userpage. If people are moaning about a userbox against Santa, then you really need to find something better to do. Its just a bit of fun!If someone wishes to show that they dont believe in Santa - so be it! If this gets deleted, i call for the deletion of every single userbox that has a shred of a user's belief in it, or something that may offend - even religion! - Bourbons3 23:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - er, maybe this is a joke nomination? But if it passes, I'll be tempted to nominate every other userbox that comments about beliefs held or not held. Lead me not into temptation! ++Lar 23:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - there are several userboxes that depict beliefs and opinions and I don't see anything wrong with this one. I really don't see what the big deal about it is anyway. It's just some fun little thing. I mean geez people, where's the humility here? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 06:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a harmless userbox. Most of them are non-encyclopedic, true, but that is beside the point; they're intended for userspace. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: bad Santa! No biscuit! —Phil | Talk 10:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Mostly Harmless. 1001001 16:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no point, and it's not funny or happy, because we all know that there's no such thing as Santa, it'd be like saying {{Wikipedians who believe the sky is blue}}, and there's no humor or hapiness in that. -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 23:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - All in fun! Even if there were wikipedians who believed in Santa, they know some people do not believe in it. Moresoever, the Man Scientist template is not any better persay. Don't do away with it! Jake0geek 01:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Humor doesn't kill. Lack of humor does.--Jyril 02:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Jyril.--Matei Tache 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep user page entries in general, and userboxes in particualr, are suppose to indicatge things about the user, and are ofte PoV. WP:NPOV applies primarily to articles. DES ^(talk) 04:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be a joke nomination. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's funny, why not? Plus, you have a "Believe in Santa" template, why not have the contrasted? Эйрон Кинни 06:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- userboxes are POV and don't hurt anyone. If you don't like this template, don't use it. -- Tetraminoe 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Of course, those who use this template go on the List of naughty children. Jonathunder 15:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• EMPHATIC KEEP We never ever delete user boxes. They are harmless and they help wikipedia to build community.--God_of War 17:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT For those who may not already be aware of this, it is perfectly possible that a user can have a userbox on his/her userpage and still make productive contributions to Wikipedia. --D-Day 19:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Check your calendars people, the winter holidays are nearly over. Other than the context of the holiday season, I do not see a reason to keep this userbox. And since the holidays are over, the userbox needs to go. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep, is this even a serious nomination? --Bjarki 00:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I mean I'm not going to put it on MY userpage because I want "phat lewt" in my stocking next year. But seriously, there is not a good reason to remove it. --Naha|^(talk) 05:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - as per FREAK OF NUR_xTURE's argument. - Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 11:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and find a life per above Larix 12:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Larix. Stop being so picky! Do you really have nothing better to do than take a joke userbox like this so seriously that you want it deleted?!? - Bourbons3 17:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's not the end of the world if someone wants to have some fun on their user page and it certainly won't bring about the end of Wikipedia if you don't manage to get this one deleted. --Loopy 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User messiah

• Delete Absurd, nonsensical, and useless. Soltak | Talk 00:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I find this rather humorous and in good fun and at least 20 users have added this to their pages. WP is not paper anyway.Gateman1997 00:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Paper has nothing to do with it. In addition to serving absolutely no purpose, it has the potential of being rather offensive. In any event, 20 users out of hundreds of thousands isn't exactly a startling statistic. Soltak | Talk 00:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • True it's not many, but if someone finds it offensive they either need a sense of humor or to see Monty Python. In either case it's not an issue that should concern the 20+ users with the template.Gateman1997 01:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and see Life of Brian.--Sean|Black 00:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Userboxes have officially jumped the shark. -- Netoholic @ 01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This attribute fits nicely to describe your user page. Adrian Buehlmann 09:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Maybe they have jumped it (hm... IDEA! maybe a userbox is needed for that?) and maybe they haven't but is there a larger question here as to what sorts of restrictions on userboxes there ought to be? Has there been an WP:RfC on this already? If deletion of certain userboxes is ok because the nominator thinks they are silly, is that a good thing? I guess I don't see the harm of any userbox that isn't directly advocating something harmful. Claiming/denying to be the Messiah doesn't seem to fit that. (that said, the box may need fixing to allow specification that one thinks one IS the messiah... else we'd have a fork!) ++Lar 02:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep People need to get a sense of humor, in my humble opinion. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 02:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I like laughing, and obviously 20 other users do. --Loopy 02:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I really like it. It has one of the greatest quotes ever to be said by Monty Python.- JustPhil 02:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — It's a userbox template for user pages. It's not meant to be encyclopedic: If you don't like it, don't use it. And find a sense of humour somewhere. Seriously, a lot of Wikipedians just need to seriously get outside more... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is humourous and enjoyable. There is nothing wrong with it. --Winter 03:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What, don't you like Monty Python? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Everything Soltak says is true, but it's also completely innocuous. A little humor never hurt anyone. – Seancdaug 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per users Loopy, JustPhil, Mistress Selina Kyle, Pilotguy, Seancdaug. I love humor! --Naha|^(talk) 05:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep People are using it; if you don't like it, don't use it. No need to spoil others' fun.--Tetraminoe 06:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless userbox. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 09:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, where is peoples sence of humour? Ian¹³_ID:540053 12:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oh come on! Can't you let people decide what they want on their own'user page? Really.... Strongest possible keep Larix 12:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

PS I have to admit I'm not 100% objective on this as I created the template myself.

• Keep For those not already aware, it is perfectly possible for someone to have a userbox and still make productive edits to Wikipedia. --D-Day 14:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy this is getting way beyond silly --Doc ^ask? 15:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — by the same token you should nominate all funny user boxes at the same time, and that would be a shame. — Zazou 15:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Its humorous.--Kross^Talk 17:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and look up "joke" in the dictionary you boring farts who said delete - Bourbons3 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I greatly enjoy the absurdity. I also liked Life of Brian. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Moving away from the debate about user categorization, can't we at least agree that it's not particularly useful to declare what a user is not? "This User is not Jewish," "This User Doesn't Drive a Volvo," "This User is not Allergic to Corn." Where does this sort of rubbish end? Soltak | Talk 18:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, does it have to end? There is nothing preventing such userboxes, and frankly they are funny and help engender a sense of fun to this site. As they aren't causing any negative impact what does it matter?Gateman1997 19:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I actually found the notion of "This User Doesn't Drive a Volvo" amusing, so I'll have to disagree, Soltak, and say that userpages should be an area where we don't try to purge any sense of silliness and fun. They aren't part of the encyclopedia and as the personal space of each user should be free to be used however (within obvious guidlines of the law and such) they wish. Humorous userboxes aren't hurting anyone, they don't bring down Wikipedia's image or reputation any and if one doesn't like looking at them one should simply not. --Loopy 20:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see anything wrong with it. All the userboxes listed in the funny section have a lighthearted feel to them. Let it go. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Literarypunkgenre

Delete: Seeing as most of the articles that this template links together are listed at AfD, I thought it should join them. I suspect its creator wants it gone, as he recently blanked the page. - EurekaLott 23:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Salt the Earth --J13 23:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Avogadro94 01:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep see changes since December 22: [1] All articles currently included are very wikipedia worthy, and the template is a useful navigation Circeus 04:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep — Important template for Punk culture and the relevant articles should not be deleted either. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The Punk culture article is about punk music and its associated subculture, not cyberpunk and affiliated movements in literature (which is what this template is intended for -- now a pretty limited set of materials to get a template of their own). --redfox 05:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. We do not need a template for cyberpunk's neologistic bastards, few of which have anything to do with "punk" at all. -Sean Curtin 21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The template is still usefull for the various '-punk' genres Johhny-turbo 22:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it has not been shown that there are other "punk" genres other than cyberpunk, and certainly non identified as such by the original authors. --Dandy 23:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Coherent. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 07:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Phil. The current version is suitably cleaned up, seems to me. --redfox 16:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Image-license

• Delete: Created to standardize image templates and leave room for the EXIF Metatable (in its old location). Now that the metatable has moved and some uses have been reverted, it's time for this to go. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Please see below for a short but important note regarding the nomination.
• Delete: seems to have relatively little usage? I added {{tfd-inline|Image-license}} to it to alert folks. ++Lar 16:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The reason there was no TfD notice on the template was to prevent any problems with how it is used with subst. (I put it on the talk page instead). I do not object to its appearance, however. (The subst part just gives the impression it is not used, but of all of our licensing templates it still hasn't enjoyed widespread use.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah. Well the subst usages aren't going to be affected by it going away, they already are subst'd in, right? The actual transcludes of it seem very rare unless I was misinterpreting "what links here"... But please feel free to revert me if you like! ++Lar 21:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I checked the whatlinkshere... no transclusion that I can tell. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Somebody should have checked the talk page. It's a work in progress to standardize all image license, primarily to make license information machine-readable. Any help with that work is appreciated. Zocky 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Zocky ++Lar 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Er, never mind then. Abstain and withdraw nomination. (Although the spacing for the EXIF Metatable can go...) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:HKCrownCopyright

in zh wp deleted. seezh:Wikipedia:删除投票和请求/2005年12月15日 and [2]--Shizhao 01:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep for now - Original discussion can be found in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive1. The deletion was not properly conducted in the Chinese Wikipedia, as the participants have misinterpreted "District Council" (a government statutory body) as "British Council" (a quasi-official, non-Hong Kong organization) who corresponded with PZFUN. Until the status of the template has been properly discussed, I would go for keeping this template for now. Carlsmith 11:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Carlsmith. (Btw there are 18 district councils, and therefore statutory bodies.) — Instantnood 20:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Carl too. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Middle-earth portal

Delete:"Easter egg" style link to Portal:Middle-earth. This is bad in terms of navigation, as the reader has no idea what the link is, and to further complicate things, they'd likely assume that the image links there too. I don't think that a link to Portal:Middle-earth needs a template. On some pages, this template can cause appearance issues as it clutters up the space, especially those with some templates and images already. See for example The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, Category:Middle-earth. This kind of link would be more appropriate in text form under "See also" headings, however not on all ~80 pages it currently exists on. --Qirex 01:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: I moved the portal down on The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) - this link shows where it was when Qirex commented above on it causing appearance issues. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Further note: the picture link has been fixed, thanks to Locke Cole, and I just added Middle Earth Portal to the caption. --Go for it! 04:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn because, as CBD pointed out, this is "a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Portal to determine if the way all portals are linked". I'm sorry that I didn't better research the whole portals thing and save everyone the bother. Thank you Locke Cole and Go for it! for making improvements to the template.

Question: should I go ahead and remove the tfd tag and place tfd-kept to the template talk page or is that something only an admin does? --Qirex 15:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe an admin may close it early if you, as the nominator, have withdrawn your nomination (which you've done). Especially since the voting is leaning heavily towards keep. —Locke Cole 15:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The page may be speedily kept if the nominator withdraws his nomination and there are no "delete" votes. Or if someone wants to flex their WP:IAR muscles. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 16:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As of this writing there appears to be one "delete" vote, perhaps that voter could be persuaded to change his vote? (IIRC, he has been tagged as an inclusionist in some circles... smile)++Lar 00:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

'Fraid not. I really dislike portal templates. Phil Sandifer 00:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? You didn't explain your vote before. Is it something that can be fixed? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - I oppose links in articles to things outside of the article namespace. Phil Sandifer 02:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Obviously as the creator I'm biased. That said, at most I'd think the template should be changed if consensus finds that it's purpose is confusing. Some of the issues listed above are actually standard practice for portals. For instance, it is standard to link articles related to a portal to that portal and put the portal links at the top of the page - see for instance Template:Philosophy portal and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Philosophy portal. Where images at the top of the page conflict the portal link can be moved down, as it always was for The Lord of the Rings, Middle-earth, History of Arda, and various others. The 'easter egg' was intended to be self evident to anyone familiar with the topic and follow the general concept of making portals 'personalized' to the topics they cover, but if there is concern about that the text can easily be replaced with a generic 'Middle-earth portal' message. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Undecided at the moment, but I'd like to add that I had no idea what it was when I first saw it. My first impulse was to delete it from the page because I took it for an irrelevant image (on The Hobbit, where the door of Moria isn't germaine to the subject) and didn't notice what it was until I was editing the page. It doesn't communicate its purpose very well even to one intimately familiar with the subject. But really, I think Wikipedia features should be aimed at the general reader. I'd vote to delete it in its present form, but with appropriate changes I'd vote to keep it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Recent changes are improvements, but could a different image be found? The current one is barely recognizable, and unless you already know what it's supposed to be it doesn't look in the least like a door. Not at my screen resolution anyway. (1024x768 on a 19" CRT. Didn't look good on the flat panel I use at work either.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Really? It looked pretty good on my screens, but I tend to use higher resolution (1280 x 1024). I'll check it under different settings and see if it can be cleaned up. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm glad I spotted this one. It's creative. An element that is often stifled in encyclopedias. But this is Wikipedia, which encourages creativity and novel approaches to encyclopedia design. Though a portal link such as this should mention the portal. Simply add the link "Middle-earth portal" in a sentence immediately following the fabled line from the book. So that takes care of the easter egg issue. As for the picture, is there any way to make a picture part of a link? I'd really like to know. If not, perhaps it can be iconized. But this doesn't matter, since the picture is definitely on-theme, and if its text includes "Middle-earth portal", the user will know that's a clickable link. But the picture is a bit dark, and itself needs to be freshened up, but that's easy to fix. I agree that the template clashes on some pages, but it is a nice touch on those with nothing to clash with. And the statement about "this kind of link would be more appropriate in text form under "See also" headings" argues against portal link templates in general, but they are in common use throughout Wikipedia, so this is not the place to be pushing such an agenda, as it pertains to general policy. Portal link templates are a Wikipedia tradition, and are a means to centralize portals, which helps portals be precisely what they are supposed to be: centralized. Therefore, this deletion nomination should never have been posted. Instead, an effort should have been made to fix the template and adjust its placement. I don't see any evidence of such an effort on Qirex's part. Just a knee-jerk "let's kill it" response. Besides, this portal link accents the Middle-earth theme quite well, and using a picture of a portal to represent a Wikipedia portal is brilliant. This one's a keeper. Go for it! 02:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think to characterise this nomination as "a knee-jerk "let's kill it" response" is a misrepresentation. I came across template when I noticed some placement issues of {{bakshi}}, and went to ~10 pages to see if I could resolve the problem (see the second and third pages of my contribs). I am a firm believer in fixing problems where they exist. I nominated this template because I honestly do not see the need to place large and prominent links to portals mixed in with the main body of text, and if the template is to go at the bottom of the page anyway, then it may as well be represented with plain text under an internal links section; simpler is better. --Qirex 08:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Qirex, I can see your viewpoint, but the problem is that it runs contrary to virtually EVERY portal on Wikipedia. I didn't come up with the idea of putting portal links with images at the top of related articles... I just followed the standard set by earlier portals in doing so. Most of them use the generic portal link template, but it's still an image box. I haven't found a single WikiPortal which follows the 'text link in 'See also' section' standard you propose. This is therefore really a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Portal to determine if the way all portals are linked should be changed. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'd like to vote 'delete' but alas, I cannot. I wouldnt read them books if I was tortured, but I understand that some people adore poor prose – so for their sake I vote this way.--Ezeu 02:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Phil Sandifer 02:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I've fixed it so if the image is clicked on, it also takes you to the Portal (and not to the Image info). —Locke Cole 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's pretty cool. I know that's not exactly the strongest argument on Wikipedia, but there you have it. Kafziel 03:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Quite a good argument if whosoever admin agrees with you. --Ezeu 04:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Some of noms issues have been resolved, and others can be fixed by where its placed on the page. And, if for some reason it really doesnt work on a page, just dont use the graphic version, it's all optional anyway. --Stbalbach 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It can be very easily improved (and certainly will be) into a worthwhile portal link. In addition to changing the text and sharpening up or replacing the image, I would propose moving the text to the side as with the Philosophy portal, which I think is more attractive and less intrusive on the page. AGGoH 09:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I like the template, and it can be improved. (Ibaranoff24 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC))
• Delete - This template takes the cake. First, it's self-serving navel-gazing, elevating the LotR Portal/Wikiproject above others. Second, it relies on the Template:Click3 meta-template. Notice of this kind belongs on the Talk page... oh wait... it alrady exists in the form of Template:ME-project. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Heh. First, the pleasantries of 'self serving navel gazing' aside, the whole point of portals is to promote a specific theme and there is no intent to 'raise one portal above others' here... because virtually every portal has 'non talk page' notices. Second, the Click3 template was added from this TfD discussion (see above). I tried to convert it from a meta-template into a single one, but was getting weird text overlap problems. I'll sort it out once the TfD ends and there aren't as many other adjustments to the template going on. As for Template:ME-project, I created that one to advertise the Wikiproject rather than the portal... just like every other Wikiproject/Portal combination on Wikipedia. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 10:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong, strong, delete. It doesn't just use, but relies on a copyright infringement out of the Fellowship of the Ring. Tolkien's estate has proven itself quite litigious in the past, and we have no defense whatsoever against this purely decorative use of the image. Remove the image, and all we have left is a fork of Template:Portal. —Cryptic (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  As noted on the Image:MoriaSmall.JPG page, I don't think derivative works fall under copyright restrictions. If I'm wrong then we can replace the image with something else. BTW, it's Tolkien Enterprises which is "quite litigious" rather than the estate... completely different groups which often get mistakenly conflated. Not really at issue here though as one of them is certainly litigous. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 14:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  Replaced image based on long review of copyright issues surrounding 'derivative works'. About the only thing about this template which hasn't changed since the TfD started is where it links to. :] I don't think there are any outstanding issues except Snowspinner's objection to links outside the main article space... which I can't see a way to square up with the concept of portals in general. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep per nomination withdrawal statement above. --JB Adder | Talk 02:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's much improved since the TfD started. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:ReligionScotland

I liked this template at first look, as a navigation around Scots religions. But, it isn't. There are no Scotland specific articles on the non-Christian faiths listed and the links just go to the general article. So, this is not a navigation aid, but just a very incomplete list of religions in Scotland. If we completed it, it would be unmanagable as a template. A link from the articles this template is on to the article Religion in Scotland would achieve everything this template does without POV decisions as to what to include. Delete (recreate if Scotland specific articles on the major faiths appear later) --Doc ^ask? 10:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: At least seven of those article links are to specific Scottish churches. If anything the fact that the non-christian links are not specific simply means they need articles created at some point. It's got a strong Christian bias for the Scotland-specific articles, but that bias reflects religion in Scotland too. Thanks/wangi 10:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

But tell me what use it is? Why is this preferable to a category? I agree that non-Christian Scottish articles would be desirable, but there are none as of now. Why is it useful to be able to navigate from the Church of Scotland article, to a general article on Budhism - with no explanation as to its significance to Scotland? I've no objections to this being recreated as a 'Christian denominations in Scotland' template - and then perhaps later recreated as 'Religion in Scotland' when we have articles on various faiths. But as it stands now tis template has no utility and is just plain clutter. --Doc ^ask? 10:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A template may be useful in the future, but I think a category would be better until such a time as there are specific articles on non-Christian religions in Scotland. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have just found Category:Religion in Scotland - I think it suffices for now. --Doc ^ask? 13:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Don't see any reason to delete an OK template. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Ashibaka edited the template to remove the non-specific religions. I've then fixed up the display and corrected the tfd link (it wasn't added correctly and didn't have a proper link to this discussion). Thanks/wangi 12:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I Davidkinnen created this template to facilitate the growth of Religion in Scotland. It is rather sad that rather than time being spent on creating Scotland specific articles we are proposing to delete a template about Religion in Scotland. Davidkinnen 17:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. No subject can be fully covered so why pick on this one, unless it is to pander to the bigots who have been, and are so common here in my country? Bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.209.77 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-26 20:05:57
• Weak keep I sympathise with the sentiments of the proposer. I note that there is not, for example, an article on the Catholic Church in Scotland, which seems an absolutely fundamental cornerstone of any analysis of religion in Scotland, being as it was pretty much the only religion in the country for the majority of its history. Even if we just start brief, initial articles for Religion in Scotland and Catholic Church in Scotland, I think that we could justify this template. But as the proposer says, we need Scotland-specific articles on all the relevant religions.--Mais oui! 22:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mainarticles

Template not used. Superseded by {{main}}. CG 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to {{main}}. This is logical alternative name, and is likely to be used by editors unaware that the actual template has been superseded. —Lifeisunfair 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to main. --Stbalbach 21:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it is no longer in use and (in my opinion) unlikely to be recreated with this name. Courtland 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. I just used {{main articles}} on State highways in New Jersey, not knowing it had been redirected; I could have just as easily have guessed the form without a space. --SPUI (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Closer's comment - redirected. Dan100 (Talk) 16:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Supercbbox

Delete: It's unnecessary to have a infobox for every little thing. This template just contains information that can all easily be covered in the lead section. Also, it lists the title both on top and then again in Statistics for no apparent reason. And it's only used on a handful of articles, hardly filled-out in some of them (like Alias (comics)). All in all, it's not very helpful and rather chunky. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete without prejudice against an improved version being created. I have no problem with the concept of this infobox, but it's very badly implemented - SoM 13:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Your arguments didn't convince me as to why it should be deleted, and my position is "Keep" by default. The template could use some fixing up, sure, so ... fix it up instead of deleting it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyde (talk • contribs)
• Keep - The infobox is good for Comics Series (ex.Supreme Power) and Graphic Novel (ex.Watchmen), articles of no one can uses the other three infobox. Yes fix up instead of deleting it input your prograing to User:Brown Shoes22 --Brown Shoes22 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This infobox works marvellously on the Watchmen page. It clearly shows the type of comic Watchmen was, and the fact it is now a graphic novel, which is informative to first-time readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthesestars (talk • contribs)
• Keep (but fix)... and Brown Shooes22, just speak ONCE when voting. Dyslexic agnostic 19:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as long as it is improved. The "creators" line is no good for long-running corporate-owned series and anthologies. --Pc13 19:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but fix and rename to something meaningful. --Mysidia (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• The first name was Comicsbooktitlebox but was change! And what do you think would fix it ?--Brown Shoes22 08:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Endspoiler

Unnecessary clutter; not particularly useful. — Dan | talk 23:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful for demarcating spoiler text that doesn't end at the end of an article or section. android79 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - useful if someone wants to mark a specific part of an entry as a spoiler. Without this, if a spoiler warning is put up, people reading may skip the rest of the article not knowing whether the spoilers are a single paragraph, or go right to the end. -- VederJuda 00:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per VederJuda. --OGoncho 00:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Highly usefl IMO. Strong Keep as per both keep comments above. DES ^(talk) 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - per above. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Useful template. Hbdragon88 06:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, quite useful. —Brent Dax 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Also consider that a javascript/css implementation can be added to actually hide the text, if desired. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 06:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and written the javascript. There's probably a more efficient way to do it, but this works. —Cryptic (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per VederJuda and Android79. While it remains generally obscured in use, it's still useful in indicating remaining article contents that are not spoilers. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 08:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC) ╫
• Keep until Wikipedia removes spoiler warnings altogether. Useful. -Silence 08:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I use it when the article is long and when it is difficult to say on first glance, where the spoilers end. --Gurubrahma 09:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It is useful for articles where spoilers end somewhere in the middle of an article. Wolf ODonnell 11:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - per all of the above. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Maybe we can close this TfD already? It's obvious where this is going. Everyone thinks it should be kept! --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 11:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - If this is so useless, why did I come to the TfD page through this template's use on several pages? Staxringold 12:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - An excellent template for use in fiction-related articles. Saberwyn 12:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Additional thought: I suspect that having this template would be very useful if somebody were to use Javascript to hide the spoiler area. — DLJessup (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It's very useful when people might miss out on useful information because they're afraid it might have spoilers. gtdp 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Y'know, just about everyone else has already said what I think about it. --Yar Kramer 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 66.167.138.184 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Keep per anyone who has voted. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I removed the TfD notice because this is really obvious by now. (Sorry for being a bit bold.) Ashibaka tock 22:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ditto --Ezeu 07:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Behave

Ugly; puerile; redundant with the test templates. — Dan | talk 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Good for not making anyone angry - defuses situation. Besides, I think it looks quite nice :-) --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 23:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - IMO, "ooh, behave" usually conveys (at best) a mixed message in the movies. Maybe it's a cultural difference, I don't know. But I don't see this as especially effective for the average high-school vandal. Instead, it's just cute. FreplySpang (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  Striking my vote after seeing Ashibaka's edits. Thanks, Ashibaka. I'm okay with the current wording. FreplySpang (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, if that's the way it's going to be, just delete the thing. FreplySpang (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I've seen this used a few times, and each time it was completely ignored. The standard warnings serve fine for vandals; either they'll stop after a warning message or they'll ignore everything. android79 23:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep was created as a tongue-in-cheek way of dealing with light vandalism where a heavy warning was merely likely to drive a new user away. It and the rest in the series are intended to be a lighthearted way of asking people to stop doing stupid things. Has been used in that context and worked in all cases. It and all the other templates that exist deal with specific problems that the test templates are unsuited to handling. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think that this is more appropriate than the incomprehensable {{test}} template for dealing with humorous noob tests (I would advocate changing the colour though). Izehar (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How is "Hey, stop that" incomprehensible? android79 00:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • {{test}} doesn't say that though, does it? Do you know that I've been asked what that message means. Unless someone's actually testing (that's rare - in most cases they're just vandalising), it means nothing to them. Izehar (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • If it's obviously not a user test, then start with {{test2}}. android79 00:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It's too harsh for a first time vandal. Izehar (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Curt, maybe, but harsh? It even uses "Please" and "thank you". android79 00:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
            • How about severe? Izehar (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The more formal warning just riles people up. - Xed 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I like the more gentle and informal wording, and the smiley. I also support putting an Hieronymus Bosch cartoon on {{test5}} -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a good way to get a point across that this is an encyclopedia and not a playground. Prsgoddess187 00:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep can't do any harm. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless, see above. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete indicative of WP:BEANS. --Gurubrahma 07:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How does this template indicate Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose? Using this template does not promote making jokes on Wikipedia, but disparages using the encyclopedia for humor. Sycthos^Talk 23:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Variations of the old stereotype test1 and test2 templates are useful. People get bored with those, and this one looks pretty cute and friendly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - gives vandals the impression that their work is funny.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as per Doctor10. Especially in light of the recent bad press, we don't need to be coddling vandals or newbies who couldn't be bothered to learn the rules first. Kafziel 14:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So how can that be reconciled with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers? There are certain cases where {{test}} is inappropriate. Izehar (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If {{test}} is inappropriate, then nothing needs to be said at all. If it is the clear case of an honest mistake, the article can be reverted without further comment. If the same user does the same sort of thing more than once or twice, then he or she has moved on into vandalism. We all started here as newbies at one point or another; we didn't all go around messing up articles at random. Kafziel 15:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

{test} is appropriate when the vandal/newbie made a test. It if was clearly simple vandalism ("Tom loves Sally" kind of thing), then it means nothing to them. I don't know if you've ever been on RC Patrol, but they don't understand it. I've even been asked what it meant. Izehar (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You know what? I don't care anymore. I'm withdrawing my "delete" vote.

• Delete, I don't understand it. Do they vandalise wiki's in movies? Gerrit ^CUTEDH 15:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - we have to approach vandalism on a case-by-case basis. Djegan 20:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep I'll start using this on RC patrol... good templateBorisblue 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - {{test2}} works fine, and is not too harsh for obvious vandalism. Mike5904 01:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; I loved this the moment I saw it. It's perfect for RC patrolling in the 1500-2000 UTC weekday time when all the schoolkids are doing their silly vandalisms; it works. They stop, they don't get mad and leave obscenities on user pages, it's effective. Antandrus (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't use this one too often, but it does work well on certain kinds of vandals. It might need some tweaks, but definitely not a deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or completely redesign. A Wikipedia vandalism-response box should not sound like a 50-year-old's attempts to seduce a teen. The entire tone of the box suggests "THIS IS AN AWARD FOR YOUR DOING GREAT! KEEP IT UP!", smiley face and coy tone and all, not the polite and welcoming but stern information it should have. I also agree that the current alternatives suck just as much. No wonder we have so many vandals, if all of our boxes are so absurd. -Silence 14:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the redesigned version. Greatly improved, just about all the problems I had with the box are fixed now. Even the tone is better: stern, yet friendly. Good job, Ashibaka. -Silence 17:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• But on the other hand, now that the "behave" catchphrase has been completely removed from the template (thank god), the template's name doesn't really having anything to do with its content, and may actually counteract the efforts of those who use it (i.e. a vandal is calmed down by the text, but then sees that the template is called "behave" and gets annoyed at the condescending word). So, I'm switching back to Delete, but move the current template to a new, more fitting name, since I actually like it and it will probably be quite useful to vandal-greeters. -Silence 17:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This completely fails to encourage taking Wikipedia "seriously". If there are indeed cases of "vandalism" where anything less light-hearted than this would be "too harsh", then consider whether it requires any response at all. I suspect not. EldKatt (Talk) 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and usrfy, silly.  Grue  17:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, but I think it needs some rewording, and something better than that stupid happy face graphic. ^BlankVerse 20:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rewrote to be less silly and more helpful. Ashibaka tock 22:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your excellent improvements have been reverted, so my above comments (after the first one, which still very much applies) are moot regarding the template. As such, strong delete; template will dramatically increase, rather than decrease, the amount of vandalism on Wikipedia. -Silence 19:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The 'changes' were rubbish. They completely misunderstood the whole point of the template and undermined its effectiveness. As to the suggestion that it would increase the amount of vandalism, obviously you don't spend your time dealing with vandalism. If you did you'd realise how nonsensical the claim is. It is specifically targeted at a type of lightweight vandalism and is designed in those cases to say "very funny, but please don't." Where it has been used in those cases it has worked. It is not intended to be used for real heavy vandalism. You don't seem to understand the different types of vandalism and the different tones that need to be used in dealing with them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • In case you didn't notice, when the template is reverted to your version people vote delete (see below). When I edited it a bit, one of the editors who noticed changed his vote to keep (see above). If you want this to be "your" template, userfy it! Ashibaka tock 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Your version is poorly designed, badly laid out and amateurish. If you want to create substandard templates, create them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
        • In that case I will change my vote. Ashibaka tock 23:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Gerard Foley 19:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mirth is an ineffective way of saying "stop joking." Phil Sandifer 20:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Apparently there is no hope of improving this. Ashibaka tock 23:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the original/current version. Keep Ashibaka's superior rewording (but encyclopaedia should not be arbitrarily changed to encyclopedia).—jiy (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I would vote "keep" if it was reworded to that alternate version by Ashibaka. That is a huge improvement over the current wording. (I do think it should be spelled "encyclopedia", though - this is Wikipedia, not Wikipaedia, after all. But that's neither here nor there.) Kafziel 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In order to prevent further revert warrings, I forked my version into {{joke}} (which makes sense since my version has nothing to do with "Oh, behave!"). As Jtdirl wants people to vote on the version he made, don't be reluctant! Ashibaka tock 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - IMO, it's good for first time, silly edits. If it doesn't work, then move on to more harsh templates. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 00:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since this has been an effective template to deal with those immature vandals who add inappropriate text or enigmatic nonsense to Wikipedia articles. This is not redundant, as this template serves its specific purpose quite well. Sycthos^Talk 00:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless enough, and some editors find it a good first reminder prior to outright vandalism warnings. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, excellent friendly warning for silly behaviour.Palmiro | Talk 01:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per Jtdirl and above. I can think of quite a few times over the past few years on Wikipedia when I would have used this template had it existed. 172 17:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Routeboxint

I've been in a bit of a revert war on Interstate 76 (east) about this template (see [3] for its use). I have taken it here as suggested on IRC:

<DavidGerard> KILL IT WITH A STICK. <DavidGerard> that one should go to TFD as a complete eyesore.

I have created an alternate template, currently on Interstate 76 (east) (and on Talk:Interstate 76 (east) if it's reverted again), that includes much of the information with less space, and does not include the huge junction box (which only duplicates information in the exit list further down in the article). A long Interstate can be split into multiple articles like Interstate 80 in New Jersey to keep the size of the article, including the exit list, manageable. --SPUI (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Having twelve articles for I-80 is a very bad idea indeed, as I-80 spans CA, NV, UT, WY, NE, IA, IL, IL, OH, PA, NJ, and NY. When this fragmentation idea is extended to all inter-state interstates, there would be an explosion of little snippets that have no cohesion. The whole point of focusing on the inter-state identity of an interstate (especially the two-digit ones) is to show the regional or national interconnectivity of that road. The purpose of an interstate is to connect traffic flow without regard to the rather arbitrary/antiquated/historically-accidental state lines (or county lines). The purpose of an article for an interstate should be to focus on this national/regional aspect of interstates, not on some local's love-romance with how I-80 in the NYC suburbs in NJ is truly the most special and emotionally dear thing in some fan's life or whether the 17 mile stretch of I-29 in North Dakota was first in the nation to test the such-and-such road experimental pavement. The interstate articles should be focused on the user of that interstate to accomplish a traversal of that interstate (e.g., route planning of which that interstate is merely a portion of the route), not for heaping on some local's praise of his/her section. Sectionalism of interstates should be at best eradicated and at worst de-emphasized. Use of the interstate should be emphasized in the article for that interstate. — optikos 02:56 18 December 2005
  • Furthermore, if such a fragmentation of an interstate article would be pursued, be prepared for someone from Chicagoland to request that the I-80 freeway has an entirely different personality & word-name & toll-payment & governmental ownership than the I-294/I-80 concurrency, which in turn has an entirely different personality & word-name & governmental ownership than the I-80/I-94 concurrent freeway, which in turn has an entirely different personality & word-name than the I-80/I-90 concurrent toll-road, but I-94 (the Dan Ryan) has an entirely different personality & word-name than the I-80/I-94 concurrency. Be prepared to shatter I-80 into those tiny little articles too. This is further proof that shattering an interstate article into how the locals romance it is unwise, because it is a slippery slope that might have no end. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005

    I recommend a state getting its own article if and only if it has the most information, and the article is deemed too big. (probably based on the wikipedia maximum recommended article length. If it's still too big after one is split, then the next biggest should be split, and so on.) I am against any further fragmentation; however, the toll roads themselves and so forth get their own, even if they are only part of an Interstate in that state. Ex: New York State Thruway, New Jersey Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike. Splitting every Interstate article into every state would be insane. --Chris 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, or fork/split into a "slimmer, trimmer" version. I agree fields are underused in current template, but there really is no happy medium between listing every intersection (I really don't want to do that) and listing bigger junctions (which is what the junction box is there for) except a table. Tables in the current template look more concise. I can do without "Browse State Highways". This particular template wielded properly isn't an eyesore. --Rob 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why we need to list any intersections in the infobox. This information is already in text in the route description and in a table in the exit list; scrolling through the exit list makes it easy to find Interstate junctions (as they're shown with shields). --SPUI (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The idea of an infobox isn't to contain unique information. Most city infoboxes, for example, contain population and other info that is in the body of the article. The idea is create a concise overview of the interstate highway for people who just want the information quickly. The suggested replacement only contains the endpoints, the establishment date, and the useless links to the adjacent state highways in numerical order. I wouldn't mind if the state highways part were deleted from the template but the rest of routeboxint is fine. Listing the Interstate junctions provides a first level look at the important junctions. The detailed intersection tables are fine, but are a lot to go through for a quick scan. It will be even more cumbersome if all of the intersections, Interstate and state highway, for a coast-to-coast Interstate go onto the main page, or if it is necessary to go to a page for each state to see the Interstate junctions. --Beirne 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. First of all as the template's creator I'm wondering why I wasn't informed of it's TFD. To continue, it has been accepted by the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways as well as other roadgeeks. The templates look good and can be shrunken if needed. Interstate 5, Interstate 90, etc. There is much more information packed into this template than in the othertemplate proposed at Talk:Interstate 76 (east). Also, the browse state highways should stay because it is needed for the CA, WA, KY, NH, TX, OH, PA, NJ Interstates so their routeboxes can connect with the individual state routeboxes/ other templates (Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways explains why) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Shrink the damn thing if you don't kill it with a stick. It was three screens long on my laptop - David Gerard 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So what? Is page length a fossil fuel that must be conserved lest we run out? optikos 14:35 18 December 2005

    No, but the point of an infobox is to briefly list some standard important information. --Chris 22:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but shrink it. It's too wide, and far too long. Something I just recently noticed is the color scheme is sort of ugly. As for the SPUI one, it first of all must be discussed someplace other than here and there. My biggest problem is that any Interstate that goes through three states will be 1/2 taken up by those stupid state highway browsers, which I already hate. I know some of the highway guys like them, but I'd be interested to see what the rest of the Wikipedians think about them. Other than that, I don't have too much of a problem with SPUI's infobox. Maybe just add a bit here or there. However, many articles already use the old one. (In the event of any sort of change, all Routeboxint info that will be lost should be moved to the body of the article.) So therefore, I'm just in favor of cutting down on Template:Routeboxint by doing the following (this should cut it down to a quarter of the original on something like Interstate 84 (east)):
  • Perhaps lower the width.
  • Make interstate junctions much smaller, by limiting the number of junctions (perhaps 5 or so), and by cutting out the milepost column, but perhaps keeping a state abbreviation.
  • Throw away the legend; that sort of detail will be unnecessary in a brief list. A similar legend may be used to color-code the full list in the body of the article.
  • Kill the browse state highways. Perhaps the States Traversed section should link to List of New York state highways or whatever.
  • Remove the seperate east and west terminii sections. Perhaps the brief junction list should include the first, last, and 3 most major in between.

--Chris 01:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My concern with removing Browse State Highways is that someone on WA-4 can get to I-5... but then how do they get to WA-6? We could split the legend off to a subpage... and I'm not attached to terminii... width needs to be fixed too. If we limit the junctions on the primary interstates to just Primary Interstates, things will be better (we could even cut down more on Interstate 90.) I'll fix Interstate 5 so it does this. If every page had an exit list, I would say throw away the junctions section- but not every page does, so I'm not saying it. But yeah. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

On the state highway box issue, people may make it up to I-5, but I wonder how many people browsing through Washington state highways make it up to I-90? I would suspect that most give up long before that, because there isn't any useful relation between adjacently numbered highways. (And yes, I know north-south, east-west, etc. but the schemes tend to conflict in various ways so it still doesn't work out.) I don't think it makes sense for the projects of states like WA or CA either, although I know that those are different projects out of the scope of this one. The legend probably needs to be there to help interpret the colors if we are going to use them, otherwise we should probably just skip the color-coding altogether because it is going to be too mysterious for most people. I think the terminii are exactly the sort of meaningful pieces of information that should be in the routebox. The provide a visual sense of length, direction, and the route. Every page should have a junction list since a bulleted list is part of the Interstate Project guidelines, but the box provides a convenient overview. Being an overview, though, listing the primaries should be fine and a good compromise. --Beirne 12:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Point taken on the WA-4, I-5, WA-6 thing, but regardless of what each state does, that doesn't mean they need to be in the infobox. (I'm giving up on eliminating them altogether, in favor of compromise.) The legend should at the very least be split off someplace else, but it wouldn't be necessary at all if the junctions list were to be turned into just a brief lists of other interstates it Interchanges with. (as opposed to a list of interchanges with other Interstates; yes there is a difference) If an individual interstate article wishes to use a similar color scheme on it's body interchange list, then obviously the legend can either be in or be linked to in the body. Seperately listing the terminii is uneccsary if the brief junction list is in order. --Chris 02:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We can't list every single city that for example Interstate 5 goes through. I've changed the routebox on I-5 to be smaller... does it look better? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally still think there is too many cities there. Interstate 5#Major cities along the route can still contain as many as the authors want. I'd say the junction list is good, but is it necessary in the north and south to say anything beyond Canada border and Mexico border? --Chris 17:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Shoot. Repeatedly. Big, ugly, and too hard to maintain. --Carnildo 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Patcat88 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand to express accuracy Expand the ability to describe east-west/north-south designation on a per-section basis (in one article). Expand the ability to describe established-date on a per-section basis. Neither of these two fields apply to the entire interstate from terminus to terminus for all interstates. Keep the template as is or expand it as I have indicated below. Either way deploy it fully to every interstate without exception. Move factual information that is currently in prose to the template-table's contents to reduce the impact of my-favorite-interstate-section pontiffication in the prose of the article. Make all interstate articles have the same look-and-feel, which also will dilute my-favorite-interstate-section pontiffication. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
  • In any interstate template that has an established-date field, what is that date: 1) the date that the oldest section of that roadway was built to interstate specifications opened (even under a different name that was later renamed an interstate, as is common nowadays to build an interstate named as a state-road or US highway then upon completion of the entire route, e.g., I-68 was named US48 for years until the day of its completion at its eastern terminus, I-469 was named Indiana SR469 for years until completion of its northern terminus)? 2) the date that that roadway was first named I-suchandsuch even if it existed twenty years prior to that as a famous freeway? 3) the date that the most recent section of it opened (e.g., it will be misleading to say that I-69 was established in 1967 referring to the oldest part of the Indiana section when it is completed all the way to Mexico one of these next few decades) — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
  • In any interstate template that has a direction field, the direction often does not apply to the entire length of that interstate. Take I-69 for example. The Indiana section that I lived near as a child is signed as a north-south interstate as one would expect from the odd final digit, but the Michigan section "north" of Lansing is signed as east-west almost as though I-69 is some variation of I-96 (which is what it feels like when driving around Lansing). Conversely, many of the supposedly east-west interstates run either nearly north-south or due north-south in Chicagoland, but are signed as east-west. This leads to much confusion in the Chicagoland area that would be very nice to succintly disclose in a table for I-94 and I-90. Similarly, when driving in a new-to-me metropolitan area, I would love to have any reference Wiki or Rand McNally or otherwise that discloses to me ahead of time which sections/exits of I-465 in Indy or I-410 in San Antonio are signed east-west and which are signed north-south. In all of these cases, having an explicit directionality of signage in the template on a section-by-section basis would be valuable information that is not easily accessible anywhere else other than going the wrong way on the road and then turning around once one figures how the local Dept of Transportion decided to creatively sign this interstate. What would be absolutely perfect would be directionality of signage (e.g., N-S versus E-W) sitting right next to degrees from North from the compass between two exits point-to-point, such as for the Dan Ryan in Chicago: E-W/0°-180°; or for I-69 east of Lansing: E-W/89°-271°. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
  • Move more factual prose to these template tables, so that information does not get buried in some fan's touting of the verbose praise of how this section is named the Whosywhatsit Memorial Expressway. I have recently visited every interstate article. I have noticed way too much variance from article to article. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
    • Yes, the Interstate articles are not uniform- one of the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways is to fix that. I'm all for making Interstate articles as comprehensive as possible, but since there is opposition, this is not possible. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

    Let me make sure I understand. Do you wish to make it even bigger than it already is?? (You make some valid points, although I personally disagree with some of it; but regardless of that, it is way too much to put in an infobox.) --Chris 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a rather useful summary of an interstate highway. That being said, it is way too big. How about placing the legend on a separate page (perhaps a subpage of the WikiProject), and linking to it? And something needs to be done about the "browse state highways" section -- it's attracted way too much criticism. Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 06:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a great summary, and I've been wondering why they've been dissapearing. I utilised the core of it for Template:UK motorway routebox and would be mortified if that was TFD'd. Erath 09:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but I suggest some bits be split into different templates. Lots of the things in this don't belong in an infobox, but are still useful in template form. --Golbez 23:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Extremely useful information, they should be kept. BTW I also agree with subpages on long Interstates (and other long multi-state highways) when pages become too long. CrazyC83 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• OK, a quick vote count makes it seem like those who wish to completely delete it are in a small minority, but the idea of shrinking it seems popular. Why not discuss shrinking it on Template talk:Routeboxint? (I and perhaps others have advocated removing some things in discussions there since way before it was put on TFD.) --Chris 22:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for frak sake. This and templates like it are both easy to navigate and are being maintained by a large and dedicated group of users. There is no basis for deletion here except one user's anger over a revert war.Gateman1997 01:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Looks extremely useful, especially on the Interstate 355 article. --JohnDBuell 01:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I admit of some confusion, it seems like part of this discussion is about what granularity the interstate articles should have? I'd like to think that my keep vote for this template does not imply any particular opinion about that question. I don't think that size of a box is a reason to kill it. There are other large boxes. The question should revolve around whether it is a useful box or not. As used in the articles I saw, it is, therefore keep. Shrink it? Sure, if the info can be presented... but keep. ++Lar 05:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler top and Template:Spoiler bottom

Unlike {{spoiler2}} and {{spoiler-red}}, these used to have a distinct purpose, but they've been obsolesced by the revival and widespread use of {{endspoiler}}. The javascript mentioned on Template talk:Spoiler top doesn't work anymore, but if anyone's really interested, I can fix it for the standard {{spoiler}}/{{spoiler-about}}/{{spoiler-other}}/{{solution}} - {{endspoiler}} series. —Cryptic (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obsolete template. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 19:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I guess, but I hope someone who wants to remove these will go through and replace them rather than effectively removing spoiler notices from these articles. - Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}}, respectively (due to the likelihood that editors will attempt to use their superseded counterparts). —Lifeisunfair 00:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Lifeisunfair. —Slicing (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why do we have spoiler templates anywho? I mean, we're an encyclopedia, not a goddamn fan message board. Phil Sandifer 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Because we're a well-mannered repository of information, not a bunch of curmudgeonly swine who take delight in spoiling people's enjoyment of carefully-constructed serial drama. We want people to come to Wikipedia to look stuff up, not to avoid us like the plague because we incontinently splurge Too Much Information across the page in reply to a simple query. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 09:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Lifeisunfair. Courtland 00:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I don't get the use of spoiler warnings either. What do readers expect when they visit a film page, a summary of the first 30 minutes followed by "Will Jack fall for Emma, or will Mr Robinson's evil plans stand in the way of true love?" Stevage 02:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Lifeisunfair —Phil | Talk 09:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Closer's comment: redirected Dan100 (Talk) 16:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Maintained

• Delete: Copying my reasoning from the Pump: In effect, the template seems to be saying The following users are watching this page. Please clear any changes with them first. I'd content that the less experienced the editor who reads the template, the more likely they are to interpret it that way. Conversely, more experienced editors are likely to respond with a "So what?" I'd really like to have the purpose of the template explained clearly. Casual vandals are unlikely to read talk pages. The listed users will have the article on their watchlists and will spot and fix vandalism just as quickly without the template. Non-vandals who want to make good-faith edits should not have to refer (or defer) to self-styled experts who, thanks to their watchlists, will soon see any changes anyway.. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Comment: Rather than this knee-jerk reaction to delete, you could have suggested an alternate wording that you thought would not communicate what you feel is a message of "ownership". Instead, you chose not to participate in any discussion and move directly to delete. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:22
• Keep: There should be enough reasons in the last few days to have a necessity for these kind of persons thus implementing something like this in articles at least to make vandals that aren't caught by RC Patrols and else be stopped by this method. Lincher 12:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. That is NOT the intention of this template at all, and I am really getting tired of explaining this for people who can't bother themselves to read any of the past discussion. The template is acting as a contact list of people who have identified themselves as either knowing the content of the article or knowing its sources. It is for any reader who wants to confirm the facts in an article, or confirm its sources. It has nothing to do with "ownership" of this article, so please stop pushing this ridiculous apocalyptic notion. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:14
  • Replying to these three comments. A) I have not used the word "ownership"; please respond to the stated reasons for listing here rather than continuing a previous argument of which I was not part. B) I have not suggested an alternate wording because I believe that there is no need for any such template. and C) Please explain how the template is going to be any more effective against vandalism than having the same group of users add the article to their watchlist. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You were not part of any discussion. You moved directly to delete the template within the very same message that you misrepresented the intention of the template. That has been your only part in the discussion, "I don't like it, so I will move to delete it." It is NOT the intention of this template to be "effective against vandalism". As I have already stated 3 times on different pages (which I'm assuming you've read...), the intention of this template is to do exactly what it says: let the readers know that there are people watching it for vandalism, maintaining it, and who can be contacted regarding any factuality/verifiability concerns the readers have. As I have also repeatedly stated, people tend to check their email more than their watchlist. So, having a direct link to email a useful contact on an article is very useful for the reader. I have already gotten emails from readers and new users verifying with me that arcticles' content is accurate, so it is already working exactly as I had intended. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:37
      • Articles have talk pages were such concerns can be raised in full view of all those with an interest in the article. Can you not at least concede that moving this discussion to the talk pages of individual users is open to potential abuse. I raised the vandalism question because it was part of one of the keep votes. You have raised it again yourself just now ("there are people watching it for vandalism"). Finally, please stop the bolded uppercase shouting, which does nothing to further your arguments. BTW, I check my watchlist far more often than I check my e-mails. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It is not shouting, it is concerned emphasis. Please stop misrepresenting this template on people's talk pages to get them to vote in your favor, calling this template "the latest item of worship." — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:56
• Speedy Keep - Can this thing be ended as soon as possible so the annoying TfD text can go away from the pages the template is used on? Thanks. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 13:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Clarifications: This template provides direct contact to email someone, something with which all readers are familiar, rather than assuming that all readers will know what the "history" tab is for, how to check for significant contributors who thus might know something about the article (ie: looking for non-minor, non-bot, significant edits). Besides the contact, one of the main points is to let readers know that the page is being maintained by people, that it is being watched for vandalism, and that some people will hold themselves accountable for its contents. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06
• Also note, anyone can remove anyone from the template's list of users, if those users become inactive, since the point is to provide a list of contacts and a list of people who are volunteering their time to protect the article against vandalism and are knowledgeable about its facts/sources. The point is not to provide a list of "contributors". If you feel the template is sending the wrong message, please suggest alternate wordings. This is more productive than typing 7 letters.. (ie "Delete"). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06
• Keep. Filiocht is quite right—experienced editors (and even not-so-experienced ones) will happily ignore the template. But it is inteneded primarily to benefit the casual reader, who has no idea how Wikipedia works or how he might go about questioning the veracity of a statement. An obvious "email this person if you have questions" box is quite useful in such cases. —Kirill Lokshin 14:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Template cruft - the casual reader will figure out, by looking at all the buttons above (That's what I did when I was one). --Gurubrahma 14:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So you are assuming that all readers will understand the system as easily/quickly as you claim to have. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Keep. Let's see it in action for a bit, give it a chance to improve, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. Use it. --JWSchmidt 14:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Best new idea in a long time. Creating a visable presence on an article is a way to make soft-tiers of users (not unlike the 3-tiers of "anon->user->admin", but on a per-article basis, and "soft-tier") which will add stability and discourage the natural processes of entropy. It's the closest thing to a traditional encyclopedia "signed article" but maintaining the openess of Wikipedia. It certainly does not over-ride the Wikipedia Constitutional rules about "ownership". --Stbalbach 15:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We must keep the cabal as secret. --Peter McConaughey 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What??? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 15:19
• Keep. The wording on the template may need to be altered so that it can't be misinterpreted as 'ownership' of an article, but overall its a good idea. Agnte 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as above. —Locke Cole 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The sources and references should be provided in the article itself. The entire idea of Wikipedia is to judge facts and contributions, not contributors. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 19:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course the article should have sources. We're not trying to judge contributors. Even if it lists sources, it can still be vandalized, and readers can still have questions about ambiguities or other things related to the topic. That is why it is important to show that people are watching the content, can be contacted regarding any questions, and do hold themselves accountable for the content. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 19:44
    • If the article is unclear or incomplete, you make it more clear and you complete it. The only way this template would be of any help is if the template said, "The following persons have volunteered to clarify and expand the article if it seems unclear or incomplete. Feel free to share your concerns with them." But then again, isn't that the purpose of a talk page in the first place? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've used this to mark pages that I'm interested in and know a fair bit about, to indicate that I can probably answer or address whatever questions or concerns people might have. Perhaps it should be reworded to say something like "If you have questions about this article or its sources, the following users may be able to help: Example (talk · contribs · email), misterhand43 (talk · contribs · email), Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs · email)." Or something like that—the point being to list helpful contacts that someone may not otherwise find, not to indicate any measure of ownership or control. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  I've changed the wording as per this suggestion. Agnte 20:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and reword as per Mirv, to clarify that no ownership is implied. Kusma (討論) 19:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Might need some improvement to remove any implication of article "ownership" but I like this template and the ideas behind it. Let's give it a chance to develop. android79 19:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a good idea. But I agree with android79.algumacoisaqq 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've always thought this feature should be built in to the Mediawiki software. I'm glad I found it.
• Strong keep, per everybody else. Perhaps needs tweaking to alleviate Android's concerns, but otherwise good.--Sean|Black 20:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — Matt Crypto 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No matter how the message is worded, it's going to smack of asserting ownership over an article and discourage others from contributing. Questions about an article should be made on the article's talk page, not directly to the maintainers. —Psychonaut 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please cite the guideline/policy that suggests the statement you just made. I (and I'm sure others) have been contacted multiple times about different articles. The sole purpose isn't simply to act as contact points, though, and your statement that the wording cannot be fixed is baseless. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 23:28
    • The guideline about posting questions and comments on the article talk page is called "common sense". As a collaborative encyclopedia, a reader is far more likely to get a useful response if he posts a public message rather than a private one. To suggest that a reader do otherwise also implies that the editors named on the template have more authority over the article than other editors. —Psychonaut 03:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • What about the current form of the message? There is no way that your original complaint is true now. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 20:01
• Keep. Jacoplane 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Use of the template subtly implies ownership, even if it is not explicitly worded as such. Sources should be in the body of the article. There should never be a need to contact anyone to verify information; the article should stand on its own. Use of this template will encourage people to not make self-standing articles. Kwertii 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • You are stating a lot of "shoulds", which would be fine, except Wikipedia currently doesn't exist in a perfect state. I am simply acknowledging that, whereas you are hindering its development. An article can be filled with sources, but a reader still has no reason to trust its contents, since the article can easily be vandalized. This template lets them have some trust in the article, or at least contact someone who can verify information presented in the article, information which may not be laid out in any sources (for example, if the article was vandalized). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-15 00:10
• Possibly reword, but Keep. On the other hand, I'd like clear criteria for its use: it ought to be clear that multiple individuals can place it on the same talk page, and that it shouldn't be placed on highly controversial articles, where the issue of implied "ownership" could be much more serious. For example, I'd be very suspicious of the motives of someone who unilaterally claimed to be "maintaining" Libertarianism or Ted Kennedy. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a great idea and long overdue. If you don't like the wording in the template, then build a consensus for changing it. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with Jmabel about avoiding it on controversial topics, but its use on most articles is undoubtedly a good idea. Brisvegas 09:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - per Kwertii. Also, any question someone might ask these editors is far better placed on the talk page, where everbody can see it (and profit from the answer). The argument that this is mostly to help newcomers who aren't familiar with Wiki isn't convincing to me: The template is supposed to go on the talk page, right? So if a newcomer figures out how to read the talk page, I'm sure they will figure out how to post their question there. Plus, I personally too check my watchlist far more often then my e-mails. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are multiple benefits of this template. You have only addressed one of those, ignoring the rest. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Delete readers do not want to see the nicknames of the editors - it totally ruins the image of the "serious encyclopaedia". Izehar (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • On what is this claim based? Nobody has to edit the article to add their name to the list of knowledgeable people. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Keep this template might need some minor word revisions, but the idea behind it is good, and its meant mainly to show who knows the most about the article. Magicmonster 13:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think I like the idea behind this. It gives people an idea of who to ask if they need help working on an article, and moreover lets people know who to turn to if they encounter something that they don't think should be there.

--Vortex 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now. See how the experiment works. If it's a flop, it's easy to delete later. Hal Jespersen 15:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Hal Jespersen. I would like to see how this develops, and if it becomes a problem, I'll happily delete it myself. – ClockworkSoul 15:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, could be quite useful. Alphax ^τεχ 15:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per previous supporters of this template. I like it and intend to use it myself on articles I've created or made major contributions to. -- Cjmarsicano 15:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons well-stated above by others. I see no harm. Let's see of the experiment works Vaoverland 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Ok, first, I see very little advantage to it compared to the history tab and watchlists from active editors. However, I think that it exposes us to some dangers. First, it implies an expert status to some editors, whether that is the intent or not. Second, it suggests some form of ownership of an article, that an article is a particular editor's playground or fenced in yard, although that is probably not the intent of the creator. Finally, if we use the template strictly as the author does intend, to indicate an emergency contact number, as it were, on the vandal playgrounds, there would be a creeping suggestion that all articles need such angels, such protectors, and such ministers and advocates. So, I see three reasons why this template does "harm" and no distinct harm that it cures. Rather than saying, "Please don't use this template," I have to say delete, because I think we would need to demonstrate an acute need and prove that this template is a wholly satisfactory curing of that need before we should willingly face the three dangers I list above. Geogre 12:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I see a lot of advantages to it. For one, if there's a sign that says someone is watching over the article, it means two things: One is that either a vandal's desire to vandalize could be deterred, or quickly reverted. The other is that a more civilized user wishing to contribute to or correct an article can do so in the knowledge that there's at least one person other himself concerned enough with the topic to wish to maintain it, and can do so without worry. So, it seems to me that whatever objections you have to the template pale in comparison to how mcuh good this template could do. --Cjmarsicano 21:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Following your logic, vandals will then eagerly vandalize pages without the notice, because they think no one is watching them. Maybe we need a general notice on all pages stating that users are watching every page. The current template which names names and excludes other users has too many negative effects, and too few positive ones. -- Rmrfstar 02:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is not to deter vandals. The point is to let readers know we are protecting the article against vandals. 71% of mainspace articles are unwatched, so it will be fairly easy for vandals to find unwatched pages. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:13

• Delete - remind me what is the point of the talk page again... If someone has a question regarding an article then that can be left on the article's talk page. Moving this flow of information off to user talk pages sounds counter-ituitive to me and only serves to setup cliques. Thanks/wangi 13:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course the talk page can be useful, but why can't this be useful as well? It is useful as both assurance that the article is being watched for vandalism, and that someone can be contacted directly through email regarding sources/facts/verification. You have not addressed any of this. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:09
• Delete useless: duplicates already existing functionality (history/talk).  Grue  17:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You have only addressed one of its benefits. There are several, and they combine to make this template better than any individual other item. That's why it is necessary. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Of course the talk page can be useful, but why can't this be useful as well? It is useful as both assurance that the article is being watched for vandalism, and that someone can be contacted directly through email regarding sources/facts/verification. You have not addressed any of this. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:09
• Strong Keep Neutral This is extremely helpful when you have a question to ask about some statement made in an article, but nobody is reading the Talk page anymore. Remember, this is a huge encyclopedia, and people might miss important edits on their watchlist. It's totally harmless and does not claim ownership over anything. Ashibaka tock 23:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This template appears to have been made just a few days ago, on the 13th of December 2005. It adds articles to the Maintained articles category, also created around the same time. I note that there appear to be at least 141 articles which are now in that category. While I did not check each one, I did check a few, and each has the template, and I saw at least 5 different editors listed as a contact for that article, that is, that multiple editors chose to add the template. I therefore conclude that this template serves a need, and is already being adopted and has the potential to be in widespread use. Note also that as other editors have commented, non wikipedians may not be familiar with the mechanics of looking up article history to determine who a good contact person might be. I do think that refinement of the wording to clarify that it's a person that wants to be helpful, not an "owner", that is being listed, might still be in order (although I note people have already been working on it), but that is not an argument for Delete. NB, I am inclusionist. ++Lar 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, attempts at ownership of articles are a direct and egtregious violation of Wikiquette. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Please do not voice your disapproval of the template by deleting it from talk pages. See Talk:Anglo-Saxon literature. --Stbalbach 04:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's a clear case of WP:POINT. Hey Zoe, how about waiting for this TfD to finish before removing it from pages? —Locke Cole 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It's nothing of the sort. WP:POINT specifically means doing something you don't actually advocate to make a point; it doesn't mean someone doing something someone else doesn't like - David Gerard 00:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You'll be needing to point me to the part of this template that claims ownership over articles. —Locke Cole 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It labels it with names - David Gerard 00:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So, you've violated guidelines to correct what you believe are "violations of guidelines". Interesting... — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 08:27
    • Guidelines versus policy ... which will win? Oh yes, consensus! - David Gerard 00:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, why do you say that's POINT instead of BOLD? After all, we're to be bold in editing. Now, what if there is a topic of controversy. I'm working on, let's say, Oroonoko, and someone has a contrary point of view. That person slaps on the Maintained template and proclaims herself the patroller of Oroonoko. I can't remove it? I can't say, "This person doesn't actually understand Aphra Behn and certainly doesn't understand this novel?" Instead, I (if I were less known to the community) would be the presumed intruder. I would have to justify to everyone around that I do know the subject, that I am a scholar of Restoration and Augustan literature? All because someone with a controversial view slapped on a template? We don't have to wait for hypothetical harms: these comments show that it is already occurring. Second case: someone puts the maintained template on Oroonoko and lists me. I don't want to be contacted. I'll fix the article any time people mess it up, but I don't want to chat with every college freshman assigned the novel in a class who wants me to write his paper for him. I don't want the members of the Aphra Behn Society asking me my real name so that they can chat with me or bother me at the next conference. Too bad, eh? I either have to be a second rate voice on the article, or I have to be Mr. Sociable, and all because this template says so? Geogre 13:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I added a guideline for that to the template's talk page. See how productive work is accomplished? If you think that guideline is not good enough, please, suggest another! This is much more productive than just assuming that the template will only be placed on controversial articles and that it therefore should not exist. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 14:29
  • How about an indication that there must be consensus on a talk page for the list of patrollers before the template can be used? That way, if I see that I am listed, I have to agree to it, and if I see that someone with a fancy for an article but not expertise has become annointed, I can object. At least that would forestall this set of harms. It doesn't change my view, however. I think we have more templates than users can even find, much less use, and I think this one accomplishes few benefits while exposing us to damage. However, a requirement of consensus would prevent this being used as a weapon in an RFC or its being used to promote a controversialist's campaign. Geogre 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this template encourages people to be more responsible for certain articles and also gives some increased sense of verification to those articles that are more likely to be accurate. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not totally sold on this as a great idea, but like many above I think it's worth continuing the experiment for a while. I certainly wish users would stop --pending the outcome of consensus-seeking discussions such as this-- the petulant deletions of these templates where they have been used. It's really contemptuous. Pete.Hurd 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have not used this template myself; it being brand new, most editors presumably have never heard of it. But it seems like a possibly useful concept, one that I can imagine using myself. Allowing editors to volunteer themselves as resources for particular pages might often be useful; and is not the same as imposing a requirement to get permission for edits. Give it a chance! If this is around and non-productive for six months, renominate it. But don't kill the idea after a week. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I originally liked the idea of using this template, but I see now that I was only giving in to satisfy my feelings of ownership of a few articles. Nevermind that. There are very few good effects of this template. Posting a comment on a talk page doesn't need to be any easier and discussion of an article should be kept on Wikipedia for everyone to read, for obvious reasons. Also, as was said above, the articles should be completely (within Wikipedia) stand-alone, such a template encourages and expresses the idea that an article can be confusing, or incomplete etc. and that a reader can email a contributor if they have any questions. -- Rmrfstar 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You have ignored all the benefits of the template. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Delete as gross policy violation - connotes ownership of the article, however it may have been intended. I've kludged onto it that it does not connote such, but it still needs to die - David Gerard 19:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Current version rates a neutral - I'm still not sure it's a good idea at all, but it doesn't make me want to shoot it - David Gerard 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is nonsenseible. You said yourself that the wording just needs to be changed. But, instead, you'd rather delete it? Without even giving it a chance? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 19:27
    • Changed to neutral after discussion and new version - David Gerard 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. However sugarcoated the words, it is a disinvitation to those not in the club to edit the article. In order to view the template, the user must navigate to the talk page anyway--interested editors can watch the talk page, which is how I've gotten "in touch" with the editors of specific articles in the past. Whatever marginal benefit emailing individual users about article content has (and since when was that such a great idea?) it is countered by putting this perimeter around articles. Note: this disinvitation is inherent in the very idea of making a list of editors, so for me it's not a matter of "fixing the wording". Demi ^T/_C 19:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a list of editors. Nobody needs to add a single word to the article to be able to add themselves to the template. It is only recommended that they have knowledge of the contents, for the template to be useful, since that is the point of the template: to be useful to readers. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:42
• Neutral although I respect the reasoning behind the deletion votes, some template like this may be suitable for topics where popular understanding and serious scholarship may be at odds. Such articles may have unsuitably long talk pages. Well intentioned readers sometimes insert information in the belief that some omission is an oversight (for example, by adding "January 6" to [[Joan of Arc|Joan of Arc's] birthdate). Sometimes a notion gains a popular following even though the academic community rejects it unanimously. See scalping. The problem with this template is its potential for abuse by partisan editors. Durova 20:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep we needed a template like this. QQ 22:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Filiocht had it right all the way up there, and Geogre makes some good points too. "Active monitors" ought to be obvious from the talk page anyway, and will have it on their watchlist. If people want to know about sources or anything else, they can leave a query on the talk page. The template doesn't need tweaking, it needs to be disposed of. --ajn (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You have only criticized one of the benefits of the template. There are several, and they combine to make it better than any one thing currently offerred. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
• Delete - Geogre has very persuasively demonstrated the potential problems that could arise with this template. Worldtraveller 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • His criticisms were of an older version of the template. Can you please look at the new version??? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Of course there can be problems, but that's why there are guidelines, which the community can add to. Why trash the whole thing when several people obviously think it useful? Please assume good faith, I am in no way trying to take ownership of an article. Have you seen the new version of the template? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 02:42
    • It is possible to assume that your every intention is aboveboard, forthright, well-meaning, and completely without guile or malice, while still believing that you are wrong. Nothing about the former precludes the latter. Nothing about the latter indicates an abandonment of the former. Reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 03:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Has the potential to create more problems than it solves. Zocky 04:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So you won't even give it chance? You'd rather delete it for its "potential problems", than try to fix those problems? They call this a "discussion" at the top of the page. It really is a joke. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 05:24
• Delete - no benefit - articles should stand on their own - if they need sources or clarification, add them, don't list yourself as a "maintainer"(i.e. according to FOLDOC: "The person responsible for coordinating changes"); discussion about articles should be publically viewable on the wiki, not in private, non-archived, hidden discussion via email. This is a basic violation of the transparency of Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Please be aware that the TfD notice for this template has been removed, subtly hidden in "noinclude" tags (so it will appear to people checking it directly that it has the notice, but will fail in it's intended purpose of publicizing the discussion) and made effectivly unreadable (via a application of "small" tags to the already very small text) multiple times. (I only reverted the "small" trick just now; otherwise, it has been in place the whole time this TfD has been running - if that's not abuse of the process, I'm not sure what it is.) Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 3, part 2. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Im not defending the use of small fonts in this case and had no part in it, but small fonts are used all over Wikipedia in official and unofficial capacity, to say it was "hidden" and made unreadable is an inaccurate portrayal.--Stbalbach 15:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Making it small was just an attempt to make it less annoying, since others were complaining. Maybe the TFD folks could bother to improve the notice's appearance. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:57
    • What I objected to was putting <small> tags around text which had the "font-size:xx-small;" style applied to it(see {{tfd}}). That's shrinking the text twice - making it look
      like this!
      Is that readable? Is that a appropriate "notice" for an ongoing discussion? While <small> tags are widely used, double application of them is not. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This template is a novel idea. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I'd like to use it. Right now I have a hacked up list of interests. I like how User:Jacoplane has his stuff organized instead. <>< tbc 06:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete History/talk/watchlist/community collaboration pages is enough IMHO. Assuming that "more people read their email than the watchlists" is wrong in my case at least --- when I get an email from the Wikipedia, I will usually perceive this as a "push" attempt to make me deal with some WP issues when I have my daytime activities pressure on me for doing other things (yes, I know that I can autosort them all into a special folder). The watchlist is a "pull" interface, which I may prefer to use whenever I like. Also, the template usage can easily become stale and mislead others (making them think --- well, if it's maintained, I shouldn't bother reviewing the changes too hard)... I do see the benefits for some of the users as stated by them, but personally I feel the negative arguments outweigh them. For the active supporters of either delete or keep, please don't jump the decision and don't abuse the process (removing the TfD from pages/the small font trick/whatever). BACbKA 10:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You've only criticized one of the benefits of the template. There are several. They combine to make this template better than any one thing currently available. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:56
• Delete, per nominator. --NormanEinstein 15:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The nominator was complaining about an older version of this template. Have you even looked at the changes that have been made? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:56
    • The nominator has followed the changes in wording and the attempts to disguise the TfD tag with interest and would still like to see this template deleted. The question of article ownership is not one I addressed, but there is clearly a degree of concern about this. I am more worried by the fact that this template will tend to remove content discussions from the public forum of article talk pages to the private forum of editors' e-mail inboxes. This is a very bad thing is wiki terms. I am further concerned by the assumption that anyone who votes to delete is not assuming good faith, with the hanging implication that they are acting in bad faith. I always get concerned when proponents of anything feel it necessary to question every single vote against them. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - even with new wording, it still strongly conveys an assertion of ownership or, at the least, an assertion that some editors are more equal than others (with no guarantee, as they are self-appointed, that they are genuinely worth contacting regarding verification or sources). What if a POV warrior applies this tag? Tearlach 23:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are guidelines for that, and new guidelines can be created. The whole concept shouldn't be trashed on the basis of a "what if". — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-20 05:12
• Delete - To find notable contributors look at the history instead. Connotates ownership/elitism. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How could it possibly connotate ownership when the template says: this does not connote any form of article ownership?? Did you even look at the template? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-20 05:14
    • Connotation is in the eye of the beholver. Just because it says that it does not have that connotation, doesn't mean that users won't interpret and act on the template in that way. Ripe for abuse, this template goes against wiki spirit and should be deleted IMO. BTW, don't assume bad faith. I looked at the template and carefully considered its possible uses. Finding frequent editors via history and article talk pages are more open. Use of this template will harm wikipedia IMO. I have had problems with people claiming that all edits need to be approved by themselves, and having this template available will increase/legitimize such behavior IMO. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The whole point of connotation is that it isn't a literal thing; that is, no amount of saying "this does not connote ownership" will prevent it from doing so. Demi ^T/_C 05:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this does not imply ownership, merely that stated user is an expert in this field.  ALKIVAR™ 00:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment And how do we know that's true? Tearlach 00:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You'll find out as soon as you ask the person a question about the subject. Please assume good faith on the part of the "expert". — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-20 05:11
      • Comment: reasonable anticipation of problems isn't a breach of good faith. Many Wikipedia fundamentals - such as Wikipedia:Cite sources and WP:NPOV - are built on the assumption that edits might be unreliable or biased. Design of any template should consider the possibility and consequences of its misuse, and this one is a gift to POV warriors and wannabe article owners. Tearlach 13:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It makes it look like ownership, goes against all that is wikipedia. -- Jbamb 05:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting idea, but ultimately useless and counter-productive in practice. Unintentionally establishes a "class hierarchy" within articles, whereby new editors are less important to the article than the old editors who self-listed themselves. Also, in the long run, these userlists will slowly grow out-of-date and cluttered by trivial entries over time, as editors drift away from articles or from Wikipedia altogether without bothering to update the dozens of lists they could have put themselves on in the past; as a result, when the exceedingly rare time comes when a list like this actually could prove useful, in theory, it probably won't prove useful in practice because the list won't accurately reflect who's watching the list as well as simply checking the recent History and Talk page entries surely will. Also, for well-populated articles like Jesus and George W. Bush, lists like this could easily grow to be pages and pages in length, and become even more useless due to obsolete entries. Simply not worth it. This sort of box is alien to the very idea of Wikipedia, and will ultimately cause more harm than good by establishing an artificial and arbitrary class division between editors working on an article. -Silence 06:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am moved by the concerns that this template implies ownership of articles, even though I realize that is not the idea behind it at all. I also think that it is slightly redundant with the history function where you can easily see who has been contributing what to the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per George. Raul654 17:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I understand the good intentions of this template and realize that it's not implying ownership. That said, this template has too many disadvatages and not enough advantages to justify its use. I agree with comments made by Filocht and Geogre and also have a few concerns of my own. Who decides what users should be listed in the template? Who's job is it to maintain a "Maintained" template? Users regularly go on Wikibreak or stop editing certain articles, yet their names will be left on templates all across Wikipedia. What about users who turn out not to be especially knowledgeable or helpful on a certain article? Can other users remove their name from the template? How is a template on the talk page going to stop the casual vandal given that the vast majority never even look at the talk page? I agree with what's trying to be accomplished here, but this template doesn't seem like the best way to achieve that goal. Carbonite | Talk 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Commment. Weak arguments all around on the anti-template side of this debate. In reality, there is no way that the template conveys ownership or original creation (the latter would be the focus of another template entirely). Therefore, let me modify and reinforce my vote to read: Very, very, very, super-strong KEEP as per everyone else that has seen fit to support this. --Cjmarsicano 17:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This user has already voted keep for this template. Demi

^T/_C 20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • This commenter missed my statement that I was only reinfocing my vote, not voting twice. --Cjmarsicano 22:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This template seems to me like treating wikipedia as some sort of "club". People shouldn't assert nor consider themselves as "maintainers" or any such artificial title, because that is a form of egotism and exclusion of others, direct or indirect. Andyluciano 00:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Andy, what are you smoking? Not sure what makes you think this will lead to what you claim - if I thought what you said was true, I wouldn't have voted for retention of the template.

Note: For most of the time this TfD has been in running, the notice on the template was effectively too small to read. It looked like this:

Can you read what this says?

Specifically, the tag was added 12:22, 14 December 2005, it was made unreadable 2 hours later (14:18, 14 December 2005), and remained that way for 5 days (until 06:25, 19 December 2005). When voting, or closing this discussion, please keep this in mind. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• You've already made your complaint nice and clear. Enough people complained about this annoying TFD notice for someone to do something about it in this case. And yes, I can read that small text just fine. Are you suggesting that people wishing to delete the template somehow have worse vision than people wishing to keep the template? Or are you suggesting that this TFD has had fewer votes than most other TFD's? I would say that you are wrong in both cases. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-22 14:39

Template:Pittsburgh Universities

Delete: Cumbersome; Better served by Category:Universities and colleges in Pittsburgh 141.151.176.253 13:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now; it's not better served by the category because the template is not organized alphabetically. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep much more useful than a Category. JG of Borg 22:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the category could be broken into three subcats to mirror the functionality of this eyesore. Phil Sandifer 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Aren't templates like this the only reason categories exist? -Silence 19:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and, if it helps, create subcats to the same effect as Phil Sandifer suggests. EldKatt (Talk) 08:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It's cumbersome and problematic, and also an eyesore. In my opinion, some of the schools aren't "Pittsburgh area" schools. Also, the Art Institute is not a "major Universit[y]." It's a for-profit school, and as such it may be a "Specialty School." Some of the "Specialty Schools" aren't even colleges, which further suggests that this template is problematic. Categorization by subcat would best serve the purpose of this template. -Slo-mo 23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Refer to EldKatt and Phil Sandifer above. The geographical and type categorizations are contested. There're no other geographically-based University Wikipedia:Navigational_templates richardc020 (Talk) 00:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Closer's comments - might be better done by a category, but I'm not going to do it, so keeping for now. Dan100 (Talk) 16:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:XD6

Experimental deletion is not an approved Wikipedia process, and implementation of it is not appropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to get rid of the ever increasing crap on WP, this is a GOOD IDEA (probably one of the best). I just found it, but now your telling me not to use it!! Weird!--Light current 23:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Blanking of Wikipedia content is not an acceptable method of getting articles deleted. The CSD and AfD processes are the only methods approved by Wikipedia consensus. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as long as Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion is actively debated. Interesting experimental project that doesn't seem to harm Wikipedia, and might currently even take work away from AfD for pages that are kept and expanded because of the use of this template. Kusma (討論) 01:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• strong delete as per nom. Debate all you like, don't try to use without consensus. DES ^(talk) 01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - There is no reason to debate deleting only this template, and deleting it independently of consensus at Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion is probably a waste of time. So long as that project is ongoing, the template needs to exist so that it can be discussed. Deleting it now is less removal of a template and more commentary on that project. I think it's a bit inappropriate to pull their template out from under them, so long as it's not being used inappropriately. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • But is is being used inappropriately. it is being used on actual articles, therby blanking them, which is a form of vandalism. Look at the histroy of Kathal, Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, Quelt, Selita Ebanks, Astonish, and Wind Blossom for a start. DES ^(talk) 17:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this is ridiculous. one out of 5 templates? please discuss on the talk page of WP:XD. I consider this a direct slap in the face, unappreciated. had you actually used the template, this would all be over by now. apologies for initial harsh reaction. ∴ here…♠ 06:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Use of this template is a violation of Wikipedia consensus, and will be reverted when encountered. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
    • I disagree, and have solicited continuation of this conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Experimental_Deletion#XD_and_consensus. ∴ here…♠ 16:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful project for experimentation, generating some good ideas. On the whole, not damaging. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• comment If the XD project made it a project policy not to use this template on actual articles until and unless XD recieves community consensus support, I would not object to the existance of this template and similar oence for discussion and testing (although they might better live in project space). But it is being used on actual articels at the moment, and that amounts to blanking vandalism in effect if not in intent. See the histroy of Kathal, Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, Quelt, Selita Ebanks, Astonish, and Wind Blossom for recent exampels of use. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • replied on User_talk:DESiegel#WP:XD_issues. ∴ here…♠ 17:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Copied thread back here DES ^(talk) 17:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Does the fact that the use of {{XD6}} in each of these cases saved significant work for wikipedians mean anything to you? What about the fact that absolutely no information was lost, but rather was easily kept and expanded? Furthermore, no admin interaction was at all necessary. Again, how is using xd6 different from removing a potentially disputed paragraph from an existing article? ∴ here…♠ 17:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Blanking an entire article is generally considerd an unacceptable form of edit, and this is what the use of {{XD6}} involved at least in all cases I saw. And it didn't save work, all it did was delay that work and push it off on others -- in this case on me, when i took the proper actions on 6 articles, listing a couple on AfD, expanding and fixing a couple, etc. Still looks like blanking vandalism to me, albiet propably well intentioned balnking. DES ^(talk) 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I would add thatr removign an entire paragraph without discussion on a talk page is often frowned upon, but I maintain that the analogy is too flawed to be useful. DES ^(talk) 17:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - by definition, edits in good faith are not vandalism - this project is very upfront about what it's doine - nothing is hidden - nothing is lost - if anyone objects to the use of the template on a particular page, they simply revert and that's that - so where is the harm? - this is an encyclopedia, not a bureauracracy Tedernst | talk 23:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't care whether this is kept or not, but please stop putting this and {{XD7}} into Category:Pages for deletion. Experimental deletion thingies are all fine and dandy, but not if they break the non-experimental method. —Cryptic (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These templates are an important part of deletion reform. How will other methods become approved by Wikipedia consensus if we don't try them? rspeer 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nominated 2005-11-24–2005-12-01

Template: Philosophy topics aka "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide"

The majority of the vote was to merge the template into the Portal:Philosophy, but delete the template's tag from the rest of Wikipedia. Note that there were two identical templates, each with the same title, differing mainly in the tag name (though the contents did fluctuate also). For the vote on the duplicate template "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide" (an exact duplicate), see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Two duplicate Philosophy Templates: Conflict over which tag name to keep Go for it! 03

07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, and use it on the portal in addition - (BTW, I withdraw my nomination to delete). Infinity0 and I have worked on this thing for weeks! Go for it! 06:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Even if this template is not going to be used in articles I think it should be kept to be inserted into Portal:Philosophy rather than embedded within that page itself.Infinity0 11:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

This would be absurd; since the portal contains the cats list, this template is overkill, and simply confuse users. Delete this template and stick to the cats list. Banno 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Listify, and then delete both Brobdingnagian templates. ^BlankVerse 17:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  What does Brobdingnagian have to do with this??? Did you post in the wrong section? Template:Philosophy_(navigation) has been through a TfD before, the end result was Keep. Infinity0 19:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  As is said in the article, Brobdingnagian is an adjective describing something of enormous size. Listify and delete both both for this reason. —jiy (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

  • As per Infinity0, portalfy to a Portal:Philosophy subpage, and then delete. ^BlankVerse 14:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    I meant Keep this and embed into Portal:Philosophy using {{Philosophy topics}} Infinity0 17:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    If it is only going to be used at Portal:Philosophy, then it should be a subpage of the portal page (e.g. Portal:Philosophy/Philosophy topics) and then transcluded from there (e.g. {{Portal:Philosophy/Philosophy topics}}). There is absolutely no need for it to be in the template namespace. ^BlankVerse 15:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Complete the already partially implemented merge of this effort with work done at Category:Philosophy to create a Portal:Philosophy. And don't put monster templates into articles. --Pjacobi 08:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Why include a list of philosophical links on a page that contains a list of philosophical links? Can someone explain the appeal of this doubling-up to me? Banno 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or delete per Pjacobi. This template is far too large to be useful as a navigational aid and belongs rather in a portal. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 00:58:49Z
• Delete. Not useful, and isn't a quick guide to overview articles. —thames 05:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete There are already several navigation features built in to the Wiki. The most obvious one is the "See also" section of each article. Combined with the Cats page, these two should be sufficient, provided they are done properly. So it is incumbent on editors that they ensure the cats and "see also" are correct and usable. In that regard this template is a distraction. It is also almost unreadable, and biased in a way that the cats will not be. And it is too large - on some philosophy articles, half the page will consist of this template. Banno 09:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until a Merge can be arranged. User:Go for it! and User:Infinity0 brought this on themselves by their inability to compromise, but a philosophy template is clearly useful. It should be named "Template:Philosophy", and the existing templates should Merge. Rick Norwood 14:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The template is not that useful. The "See also" for each article would be far preferable. Banno

• • Comment: "Template:Philosophy" is already taken. That's the first name I tried when I titled it.
• Keep Izehar 00:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No way should this template be erased.--Moosh88 04:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete per banno. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• The consensus seems to be keep but merge. As best I can tell, the current Template:Philosophy is blank except for an announcement. My vote is to put this there. Rick Norwood 13:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Part of the discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Two duplicate Philosophy Templates: Conflict over which tag name to keep. -Splash^talk 02:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Vutprotected

Un-needed, ugly extra template for user pages. Should be speedied.Lantern Cro 01:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Very useful, and has no alternative. The usual {{vprotect}} template does not work on Talk pages, as the "Talk" link leads nowhere. This one also gives specific instructions to the admin to unprotect once the block expires. Owen× ☎ 02:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I have previously had to subst: and modify vprotected because the link leads to Talk talk:Article. -Splash^talk 02:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There is an existing template {{Articlespace}} (→"{{Articlespace}}") which can be used as a stop-gap (you still have to include the "talk" but it solves the problem of duplication): I have a prototype replacement at user:Phil Boswell/TALKSPACE (→"User:Phil Boswell/TALKSPACE") which might be helpful. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since it works better than the alternative and, just periodically, it becomes necessary to protect talk pages. I can see no reason to speedy this. -Splash^talk 02:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This TfD is Lantern Cro's 7th edit ever. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a sock of someone who had this tag placed on their anon Talk page. Owen× ☎ 02:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FearÉIREANN 20:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - but it is durn ugly - beautify? BD2412 T 22:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per everyone else. I wonder how it can be made prettier, though... Titoxd^(?!?) 23:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  OK, I'm no artist but I've slightly improved its looks (I think...). Any WikiML/HTML experts out there who wish to take a stab at it? :) Owen× ☎ 23:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've reworked the template, so it now matches the look of {{protected}}. Thanks/wangi 10:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ways to fix a page and Template:Shortcuts

Subst/delete or userfy. Templates used only on one user subpage. Chris talk back 18:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Incidentally, the attempt to subst failed when including two templates.

• userify is usualy the best option for this kind of templates IMHO. --Sherool (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FearÉIREANN 20:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  Please clarify your opinion, TfD is about the discussion, not the votes. Chris talk back 01:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy Looks like Template:Ways to fix a page is the old version of Template:Page fixing tools before it was redirected to Template:Resources for collaboration after a TFD discussion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Userfied to User:JustPhi/Ways to fix a page and User:JustPhil/Shortcuts. -Splash^talk 23:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Nintendo-screenshot

An unnecessary subset of Template:Game-screenshot. Firebug 01:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• And it has a fair-use image in a non-article-space template, to boot! Delete this and redirect it to {{Game-screenshot}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment Dunno, some subcating of game-screenshot could defenently be in order (I got tired of counting after 6000+ images), so it's not a half bad idea. I'm sure we could lump at least several hundred more images into that one if we looked. Would need to loose the nintendo logo naturaly, but I would not call subdividing game-screenshot unnessesary... --Sherool (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now -- no reason provided for deletion. It's no less unnecessary than Template:Game-screenshot itself. However, in the long run it might be better to divide the Game-screenshot images in a way more relevant to the copyright issues that are the motivation for this categorization; for instance, by date where this affects when the copyright will expire. The template no longer contains a fair-use image. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems like a reasonable enough subcat of an overly-large category. --Fastfission 01:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nominated 2005-12-02–2005-12-09

Template:String-theory

Delete: This sidebar is much too big and distracting. We already have a list of string theory topics (from which this sidebar was copied) for navigational purposes. I suppose could be paired down, but I'd rather see it deleted altogether. String theory is much too big a topic to put a sidebar like this on every relevant page. Fropuff 16:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Larger than usefull for a navigation aid. It's nearly big enough to be transformed into a portal. --Pjacobi 18:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This may be a little large - but it is useful and could be pared down if concensus is against the size only. Trödel|talk 20:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. But I think it is too large, and also too complex to be an aid to navigation. Most people won't even know what the terms mean. (Heck, even I don't know, and I'm a grad student in physics, albeit not in string theory.) -- SCZenz 21:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Prune. A compromise might be making the template only show the few most important pages, and add a link to the list mentioned above. At the moment this shows pages leading to pages (the ">" links) which are surely unnecessary. The list of people at the bottom could be just that - List of string theory researchers and added as a single link. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Prune per Grutness -- stillnotelf has a talk page 00:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Prune Certainly could be made into a less cumbersome useful navigation aid. I think string theory is a large enough topic to warrant a navigation sidebar. Imacdo 17:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rework half the links point to the same article. But it is useful enough to keep. Megapixie 01:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete Navigational tempewltes are more often than not a bad idea. this is such a case IMO. DES ^(talk) 21:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Megapixie. Rich Farmbrough 00:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rework and prune. Looks useful if correctly applied. Bdelisle 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be keep and prune. I will work on a new version of this template and remove the deletion request. -- Fropuff 18:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:GA

OK, I've coined the following: label creep. We have FAC, FARC, failed FAC, peer review, etc. We DO NOT NEED a "good article" label. What is the implication? That most articles suck? Note this links to a proposed guideline which should probably be deleted itself. At the least we should eliminate the template as this indicates sanctioning a (meaningless) distinction between articles that is not guideline or policy. Delete. Marskell 23:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This was created as part of Wikipedia:Good articles. Slambo (Speak) 23:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely.--Lordkinbote 00:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you don't like Wikipedia:Good articles, try to get a {{rejected}} tag to stick on it, or nominate it at MFD. Trying to delete parts of its process is not the answer. —Cryptic (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Most articles probably do suck, and for someone looking for a good article to read who'd like a bit more choice than the 1% of articles that make it to FA, this is a useful idea. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, tied to a proposed policy, should not be deleted unless said policy is deleted too. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 00:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --cj | talk 03:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I'm amazed this was even nominated. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, we do need this template; it is not "label creep". Having FAC alone is an all-or-nothing situation: either articles are perfect or they suck (to use Marskell's language); this helps us to move away from this black-white view on Wikipedia. -- llywrch 07:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I am using this template and it is a very good idea, the entire Good articles concept is great. — Wackymacs 08:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - can't even begin to understand why someone might object to the concept of identifying high quality content beyond the 0.1% of articles which are FAs. Worldtraveller 11:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Clutters pages, is underused, really in general a silly idea. Label-Templates are for drawing attention to problems, like vanity or POV. Perhaps every article needs a category, but certainly most "good" articles don't need to tell you they're good. Also, could be abused by people who don't want their (bad) article changed/deleted.--Atlantima 20:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Your arguments make no sense. The only pages "cluttered" by the templates are the talk pages for the articles, not the actual article pages themselves. If it's underused, that just means that more people need to be informed about the topic and submit more articles. And, by extension, your argument regarding "people who don't want their (bad) article changed/deleted" can just as easily be extended into the FA process (as an example, reference [4], and in particular this edit summary [5]).--Lordkinbote 20:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"Good articles don't need to tell you they're good" makes perfect sense. "Good" is so sweeping it's useless. Marskell 21:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

To move this in another direction, renaming to "Potential Featured Articles" or some such thing might be a doable. I read a page, don't know much about/don't have time for it, but slap the label on hoping someone else picks up on it. Marskell 21:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Marskell, I have to ask if you have visited WP:GA? There we have defined what we mean by 'good', so I can't see how tagging an article as 'good' is at all vague. Atlantima, also, have you read the page? If you think it's 'really in general a silly idea', you should take that up on the project talk page. Again I will say that I am completely mystified as to why some people think that encouraging high standards, and identifying the articles that meet those standards, for more than just the 0.1% of articles that are featured, is somehow a silly idea. Worldtraveller 01:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I did visit the page. Unneeded "FA lite." No one has suggested not encouraging high standards. We do just that via Peer Review and FAC. The Featured Article process is the best piece of working bureaucracy Wiki has. Simply slapping a "good" tag, with no peer discussion, accomplishes little by contrast. Marskell 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like WP:GA, surely it would be best to start on its talk page, instead of nominating the templates it uses for deletion? It is still listed as a proposed policy and there has been plenty of discussion about its merits, although it has found considerable support, as you can see from the voting here. Worldtraveller 01:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I saw this on Talk:Mariah Carey and actually laughed out loud. Why waste time and energy trying to classify "good" articles when you could help improve them to "featured" status? "If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute." shouldn't this be obvious? - getcrunk juice 21:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and this is obviously the wrong place for this discussion, which is about the value of WP:GA, not about the template. A different system seems to work quite well at the German wikipedia, by the way, which has a two-tiered system with de:Wikipedia:Exzellente Artikel for "excellent" articles (like FA) and de:Wikipedia:Lesenswerte Artikel for "worth reading" articles. The system seems to work well (and has review at both levels instead of "just adding a template") and on a first glance, it seems that de:Wikipedia:Lesenswerte Artikel is a place for many articles that are almost but not quite FA (seen e.g. after a peer review). But as I said, wrong place for this discussion, so I should stop. Kusma (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - VfD WP:GA, not the template. violet/riga (t) 13:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It helps me find "good" articles but is used sparingly enough that it is meaningful. Teply 16:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Slambo. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it is meaningful especially when looking for articles that are already good but could use some work and eventually become FAC's. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deletion implies the end of the Good article system, which I like.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional keep, under the strict condition that someone starts Wikipedia:Bad articles to go with it. Chris talk back 18:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: its not a bad article... i've seen worse... like on uncyclopedia... try searching xmas or Jesus Christmas
  • Comment: went ahead and started it up -- getcrunkjuice 00:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I thought that was the point of Wikipedia:Cleanup. -- llywrch 17:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The process to list an article as "bad" is easier than cleanup, and "bad" articles are all-around bad, not as bad as WP:CU -- getcrunkjuice 21:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why does it need something to 'go with it'? Does WP:FA need WP:Not featured articles to go with it? Worldtraveller 18:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It should -- getcrunkjuice 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: we should reflect the fact that article quality is a continuum from awful through bad and good to FA standard. —Phil | Talk 16:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - what purpose does it serve? A nomination that an article is "good" is no more authoritative than anything else on Wikipedia. Sometimes there's a little too much "hurray for us" going on. --Wtshymanski 18:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It serves the purpose of identifying quality content that for one of a number of reasons is unlikely to become featured. See WP:GA. Worldtraveller 00:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- if an article is "good", why isn't it immediately being considered for Featured Article status? Alan Pascoe 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From WP:GA: "Good articles may not be as comprehensive as our featured articles..." Vote to Keep. Mr Snrub 00:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • WP:GA is not policy, but a proposal for policy. It seems deeply flawed to me. However, as some have stated, perhaps the proposal should really be to delete WP:GA. Alan Pascoe 22:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • And if you go to WP:GA you can see the thinking, which is that many articles might be very well written but unlikely to become featured, like perhaps a three paragraph article. These ones should be identified as quality content nonetheless, hence the project. Worldtraveller 00:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: Why should we delete this method of telling articles that are good, but not phenominal? --Trevdna 01:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The GA proposal is a useful idea to locate good articles among the 99.9% or so non-FA articles, we desperately need to do this e.g. for WikiProjects and for WP 1.0. If you think GA is a bad idea, that needs to be debated openly, rather than killed via the "back door". Walkerma 05:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's a sensible designation. There are many grades of quality between "cleanup" and "featured", and I think it is useful to call them out for potential attention. Labeling articles in one way or another always gets them SOME attention, which is a good thing. --Fastfission 23:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Marskell: Most articles do suck. Sorry, but it's true. Hydriotaphia 14:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it provides inspiration or encouragement to further improve articles, then it is well worth its space. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:DelistedGA

Delete per above. --Marskell 23:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This was created as part of Wikipedia:Good articles. Slambo (Speak) 23:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, along with the above.--Lordkinbote 00:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. —Cryptic (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep as above. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, tied to a proposed policy, should not be deleted unless said policy is deleted too. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 00:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--cj | talk 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Why on earth was this excellent template nominated? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Per above nom, as stated. I've never been a minority of one before! However, I am unconvinced despite the landslide. "Good article" a) is utterly generic and indicates nothing of significance, b) suggests that the vast majority of articles are no good. Marskell 19:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. Nice conversation we're having. -- llywrch 07:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Worldtraveller 11:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. getcrunk juice 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Teply 16:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deletion implies the end of the Good article system, which I like.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: we should reflect the fact that article quality is a continuum from awful through bad and good to FA standard. —Phil | Talk 16:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Vote to Keep. Mr Snrub 00:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

L#d templates

Template:L3d

Delete or userfy, only used once _→AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:L2d

Delete or userfy, only used once _→AzaToth 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ld

Delete or userfy, only used once _→AzaToth; 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Votes on L#d Group

Keep. Comment It looks like these are used to find missing years or other sequential things. Is there any reason to keep them. Trödel|talk 01:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC). Seems useful enough to keep the three templates. Trödel|talk 19:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Useful tools for creating sequences of links, and detecting existence of pages in the sequences.--Patrick 10:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Jew list

Delete: What is the point of this list? Are there also lists identifying who is Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Muslim, Buddhist, etc? Is the author stocktaking? Is he/she identifying who is Jewish for any specific purpose, or is this solely to imply a degree of contamination or undue influence by a specific group on the entertainment industry? Enormous box which is highly intrusive into any article it's insterted. At best, a link would serve, this is just grating. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: The solution to its "highly intrusive...grating[ness]" is to discuss it on Template talk:Jew list, not to unilaterally nominate it for deletion. If you feel it's ugly, bring that up with the people who turned it into a box instead of plain text like it was before. Tomer^TALK 05:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • How would one nominate for deletion multilaterally? The word "unilateral" is slung around in far too gung-ho a fashion. -Splash^talk 21:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • By first garnering the support of multiple users, preferably ones interested in the template in question. This can be achieved by participating on the template's talk page, which was not done. I didn't throw, toss, fling or sling the word "unilateral" around in either a willy-nilly nor gung-ho fashion, I used it precisely as I meant it. The TfD nom was filed w/o a word of discussion on the talkpage...not even a note on the talkpage discussing the rationale for the TfD nom!! In fact, the nominator hasn't yet contributed to talk there. At least s/he's since withdrawn the TfD request... I agree, the template was intrusive and ugly, and that the new version is an improvement for those reasons (although before it was turned into a box it was just fine...) ... but that's something to bring up on talk, not a reason, according to the TfD criteria, to nominate it for deletion. Hence, my objection, and my assertion that it was done unilaterally. Tomer^talk 06:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Presuming that we're keeping the various lists of jewish people, then having a standard definition of terms is necessary. I'd support making it less lengthy though, and I'd definitely support a les offensive name (using the word "Jewish" instead of "Jew") --Arcadian 06:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I just made it far less intrusive and grating. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 09:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, with Phil's new version.--Sean|Black 21:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand why Zoe wants to delete templates that simply are in need of improvement. She recently listed one purely because it contained misspellings! (And she withdrew the nomination when the spelling was corrected!) —Lifeisunfair 21:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Everything is context. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Phil's new version. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Meaningless. Gold Stur 21:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The verion I see now is small, convenient, and linked to by over 50 articles [6]! Keep, keep, keep. --HereToHelp (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the reference to "Who is a Jew?". If you don't want list of Jews, AfD them, but as long as we have them, this template serves a useful role in explaining the subtleties of such categorization. MosheZadka 14:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I see a fundamental difference between maintaining a 'list of Jews' (which I find questionable) and tagging various people as Jews (which I find doubly so). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Izehar (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pretty abhorrent title, and the concept seems less than necessary. There have been other (horrendous) uses for 'Jew lists', and non-Jews may not be aware of the discomfort caused by the concept, phraseology and use of such a list. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This discussion already occured. All the Jews in the discussion were aware of the historical implications, and thought it is nice if for once a "Jew list" could be a nice thing :) MosheZadka 16:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Who ever 'we' is, this is not a point to 'yah yah'. It's a valid point and important to an encyclopedic entity like Wikipedia. My point that this needs to be clear to MORE than just the 'Jews in the discussion' stands, regardless of pat dismissals on your part. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I do not see the point or value of such a template, and it certianly can be percived as offensive. In geenral lists by religion or ethnicity are a bad idea IMO, and tempaltes that encourage them are suspect in my eyes. DES ^(talk) 17:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Clean-up or Delete. The wording is way too offensive, it needs fixing.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful. Guys, if the text is offensive, that doesn't mean you should delete it. If it serves a purpose, then clean it up. With that said, I don't see what's so offensive about it. Maybe you guys haven't noticed that we also have an article titled List of Jews (as well as List of Italians and List of Japanese people, among others, no doubt). Deletion of such lists has already been discussed and decided against. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews As long as such lists exist, this template is perfectly useful. -- Dpark 20:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • One either has Japanese citizenship, or does not. The same cannot be said of one's faith. Whether one is or is not a Jew is not an objective assessment. There are different criteria for such an assignment based on whether one is Orthodox, one is practicing or not, etc. And again - there is a difference between a list of Jewish people and a 'tag' used for labeling individuals as Jews. They are not the same thing and it's wrong to imply such an equivalence. Labeling a person's article as a 'known Jew' is a vile and subjective practice. Only Individuals themselves have the objective ability to identify themselves as Jews - that's not an objective assessment for anyone else to make. One's parentage and practice (among many other things) affect that assessment. In Nazi Germany, the criteria were far broader. Whose subjective perspective is right? The individual, and the individual alone. Accordingly, this tag is ill-advised.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This tag is not for individuals. This tag is for pages which are lists of Jews. You acting as if the two are the same, and they are not. And whether or not lists of Jews are appropriate is not what this TfD is about. Nor are the criteria for "who's a Jew" up for debate here. If you want to debate who counts as Jewish, take it to the appropriate talk page. If you don't want lists of Jews, take them to AfD again. This isn't the appropriate place for those discussions. -- Dpark 21:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You can't discuss a tag without the criteria for using it. This tag is ill-advised. As I have said repeatedly, it's not about the list, nor about individuals. Don't conflate the issue. It's about the tag. My observation stands and is relevant, as relevant as your comments. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • This tag does not label anyone, though. It labels pages which are lists of Jews. The pages this tag are used on already label the people on them as Jews. e.g. List of Jewish American Linguists This tag doesn't do any labelling, because it's already been done. If you don't like the labelling, this is not the place to argue it. Deleting this tag doesn't remove any labelling. -- Dpark 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I do not claim it does. On the face of it, and it alone, this tag is ill-advised - and so I voted 'delete'. I do respect your right to disagree. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep my G*d whats next tfd of Template:Jews and Judaism (sidebar) because of the name being offensive?!?!?  ALKIVAR™ 23:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Extremely useful to make the casual reader aware of the myriad definitions of who should be considered Jewish from all POVs. JFW | T@lk 12:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Blatantvandal/Template:Blatantvandal-n

Delete: Similar situation to {{blatantvandal}}. --Nlu 16:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Am merging two delete requests. Pointless to debate the two templates separately, as they are the same template with a minor technical difference. They should be kept together or deleted together. As per OwenX request "Can we combine these two TfDs?" FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Duplicate {{test3}}/{{test4}} in function, and I think creates confusion on how much vandalism that the vandal had done, making it harder to tell whether to block or not. I think that streamlining back into the test/test-n series is better --Nlu 16:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, since the wording of {{test4}} assumes other warnings have been given, and there are definitely cases where blocking after a single warning is appropriate (see also "People who add penis pictures to widely-used templates"). —Kirill Lokshin 17:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep is part of a series dealing with specific issues. The test series is not effective for specific cases. This and other templates are designed to fill the gaps where a specific warning about a specific type of behaviour is required. The test series lacks that ability because it is generalised and unfocused. While the tests are useful in some areas they are unsuitable in others. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This template lets the following admin decide whether the next vandalism justifies blocking, or one more warning. Both {{test4}} and {{test4im}} imply the next action must be a block. This template is one of the most frequently used on vandal talk pages. Owen× ☎ 20:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Certain instances of vandalism warrant only a single warning. Hall Monitor 20:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep certain vandals need a harsher warning than the "test" templates. Izehar (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this extremely useful template. There are times when this is the perfect warning. Antandrus (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I cannot think of any reason to delete these templates. There's some vandalism that's so ... blatant we just get rid of the fools doing it. -Splash^talk 21:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've reverted vandalism like this before and found the available templates lacking, this is good for certain purposes. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 01:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this template was created for cases in which someone does something so egregious (e.g. replacing Microsoft with a picture of a penis) that the {{test}} → {{test2}} → {{test3}} → {{test4}} sequence wouldn't cover the severity of the offense. This basically says, "Ok, if you try anything, you're out of here." There's no need to warn certain vandals with 4 tags. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, very useful in those cases for which it was created. Nothing confusing that I can see; surely the blocking admin always checks how much vandalism there was before actually blocking. No...? Vandalism templates exist for giving the user appropriate warning, not for saving wear and tear on admins' thinking processes. We remain responsible for our blocks. Bishonen | talk 07:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Weasel

Delete : This template is extremely unprofessional. Not suitable for wikipedia. At minimum, it should reworded and the word weasel should not appear anywhere in the description. Also I dont see how this template differs much from other POV / NPOV templates. --DuKot 06:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The reason it's different from the garden variety {{POV}} templates is that weasel words ("Some say that...", "...but many believe...") are much more common and are easier to use unwittingly. I'm not sure we need a whole separate template to deal with it, but I can imagine it being useful. Let's find a better picture of weasels, though. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 07:04:19Z
• Weak keep. It could be useful. Perhaps the wording should encourage the readers to try to remove weasel words rather than simply to see discussion on the talk page. AnnH ^(talk) 09:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It was recently edited heavily, I think the older wording was better. —Locke Cole 09:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just came across this template and was about to nominate it for deletion myself. It looks very bad sitting on top of a page. Hagbard Celine 15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As it is, accusations of "weasel words" fly too easily anyway. Don't add an unprofessional template to the arsenal. --Nlu 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said above, it was recently edited heavily. The inclusion of a picture of a weasel was also in bad taste. I've reverted the template to what I hope is a more agreeable form. —Locke Cole 20:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewording and finding a better icon wouldn't hurt though. Izehar (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and restore the cute little weasel. See also my comments at Template talk:Weasel --TantalumTelluride 21:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - necessary to flag articles that contain weasel words. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reasons given above. Mark¹ 21:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Whining templates are the weasel solution to listing actionabale items on the talk page (or even better, editing the article). --Stbalbach 21:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though I think it should only be used on the talk page and thus continue to identify articles that need work through assignment to the Category:Articles with weasel words. Trödel|talk 22:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Nuetral, The template appears useful, but weasell may be derogatory, expanding on it's name's definition may be helpful to not offend clueless editors' alternatley could be used if only subst:'d xaosflux ^T/_C 01:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if there's a problem with an article, describe it on the talk page, instead of lazily slapping some boilerplate on the article/talkpage and expecting someone else to respond to your gripes. CDC (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This thing needs to go. We already have templates which cover cleanup. Too many, in fact. Look at Historical persecution by Christians and History of Kosovo. Why are there THREE different cleanup templates there? Why are there two on anal sex? This template does nothing which isn't already covered by Template:Unreferenced and Template:POV. And it's uglier. (The recent edits have made it worse, not better.) -- Dpark 15:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm striking my vote. Most of my complaints are problems with specific articles and not with this template. I do still think it basically duplicates other templates, though. -- Dpark 20:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep TheRingess 19:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unprofessional when voting started, incomprehensible now. Bishonen | talk 07:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote how you see fit, but it seems pretty clear to me. (Personally, I'd prefer if it said "weasel words" instead of "generic attributions", though.) If you have a problem with it, feel free to go to the talk page and make suggestions. (Or simply make them boldly.) -- Dpark 19:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but please change back to "weasel" words; that's how they're described at the destination article and clarity is more important that formality (especially on a theoretically temporary template). I'm not a big fan of tagism but better that than leave bad prose alone. Demi ^T/_C 20:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. We're discussing whether to use the term "Weasel Words" or not. Please chime in if you have a preference for any particular wording. -- Dpark 23:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. If you have problems with the warning, then use a different word for the template. Stifle 00:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keap. Probably should discuss making it Talk-space only, though. Jkelly 05:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Reword it, but there should at least be a tag that references WP:WEASEL. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's too much use of on-article templates for wording disputes already; it's cluttering up hundreds of otherwise good articles and making Wikipedia look much more awkward and less professional. I don't mind the really important, broad-ranging templates, but stuff this specific, which is already covered by NPOV templates and others, seems like nothing but a way for people to try to add weight behind their view of the article. There's absolutely no reason that someone who sees weasel words on the article couldn't simply go to the Talk page and say "Hey, I think there are weasel words in this article, someone should get on that," perhaps even listing a few examples so people know where to start; the only reason to go with some big, bulky box instead is to add an air of fabricated officiality to the situation, to use an authoritarian-looking template to command other people as to what the article's primary priority for improvement is, rather than politely bringing it up and reasonably discussing it on Talk pages. Besides, many people find the phrase "weasel words" offensive. -Silence 02:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User_no_fr

Nomination this is getting kind of silly: Is there any reason anyone can think of why wiki should have a no-french template?--Aolanonawanabe 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: This is supposed to be silly...wikipedia will first and foremost is an encyclopedia it is also a community. A little humor that describes me, on my babel, shouldn't be deleted. Chooserr
• Comment. I took the liberty of removing this from categories that would likely be misleading; specifically, Category:User fr and Category:User fr-N. -- SCZenz 04:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Silly, but still interesting. JG of Borg 05:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but change, This is userspace stuff, so I don't see any problems with it; however it's logo seems to similar to Category:User fr-N's logo, so a modification (perhaps fr-X) may be better. xaosflux ^T/_C 01:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have just done so.--Sean|Black 01:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I love it. Chill out, Aol. A lot of people might well use it on their pages as a joke. (Not me. I disagree with its message, but I love its humour. Lets have more of these.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but reword. Just not funny enough as it is. Perhaps something like "This user does not like the French" perhaps? Gives me an idea for "User no pl" ... ;-) Chris talk back 21:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Does no harm Gerard Foley 00:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Underconstruction

All articles are under construction. This template serves no purpose. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per the nomination. —Lifeisunfair 04:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete indestinguishable in function from the INUSE tag. I'm No Parking and I approved this message
• Strong keep. I've found this template useful; this is good where you are planning or in the middle of a major expansion but can't quite complete it in one sitting, as this allows whoever reads the article to know that it is in the middle of a major expansion -- that whoever put the tag on didn't simply leave the article in a semi-finished state (which would be an encouragement for whoever sees it to remove the unfinished sections, I'd say, without the tag). {{inuse}} is not functionally equivalent, as it tells people to keep their hands off, where as this template encourages people to get involved. They have different uses. (What this is functionally equivalent to is {{under construction}}, and perhaps one of them can go, but not both.) --Nlu (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or reword. I don't want to have to guess when the article is done being constructed if I'm patrolling Newpages. If you can't create the article in one sitting, you should create it in your userspace and then move it to the article space, or something along those lines. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 04:33:21Z

• I disagree even as to creation -- but this argument doesn't apply to expansions, certainly, which is typically when I use it. --Nlu (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to ((under construction)) or Weak Delete. As per Eventualism philosophy, articles can have incomplete major sections. Also, this tag and ((inuse)) essentially excludes articles from collaborative editing. Lastly, what if the editor becomes incommunicado, or becomes busy? -- Perfecto 04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps you mean merge to {{inuse}}? Christopher Parham (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know why this template "excludes articles from collaborative editing" -- because it explicitly encourages others to edit the article. It just reminds them not to remove what appears to be incomplete or out of context, because whoever was working on it will add it, hopefully at his/her earliest convenience. When I used it, I'd have appreciated if people added things while I'm still working on the expansion, and would have been terribly annoyed if people removed the "blank" sections that I added. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but this doesn't make sense to me. Why did you add blank sections to an article, and why would you have been "terribly annoyed" if someone had removed them (thereby returning the page to a relatively professional appearance, irrespective of length)? It would have taken a matter of seconds to restore the headings from the revision history (not that I recognize any benefit to their premature presence). —Lifeisunfair 10:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• For an example of how it is used (by me, at least), see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jiang_Wan&oldid=30419211 -- I wrote the first section on Jiang Wan's expansion, and then had to go to dinner. If someone else read the article during that time, without the tag, they'd have thought that it was an incomplete article that should be cleaned up. {{inuse}} would have told them to keep their hands off, which is not what would be intended. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It was "an incomplete article that should be cleaned up." What was the purpose of adding individual headings before the corresponding sections had been written? —Lifeisunfair 10:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding the section headings first greatly assist in editing; that way, you can edit one section at a time and save one section at a time, without saving them in one gigantic block. Editing by sections is in fact a highly recommended edit technique when it comes to lengthy articles, because that way you don't edit-conflict the entire article if someone else were going to edit another section while you're working on a section. --Nlu (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, useful. Sometimes the expansion or creation of an article is spread out over a number of sittings; this template is useful for explaining, e.g., section headers with no content underneath. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful JG of Borg 05:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Chris Parham.--Sean|Black 05:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — but tidy it up first. Does it have to be that big? -- Cjmarsicano 05:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Tidy up — This is a very useful template, if it gets deleted I'll get annoyed because I've just begun using this for people who have created an article and want to finish it later but don't want it speedy deleted. I think it would be better if it matched the other article tags such as {{wikify}} with a blue background. — Wackymacs 07:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comments: People are saying that this template's purpose is to indicate that an article contains incomplete elements that the user plans to continue editing in the near future. If this is correct, it should be reworded to convey this fact in a clear manner. (I agree with Zoe that the present wording describes every article.) Also, I disagree with this method of article revision. Why not simply wait until the text is sufficiently developed before adding it to the actual article? I don't mean that the article should be in a mature state before it's allowed to exist, but why submit content untidy enough to require a special tag (such as unused headings, partially written paragraphs, etc.)? If the goal is collaboration, why not simply develop the new version via a subpage (linked from the article's talk page), and transfer it over when it reaches a reasonably coherent state? —Lifeisunfair 10:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have changed the wording and style of the template so that it matches other cleanup/work tags such as Wikify and Verify. If anyone disagrees with the new wording they can change it if they want. Simply waiting until the text has developed may be too late, because an administrator might have already tagged it for speedy delete or another tag. — Wackymacs 10:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There's two main reasons to put whatever you have directly into the article namespace. (1) It starts helping people right away -- this template shouldn't be used on pages that have no content whatsoever, so whatever is already completed is likely to help someone searching for the topic. The template also alerts them to check back soon to see what else has been added. (2) It prevents duplication of work by people writing a totally different new article on the subject, or from people adding tags (like section-stub) to an article that the editor is already well alert to. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've modified it further. --Nlu (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with users above stating that it should be cleaned up / made more uniform, but I find it useful in that I can label an (existing) article as under construction - e.g., when I am translating a long article in a different language to add to the article, and cannot do it all in one go. However, I can see that the solution proposed by lifisunfair is also viable - I just find it a needless complication. ACH 11:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Might be useful to compare and contrast with Uncyclopedia:Template:WIP in particular the way it is used Uncyclopedia:Template talk:WIP to avoid the, placement on an article then disapear problem.--ElvisThePrince 11:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per arguments above - it encourages assistance as opposed to the inuse tag, so addresses a different situation. I am concerned about the disappearing editor scenario - perhaps add a date such as in Cleanup? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good for pages that take several days (or weeks) to create. Prevents them from being deleted. Better to edit in the main space rather than user space because unfinished info is better than no info at all and also prevents others from creating duplicate article on the same topic. Sorgor 14:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Or at the very least, edit strongly. All pages are under construction here. There are no "finished" pages. If this template stays, it should be clarified that the page is in the middle of a complete rewrite, or something similar. Same with Template:Under construction. (I also think these two should be merged if at least one of them is not deleted.) -- Dpark 16:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and reword. I'm basically agreeing with the "It's useful but needs to be clarified" crowd. Jokermage Timor Mentum Occidit 16:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to reword a bit more. Please see how things look. --Nlu (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse as I am the creator of the template. I think it's useful, but it wouldn't break my heart to see it deleted. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We have another template for it... it's named "under editing" or something like that, it is listed in the template page. Sitenl 19:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If this is talking about an active commitment to return to the article soon, it is a duplicate of {{inuseuntil}}. If it is talking about an indefinite "I'll come back to this one day", it is discouraging other people from editing the article no matter what the text actually says. Ashibaka tock 02:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a way to make this kind of templates automagically display an expiry time of 24 hours and tell people to remove them after the time has expired? Then it would not look so discouraging if the template is forgotten. Kusma (討論) 03:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep these are definately useful for big jobs that seem abandoned. karmafist 03:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for use by larger projects that cannot be completed in one sitting. I have thoroughly appreciated its use in Creatures in the Metroid series, for which I once longed to have a template like this indicating that it was far from complete and people were still working on building it (as opposed to putting finishing touches on an already-finished framework). ~GMH talk to me 06:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. 100% redundant to Template:Inuse: {{inuse}} All articles are "unfinished", and any edits whatsoever constitute an article being "under construction".

All this template does is clutter up an article page with information that a reader would find useless anyway. Templates like this should be exclusively on Talk pages, and in this case this template wouldn't even be at all useful on a Talk page, since simply saying specifically what you're currently in the process of editing in Discussion is much easier and more informative. The only time templates should be used on an article page itself is when the template is absolutely vital, like when there's a major NPOV dispute or when the article urgently needs a major copyedit. Something as trivial, vague, and just downright useless as this is nothing but template overuse. What's next, a template that says "This article is not perfect. Please feel free to edit it to make it better."? Or "This article exists. It is not a delusion implanted in your mind by the space monkeys."? Stuff like this goes without saying, and is immediately obvious to any editor who's even remotely interested thanks to the very handy features called "Talk pages" and "Edit histories". Any editor who's so reckless that he'd start messing around with an article he's unfamiliar with that looks incomplete without even checking the Talk page or the Edit History is someone who needs dealing with personally by telling the guy that he needs to assume good faith more and not jump to the conclusion that the article's a big mistake, not something that needs to be dealt with giant brightly-colored templates that could apply to hundreds of thousands of articles. -Silence 08:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Ditto the above.--Lordkinbote 10:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I still don't see what purpose it serves. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I still don't see what the purported redundancy is -- after people pointed out that its tone is entirely different than {{inuse}}. And take an article such as, for example, Emperor Xian of Han; how else do you propose that I expand while at the same time let people know that it is in the middle of an expansion? --Nlu (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Explain to me again why {{inuse}} doesn't work for what you're talking about? Ashibaka tock 06:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, I saw your summary message. So basically you don't mind cleaning up after edit conflicts. If you make sure the template clearly reflects this, I will change my vote to Keep. Ashibaka tock 06:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I think you've done a pretty good job as it is anyway. :-) But edit conflicts are not very likely when you do put the headings on and then edit one section at a time -- as I've explained above as the reason for doing that. --Nlu (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Redundandt RickoniX [[User_talk:RickoniX|(talk)]] 08:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- Unless there is a better template to use while translating a long article, section by section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunpiker (talk • contribs)
  • There is, it's called {{inuse}}. Ashibaka tock 14:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone can explain why we need a template when translating a long article. Chris talk back 11:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Pls. do not think of this from the convenience of editors. When we look at it from the view of some one who comes to Wikipedia for some info, he'd be put-off by excessive variety of tags on the article page. Which is why {{inuse}} should be enough. I'd be indifferent for templates used in talk pages. --Gurubrahma 11:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; how is this any different from having no template at all? I do not think it overlaps with {{inuse}}, but as far as I can see it doesn't really serve any purpose. EldKatt (Talk) 19:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful for editors who like to write new articles incrementally, to let Newpages patrollers know that the page may not be ready for prime time yet. I agree that the current text does overlap with {{inuse}}, though. I suggest changing the wording to fix that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Nprotect

No need for this ugly template.Ridnik 18:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - This is currently being discussed. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#New_protection_template? I say leave it alone until it's decided there, at which point if it's decided against it can be speedied or put through the process then. -- Dpark 19:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Changing my vote. Seems duplicate to me, and there's no further discussion on the village pump. -- Dpark 17:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. — don't see what is wrong with it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There is already {{P-protected}}. — Wackymacs 21:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I don't see a problem with it, and I'd wait for the procedure per Dpark. Also, {{P-protected}} is similar, but not the same thing. — The Hooded Man 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. No update on the village pump for two days now. If there's no new info/discussion by tomorrow, I'll change my vote to delete. -- Dpark 15:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "Wide notice" draws new experts to articles; those experts can't contribute if article is protected. 66.167.138.184 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC).

Template:BondInfo

Template:BondInfo should also be deleted. Info not in box could be in text of article. No movie series should have own template.Steve-O 22:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong/Speedy Keep for James Bond infobox, the infobox is tailored for James Bond and includes things that are significant to Bond such as the actor who plays Bond (rather than doing every ensemble, which is listed in the article anyway), info on the theme song (very notable), and includes preceeding and following links. There's nothing wrong this. Considering there are 21 films officially, a television episode, and 2 unofficial films, I think having it's own template is fine. No other film series that I'm aware of (at least anywhere near Bond's popularity) even comes close to that. We allow differing character infoboxes tailored to individual films/series/novels etc, whats so wrong with this? K1Bond007 23:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep per above. I'm unaware of any wikipolicy saying films shouldn't have their own templates. Can Steve-O provide a source for this assertion. In the meantime, I see nothing wrong with using an infobox tailor-made for a series. It's no different than the template created for, say, Doctor Who and Star Trek episodes. The fact a generic infobox has been created for film is beside the point, because this is a film series we're talking about and it is therefore vital to include chronology information. No everyone knows Goldfinger comes after Dr. No. 23skidoo 00:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep the box for Bond, suggested reason for deletion is patently ridiculous. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My only complaint is that it's the only movie series to have their own 'movie' infobox. That includes Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars... so why bother having it and not just the standard info box? The extra info that is in the box is already in the page already (who played Bond, music and so on). I'm not saying it's policy per say to delete it. That's why I put it up for debate. IMO, and I guess I'm alone on this, is it doesn't look very encyclopedic but rather like a fanboy page.Steve-O 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Fanboy page? Ironically, one of the articles you're talking about is a featured article. It's about quick reference. James Bond is 23 films long and has a number of unique features or pertinent information that the infobox supplies that the regular film infobox does not. It's that simple. There's no reason/guideline/policy or whatever that says a film series of this size can't create an infobox to tailor information better to the reader. K1Bond007 05:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And just to add to the above, if editors of the LOTR, Star Wars, etc. films want to borrow/steal the infobox used for Bond, they're welcome to it. I plan on adapting it for the Universal Frankenstein films myself. 23skidoo 06:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep per above. Cyclone49 04:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep for all francise-specific movie infoboxes. Also, I should point out that the album infobox template has been recently modified so that many of the items that can be filled in are now optional and will only come up when the information is filled in; doing the same thing with the movie template would be a good compromise and be very helpful for case-by-case entries. -- Cjmarsicano 06:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep For reasons above. The guidlines listed here prevent me from discussing the wisdom of Steve-O in proposing this! Mark83 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Implicit uncivilty is still uncivil. EldKatt (Talk) 14:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep As has been mentioned there are numerous unique facts for bond films such as music, girls, etc., and whilst they are mentioned in the text this quick-reference format is very useful and aids quick and easy use. User:Iancaddy 11:50 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User nude

Seems to be unused. Huh. The associated category should also go, if this does, I guess. -- Beland 10:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The template was created only 6 days ago so I don't think the unused criterion is fair here.—jiy (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Its somewhat funny, and meant for the user space of Wikipedia. Yes its useless, but there are are at least 10 other userboxes I've seen that are useless. With time I'm sure someone will put this on their user page. — Wackymacs 14:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — This is for the eventually personal definition system by using userboxes, give people some time _→AzaToth 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Userboxes are personal templates used only in user pages. They're not dangerous and they're sometimes funny. CG 19:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not now nude, but I often am. And this template is no longer un-used. Tedernst | talk 21:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Templates that are 6 days old should never be nominated. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy before we see {{User contributes mostly on a Tuesday while wearing blue socks}}. Yes, it's funny, but it's not really appropriate. violet/riga (t) 21:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, There is an transition to move all non-babel userboxes to {{userbox supertype|subtype}} (for example {{userbox wikipedia|administrator}}) _→AzaToth 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep —Locke Cole 04:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is userspace stuff only, the creator may want to change the logo and dimensions to make it fit in shape and line with the Babel boxes most common on userpages. xaosflux ^T/_C 07:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and about 90% of the other userboxes. Phil Sandifer 00:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Dumber ones exist. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to delete this and all dumber ones. Phil Sandifer 18:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This argument seems to come up occasionally in *fD votes. You might be interested in the logical fallacy "two wrongs make a right". I have no strong feelings one way or the other in this particular issue, but find it worthwhile to remark on this common pseudo-argument. EldKatt (Talk) 19:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Let the weirdos have their harmless humour...as long as they don't start posting photos, of course ;-) — Matt Crypto 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - there's nothing like some nude Wikipediation. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 19:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I created the userbox as a humorous parody of the Babel userboxes. (Someone else created the template for it.) I don't like the quasi-pornographic image that has been added to it, and I don't think there should be a category for nude users. The box is not supposed to be serious. If there are any serious nudist Wikipedians out there, then they should create real userboxes and a category for themselves. Until then, this box is just a joke. --TantalumTelluride 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

keep lol. Harmless and fun Borisblue 07:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep good memetics. Both belonging and individuality are included, as well as a nod to sex, all wrapped in a humorous package. Excellent userbox - perhaps add a better image. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Result: Kept, but the image was removed because of a bunch of sensible arguments against it.

Template:User kl-1

Delete: Level 1 of Babel templates for Klingon language, but the five levels of Klingon language Babel templates already exist: see Wikipedia:Babel#tlh - tlhIngan Hol (Klingon). tlh is the language code for Klingon, and kl is the language code (ISO 639-2) reserved for Kalaallisut language. I wrote to the the template's creator (and also other person using this template) to give them information about that. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- Dpark 16:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and rewrite per nom, if it is possible for us to have babel templates for Kalaallisut. If not, just delete. --Wcquidditch | Talk 18:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and throw a bucket of cold war on him/her for bothering to learn a fictional language of a non-existent race from a non-existent planet that was created for a television show. Really! What next? Conversational clucking for chickens? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 07:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Klingon is a semi-official language, it's teached in several universities. _→AzaToth 15:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please inform us what universities are teaching Klingon, both so the info can be added to the Klingon language page, and so we can submit these schools to the appropriate accreditation boards for potential revokation. -- Dpark 16:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, it's mearly what I have heard, but klingon have an official ISO-639 code (http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=tlh) _→AzaToth 18:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment There is also the Klingon Wikipedia Qapla'!. --Sherool (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I changed it to Kalaallisut. Now it is an orphan though. Ashibaka tock 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Result: Keep new form of template

Template: Muslim conflicts

Delete: Template is mispelled, incoherent, and hopelessly vague. Should conflicts include both battles and arguments? Any instance in which Muslims argued or fought about something? Category tag for battles is sufficient. Developed and applied by one user without any input from other editors. Zora 04:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I was needing to create List of wars in the Islamic world and I happened to use this as a starting point. I removed obviously non-war listings, but someone more familiar with the subject should probably take a look at it. -- Beland 11:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, better done with Category tags. If you don't know the history at all, you may not realize what an enormous subject this is. Imagine a list of all battles fought by Christians. Zora 11:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

i agree -- it should be deleted. aside from the obvious spelling and grammar issues (how could someone not have noticed them?), the topic is both very broad and quite open to negative manipulation. what would stop someone from trying to include modern events -- and what criteria would be used? furthermore, the title 'muslim conflicts' -- i think it promotes the misconception of muslims as violent. Dgl 15:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this. Misspelling is not criteria for deletion. I named it "conflicts" and not "war" so it could include conflicts that did not erupt in open warfare, like the rebelion against uthman, the treaty of hudaibya and the hasan-muawiya treaty. This makes it able to include all major events.

Reacting on what is said on this here, i renamed it to "early", aimed at go up to the battle of karbala, from there everything is a great mess. Before that, every conflict was major and distinct, after the battle of Karbala eveything descended into chaos, Umayyad vs Sunni vs Shi'a.

Striver, that's your SHI'A interpretation of history, that the early history ends at Karbala. Karbala is pivotal for you; it isn't for Sunni Muslims.

There is no need for an early Islamic history template, since all the early Islamic history articles are so extensively interlinked. Just looking at Muhammad, or Ali, or Umar, or Aisha, whatever, leads you to all the other historical articles, through a web of links. There IS an article called Timeline of Islamic history, with lots of subpages. It needs work (which Striver could do) but a See also link on the history articles could lead interested readers to other events happening at the same time. A template is not needed, but a See also could be useful. Zora 08:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a need for a template that lets one to navigate between the major events that happened in the early History of Islam. I named it "muslim conflicts" and not name it "Islamic conflicts" since that would make things open to pov wars, everyone does not agree on what conflicts where "Islamic" or not. A Druze would deem the war against the kwharijes as un-Islamic, Shi'a deem the wars of Abu Bakr as un-Islamic, a Sunni would name the siege of UThamn as un-Islamic and so on... so "Muslim conflicts" avoid that. So "Early Muslim conflicts" is the perfect name IMOH. --Striver 21:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as "Early Muslim conflicts". These events are critical part of islamic History and can shed light of why muslims are the way they are now after The demise of the prophet. Also His great prophecies about his distinguished prophecies about the turbulances that would follow and his stand. These prophecies are agreed upon by both sunnis and shia with difference in ther historical details and interpretation. It is surely essential to keep for people to understand the evolutio of islamic politics. Nowadays sunni governments base their rule on the iterpretation of those events. Shia on the other hand distinguish themselves largely due to these events.

• Keep as renamed. Grouping early islamic history in an infobox seems useful enough. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:BadJPEG

Delete. This template was created by ChrisRuvolo on December 2, and has been used by Bkell to tag approximately 1,800 images over the past week. The problem is that its recommendation is not necessarily sound; the JPEG format is legitimately used for images other than photographs. Quoting Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload (to which this template links), "the PNG compression algorithm is designed to work with large areas of solid colour that have sharp boundaries." Images such as this one and this one would have much larger file sizes in the PNG-24 format (Either of these would be more than twice its current file size.) Furthermore, most of these images likely came from JPEG sources, so it's impossible to "revisit" a non-JPEG version and reduce the number of compression artifacts. —Lifeisunfair 04:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've reworded the template to address the above concerns, and Bkell has expressed strong approval of these changes on my talk page. —Lifeisunfair 23:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Template seems to imply that users can change other extensions to .jpg, for instance from .htm, to trick the servers into uploading them, except that the upload thingie aoutomatically parses images to ensure that they are real .jpg images, I can't imagine what use this template is under those conditions--Aolanonawanabe 05:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• You bring up a good point, Lifeisunfair. I'll go through the category and try to remove these tags from images such as those you've pointed out. Those are exceptions, though. The vast majority of the images that have been tagged are JPEG images that really do need to be in the PNG or SVG formats: maps, logos, graphs, etc. There have been a few instances where, for the specific image in question, JPEG is probably the correct choice, but only because the image is a photograph of a flag, for example, and a PNG version would be an improvement. I'm not sure I understand what Aolanonawanabe is saying. The wording of the template could probably be changed, if it would make the intent clearer. Certainly JPEG compression is appropriate for some images that are not photographs. —Bkell 05:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, and I guess I can vote, so I'll vote Strong keep. The template is only a few days old, and it still has some kinks to work out, such as how it should be worded, and what exactly it should be applied to. But it is an attempt to address a real problem, so deleting it because it's not perfect isn't the right solution. —Bkell 05:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, give it a chance before getting rid of it. —Locke Cole 08:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme delete. I had the template tagged on a fair use logo soon after I uploaded it. I have doubts about the other uses of it, but it should NEVER be put on a fair use logo image. If the people tagging images with it can't even think that part through, then obliterate the dang thing. ^BlankVerse 14:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "it should NEVER be put on a fair use logo image": Why not? Just because some corporation provides their logo in JPG format on their website, doesn't mean we can't provide a better PNG or SVG version here. Keep, by the way. dbenbenn | talk 18:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this template has absolutely nothing to do with the legality or copyright status of the image in question. It is also not meant to say that the image shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. It is a request for someone to find or make a PNG or SVG version of the image, and then, after we have such a thing, the JPEG version can be replaced with a cleaner image and a smaller file size. —Bkell 18:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this is an annoying problem on some images that are so obviously in the wrong format with artifacts etc. It's a good idea, just somebody was over keen applying the template I guess! wangi 17:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but do not apply to fair-use images, as User:BlankVerse has indicated; we should not be in the business of altering source material for our convenience ... a logo from an external entity has properties that are often the subject of long design and our altering that design for mechanistic convenience is not in the spirit of providing to end users accurate content. In other words, if we "make it better" in the case of logos, we are no longer providing accurate content to readers. Courtland 18:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but do not apply to logos. --Gurubrahma 18:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that the JPEG artifacts in the image are a carefully designed part of the logo? Maybe when these companies order embroidered polo shirts for their employees, they pay extra to get those JPEG artifacts stitched in. I would argue against that. Let's look at, for instance, Image:Mdlogo.JPG. I am of the opinion that those splotchy patches in the "Dew" are not carefully designed and part of the logo, but are rather an unfortunate side effect of saving this image as a JPEG. A PNG image would have a clean, solid color of red. —Bkell 19:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have done a lot of work in converting JPEGs that should have been PNGs or SVGs to the correct format. Some people believe removal of artifacts this is impossible, but it's not. One technique is palette reduction, another is the use of the magic wand tool with a tolerance setting, followed by a fill. If we can put George Bush's head on Carmen Electra's body, we can certainly repair bad JPEGs.

As for fair use images, I also disagree with the assertion that we should not repair these; usually, a JPEG logo from the company's website is based on a vector-graphics logo used on merchandise, and some shmuck doing the website just screwed up the format. The artifacts are not part of the real logo, and it's not difficult to remove the artifacts while leaving the original, intended image completely intact and virtually visibly identical. I did this, for example, with the Boots logo.

Regarding the excessive filesize of PNG-24 images, we normally reduce the palette to 16 or even 8 colours before uploading. However, the software doesn't currently support colour reduction of thumb images, so these may be large. Deco 18:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete completely unnecessary template. There's really no need to waste server resources including this in thousands of images for no net gain to the encyclopedia. -Splash^talk 19:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

File:Coa congo zaire.jpg File:DR Congo CoA svg 250 palette reduced.png

• Maybe people don't realize what this template is really attempting to do. Look at the two images above. The one on the left is the original JPEG image, complete with JPEG fuzz and blur around all the edges. The one on the right in the middle is the much improved SVG version drawn by Mysid. Note how much cleaner it is; what's more, it can be drawn at any size and still be crisp and clean. This is the kind of improvement we're trying to spur with this template. —Bkell 19:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, and also note that if in the future the server adds palette reduction for generated images, the PNG will often be much smaller than the JPEGs. I've added a third version above which is palette-reduced to 4 colours in Photoshop; it is only 1480 bytes, about 17% the size. Additionally, many simple images such as flags are much smaller even at PNG-24, due to RLE. Also, to be fair, the JPEG above was saved at low quality — if it were saved at quality 7 or 8, the artifacts would be less visible, but it would be at least twice as large. Deco 19:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It should also be noted that it's not possible to open that JPEG in Photoshop and just crank up some "quality" setting to fix it. Once an image has been saved as a JPEG, the compression artifacts are there to stay. Getting rid of them requires someone to sit down and do some nontrivial work. After that work has been done, the best course of action is to save the new image as a PNG, so that you don't introduce more compression artifacts by saving it as a JPEG again. —Bkell 19:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Worth reading: Compression artifact. I also linked it in your comment, hope that was OK. =) —Locke Cole 20:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keeep (great for flags and coats of arms etc.) and don't apply on fair-use company logos (maybe explain this on the category page). High-quality versions of logos often do not qualify as fair use; recreating them will be a lot of work that is potentially infringing on copyright. Kusma (討論) 19:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting point, and I've thought about that after reading the {{logo}} template. But surely actions like fixing Image:Mdlogo.JPG don't affect the fair-use status of that image, if the resolution isn't increased. —Bkell 19:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Consider SVG logos, which can be scaled dynamicly. There is no native resolution, and detail is not lost when resized. Does this preclude fair use of that image? Consider Image:007.svg. Also, consider an encapsulated postscript file of a company logo presented on their web site for use in publications. Would that not qualify as fair use? If rendered as a PNG? If translated to SVG? I think it is fairly straightforward that it would qualify. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but use properly. Phil Sandifer 19:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's good to educate uploaders about picking correct formats. In some cases it might be impossible to get a "clean" version of the image, in wich case simply remove the template, but IMHO it's a good idea to remind people that JPEG is very poorly suited for line art and such. If some images have been inaproriately tagged just remove it from those images. People tagging images with this template could save us some time if they didn't bother tagging old discarded files that are CSD candidates though. I seem to mostly run into this tag when deleting orphanded "fair use" files, those should simply be tagged with {{db-i5}} instead. --Sherool (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• If the template is removed, it's possible that someone will fail to notice that the image previously was tagged, and therefore will re-tag it. I have an idea for a solution to this, and I'm going to work on that now. —Lifeisunfair 21:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Duly noted. —Bkell 20:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: After reading the above discussion and Bkell's messages on my talk page, I now believe that this template can serve a valid purpose, but its wording and application are in need of significant review. Presently, the tag itself implies that non-photographic images never should be uploaded as JPEGs, which obviously isn't true. Also, Bkell has been applying the template strictly to logos, most of which were taken directly from websites in the JPEG format (as often is explicitly mentioned in the descriptions). I'm going to attempt to reword the template accordingly. —Lifeisunfair 21:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been applying it to more than just logos. I went through a bunch of maps a few days ago, for example. It just so happens that at the moment I'm working on logos. If you feel that better defined rules need to be in place for what this template should be applied to (I would agree), I'd invite you to help us reach a policy on the template's talk page. —Bkell 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; this is a very useful tag. I often replace inappropriate JPEG images I find with PNGs. However, I don't always have time to do the conversion myself, so having a template is handy. It might be better to reword the warning such that it doesn't refer exclusively to photographic images; lots of human- and computer-generated artwork, for example, also compresses well with JPEG. —Psychonaut 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Del: This was tagged on my upload of the Mac OS X Kernel Panic Dialog. File:Macosx-kernel-panic.jpg

Just because it is a JPEG doesn't mean it should have photographic information, should it? (I could go and convert the image to PNG and re-upload it but I don't know what good it will do...) Mattderojas 21:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• • That image appears to have three colors. It is an excellent candidate for a PNG. But you'll have to take the screen capture again; you can't just convert the JPEG to a PNG, because the compression artifacts will still be there. —Bkell 22:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In addition to not having those ugly JPEG artefacts, which are quite visible even on my crappy laptop monitor, that image would be about one quarter the size if it had been saved as a PNG (assuming it really is three colours and isn't anti-aliased; I can't quite tell from the JPEG). —Caesura^(t) 22:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Even if it is anti-aliased, it could be very well represented with 16 colors. —Bkell 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. I think even 4 colours would do pretty well on this image — black, white, the colour of the watermark (which can also be used for antialiasing), and one more for finer antialiasing. Deco 01:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Really off-topic, but Image:MacOSX kernel panic.png –Mysid 12:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; very useful on the rare occasions when I feel like cleaning up JPEGs with artefacts. —Caesura^(t) 22:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is all I do in Wikipedia. –Mysid 12:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hello all, I created this template to start tagging the numerous horrible JPEG compressed uploads for cleanup. Several people have made many uploads to replace these images with high quality PNG or SVG images. I also support the use of this template on fair use logos. Several times I have created PNG versions of logos even though the original source images are JPEG. See for example Image:Amtrak logo.png. It cites a JPEG source. Should this image not have been cleaned up? I don't see why that would lessen its fair use claim. Granted, fully 24-bit RGB PNG images can be larger, but where appropriate, limited color palette images can be used. There are TWO reasons to use this template: 1. removing JPEG compression artifacts. 2. reducing image size on disk. Either are valid on their own, IMO. Things like line drawing artwork would be a good use for this template. Computer rendering may or may not have acceptable levels of compression artifacts depending on the JPEG quality level. Re-rendering and compressing with a high JPEG quality level would also be an acceptable solution to that situation IMO. I hope this clarifies things a bit. I find this a very useful template. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm tired of seeing images uploaded as distorted JPEGs just because the uploader doesn't know there are better formats. - Sikon 06:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ouuplas 23:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This allows easy finding of images that potentially need manual time consuming conversion --b4hand 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but do not use on logos or other fair use images where a PNG or SVG is unlikely to be found. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 22:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've found that logos are among the easiest things to obtain PNGs or SVGs for. This week, I've created Image:Activision.svg, Image:Alamo.svg, Image:Asbury College.svg, Image:Royal Canadian Mint.png, Image:C-SPAN.png, Image:Bandai.png, Image:American University.png, Image:Adidas.png and Image:MetLife.png to replace bad JPEGs. —Caesura^(t) 12:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a useful template for notifying users that they should upload a better quality version of certain images. -Mike5904 01:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But it needs re-wording, and should not be applied to most logo's. also, put some thought into it before just slapping this on pics. just because something is jpg doesnt make it horrible, but if it IS a horrible jpg, than by all means, encourage an upgrade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omniwolf (talk • contribs) 20:28, December 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with above --Colonel Cow 03:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

12 December

Template:Weasel words

Delete: Duplicate of Template:Weasel. This duplicate template was recently created and based on an older version of the original weasel template. We've been debating whether to use the term "weasel words" or "generic attributions" (or something else entirely), and rather than wait for a concensus, Crotalus horridus created this one specifically as a "Competing weasel words template". It's an intentional duplicate, which we do not need. Dpark 16:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. All ten articles this template is currently used on were previously using Template:weasel, and were converted to this new duplicate by Crotalus horridus. -- Dpark 16:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I felt that this was a better solution than engaging in a template edit war. This way, if people feel that a harsher weasel words warning is justified for some articles than for others, it can be tailored to the page as desired. Crotalus horridus 16:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There wasn't really an edit war going on, though. We were having a poll to decide. -- Dpark 16:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Please Note. Crotalus horridus agreed that since the conflict with Template:Weasel seems resolved, a redirect is appropriate. I've removed the TfD tag, since it seems a redirect has definite potential to be useful and poses no problem that I can see. -- Dpark 20:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:65xx processors

This navigation template is too unwieldy to be of much use. Despite the title, it includes not only processors in the 65xx family, but all of the various integrated circuits produced by MOS Technology. That name may not be familiar to you, but they were very big in the early 1980s (MOS products ran the Atari 2600, Commodore 64, Apple II family, and a bunch of arcade machines) and having a navigation template like this is like having one for all Intel or NVIDIA chips ever released. I have created smaller navigational templates for each category (video/sound chips, CPUs, etc.) and this template is now orphaned. Delete. Crotalus horridus 14:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I also created Category:MOS Integrated Circuits in case someone really does want to see all of this in one place. 168.30.196.106 15:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the title does not conform to WP standards, so it will have to be replaced. *sigh* --Wernher 03:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There was nothing wrong with the template as it was. It was not overly big or intrusive (it's a horizontal template, placed at the bottom of articles). The new arrangement is clearly too fine-grained (one of the new templates links to just ONE article, with no potential for growth). I am concerned that Crotalus horridus is making a lot of changes on the basis of personal taste rather than because they are clear, unambiguous improvements. (Note: I have never edited the template). Mirror Vax 19:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I responded to Mirror Vax on his Talk page. Crotalus horridus 21:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with Mirror Vax on this one (even though I did some editing on one of the suggested replacement templates earlier tonight, I might add). I originally made the 65xx template to facilitate navigation among the quite diverse, but not extremely extensive, range of MOS chips; I suspect some readers might know vagely of the processors but perhaps not of the support chips. BTW, after Crotalus' recent edits to the template, it actually got more tidy. :-) As for the template's name, it is of absolutely no concern to readers. --Wernher 03:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:P-protected

And Category:Protected due to publicity

This template is for protection due to high visibility... which is unwiki and against current policy. We protect pages that have excessive vandalism ({{vprotect}}), but not before. In fact, the fact that an article was mentioned somewhere that it is getting attention is good and presents our face to new visitors. As well as the fact that new visitors represent a chance for our article to improve by their edits, and shouldn't be protected from them except in extraordinary circumstances. As well, it's in direct contradiction to WP:PPol, which says:

When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.

May also want to review User:Raul654/protection for the reasons behind this. Should be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom.--Sean|Black 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - regardless of the protection policy, recent events have made it clear that this is not the case, as Jimbo protected the Seigenthaler article prior to the CNN appearance, and Kyra Phillips was protected the moment she mentioned it. This ought not become regular behavior, however it is clear that there is a threshold at which point we protect, in which case this template is important. Note that this template also encourages users towards other articles that they can edit, mitigating many of the problems of "But we want the first article people hit to be editable" Phil Sandifer 07:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not about wanting the readers to be able to edit, it's about the encyclopedia. Editing is how our encyclopedia functions. In any case, this template is not a good way to make policy, or even common practice. If you want to propose this policy (which I would dispute at this point), do so, but don't put it into practice without consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not putting it into practice. Jimbo already has put it into practice. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • This template is an attempt to make it common practice without community support. You cannot pretend that Seigenthaler is an ordinary situation. The fact is that while Jimbo has the ultimate goal of our encyclopedia always in mind, he is sometimes out of touch with the specifics of how things work at a given time (a certain 17 second block comes to mind). He has worries other than editing here every day. If anything I would say this is a much more IAR necessitated action, rather than a new practice that is anything like policy yet. Dmcdevit·t 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This is not the ideal forum for policy considerations, which is the basis of Dmcdevit's objections. Besides, IMHO, that paragraph in WP:PPOL is unjustifiably optimistic (and appears to refer only to online sources, to boot), and should probably be changed. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but I think that this would make sense if there was a policy proposal... but right now it's just wrong. Nothing will reasonably be protected with this template. Dmcdevit·t 09:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, high volume public pages need some sort of label.  ALKIVAR™ 10:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No article should ever be "protected due to publicity", since the entire point of getting publicity for Wikipedia is to let people edit the article being publicized so the Wikipedia process gets the news out. Also, it's not a good habit to protect articles just because they're being vandalized; reverting vandalism is easy, and articles that are receiving lots of edits are also getting plenty of good editors in addition to the vandals. Protecting pages should only be used as an anti-vandalism measure in truly extreme cases, not as a regular, everyday tool (for the same reason articles featured on the main page aren't locked). All it takes to make sure that none of the vandalisms are slipping through is to do what I always do: do a compare between the current version and the version 20 or 30 edits ago, and see if any new vandalism has slipped in (particularly effective since I've found that major edits that aren't vandalism are relatively rare for high-publicity articles). In any case, this template is unnecessary and redundant to other templates that already address the "protected due to vandalism" and "prone to vandalism due to having been recently cited or linked to" issues. Also, embarrassingly self-referential and bloated; does it really need the "800,000" self-advertisement bit added at the end? -Silence 10:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You may say that no article should ever be protected due to publicity, but Jimbo directly countered you on that one, so the objection is moot - he had John Seigenthaler Sr. protected before going on CNN. As for the self-advertisement bit, yes - the expectation is that the page in question is going to be the first Wikipedia page hit by a huge swarm of people who do not know much about Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• I already know that Jimbo directly countered me on this one, as you've already stated it above. This would certainly influence my vote, were it not for the simple matter.. that Jimbo is wrong. Templates like this will do nothing but embarass Wikipedia and stunt it's growth at times when it most needs to be consistent and open to new contributions and exploration of the editing process. The best response to vandalism is reversion, not protection; protection should be the exception, for only the most brutal cases of vandalizing—not the norm. And if there's a vandalism storm going on, whether the article's being frequently populated right now or not isn't irrelevant, as the problem's still the same. -Silence 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• You gravely misunderstand how Wikipedia policy works. Phil Sandifer 21:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Regardless of how grave my misunderstanding is, Jimbo doesn't become any more right no matter how many times one says "Jimbo did X". If my opinion is invalid because Jimbo is a god on earth whose will is not to be defied by the likes of mere mortals, then feel free to ignore my opinion, but that in itself will neither change it nor prevent me from expressing it. If our only purpose here is to interpret what we think Jimbo wants, not to interpret Wikipedia policy and goals and what's best for the articles, then we should probably skip the voting process on this issue altogether and just ask Jimbo to cast the only vote on the matter, then go with that. No need to run around in circles if the decision's pre-made, sure. But it's still a poor template that does not benefit Wikipedia.
• Incidentally, based on what I know of the situation involving the articles that Jimbo protected, don't you think that it's more likely that he protected those articles because the ongoing news they were involved in directly related to Wikipedia? Plenty of articles get linked to and mentioned in the news all the time, but they don't usually get protected right off the bat; the difference here is not that the articles were especially prone to vandalism, but rather that vandalism was especially dangerous because Wikipedia's reputation was on the line due to the subject of the news being Wikipedia itself. So, even if protecting a page is warranted in such a situation, protecting it with a tag like this one is pointless and highly misleading. A tag involving the fact that the article is in the news because of itself (as was the case with John Seigenthaler Sr.) would be much more relevant and honest. -Silence 21:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, again as per Silence's comments above. Thanks/wangi 14:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. High profile articles might be what draws attention to wikipedia, but new users should spend some time getting to know the correct way to edit articles. They shouldn't be editing the first page they ever see. By the time they learn the ropes, the page that got them here will no longer be protected and they will be able to make whatever reasonable improvements they want. Kafziel 19:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme delete. Ugly, verbose, and unecessary. ^BlankVerse 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Publicity draws new experts to articles; those experts can't contribute if article is protected. 66.167.138.184 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Delete contrary to policy, based on a misuderstanding of Jimbo's actions in the Seigenthaler case; per Silence. It's a mistake anyone could have made, but it's still a mistake. Articles are not and should not be protected due to publicity; they are (sometimes) protected due to self-reference (i.e. the Main Page is particularly visible in Wikipedia therefore it is protected), the Seigenthaler (and Kyra) page's were particularly visible due to their subjects involvement with Wikipedia, therefore they were protected). JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the moment, and eventually Redirect to {{sprotect}}, when that comes online. I view this as a patch measure, since Semi-protection seems to cover the reasons for this template, but isn't operational yet. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 20:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- the fact is, high profile pages are often protected to counter vandalism: deleting or keeping this template does not change how protection is used; although, the policy may need to be updated to indicate that protection is indeed often used when an article has been linked from a high-traffic area: Linking from the main page or major web sites is a common case where protection is used, the protection is no coincidence, and the message given by this template explains the reason for the protection more adequately in this common case than the vague one-liner given by {{vprotected}}. --Mysidia (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Dmcdevit and Silence. Pages should not be protected just because they have been linked to or mentioned. The high influx of traffic is not always a bad thing, and sometimes greatly improve an article. Editors should be aware that the article has been linked to, but by using the {{high-traffic}} template. Pages should be protected if there is persistent vandalism, but that is what the {{vprotect}} template is for. --Mark Yen 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a reasonable argument against protecting linked/mentioned articles on a routine basis, but does not answer to the merits of having template -- so long as pages are actively protected for this reason in actual fact, the template has a useful function, which is to inform readers as to the protection and the unusual need for it, which differs from the vandalism that plagues some articles at other times (nature of the article, rather than prominence or greater visibility to the world). Otherwise, pages are still protected which are linked or mentioned, and the standard vague template is just used instead. Changing policy or admin practice is not really an acceptable use of a TFD (instead, propose something around Wikipedia:Protection policy). --Mysidia (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but reword and Delete Category:Protected due to publicity — There needs to be something to "warn" new users and onlookers that we know they're probably gonna vandalize the page. But it shouldn't be because of the publicity, we should just say that it is popular, it is being vandalized, just not because —24.130.32.99 01:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete тəzєті 15:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - with regret. I would like to see the wording modified to say "almost all of our over 800,000 other articles." instead of "many of our over 800,000 other articles." but that's a nit. I would also like to suggest that some guidelines for usage be put in the <noinclude> section to let users know that the template should only be added to an article with great forethought. (although I acknowledge meta:Instruction creep with that suggestion) If Jimbo has set policy in this direction, (and I agree with User:Dmcdevit that discussion of policy may be appropriate) the template seems a good vehicle to make the policy as smooth as possible. Wish it weren't so though. ++Lar 20:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with nom: we already have {{high-visibility}} and {{vprotect}} (and now {{sprotect}}), so we really don't need this, it's just another badly written template that discourages new users, and makes us look like a cabal. -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 03:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For reasons stated in nomination, and also because it looks like we have quite the harem of protection templates. Not to mention it reads like an advertisement slash error message slash "apologies, but you're screwed" message. Cernen 11:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. {{sprotect}} or {{High-traffic}} should be used instead. Also, there should not be pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized. --Pmsyyz 21:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:UK ties

delete: Orphaned at some point, {{UK ties2}} used in place of it. Thanks/wangi 12:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, and redirect {{UK ties2}} to it. I prefer this version. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias - SoM 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias--Mais oui! 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

{{UK ties2}} is used only on United Kingdom. Subst either of these templates and then delete both. No need to clutter the template namespace with single-use templates that will only slow us down (in more ways than one). Chris talk back 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias(if you think its clutering up the template list then just delete it from the list - gawh ) --Whywhywhy 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: the tfd notice was removed on the template, I've since added this back plus started a discussion on the Talk:United Kingdom#UK ties templates page regarding these three templates {{UK ties}}, {{UK ties2}} & {{UK ties3}} (2 of which are unused, 1 single use). It's probably a better place to discuss the way forward, but personally I think all three need to be deleted and the content subst in. Thanks/wangi 14:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment:As the original creator of all three templates, I'm certainly fine with deleting them all and including the content in the page; good housekeeping and so forth. I'd like to find a way of archiving the old situation, however, for the historical record. Any ideas on how? Doops | talk 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've figured out how. Would whoever takes action on this deletion request please do the following?

• Copy-and-paste template 1 into the bottom of the article, with an edit comment saying "copied from deleted template UK_ties"
• Then replace it with template 2, with an edit comment saying "replacing with content of deleted template UK_ties2"
• do likewise with template 3
• finally, revert if necessary to your preferred version. (Template 2 is the one currently in use, I believe.)

Thus it will in future be possible to understand any references on talk pages to the relative merits of the three templates. Thanks. Doops | talk 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Policylist

A) We don't need goofy cartoon pictures making our policy pages look like jokes. B) Perfectly adequately addressed by categories. C) Overly selective. D) The world does not need more ugly boxes. Phil Sandifer 23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This has been temporarily commented out of the policy pages and a shrunken version is being hacked on - see also Template talk:Policylist - David Gerard 19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Too big, and overshadows the policy page itself. Maybe a little something at the bottom, but this is too much. -- SCZenz 23:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks good to me. Conveys a serious link between important WP policies and guidelines in an aesthetically pleasing way, jguk 23:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems fine to me. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if the images are removed. They look silly, and Snidely there can't be fair use in this template, can he? android79 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, looks like "Snidely" is just a very, very good imitation. Still don't like the images, though. android79 01:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What I was trying to promote was making personal attacks "evil" with the picture but over objections I replaced that image with the "dont bite newbies" one. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not sure what to do about the images, though. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If you image-search Google for Snidely Whiplash, that image shows up on quite a few different sites, apparently identified as the cartoon character. Whatever its origin, it appears to be so easily confused with the copyrighted/trademarked character as to be inappropriate for use like this. Monicasdude 02:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It wasnt a copy vio but, I did decide to replace it with "dont bite newbies" image. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• A template with a list of key policies might be useful if it could be maintained. I am skeptical about the feasibility of that task. I would rather have no list than an incomplete list. As such, my opinion is a weak delete. The cartoons on this list, however, trivialize the policies and present an attitude not of informality but of ridicule. They are entirely inappropriate. I don't really care if someone used this on their userpage but I strongly object to its use on any regular page. If kept in its current format (with the cartoons), I must argue that we are better off without it altogether and would change my opinion to strong delete. Rossami (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The "selection criteria" question seems to have been answered on the template's Talk page. While I'm not sure that we have the right content yet, that's a discussion that can be continued on the Talk page. Change my "weak delete" opinion to abstain. Rossami (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep I do not see whats wrong with it. There is nothing goofy about the cartoons. It is indeed overly selective however it does link to everything. which is several pages long (just the list). The most imperative policies are mentioned for beginners Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedie delete since I am not allowed to use images on it, I have no reason to support the existance of that template. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, hey Phil, this sounds like a content dispute to me. Why not debate this on the templates talk page and gain consensus rather than "nuking the site from orbit". —Locke Cole 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is fine for user pages, but on the actual policy pages it is redundant with the {{policy}} template (which is also much more attractive and and has a cleaner presentation). If it's proposed that this be on policy pages, I'd say delete just to keep it the heck away from them. If it's going to be only on user pages and other pages that aren't facing our entire user base, then I'd say keep.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 04:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes I know that but we have too many policies and its confusing. These really are the core policies. What is core and what isn't is subject to a discussion, no doubt. However I really feel listing everything on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines on this template (which does link to that page) a very bad idea. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 04:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps that means that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines needs a rewrite, not that we need a new box? If this is just a band-aid (and I'm not presuming that it is right yet), then it's not going to help in the long run.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful summary of major policies. Trödel|talk 04:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• I removed all three pictures, both because they were too big and because the "Villain" picture was tpo unserious for a policy page. Keep revised version. Firebug 05:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Cool Cat seems to have a problem with others editing it. --SPUI (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have problem with you editing. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Chill out, Cool Cat. android79 06:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh I am calm :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Then assume some nice, calm good faith. Phil Sandifer 06:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Not to SPUI. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes. To SPUI. Phil Sandifer 19:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Nope I have a zero tolerance policy towards trolls. I cannot. Sorry. GNAA is as trollish as one gets. With that offensive user talk page of his braging about 'helping drive him off!' admins he will recive maximum hostily from me. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, doesn't look ugly. - 211.30.173.113 06:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Not sure. Not an inherently awful idea, but I'd lose no sleep if it died. WAY too big. Not sure about ordering. Possibly acceptable with serious work. I'll try to find time to have a hack at it - David Gerard 10:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Boy, and after I'd taken my crack at it and made it smaller. Check the history, this thing was ghastly big originally (but unlike some, I see the potential!). =) —Locke Cole 12:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep revised version. the wub "?!" 17:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the box, get rid of pictures. Zocky 22:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It is missing all of the useful and important policies. Bensaccount 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but hopefully improve. All the wikipedia guidelines and policies are like a big unsorted "to do" list. This is a step in the right direction where users might take them seriously as having some sort of finiteness. Stevage 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment In response to objections raised that it was inappropriate to have a TFD tag prominently featured on policy pages, I created a refactored deletion notice that fits into the bottom of the navigation box and has wording that may be less intimidating to newbies. I hope this is acceptable. Firebug 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I also added WP:POINT and WP:BEANS. Firebug 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Since when was BEANS a policy or a guideline? -Splash^talk 02:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hideous, selective and being spammed all over the place. -Splash^talk 02:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it's fantastic. The template has been transformed in recent days and it looks good, and is concise and to-the-point. A welcome addition. Dan100 (Talk) 11:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and it seems as though that we are now discussing a different template (in the evolution of templates, anyway) than the one that was originally nominated for deletion. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that it has been cleaned up and looks professional, and as long as the goofy pictures aren't included. --NormanEinstein 15:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- Jbamb 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep— Per recent update it's useful _→AzaToth 17:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks like a helpful and useful template. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: y'know, I think this would make a great side bar (below toolbox)... Dan100 (Talk) 12:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Bleh. The "fangly welcome template," as someone once put it to me, pretty much covers all this stuff. We have wikilinks to these things just about everywhere. If you REALLY want to keep it, then I suggest pushing it into the left sidebar section on the main overlording template of templates. Otherwise, toss this cardboard box into the rain and see how long it lasts against the elements -- er, delete it. Cernen 11:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, altho without the previous images. Maybe one might have been ok, but we should keep our policy templates tasteful. Sam Spade 21:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - What's wrong with infoboxes with our policies? —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like every useful template gets nominated. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mexico Broadcast Television

Delete: Redundant with {{Broadcast Television}} (which contains everything in this template except for the logos), and the logos are not fair use on this template. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, for the reasons listed above. Or better yet, extract the Mexican portion of the misnamed Broadcast Television template and transplant it into this template, do the same for the Canadian portion into the Canadian Broadcast Television template, and then create a United States broadcast template for the rest (and then lower-case the first two templates). ^BlankVerse 03:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the reworked template (but rename to a lower-case version), Create a {{US Broadcast television}} template, and delete the huge and misnamed {{Broadcast Television}}. ^BlankVerse 02:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove the logos, but keep; my preference would be for Mexican, Canadian and American television to each have their own separate template rather than getting combined into a unified North American box. Broadcast television in North America simply isn't that closely intertwined. Bearcat 19:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Update: I've removed the logos. Bearcat 23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)>
• (Keep) Given the apparent consensus (here and in Canadian template), have renamed Canadian / Mexican templates, created new {{U.S. broadcast television}} template, and redirected {{Broadcast Television}} (which is now used on U.S. nets only) to new template. Will edit directly as time allows. — Stickguy 04:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination and keep, now that the big {{Broadcast Television}} template has been split into two more templates apart from this one. I did not know at the time of nomination that this would be done. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Dubious

Breaks article flow and improperly injects the reader into page content disputes (which was the primary objection raised against Template:Afd-noconsensus and Template:Twoversions). It also contains a cross-namespace link to the article talk page. Firebug 23:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and per User:Agentsoo at Template talk:Dubious. (For the record, his comment was, "Sites that reproduce our articles rarely reproduce the Talk pages, and certainly any printed version would not. It seems to break the normal rules of namespace boundaries. A simple note that the fact is disputed seems adequate, and readers can consult the Talk page if they so desire.") --Idont Havaname 05:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's quite OK for it to cross link to discussion since dubious content should not be in wikipedia, an article marked like this is a work in progress. This is very different from where the actual subject matter is in dispute, there you have both views etc. Here it's wikipedia's description of the subject, not the subject itself that is in dispute. 67.165.96.26 16:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This IP has fewer than 30 article-namespace edits and has existed for about three weeks. Soo 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's because I've had about 5 ip's. I been editing for more then a year. And no, at this time, I don't want an account. 67.165.96.26 20:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia does not draw a line between "work in progress" articles and "finished articles", if only because all of our articles are (at least for now) very much in the former category. If part of an article is disputed then it should be moved to the Talk page until a source can be found. Yes, this is sometimes tedious (as I discovered with this, where there's still lots of stuff on the Talk page), but the alternative is much worse. This existence of this template implies an "official" attitude to Talk-namespace links that is simply incorrect. The sooner it's deleted the better. Soo 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case I have a question for you: how should people deal with things like this paragraph. I added this tag on a paragraph that just didn't make sense to me, and especailly after seeing other people have the same concern on the talk page. However someone wrote it, and (especially) maybe I am missing something, so didn't want to just delete it. OTOH I didn't want a huge box at the top of the page or section marking DISPUTED, since it really wasn't a very big issue. This tag was perfect, but I'm open to other suggestions. 67.165.96.26 20:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep give a more succient warning tag. Much like NPOV section. J. D. Redding 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep please -- at least long enough for me to deal with a dispute at Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky#Biography. <>< tbc 08:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it is a good way to point out specific accuracy issues when an article as a whole doesn't deserve the accuracy template. –Andyluciano 20:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — Instantnood 20:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Canadian Broadcast Television

Delete: Redundant with {{Broadcast Television}} (which contains everything in this template except for the logos), and the logos are not fair use on this template. Ronald20 ☎ ✎ 01:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, for the reasons listed above. Or better yet, extract the Canadian portion of the misnamed Broadcast Television template and transplant it into this template, do the same for the Mexican portion into the Mexican Broadcast Television template, and then create a United States broadcast template for the rest (and then lower-case the first two templates). ^BlankVerse 03:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the reworked template (but rename to a lower-case version), Create a {{US Broadcast television}} template, and delete the huge and misnamed {{Broadcast Television}}. ^BlankVerse 03:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Better than the overly broad {{Broadcast Television}}. Why are the logos not fair use on this template? Skeezix1000 07:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, same reasons as above. Have asked previously re logos so would also appreciate explanation. — Stickguy 13:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Never mind; explanation found here. Will remove logos. — Stickguy 14:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Given the apparent consensus, have renamed Canadian / Mexican templates, created new {{U.S. broadcast television}} template, and redirected {{Broadcast Television}} (which is now used on U.S. nets only) to new template. Will edit net pages directly as time allows. — Stickguy 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• With the logo issue out of the way, I'd actually prefer having separate templates for Canada, the United States and Mexico to having a single one that combines all three. Keep this (albeit with a rename to fix the capitalization), and delete the unified template (but create separate Mexico and US templates if they don't already exist). Bearcat 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, having seperate templates is much better organized than the mess of the old {{Broadcast Television}}. Also, isn't this nomination (more or less) a clone of the nomination I made for {{Mexico Broadcast Television}}? They look very similar... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Unimage

• Ambigious copyright tag, the text basically says we don't know the copyright of this image. Images in this category should be dealt with under the existing fair use system, delete.--nixie 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• KeepNeutral Specifies the image to be UN property. Maybe the UN will grant us rights to use their images sometime in the future. Then we will be lamenting the loss of this template. Ashibaka tock 01:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• If they do, we can always undelete it. Delete for now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Jbamb 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we shouldn't encourage people to use this tag, and there's few images currently using it so no big deal cleaning it up. JYolkowski // talk 03:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• comment If rewritten, this template could be used to indicate UN ownership and used together with an appropriate license tag. But we already ahve a general tag for images with no copyright or license information. DES ^(talk) 16:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have rewitten this to make it clar that it specifies ownership, not copyright status. i have looked at every image tagged with this, and all now have another image tag specifing their licensaing status, although in some cases it is {{no license}} and in a number of cases it is {{Non-free fair use in}}, some of which are also tagged with {{fairusereview}}. Under these cericumstances, i think this template and the associated category is useful for indicating the source/copyright of images derived from UN publications, although it is obviously not enough to indicate the licensing status. DES ^(talk) 18:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep due to rewrite by DES. Agnte 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - How do you plan to notify users about source templates? Obviously this tag even as re-written is inappropriate for listing on the image copyright tag page, as it does not assert anything about copyright. Unless someone plans to roll out a new system for image source tags, the tag is still quite useless and should not be used in place of correct source information.--nixie 23:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If the UN owns it, how are we going to prove permission to use? -- Jbamb 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Some UN sources explicitly grant permission for general reuse. Some give permisisons addresses, to which a user can write, just as with any other request for permission. Some are old enough to be PD. Many have good fair use claims. Some we won't be able to use, and will need to be propmptly deleted. And in some cases an image may have been published by a UN agency, but the copyright is not in the UN. This tempalte really just adds some info about the provonance of the iamges in question, and groups them into a reasoanble category.DES ^(talk) 23:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: While there might be some use for tags that specify the source of the image without specifying the licence, I think that the potential for confusion (e.g. the process that creates WP:UI would probably not pick up anything just tagged with {{unimage}}) and the fact that we don't have a comprehensive set of these weighs against it. No change in vote. JYolkowski // talk 15:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Hebrewterm

Makes a pretty cluttery little box that gives the translation of a Hebrew term. This causes a colossal mess on pages already overloaded with boxes and navigational aids, and the translation of a word can easily be mentioned in the text without any further need for boxes. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per nominator.Template has changed to have the box removed --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Amir E. Aharoni 20:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (a little history: my first vote :) )
  • Comment: A proper etymology template is what Wikipedia needs. I'm really sorry to disappoint Humus sapiens.--Amir E. Aharoni 07:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Humus sapiens convinced me. This is a free encyclopedia and i exercise my right to change my mind. The way it looks now at Yerida is OK. Some structure is better than no structure at all. I still think that there's a need for a proper etymology template, though.--Amir E. Aharoni 09:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Let's discuss first: this is a day-old template, still in development. The possibilities are to add pronunciation/sound link, etc. or it may be made a single-line template. Now it is similar to Template:Arabicterm, Template:Russianterm. Remove or move it around in the articles where you think it adds clutter. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; I really don't see why we can't include a Hebrew word, its transliteration or translation in a text if it's needed, without using a box. EldKatt (Talk) 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: it doesn't necessarily have to be a box, another option is to make it in-text. The idea was to introduce consistency, please see Template talk:Hebrewterm. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Consistency in formatting is great, but I think more flexibility is needed than this template can provide. You don't always need a translation of a term, for example (if the meaning is implied by the context or explained elsewhere), and in such and similar cases it's undesirable to rely on this template for consistency of style. A guideline of some kind would be more flexible and useful. EldKatt (Talk) 11:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Upon seeing it used at Yerida, I suddenly understand its point. I previously assumed that it were supposed to be used in articles wherever a Hebrew word is used, which I do think is not a good idea. But keep, for use in the head of articles such as Yerida. EldKatt (Talk) 11:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep: I agree that as it is, it is an annoyance. If we could use it for making inline use of foriegn terms more consistent, then great! But see my comments on Template Talk. I'm willing to change my vote if this becomes feasible or surely unfeasible. jnothman ^talk 23:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Completely rewritten to be in-text with optional params: plural and audio for now. Please reconsider/comment/improve rather than delete. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This looks very useful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Change - As it is I can see little need for it - there is no appreciable saving of keystrokes, all it add is consistency (good but not worth the candle). If this was formatted up like the Template:Arabicterm then there are far more possiblities. Then I would vote keep but not as it is! Kevinalewis 11:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually it was created as a box, but the consensus seems to have it in-text. Could you tell us what are "far more possiblities", perhaps they can be accomodated in this or another template. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it as a text version as with {{hebrewterm|ירידה|yerida|descent}} in Yerida. But hey, what is this going to do to all of User:Gilgamesh's "Tiberian Hebrew" extras in so many of the Hebrew worded articles? Hmmm, where is he? I think I'll ask him to come over and give his POV. IZAK 08:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Oy! If needed, we can add more optional params. I am learning the syntax, so any help is appreciated. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Please do not condescend... Tiberian vocalization is the original standard of the Masoretic Text. Even if it has little modern Ashkenazi Orthodox Jewish religious significance, it's linguistic significance is incalculable. If you differentiate the differences between the different modern liturgical Hebrew practices (Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Romaniote, Iraqi, Yemenite, etc.), you get 99% of the same linguistic detail laid out in Tiberian and elegantly described with Tiberian vowel points. But that's besides the point of this vote... - Gilgamesh 18:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per EldKatt (Talk) 11:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)—msh210 17:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand to include niqqud, Tiberian (Masoretic) vocalization and Standard Hebrew (Eliezer ben Yehuda) transcription (e.g. those official Israeli government spellings that few outside the CBS uses, but are still of value to linguists). Such things can be left blank until someone knowledgeable of them can fill them in. - Gilgamesh 18:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Though this template is useful sometimes, other times it has its shortcomings. For instance, a topic may have linguistic information in addition to Hebrew and Jewish practice. For instance, many Old Testament figures are also prominent in Islam and have Arabic names, e.g. Jalut for Goliath and Hajar for Hagar. Additionally, even some Hebrew words, such as "rabbi," have even niqqud-level differences based on tradition, e.g. "ribbi" in most non-Ashkenazi historical texts, but "rabbi" in Ashkenazi and (because of the Ashkenazi elite in Israeli society) Israeli Hebrew. - Gilgamesh 18:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Zh-c

Template:Zh-c (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — It's better to use more precise templates, zh-t and zh-s instead. BenjaminTsai ^Talk 05:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 08:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy keep. This is used when the traditional AND simplified characters are identical. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In light of this I recommend moving zh-c to zh-u to specifically denote that this is used only when both traditional and simplified are the identical. I have encountered one or two instances where people assumed zh-c was not limited to the above restriction. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we can just clarify that somewhere, should be simple enough and most of the time people do use the right one(s). -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy keep. This is used when the traditional AND simplified characters are identical.--Jiang 07:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

December 21

Userfy

• Userfy — clearly missplaced user templates _→AzaToth 20:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Keep these. Not sure if it's still true, but at the time I created my user templates there were serious operational problems with templates created outside template space. These templates are all clearly identified and do no harm. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless where they are, and used by their respective authors. Owen× ☎ 21:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Comment As far as i know, templates outside tempalte space now work just fine -- i have tested several in my user space before moving them to template space, and I have a couple for personal use that stay in my user space. But i don't know what the problems were before, so i can't be sure that they are gone. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Templates in userspace work fine these days, so I would prefer if the various users mentioned here moved these templates to their userspace. But I see little point in deleting them. Radiant_>|< 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Pointless and frankly absurd nomination. It is this sort of nonsense that gives this page and the whole deletion process a bad name. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if it works in user space now, that's where it belongs. -- Jbamb 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think a userfy would hurt, but don't delete them. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfying sounds reasonable. There's no need for them to be in the template space. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Single user templates like these in the Template namespace aught to have a speedy-move criteria. ^BlankVerse 04:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no policy against moving anything belonging to a user, or only used by that user, into that user's userspace (but it would be nice to ask the user first). Userfy, no problems with speedying. Radiant_>|< 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy - obvious course of action. Thanks for finding all these AzaToth, sorry to see your hard work called "pointless" and "absurd". violet/riga (t) 10:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Those silly kids need to stop emptying their sand-filled boots on Jimbo's the cabal's our floor. Cernen 11:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless where they are. Larix 12:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per Jtdirl. 172 23:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, things need to be kept separate... related in some way to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references in my mind. gren グレン 07:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy Note templates, so should be in the relevent User's name space. Ian¹³_ID:540053 22:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

To userfy Adrian Buehlmann 10:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

December 25

Template:User Feminist

Sexist anti-female propaganda by User:D-Day:

User:D-Day decided this, {{User Feminist}}, would be a good addition to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs. The symbol for feminism, as picked by D-Day is "I h8 men" with a link to Feminism.

Somehow, I don't agree: This is nothing but sexist propaganda by D-Day (who I've not talked to before, I just noticed this template addition as the Userboxes project pages are all on my watchlist), designed to convey falsehoods like "all feminists hate men"/"feminists are lesbians", etc --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Votes: *Delete --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (nominator)

• Keep' My apologies if this was offensive. It was created in an attempt to be a lighter tone and I did not mean to offend anyone, nor set any kind of prejudice. I'll change it to try to make it less offensive. --D-Day 17:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Vote cancelled by nominator — Ok, never mind. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

December 26

Template:US City infobox

Delete. Unused redirect to template:Infobox U.S. City. Adrian Buehlmann 20:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to change my vote to keep per Netoholic's prove below. So this nomination is in fact cancelled (But it's interesting for technical reasons). Adrian Buehlmann 12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - it's a redirect that is useful. There's also no way to know if any articles still use that. A page may call "US City infobox" but the Whatlinkshere will show a link to the target of the redirect, not the redirect itself. -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  Just a technical question: I thought the "What links here" clicked on the redirect page (the one that contains the #redirect instruction) lists all articles that refer to the redirect. Am I wrong? Adrian Buehlmann 09:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  No you are not wrong. [7] I'm not clear why Netoholic said what he did; the redirect is plainly not used anywhere, merely referenced in discussions and so forth. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  Pick some random articles from the Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox U.S. City. Now, you'd think that those would all call that template directly, but you're wrong. I picked Portland, Maine and as of this note, it is using "{{Template:US City infobox|". The link skips the redirect and refers to the redirects target instead (not listed at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:US City infobox. It may be a bug or a feature, but redirects have been working like this for at least a couple weeks. -- Netoholic @ 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  Well that's annoying. I was puzzled as to why there was anything listed at all in Whatlinkshere, but it seems that only wikilinks to the template are listed, not actual template calls. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  You are right. I could reproduce that. Thanks for the example. I thought I had found all instances of articles that still use the redirect "US City infobox" (old name of the template) but I didn't due to the incomplete "what links here list" on the redirect. I think that's a bug, but maybe I just cannot see for what this behaviour should be good. Well, however changing my vote to Keep. Adrian Buehlmann 12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Netoholic is correct here, and this is a deceptive bug/feature. I noted that performing a null edit on Portland, Maine did not correctly update the Whatlinkshere list either. This is frightening in light of the recent movement to delete stub template redirects, as the effects of such deletions (i.e., a red link at the bottom of pages previously flagged as stubs) would go unnoticed for a greater period of time. For related discussion, see [8] — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:27, Dec. 27, 2005
  • actually, not at all - we've been working with the problem at SFD for some time. Didn't realise no-one here knew about it. As far as stubs are concerned, since all stub templates have dedicated categories, it's simply a case of a manual or bot-assisted check of all articles within the category. With templates that have no dedicated categories, though, it could be a fairly major problem. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

    For what its worth, this was listed at VPP several weeks back. It was reported after first being noted on WP:SFD in early November (see Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion#Template redirects). Not sure whether anyone filed a bug report, and unfortunately the Village pump isn't archived that I know of and I can't recall what the outcome of the discussions there was - but it is a known bug. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

December 27

Template:the pillows

Delete: I see no reason for this template to be used, especially since:

1. None of the members (former members included) have articles written about them; and
2. None of the members (again former members included) really have done anything outside of the group. JB Adder | Talk 05:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. WikiFanatic 08:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - What exactly is wrong with this template? It contains their discography and is used as a quick navigation page between pages on their albums. Makes sense to me. Please answer me this: if this template is deleted, what navigational tool would you replace it with on their album pages? As for the band members being on there, I've taken care of that. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Pretty much what Cyde said, it's good for navigation between albums, and the members thing has been taken care of. --Itamae 17:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Cyde and Itamae. — Wackymacs 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please I created this template so it would make it easier for me and others to get to the albums and edit them. Alus 22:30, 28 December, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This template makes perfect sense to me. --Phoenix Hacker 05:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've noticed the edits made, but, unfortunately, I still see the need to delete it, for a very good reason: the albums can be accessed from three places--the artist page, the album pages (granted, by chronological access), and through the category. Having a template to access the albums is little more than superfluous and unneccesary. Had the artists still be included, but linked to existing articles (a la Template:The Sugarcubes), then I would retract my nomination. --JB Adder | Talk 22:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needed navigation. -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

December 28

Template:Album infobox 2

• Review so what happened to this whilst most of us were not watching over the holidays, there was no clear concensus so how was this to be a remove authority. There were issues with the clicking on the image but they had been solved. I cannot believe that such creativity should be stamped upon also I don't believe if we are able to use an image we fall foul if we are an image in such an innocuous way. Most of all what is the point of these votes is they are ridden roughshod over! Kevinalewis 09:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Uphold the action taken, for the reasons cited for the action: fork templates are discouraged and we should be mindful of fair use.—jiy (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The action taken is against consensus (in fact, there was no consensus, it ended 21 to 20 in favor of deleting, and that was counting one vote that was unsigned). Regardless, I've suggested to Kevinalewis that he discuss this at WP:DRV. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe that more than vote count was taken into consideration when interpretating the consensus of this TfD. Many of the support votes did not provide rationales for keeping the template, or at least refer to a substantiative rationale they agree with, and so their contributions to the discussion are given less weight. On the other hand, most of the delete votes made it clear that fork templates are bad, and that the template probably violates fair use. The strongest recurring argument on the keep side seems to be that the images might qualify under fair use. Yet in these cases where there is a division in opinion on legal matters, it is probably better to err on the side of caution.—jiy (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • As Jiy says. The two main arguments for deletion are 1) it being a fork (people should edit templates they disagree with rather than creating new versions) and 2) the legal consideration of fair use. Radiant_>|< 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Saskatchewan

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

• delete or categorize — This navigational tempalte is so large it overshadows every article it is on, and is ~80% redlines. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete, it is a redlink farm, and it is very obtrusive. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  Ok, much better now. Keep. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Modify,Rather than delete it, can it be modified? For example instead of the long list of districts, how about a single entry to point to the listing of thse districts? Cadillac 13:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless radically pruned. - SimonP 19:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Modify and keep besides the red-link farms (most of which will eventually be created, as I'm actually surprised there's no Politics of Saskatchewan already), it's a near-standard templete:see {{quebec}}, {{ontario}} and {{BritishColumbia}} for refenrence, also all united states templates. The thematic links obviously have to go, and the template needs standardization, but I believe deletion is over the board. Circeus 04:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Bigfoot. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. It serves the same function as similiar ones for other provinces. --Rob 04:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It definitely needs to be chopped down to a reasonable size but there is no reason that the province should be without a template, and this is a start. The appropriate action is to edit, not delete. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• As long as other provinces and states have similar templates, there's no viable reason to treat Saskabush any differently. Keep, with whatever modifications are appropriate. Bearcat 09:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Although, it needs some fixing up which I will do now. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep once modified. --Loopy 20:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio

Template creates a false assertion of copyright status, the Biographical Directory of the United States copyright details clearly state that not all images on the site are in the public domain, template needs to be explicitly rewritten or deleted and images taken from the site tagged within the existing tagging structure.--nixie 14:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite. - 99% of Biographical Directory of Congress images are PD. "copyright information is provided whenever possible". This states all US Federal Government sites such as Library of Congress or NARA. So, if you want to delete it, nominate also other US-Gov templates. - Darwinek 14:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Rewrite. as Darwinek above - we seem to be delete crazy all of a sudden - this is a prefectly good template. The direct objection should be addressed which is the wording of the template - not the template itself. Kevinalewis 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite per everyone else. A perfectly good template with just one problem -- a problem that only needs boldness to accomplish. Basically, word it something like:

This portrait or photograph of a U.S. Congress member was provided by the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. According to the copyright page, the image is under the public domain unless other copyright information is given.

• Of course, I could have done better on the wording, but it could solve the problem with the template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently it works, because this rewrite is now in the actual template, and the below votes indicate this. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. --Chris 22:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as it appears the objections have been met. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten version. -- Natalinasmpf 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - the template goes no way to actaully providing information on the copyright of the image, and I tyhink will prevent people following up on the copyright of images that are not in the public domain. I would suggest including a field for the actual image page in the template.--nixie 04:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

December 29

Template:Todo, trains

We already have a Template:Todo and I don't see the value of having a slightly modified fork for a specific WikiProject. Suggest migrate to Template:Todo and delete. -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Added note: The only apparent reason for this to be a fork of Template:Todo is to add Cat:To do, trains. I think this sets a poor precedent. -- Netoholic @ 07:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete now that it has been replaced with a generic todo template and the appropriate wikiproject notice. —Phil | Talk 10:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It uses Category:To do, trains so project members can quickly get to the associated todo lists. I think substituting another template in while this discussion is still ongoing is poor form; the changes should not have been made until this debate ended. Slambo (Speak) 11:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added the category (wrapped in <noinclude> tags) to all of the todo subpages that were transcluded through this template, so the category argument is less relevant now. My vote is now abstain. Slambo (Speak) 14:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Slambo. We should not be overly eager to delete. Slambo said this is still in discussion so we should be kind and let that float for now. That group should discuss this first. Adrian Buehlmann 22:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)I finally groked that Phil already changed the calls to the generic to do. I see no point in reversing that work. Changing my vote to Delete. Adrian Buehlmann 09:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia namespace. The category brings up a peculiar issue; while this is a template fork, which I would ordinarily vote to delete, the template can be moved to the WikiProject's subpages, which then preserves the desired functionality. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's really bad practice to move a template into another namespace while still using transclusion. It's hard enough to maintain the Template: space. This function is just as usefull if you replace it with Template:Todo. -- Netoholic @ 06:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Move per Slambo's description of usefulness and Titoxd's suggestion on how not to fork in mainspace but preserve usefulness. ++Lar 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Move to preserve functionality.--Lordkinbote 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:European communist parties

Template:European communist parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template does not show how all these parties are banded together (in the same organization, etc.) or closely related. and the images take too long to load.--Jiang 08:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Jiang 08:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - The template lists the major referent of the World Communist Movement in each country. --Soman 09:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• if there is an organization, then the template should say so. simply being both communist and european is not strong enough a connection.--Jiang 10:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - For Soman's reasons. The images can, possibly, be made smaller, but the template is good. Afonso Silva 10:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, useful. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral, the template should at least be changed to reflect that these are the members of the World Communis Movement, and not "Communist parties", of which there are quite a few more than the ones listed. For example, if you talk about "the communist party" in Sweden, SKP are not the ones you're most likely to think of... —Gabbe 16:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep if edited to make it more clear which "Communist" parties are being considered for inclusion. Practically every country in the world has multiple parties which claim to be communist. Some of these are Leninist, some Maoist, some Stalinist, some Trotskyist, and so on. Also, I'm not too thrilled about the images; can't we just have a simple list? —Psychonaut 17:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I like the images. It is not an unimportant matter, as the choice of symbolism also denotes political differences. Compare KPÖ/PCF with KKE, for example. Or note that some parties include national colours and other don't. BTW, aren't all communist parties Leninist by definition? --Soman 21:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: templates take up a lot of space on articles, and there's already either a politics or a "political parties in" template for most countries. When do we stop? That said, I think it's essentially a useful template. Palmiro | Talk 23:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Jiang. There is no criterion for excluding the countless minor parties that are even considered fringe groups by even the members of the larger Communist parties, such as the anti-revisionsist Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists, etc. Soman's comment is well taken; but note that the template name is "European communist parties," as opposed to a title that specifies that we are dealing with the historically Soviet-aligned parties (i.e. the ones listed in the template at the moment). 172 11:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Psychonaut - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Uncategorized

Redundant with, and less practical than, Special:Uncategorizedpages. In addition, using this template breaks the more often used Special:Uncat, because it puts the articles in the oxymoronic Category:Category needed. Delete. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• delete self-defeating in other ways, too, since the editor - in the time taken to write {{Uncategorized}} - could just as easily add at least a general category to the article. In other words, this simply doubles the editorial work. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• This was discussed in September 2005 and kept. Nothing has changed since then, and the template has remained useful. Keep. Uncle G 06:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, oddly enough I just used this today; when you're not sure where to categorize an article (but you know it needs a category), this is better than leaving the article as-is. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• This unbreaks Special:Uncategorizedpages, which only displays the first thousand entries and is rarely updated, so doesn't show anything past the B's. Keep. —Cryptic (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I seen it used alot, and also per Cryptic --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We need this template, Special:Uncategorizedpages is redundant and not useful. - Darwinek 09:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: I assume the nominater did not know that this template also places the pages it's used on in a special category for uncategorized pages, as such this template needs to stay.Deathawk 19:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Edit: forgot to signe my name the last time, so I updated my edit to reflect that. Deathawk 19:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Cryptic until Special:Uncategorizedpages is fixed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

December 30

Template:Web-reference

Was a redirect to Template:Web reference. Deprecated and defunct. Adrian Buehlmann 15:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC). Amend: the original creator wrote in the edit summary of the first revision "'ve mistyped this one too many times. Making the redirect, so I won't have to do it again.". Maintaining templates is already quite a hard job. Adding redirects for typos of heavy use templates is just a bad idea. Adrian Buehlmann 10:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, do not make template forks. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This wasn't a fork. It was a redirect created by a user who kept typing {{web-reference instead of {{web reference. Uncle G 06:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a reasonable redirect and we can't really verify it isn't being used somewhere. -- Netoholic @ 07:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)