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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template: Check (speedy)[edit]

delete: I just vapourised the two uses of this I found I can't see any legit use for this Geni 00:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It applies to every single article on the wiki! Redundant to the whole Wiki. -
  • Delete, silly template. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The usefulness of this template needs checking. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied as a joke. violet/riga (t) 10:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 2 Sept. AM to 2 Sept. AM — 1 day
Removed from TFD 4 Sept. PM — 3 days

Template: Toilet (speedy)[edit]

Delete: Silly pov. - choster 00:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now this template I agree should be deleted. Cjmarsicano 01
12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Add to BJAODN. CG 05:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Flush it, er, BJAODN, then delete. Titoxd 06:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. violet/riga (t) 06:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 6 Sept. AM to 6 Sept. AM — 1 day
Removed from TFD 6 Sept. AM — 1 day

Template:Babel-skill-1, Template:Babel-skill-2, Template:Babel-skill-3, and Template:Babel-skill-4 (speedy)[edit]

Neutral: I created these templates in order to substitute constant wikitext in other templates, before realizing I couldn't use templates in parameter values. (D'OH!) Maybe these would be useful in other places? Ddawson 07:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this counts as a speedy. No, they are not useful. --cesarb 16:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment 6 Sept. AM to 6 Sept. PM — 1 day
Removed from TFD 7 Sept. AM — 1 day

Template:Test2c[edit]

Delete: Content disputes are not vandalism. Therefore, a vandalism warning intended for people who delete content that they dispute is not approprate. The dispute-resolution guidelines offered in this warning may be admirable; using a vandalism warning when dispute resolution is called for is not. Aquillion 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We already have {{test2a}} and the recently created {{test2b}} which serve the correct purpose. Even if they have acquired ugly boxes around them. -Splash 09:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was created because the previous ones did not fit. It's for people who keep deleting whole paragraphs over and over because they disagree with it. Elfguy 04:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think test2a and test2b will get the same message across. test2c seems redundant. Psy guy (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Aquillion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italian prime minister[edit]

Unused --MarSch 15:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transwikied and Deleted[edit]

I don't think we need to keep this log at talk pages of transwikied (and deleted) pages. We already have the transwiki log, and often the individual VFD discussions. Note that all pages containing the template are speediable as CSD#G8, or CSD#A5. Some of the (non-existent) article pages that could accompany those talk pages could be replaced by redirects, or soft interwiki links. Radiant_>|< 11:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unless I misunderstand there should not exist a page that this can appear on. -Splash 00:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, soft redirects suffice. --Titoxd 03:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe this was meant as a soft redirect to go on dicdef pages, just like the (hateful) {{wi}}. Even in this somewhat legitamate usage, it is redundant though. Dmcdevit·t 03:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stillman-Allen-Four Lads[edit]

This template seems to be an attempt to automatically generate entire articles. See it in use at Who Needs You?. The articles it produces are pretty useless, and because their format is hard coded into the template, they are impossible to expand. Moreover if all the information that it is possible to add are name, date recorded, and date released simply creating a list would be more useful than these pseudo-articles. - SimonP 01:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Interesting idea, but because the data is hard-coded, it is unfriendly to other editors who wish to expand. Clearly delete. Stbalbach 22:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I definately like the idea, but if it were written for use with all artists, with a different name, I think it would be very useful. ∞Who?¿? 22:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the example Who Needs You?, if you wanted to edit the article, expand and change the wording, how would you do it? Stbalbach 22:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • subst:ify it, then subst: the template, then edit the new article. -Splash 00:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is hard enough to edit for newcomers as it is, I don't think this is of any use. Delete --Kel-nage 20:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after subst:ing. Uses the word "popular" for a start, which I'll go remove. I'm dubious that many aricles generated like this would survive VfD without getting merged. Also, from the name, it is a single, templatized article so does not need to exist anyway. Would recommend these articles be merged. -Splash 00:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Delete. Instead of using this template to create a huge bunch of crappy little substubs on Stillman-Allen-Four Lads songs, there should just be one Wikipedia overview article that covers all of them.—BV the mergist. BlankVerse ∅ 10:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Futuregame[edit]

Delete, duplicate of {{Future game}}. No reason for this. Nothing links there. I don't know what the point of this is. Might be candidate for speedy. K1Bond007 19:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Template:An Irish Guide to Furniture (Blackwater Press)[edit]

Created today by an anonymous user that also has been vandalizing a VfD (see Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Adam connon on the only page that has a connection to this template. Template is poorly formed, and in no way helpful or noteworthy in my opinion. --Durin 19:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippines-fairuse[edit]

Delete: This image copyright template asserts that that the associated image is copyrighted and used under the fair use provisions of the Philippines and the United States. However, since the fair use laws of the Philippines are the same as those of the United States, and the Wikimedia servers are located in the United States, this tag is pretty much redundant with Template:Fairuse. Furthermore, it's only used on one page.}} JYolkowski // talk 23:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This template was clearly created by a user who didn't understand the point of image tagging templates or fair use law. See Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#Philippine_copyright_tags. --Fastfission 00:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The explanation provided suggests this to be an unnecessarily over-specified template. Note that the laws as such might be the same between the two countries, but that does not mean the case precedent or interpretation of those laws is the same; I still maintain it's overspecific. Courtland 03:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless one can point to an example of where US and Philipine interpretation of fair use has proven divergent, it is overly specific. (If such an example can be shown then this might be useful.) Caerwine 05:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this can relate to the story of the articles of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The Inquirer says that other entities (newspapers, tabloids, and the like) use its articles (which are copyrighted), possibly under fair use, and instead steal the articles and make it as their own (which led to the campaign: "Inquirer articles are for sale, not for lifting."). Also, the Philippine interpretation of fair use tends to be somewhat looser than the U.S. interpretation, especially in terms of fair use material for educational purposes. --Akira123323 13:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that I have changed my stance to a strong keep. In addition to my last comments on fair use for educational material, I have classmates in my school who use Wikipedia material, cite it, and submit it under fair use (especially when it is research). If the material is left unchanged, it is generally not considered plagiarism if it is cited. This can probably show how loose the fair use provision of Philippine copyright law is. --Akira123323 13:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you quite understand the copyright issues here -- images can only be kept on Wikipedia if they are safe under U.S. copyright law (because Wikipedia is "published" in the U.S.). If Phillipine "fair use" is "looser" than U.S. law (I'm not convinced that it is, but I don't know the first thing about Phillipine law), that's great, but it doesn't change the status here. In fact, it makes this template even more redundant — you might as well assume anything which is "fair use" on Wikipedia according to U.S. standards is likely to be "fair use" according to Phillipines standards.--Fastfission 23:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - these things are about interpretation and may be useful for Phillipines end users. Also there is no guarantee that the laws will remain the same, even if they are. Secretlondon 13:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the material marked with this template is assumed to be fair use "under Philippine copyright law and United States copyright law", the template overlaps entirely with Template:Fairuse. If the reason behind the template is that Philippine copyright law is looser than U.S. copyright law, as is claimed above, then a) the template shouldn't say that it's fair use under U.S. law as well, and b) the material in question shouldn't be here at all, assuming that it's not considered fair use under U.S. law. I can't imagine where one would want to use this template instead of Template:Fairuse. EldKatt (Talk) 14:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Macedonian naming dispute[edit]

  • Delete: there's a naming dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece. The text of this template was written by the Greek nationalists to be used in every article that included the name of "Republic of Macedonia". This is not the Wikipedia way to settle dispute. See Talk:Macedonian denar / Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote / Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute for discussions and Republic of China for a similar case. bogdan | Talk 21:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia must be clean. Actually there is no problem with "Republic of Macedonia". Only these ultra-POV-pushers are doing problems here. -- Darwinek 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur wholeheartedly with Bogdan and Darwinek. If interested, see extensive comments at Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute. – Friejose 21:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just use the most common name. Superm401 | Talk 22:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This template resulted after many contributions and talks on Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia. Before being a template, it was a notice on the relevant subjects. Instead of talking on how it could be improved, see also Talk:Macedonia, they set it as a VfD candidate. I can agree on one thing, for sure this is not how wikipedia works. MATIA 23:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The present text of the despute is supporting the Greek side. Even if it stays, it should be changed and made neutral. The naming despute is reality, but the official goverment information show that at least 70% of the countries that recognized Macedonia use its constitutional name: "Republic of Macedonia". In the direct goverment contacts, only Greece and Cyprus use another name. Everyone else uses "Republic of Macedonia". In the same time, the text does not say anything about the proposals from the Macedonian side (Macedonia for the world, but Greece can use any inoffensive name they pick, a proposal that Greece rejected) and that Macedonia already made drawbacks by changing its flag and its constitution (like Greece insisted). Also the text does not include information that the 3 of the 5 members of the security council of UN recognize Macedonia under the constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" and the parlament of the 4th member already recomended its goverment to do the same. 62.162.198.232 00:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So what the fuck (please read WP:CIV, REX 14:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)) is going on. I thought we would wait for the vote to close (has it closed? did it even have a time-limit? it should have) before deleting anything. If the vote is closed already, the disclaimer clearly lost, and the template should be deleted. We don't need a template for a note in one article (Republic of Macedonia). ---Alex 00:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the template as it is is silly, and there can be a footnote in the Macedonia article without need for a template. dab (ᛏ) 06:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree. The naming dispute should not be ignored or covered up, as this kind of censorship would undermine Wikipedia's stated principles of pluralism and neutrality.--Theathenae 08:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is entirely the wrong way of solving the dispute (see Template:Carfuel). Radiant_>|< 08:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and keep out of articles in the meantime. Susvolans ⇔ 08:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete on formal grounds. All the template says is that the use of certain names "is not meant to imply an official position on the naming dispute with Greece." Anyone who knows the most basic thing about Wikipedia -- that anyone can edit any article at any time, so there's no such thing as an official position on matters of fact -- knows that much already. Dell Adams 09:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken a look at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, I regret the overbearing tone of my comment, but the vote and the reasoning stand. Dell Adams 10:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there are people here who want any mention of the dispute gagged. They will not succeed.--Theathenae 10:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del, the naming dispute should be made known by normal textual means. This template is bogus --MarSch 11:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This voting should be considered invalid. People should really check a better alternative as Dell Adams mentioned, Talk:Macedonia and other related pages. bogdan is trying to force his personal point of view and erase any opposing views. If you check the contributions of the first voters, you can see that some of them instead of talking how the text can change to reflect the facts, they engaged edit-wars removing or messing the template. One of the facts is that the word Macedonia and all related terms are subjects of negotiations between Greece and FYROM on UN. MATIA 11:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Gene Nygaard 12:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I agree completely. This is a ridiculous reason for a template. It's too broad in its applicability. 'By definition, Wikipedia does not endorse a point of view on any such dispute. It's mention is irrelevant.--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said at Template talk:Macedonian naming dispute, and as it has been repeated by one user above already, before being a template, this was an already existing notice on the articles. Hence, TFD is the wrong method of handling this issue - it is not syntactic, it is semantic, and highly controversial at that. The decision should be deferred to Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote which has precedence. --Joy [shallot] 14:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly my position, Joy. This is to be settled by Talk:Macedonian denar/Vote since it was already started there and people took the time to actually vote there. If that voting is over, and if the results of that vote are accepted as final (at least for now), then we should delete the template. Am I missing something here? ---Alex 14:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither a semantic (wording) nor syntactic (grammar) issue, this is an issue of policy. A template is not the appropriate way to deal with this issue and hence, should be deleted. Plus, the very fact that you have to argue "precedence" and "voting" is troublesome; it shows that the template attempts to circumvent article-specific discussion and attempts to abrogate the principle that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Friejose 14:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much a semantic issue, because the controversy stems from the meaning of the word "Macedonia" &co. within "Republic of Macedonia" &co. Why is the template not a good way to deal with it? You haven't provided an actual reason for this statement. I do not see any real reason for it to be removed per Wikipedia:Template messages or #Deletion criteria. Perhaps on POV grounds - but how do we define POV without expressing opinions and votes on this, and thereby implicitly involving the rule that Wikipedia is not a democracy? Besides, the whole notion of discouraging an existing vote process on a page where voting is done is ludicrous.
Sure, we may all consider it as one in a long line of pro-Greek attempts to modify the name of the republic to their north, but have you actually watched how horrible some of the previous attempts were, and do you really think that removing this template on the grounds that this is not a great template will prevent the discontents from complaining about the relevant articles in some other manner, which will tend to cause more mess because we're not using the useful template mechanism?
Let's not beat around the bush. This is not an issue that's going to be settled by a single vote on TFD or even at the voting on that linked page. However, trying to kill off the very notion that a problem exists can only exacerbate the problem, it certainly won't do anything to help solve it. --Joy [shallot] 14:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly because Wikipedia is not a democracy this voting is invalid. A tyrany of the majority is not the way to go. Talk about it and explore alternative wording. Check the RFC procedure. Disputed are not included in the official deletion policy. MATIA 15:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not understand the need for this to be templatized in the first place. If it's used on only one article (or is it two?) then the text can simply be inserted there. In fact, the existence of this discussion highlights why it should not be a template: there will be attempts to settle what is fundamentally a content dispute by using deletion procedure, which is inappropriate. -Splash 17:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was used on 21 artices, but someone had removed those uses in the meantime. --Joy [shallot] 00:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst into pages and delete - as Splash said, Templates are not a good place to have disputes. Do it on the article talk pages, folks. JesseW 18:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not subst. Disclaimers were a bad idea for medical articles, they were a bad idea for legal articles, and they are a bad idea for Macedonian articles. --Carnildo 21:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are a good idea for various Chemistry-related articles, however... Alex 21:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment (I ll b as nice as I can) #%$@#$^%#$@^@# --Lucinos 14:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment --Vergina 19:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia doesn't have an "official position" on anything. We don't have an official position on the flat Earth theory, and we certainly don't have official positions on political naming disputes. Lots of names are disputed, are we going to have one of these silly templates on every article mentioning the Sea of Japan/East Sea, Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf, Derry/Londonderry, Gdansk/Danzig etc.?--Pharos 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pharos is correct. CDThieme 17:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Until we have the appropriate national treaties. USA's and Poland's "politicaly correct" decisions mean nothing--Kalogeropoulos 10:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Splash and Pharos. Since when is Wikipedia a way to solve international disputes? Titoxd 06:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Greek perspective is completely irrelevant. The official position as stated by the elected Government of the Republic of Macedonia is that they have no ambitions on Greek soil. Why shouldn't we believe them? Why should we have to overly emphasise the fact that the Greeks don't believe what the government of the Republic of Macedonia says? REX 12:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've no background knowledge of the entire affair and thus have no moral position, I am merely agreeing with those who've stated that this is not the method to fix a dispute. Especially the fact that no articles on Wikipedia are official. Kel-nage 20:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete naming dispute aside, not a sensible template. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 03:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not really suitable for Wikipedia. – AxSkov (☏) 10:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 25 August AM – 9 September PM: 15 days
Removed from TfD: 11 September AM: 17 days

  • Delete: More than 110 (of about 150 with which Macedonia has direct diplomatic relations) countries recognize Macedonia under its constitutional name: Republic of Macedonia. 3 or 5 constant members of the UN security council (USA, China and Russia) recognize this name too. Also, the parlament of the 4th one (Great Britain) already recomended its goverment to do the same. At last, ONLY Greece and Cyprus use another name than Republic of Macedonia in the direct contacts with the country. Actually, the unnatural construction FYROM is used only when Greece is arguing at international organizations, same as they are doing here. FYROM is pure politics, and Wikipedia should not support political and nationalistic positions.

Template:Blank[edit]

Delete: The template doesn't create a blank space.  Thorpe talk 19:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I told you, report it at template talk:blank. Though I'm not sure if it needs to be protected. (Anyone wondering what the purpose of this is, see [1] and [2].) I made {{blank}} as a completely empty template, but someone decided it needs Unicode. I'd think the former would still prevent an autoreplace, but who knows. --SPUI (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't thought of using html comments, which are now in {{userpage}}. Thus, unless someone can find another use for {{blank}}, delete. --SPUI (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del, shouldn't be a template as SPUI has now understood: single-use. Used for "scrambling" Wikipedia (Wiki{{blank}}pedia) in {userpage} so other sites cannot replace it with their own name.--MarSch 14:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original template was simply empty - doing that without a template would not have worked. --SPUI (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although from a procedural standpoint, the template, which is protected, should probably have a tfd tag on it. -- Norvy (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep serves a useful technical purpose. DES (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Used to serve a good purpose, no longer is needed. The template is dead, long live the template! --Fastfission 13:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 26 August PM – 7 September PM: 11 day
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 16 days

Template:Space1, et al.[edit]

Other similar templates (more at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:PostScript_name):

  • These templates each "expand" to a single, easily typed ASCII character (represented as a numeric HTML entity!) Delete. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and nominate individually. Courtland 03:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Rename I have no opinion as to whether they should be kept. However, if kept they should be remaned to {{PS bar}}, etc. so as to keep the PostScript cruft isolated. Besides if the current naming scheme is kept and extended to all PostScript character names {{Alpha}} and {{alpha}} should yield different results which they can't. Thet also probably ought to all be modified to use subst: if kept. Caerwine 05:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del, silly, unused --MarSch 15:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redundant with... well, with keyboard. Aecis 13:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - utterly pointless, surely. --bodnotbod 11:36, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's the use of these? It sure seems easier to type one character than six... Titoxd 06:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 28 August AM – 6 September AM: 9 days
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 15 days

Template: Abu Ghraib [edit]

Delete: Redundant. There's already a category for this purpose. /Jebur 16:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{otherarticles-alph|Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse}}

Courtland 01:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BlankVerse ∅ 19:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has no meaningful ordering other than alphabetical, ergo categorify and delete. Radiant_>|< 19:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but improve (as implicitly suggested by Radiant). Template is useful because it improves browsing, but it could indeed do with improvement. Aecis 13:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite. Making it into a category does not require it be kept. -Splash 00:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The existence or creation of a category indeed does not require a template to be kept. But it does not require a template to be deleted either. A template is simply a visual aid to an article, which is something a category intrinsically can't be (in order to see the category one has to leave the article one was reading). There has been some discussion about this before, concerning Template:Europe. Read the relevant entry here. Aecis 08:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Revolución (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories were made for this reason. Stbalbach 22:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and delete. No useful linear series to this per WP:CSL. -Splash 00:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to category and delete. -Sean Curtin 02:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • So many links to sargeant :) Delete. --Joy [shallot] 23:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Redundant, only a small amound of useful information.---E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 28 August PM – 30 August PM (one late comment on 11 Sep): 2 days
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 15 days

all French Region infobox templates[edit]

Redundant single use templates. Remplacements based on an expanded Template:Infobox French Région are now available for all regions (please add the ones I missed to the list above). Template:Infobox French Région can be added directly to the articles. -- User:Docu
  • Merge, then delete, as per nom. --Titoxd 03:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete - what exactly would be the point of a single-use template? -- BD2412 talk 15:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge then delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 30 August – 3 September AM: 4 days
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 13 days

Template:Campaignbox Second Rise of Lord Voldemort[edit]

  • Template regarding two fictional battles in the Harry Potter series. Isn't really needed. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 07:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete While it is certain that Harry Potter book 7 will contain one or more additional battles, WP is not a crystal ball and the two known battles are not enough to justify a template. Might be worth a template after book 7 is out, but not now. Caerwine 17:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Harry Potter is garbage, anyway, and there isnt enough information to say this would happen
  • Delete. I doubt it will even need a template of its own in the future. -Splash 01:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worthless! Brendan OShea 06:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hmm... which policy should I quote? I think WP:NOT a crystal ball should do. Also, this kind of templates are more suited for Wikibooks than Wikipedia... --Titoxd 06:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a big Harry Potter fan, but I don't really think this is needed yet. If more battles happen in future books then maybe this template would be useful. Cyclone49 21:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely useless. mrholybrain 12:10, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very disappointing, something with that title should at least be BJAODN-worthy. J.K. 12:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 30 August AM – 11 September AM: 12 days
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 13 days

Template:LosAngelesInfoBox[edit]

Seems redundant to all of the other city infobox templates, and it is currently used on only one article: Los Angeles, California. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generalize and rename. As far as I know, none of the other city infobox templates allow the inclusion of a photo at the top of the infobox. The switch to this particular infobox has inproved the look of the Los Angeles, California article and I'm sure that the same other Wikipedia editors will want to do the same to other city articles. BlankVerse ∅ 10:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The use of this template (or something like it) is currently the subject of a survey at talk:Los Angeles where the current consensus is 4 to 1 in favor of this template. BlankVerse ∅ 10:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can just have the code in the actual article. This just makes it harder for people to edit the infobox. --Hottentot
    • Note: The vote on the talk page is not about keeping the template, it is about having the picture inside or outside the infobox. --Hottentot
  • I support Deletion of the Template:LosAngelesInfoBox and moving the code into the main article. While at first, I was opposed to this, due to the fact that it would probably boost the size of the page with more text, we're not really changing the size anyway, since the page is bringing in the text from the template anyways ... so it's a wash (on that note, the wikipedia recommendation on page size needs to be boosted a bit, due to advances in technology & download speeds). As Hottentot said, the code can be placed into the main article itself (which he has already taken the liberty to do on several other city articles).
I do like the placement of the city skyline image in the infobox template. It greatly increases the quality of the page, and also prevents some weird things from happening, like paragraph text from inserting between the skyline image and the template, which has happened in other articles. The statement about this infobox format being used on only one article is inaccurate - this format is currently used by Chicago, Illinois, Louisville, Kentucky (a featured article), Washington, D.C., Richmond, Virginia, Atlanta, Georgia, Norfolk, Virginia, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Phoenix, Arizona, and probably several other city articles. Dr. Cash 15:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are several city articles doing the same thing (Chicago for example, has {{ChicagoInfoBox}}, It would be best to create one single template that could be used on any city article that wanted to include an image at the top of their infobox. That's the reason that I said generalize and rename. BlankVerse ∅ 16:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCities has a general article template for cities. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. They also have a Template:Infobox City. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • del per blankverse --MarSch 16:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generalize and rename. -- Reinyday, 20:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Change usage to Template:Infobox City and delete the template. --AllyUnion (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to take this as a consensus to delete, since the code has been moved into the article, and the generalization has not yet taken place. If/when it does, the source is readily available from the article.-Splash 04:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 30 August AM – 8 September PM: 8.5 days
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 13 days

Template:Zap[edit]

This template is intended to be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Zap policy proposal. Unless there is a groundswell of new support for the Wikipedia:Zap policy, the proposal is likely to be deleted on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. If so, it makes sense to delete this template. NO VOTE. Vacuum c 03:48, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, the Zap proposal says to redirect unwanted articles to the sandbox, not to use a template like this. Radiant_>|< 09:29, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I presume this was created as a way around the no cross-namespace redirect thing to allow templates to be zapped. Xiong also created a silly uesr account for a similar purpose. -Splash 18:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This nomination, and both votes above, are FUD and unnecessarily hostile. Zap is not a policy proposal, nor is it a policy. Wikipedia:Zap is not going to be deleted; it has limited support. Zap does not call for templates to be redirected to Wikipedia:Sandbox -- that would be pretty stupid, eh? Template:Zap exists as a null, dummy redirect target. That's a useful tool whether you like the idea or not. Otherwise, users will redirect templates onto the Sandbox -- or something equally unpredictable! — Xiong熊talk* 22:22, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
    • I am none of afraid, unsure or doubtful of its deletion. ;) -Splash 22:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirecting templates to this is a terrible idea - imagine a page full of the meaningless phrase (template zapped). ~~ N (t/c) 00:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Wikipedia:Zap has been thoroughly rejected by the community. Consensus indicates that pages should not be 'zapped'. Ergo, this template is not needed. Radiant_>|< 08:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Part of an ill-advised proposal. CalJW 21:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has no use. --fvw* 01:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ashibaka (tock) 20:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete template that was intended to be used as part of a (failing/failed) policy proposal. Nandesuka 03:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zap . . . er, I mean delete this template. —Lifeisunfair 04:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nandesuka (well, that's the polite phrasing), and ban Xiong from using the acronym FUD... --IByte 23:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 3 September AM – 11 September PM: 8.5 days
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 9.5 days

Template:user dz template:user dzl template:user dz-N template:user dzl-N and accompanying categories category:user dzl, category:user dzl-N[edit]

Delete: This is a falsified language userpage infobox. Obviously. Patrick Lucas 02:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Schzzl. aka Do Not Delete the Template. Could someone please hip me to what constitutes the existence of a lang when deciding whether a lang template may exist? McVonn 03:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A language is usually spoken by a large amount of people, not as a dialect or slang, but as the sole form of communication. This isn't it. --Titoxd 03:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'r right. A language is usually those things. Spoken by many and natively by someone. Is that enough to delete the template? and you say it's not the only one? can I see the others? have they been deleted yet? McVonn
    • See for example Sango123 who speaks excellent squirrel. That one is a modified local substitution, not a template. Dragons flight 04:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wow. I wish I could speak squirrel. --fvw* 04:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bad imitation of the Babel templates, but it isn't the only one. There are many user pages with one copy or another of it. Userfy and delete redirect. --Titoxd 03:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an exact imitation of the Babel templates. McVonn 03:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. --fvw* 03:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this really an issue of cluttering up namespace? The userfy thing sounded cool, but it doesn't have the interactivity. McVonn 05:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't follow. Any page in Wikipedia can be transluded using {{ }}, not just those in the Template namespace. I could technically type {{User:Titoxd}} (I know it is a redlink, but the text would work) and no one would know the difference. --Titoxd 06:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or otherwise move. I got a chuckle out of it, but the language code "dz" refers to a real language, just one that hasn't got any speakers on the English Wiki yet. That usage should take priority, and this template should be renamed something which doesn't conflict with the name of a potential real Wikipedia:Babel template. J.K. 06:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Personal in-joke. Radiant_>|< 17:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Personal in-joke" is redundant. McVonn 01:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is this template ;) Radiant_>|< 09:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nice. you'r cool, radiant. no hard feelings. McVonn 04:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hereby consent to Delete template:user dz and template:user dz-N. I tagged them for a speedily deletionistic fate. somebody make me proud and start up some killer inter en:-dz: type content w/ that, okay! love ya.
I'm waiting to hear back from the guy who seems to have nominated the template for deletion. He has not responded yet to my second message. I want to know how he came about it and why he felt it should be deleted. I'v heard from you all, and I know it doesn't look good for my template. let's admit though: judging whether this thing should stay or go seems simple once the object in question is up on this page- that's why I'd like to hear from patrick Lucas. I appreciate everyone's input and help. Ideally I would like to be able to use some kind of lang code/lang template (as Caerwine suggested miiiight be possible) to (at least in some way, unofficially) represent this language on wikipedia. I understand that dzalakha is not even in wikipedia at all, is that correct? dzongkha content only lacks pages in english yet. so I understand the objection to my using User dz. I have mad respect for ISO and all but what does that standard have to do w/ wikipedia right now? I would not mind using dzz.
I admit I'm the only wikipedian who actually knows about this lang first-hand. It is very new and still developing. It does only have a handful of speakers and it is not spoken truly natively by anyone the way that the world's major languages are. I still maintain, though, that it is not a mere dialect of english, but a language unto itself. Any linguist will tell you that the distinction "language" or "dialect" is largely political. McVonn 03:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I first came upon it when I viewed the userpage of someone who had vandalized a page I had worked on, Dzzl, a.k.a. you. Therefore, seeing a feeble attempt at being 'cool' by falsifying a template page, using english, with links that weren't english words linking to userpages, I promptly created this entry on this page. Patrick Lucas 22:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I see. just to be clear- the links weren't to userpages. they were to lang user category pages the way all lang templates work. actually, they weren't set up exactly correctly. I was working on fixing the links to match other lang templates exactly when I learned that dzl was brought up for deletion as well, as part of this same vote. I should mention I do not plan to make an article in the main space about dzzl language.The english template (user en) links to the english language. Mine would link to a name space page (user:dzzl/Dzzl language). Above you said I "falsified a template page using english"? with links that "weren't english words". by the by, one non-english word was not a link. well, the words I think you'r talking about were part of Dzzl speak. just like french lang templates are in french. and, obviously it's under en.wikipedia cuz I def. can't just start dz.wikipedia on a whim. for that, you need lots of true native speakers. So, I'm still kinda confused about what motivated you to nominate it judging by your response above. perhaps your motivation isn't important, but I suspect no one would have minded this template existing for a while if it hadn't popped upon this page, so that's why I persist.

I should note I have a limited explanation of some phrases possible in dzzl speak in my userpage space. THis is not meant to adequately convey the language or it's validity to other wikpedia users. it was a personal project. It also doesn't reflect the dynamism of actual use and grows stale quickly as I have not had time to keep up with the creative new constructions made up contiuously by various speakers; I am not an anthropologist, ethnographer or linguist by trade. I can tell you, though, that like any lang, first-hand exposure to people using it in a social context is needed to begin to see how it works.

Also, for the record, category:user dzl and category:user dzl-N were deleted very recently and I was not notified. I'll look over at categories for deletion. I think they should be restored at least until this vote closes. I at least advise any admins involved to take a look. I just want it to be shown since dz is gone that I was working towards making the links work exactly as all other lang templates work.

so, who closes this thing? dz is already gone. who can tell me if I can use dzl or dzz or any code at all? who makes the ruling that this lang, though not known first-hand to other wikipedians, doesn't meet criteria "x" to warrant a template? how many original template users would be enough? Is there another page or place or process where I can look into those possibilites? this is the delete stuff page. sometimes stuff is saved from deletion, here, but I suspect this isn't the place to make my case. can anyone point me in the right direction now? thanks to those who'v contributed positively at this vote. McVonn 04:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can use code from the Wikipedia:Babel templates for anything, as long as it is in your user space. I gave you an example in your user page. I doubt that it will be permitted in the main template namespace until you assert the notability of the language. As for who closes, it just takes someone who moves the whole discussion to the holding cell below, and admins to delete templates, but if you ask for the delisting of this as a speedy delete, someone will get to it. I have no clue who decides whether the language is known enough to warrant a template, but I believe Babel is a good place to ask. --Titoxd 04:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have made it more clear that I was seeking a template in the template space. I want it to link to a real category like real lang templates do. I would not have written a short story outlining my concerns and what I feel to be relevant issues about language if I wanted to make a fakey one on my user space. it's possible I don't understand all the possibilities of translusion, but I think it's kinda different. I don't think I could set up a category that looks and functions like a category in my user space. and thanks for the babel tip- I'll check it out. McVonn 04:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I listed the two categories in question to show that they've been deleted without this vote being closed. either they were not actually part of this vote or they deleted with out "due process" if you will. someone please acknowledge this. thank you. Yameen? 02:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even though these templates are fun, and a great way to express individuality, templates should be available for all users. It would be easy enough to put in on your userpage so it looks like a template. For example, see my userpage to see how I used the POV check template as a starting point for my own variant. --Merovingian (t) (c) 17:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment: 1 September AM – 8 September PM: 7.5 days
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 11 days

Template:സ്വാഗതം and Template:വിഷയ സൂചിക[edit]

Should they be deleted or translated?. CG 09:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • I've never heard of listing templates on WP:TIE. However, delete in this form and by this name. I have the distinct impression that they're translations of copyright or fairuse templates. If someone wants to babelfish them and give them a proper name, great. Radiant_>|< 14:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE or Userfy. 132.205.45.148 18:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first and perhaps translate the second. User:Tintin1107 (not the author) provided this explanation on my talk page after I asked him for a translation. This first is a Malayalam specific welcome message. I can't imagine it will get much use, but there is no harm in welcoming an ML speaker in their own language. The second is a navigation template for things like biology, physics, etc., except that the destinations are untranslated. I'm not sure what the authors' intentions are with that. Dragons flight 18:39, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have asked for some clarification on this. Please do not remove this from the mainpage yet. -Splash 04:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE: Whoelse can confirm these templates for deletion!. Because it was I, who created these templates, by mistake in the English edition. Pardon my ignorance, this was meant for the Malayalam edition of wiki. But by mistake, I had created those using English Sandbox. Both the templates have nothing to do with the English edition. Sorry for the inconvenience. Manjithkaini 05:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 3 September AM – 12 September AM: 9 days
Removed from TfD: 12 September PM: 9.5 days

Template:Moveprotect (speedy)[edit]

This seems a totally unnecessary extension to the protection template. By the very fact that they are protected, these pages are fairly stable. Page move protection is by definition a long-term thing. These templates are therefore ugly and unnecessary. [[smoddy]] 17:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It doesn't need publicising that an article is move-protected. violet/riga (t) 17:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed. Some, if not most, articles (certainly the majority of biographical articles) never need to be moved anyway, so if some reason presents itself for protecting them from moves there isn't a lot of point lifting the protection again later on. I come across move-protected pages all the time and having this ugly template cluttering them all would be a bad idea. — Trilobite 17:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The absence of the "move" tab is enough of a notice. --cesarb 17:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per cesarb. Psy guy (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The creator User:Dirkenstein was a sock (now indef blocked) of the very persistent "North Carolina" vandal and hoaxer, who sometimes uses the anon IP range 63.19.128.0/17. Given the passage of time and apparent consensus, I will go ahead and delete it now. -- Curps 03:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 3 September PM – 10 September AM: 6.5 days
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 8.5 days


Template:Chub (speedy)[edit]

Heh. --Joy [shallot] 01:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quite. Delete, silly unused fork of {{split}}. —Cryptic (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. BJAODN. --cesarb 04:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. ~~ N (t/c) 04:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emaciate until it vanishes because of anorexia... er, I mean, delete. --Titoxd 04:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Cryptic. Redundant with {{split}} Psy guy (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied - silliness. violet/riga (t) 17:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exactly which one of the WP:CSD authorized this speedy? I didn't recall that "silly" was a criterion. DES (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry but I can't see why we should continue voting on something where there is a unanimous decision after two and a half days. The template is clearly a joke, and there are too many silly joke templates having to go through the TfD process. violet/riga (t) 20:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If people see a clear consensus, they will probably not spend much time on the TfD listing, so once listed it does no harm to let the process finish. If you think it does harm, then do an early close, if the TfD process permits that, or change the process so that it does, if you can get consensus for such a change. Speedy deletion is supposed to be very narrowly confined to specific listed criteria. IMO these whould not be bent or strained. This didn't meet any of that as far as I can see. I will therefore be listing it on WP:VfU. DES (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Violetriga, you are making a unilateral change to the operating model of TFD. You know perfectly well the process calls for a 7-day period of commentary after which time action can be taken, unless the Speedy Deletion criteria are met. If you don't agree with the way in which TFD is run, that's fine, but don't commit WP:POINT to try and move what you consider sludge through the system faster. Courtland 03:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was taken to VfU and kept deleted. -Splash 04:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 4 September AM – 6 September PM (one late comment on 11 Sep): 2.5 days
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 8 days

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-present[edit]

This template is no longer relevant nor usable due to the death of William Rehnquist. It has been replaced by Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-2005. OCNative 04:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wouldn't it have easier to have simply moved the template, fixed the links, and then have done an RfD than a TfD ? Caerwine 08:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would have been easier, but the target Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-2005 had already been (improperly) created by Rfc1394 upon Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement, and no one took the time to blow it away back then. — DLJessup (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rebuttal: I disagree with improperly in the above comment and to sadly been foreclosed in the one below; this template was not ready for deletion at that time; see explanation below. [Paul Robinson or (RFC1394)] (Talk) 16:08, 4 September 2005 (EDT)
  • Delete. I created this template from Phil Welch's templates to allow for row-specific insertion. As Caerwine noted, the ideal would be to modify and move this template, but that option has sadly been foreclosed, so it's best to just eliminate this template. — DLJessup (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Delete but I wish to comment upon DLJessup's remarks: I disagree that 'improperly' is the correct term to my making the new templates. Last week I created the two new ones, Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-2005 to cover the court's makeup ending with O'Connor and having someone new, while the next one Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2005-present is for new entries and subject to the nomination of what's-his-face, the new right-winger Bush just appointed as I figure in view of the makeup of the Senate he'll be approved as long as he isn't "somewhere to the right of Anthony Comstock." (and maybe even then!). [N.B.: Roberts (21:15 UTC) ] Now, in view of Rehnquist being dead, my opinion to make two different ones was essentially proven correct; those pages that use 1994-present can be broken into two classes: those that involve issues through 2005 and those that involve issues in 2005 and beyond.
    By having a different template than this one, we do not break compatibility on old articles. In order to make sure articles are correct, all articles that use this template have to be visited and changed thus they get the freshest possible information instead of some of them which were only applicable through 2005 now having the wrong information included.

    The articles that reference this template can be updated as appropriate without breaking them until they are updated, because until we get to them, they remain accurate. Once any article (or template) that references this template is corrected, then this template could be deleted as no longer functional. I think doing it that way provides better backwards compatibility to, say, renaming this template as "2005-present" because it makes articles clear as to whether they were referring to the older court format or the newer one. If it wasn't created as a new one and the old one was simply renamed by moving, it could produce errors in referential articles and templates. Paul Robinson 20:59, 4 September 2005 20:59 (UTC) [(RFC1394)]

    • I think you've misinterpreted the point of my comment. The easy wasy to have done things would have been to first move Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-present as Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-2005. The redirect would have been automatically done and since the template is only referenced on 10 articles and 1 template, fixing the links in the affected places to avoid the redirect would have been trivial. The new court composition is the only one that needed a new template, and by doing a RfD instead of a TfD, we'd have been able to keep intact the edit history intact without making extra work for the admins. Caerwine 05:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Rfc1394. Keep it until all the articles it covers are replaced, then delete. One question: What's with accusations of "improperly created" and with the "rebuttals"? It would be nice if those were toned down a bit. --Titoxd 04:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I made sure all references to this template were switched to Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 1994-2005 before listing this one for deletion. OCNative 05:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's orphaned, then delete it. Titoxd 23:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 4 September AM – 5 September AM: 1 day
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 8 days

Template:Military-divisions[edit]

Delete. An admirable attempt created today, but just a counting of all the numbers from 1-410. The overwhelming majority of the links are red, and per WP:CSL having simple numerical (alphabetical) order is not enough to warrant an article series box. Better served by List of military divisions, or, possibly, a category. -Splash 21:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you look to sl:Template:Div_Zap (Slovene version of this), it's almost half full, so it's not impossible. As I can see WP:CSL is just proposal (This page is a proposed Wikipedia (...)), not a rule. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 21:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still think, that this template is a good thing, because on the same page can user see information on how many division are already listen and which aren't. This is specially useful, because other option is going back to list... Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 19:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you've said is that the template is a very useful tool for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military Divisions, so that's where it should go is to a list for that WikiProject (after it gets created). On the other hand, the template is practically useless for anyone else. BlankVerse ∅ 15:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rediculously large navbox template. Much better done as a list and/or category once it gets that big. Caerwine 20:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like a spreadsheet. Flowerparty 22:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Flowerparty. Nandesuka 03:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It doesn´t help much having more than 50% of red links. Doidimais Brasil 06:01, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment: 4 September PM – 11 September AM: 6.5 days
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 7.5 days

Template:Scope creep[edit]

Redundant with {{proposed}}. --cesarb 21:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, another crazy Xiong idea. ~~ N (t/c) 21:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant and unused. —Cryptic (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant and unused as above. Plus, the purpose of it is clearly to push one particular opinion (to which the author is entitled, but not in template space). -Splash 22:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While i generally agree with the ideas expressed, an am opposed to delting proposal pages via VfD/MfD, this tempalte is not the way to express that view, until and unless that view copmmands a clear consensus, in which case it would need to be reworded a good deal. DES (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ugh. Templates are not the place for rants. Aquillion 01:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill with fire. Rant redundant with
This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

*sigh*... --Titoxd 04:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, template equivalent of POV rant. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was going to write a rant about how completely lousy that template is, but I suspect that's the goal of the template's author. So instead, I"ll just say "delete it." Nandesuka 03:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 4 September PM – 7 September AM: 2.5 days
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 7.5 days

Template:Civil aircraft infobox[edit]

An orphaned template meant to be used for aircraft articles. It has been removed from those articles, because it was redundant with the standard formatting previously agreed upon at WP:Air. Ingoolemo talk 06:28, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Period of comment: 5 September AM – 7 September AM: 2 days
Removed from TfD: 12 September AM: 7 days (yay!)

Template:MikeWatt[edit]

ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a posting on maximumwattage.com told you to come and vote, please don't. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a TfD discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The TfD process is designed to draw on the judgement of experienced Wikipedians who understand what they are voting on and how it fits in with Wikipedia's overall policies; for this reason votes from users whose histories do not show that experience, including those who sign up for accounts after the vote started, are traditionally discounted.
You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be. However, unless you have a point to make in the discussion that no one before you touched upon, it may not be worth it; merely saying "me too" or reiterating an already-raised point is unlikely to sway anyone. Please remember, if you comment, that the article Mike Watt is not at risk for deletion; this discussion is over whether this template should exist on Wikipedia.
Relax
No matter why you are here, you have the same right to comment as anybody else. There is a considerable difference of opinion regarding proper conduct on TfD; yours is as good as anyone's. Welcome to the Wikipedian Community.

While I'm sure this template was made for the right reasons, I don't think it's a good idea. Mike Watt is the bassist from The Minutemen, but the template has been plonked on the page of every band that he has some connection with; for instance on Sonic Youth: Watt has appeared, if I'm not mistaken, in precisely three of their songs; and on The Stooges: if you were even thinking about putting a template at the bottom, you'd want Iggy Pop to get a mention, but Mike Watt? Who's he? In general, I think templates for individuals are bad; just think how messy The Beatles would be with {{John}} {{Paul}} {{George}} and {{Ringo}} at the bottom. Delete. Flowerparty 21:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A simple link to Mike Watt is sufficient. Listing everything he's related to on every page he's related to is useless clutter. ~~ N (t/c) 22:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE. I'm the creator of this template. Why wasn't I asked to just edit it? I can see where some items don't belong in the template. However, Watt is a full member of the Stooges and has been for the past two years. I will fight this deletion with every fiber of my being. Cjmarsicano 22:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've edited the template down. I have also mentioned on the maximumwattage.com board that the item is in danger of being deleted and am thus encouraging fellow Watt fans to vote against the template's deletion. Cjmarsicano 23:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, I don't think it's a good idea to create templates for individuals. The template is unnecessary because everything in it is included in the Mike Watt article. If you want to create Template:The Stooges and put a link to that article there, I'd have no objection. Flowerparty 23:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy the argument proposed by Mr.Flowerparty at all. Mr. Watt is a very influential individual in the modern musical world and for him to not have a template would be an insult. Why not just reduce his article to a half-assed stub while you're at it if that is the case? Cjmarsicano 23:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - policies should not be violated for fear of offending people. No offense, but there are many, many more notable musicians than Watt, and if this template continues to exist, many, many more musician templates will have to be created. If the bottom of every article on a band or albun contains templates for all the musicians involved in it, that would be a lot of needless clutter. ~~ N (t/c) 23:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already aware of the Neutral point of view and have stuck to it (believe it or not) in everything I have ever posted. As for your statement: ...there are many, many more notable musicians than Watt, and if this template continues to exist, many, many more musician templates will have to be created, I say, "So be it." Cjmarsicano 00:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no need for the template. And remember that we changed Votes for Deletion to Articles for Deletion for something: Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Titoxd 23:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary template. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original version I would have voted to delete, but the current version is a useful navigation box even for those with minimal knowledge of who Mike Watt is (actually, it's probably more useful for them than the Wattophiles). Now the only thing that Cjmarsicano needs to do is recruit more maximumwattage.com members to create some of the articles that are currently red-links. BlankVerse ∅ 15:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Flowerparty. Templates for individual musicians, even very notable ones, are probably usually poor ideas. This is particularly true when the musician in question ahs been associated with a number of bands or projects with shifting membership. DES (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The big difference between Mike Watt and the tons of sidemen that you are probably thinking of, is that Mike Watt is usually the bandleader/founder or co-founder. Think of him as a punk rock/alt rock Duke Ellington. BlankVerse ∅ 17:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the info, that does clarify things a bit. But then i think i would vote to delete {{Duke Ellington}} also. A footer tempalte on the articel for every group or artist the Duke worked with, much less every tune he is associated with (for example Lush Life) woulfd be a horror of clutter. Simple wiki links (and possibley categories) serve the purpsoe rahter better, IMO. I am generally suspicious of navigation templates, they often seem to imply that theere is one primary set of assocations for an article, which is often incorrect. DES (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The current Duke Ellington article is woefully inadequate for an artist and composer of his stature. I can easily see things growing to the point where you'd need separate articles for different eras of his big band, his small combos, etc. Then you'd need a Duke Ellington navigation box. BlankVerse ∅ 19:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Flowerparty. Nandesuka 03:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Templates for individuals should only be used in rare cases, most especially those relating individuals which have large amounts of articles directly about themselves, which is not the case in this template. See, for example, {{Darwin}}, one of the few ones which makes sense, in part because the vast majority of the articles in it are actually specifically about the person in question, i.e. they can be considered sub-articles of a larger entry on the person. --Fastfission 12:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary. - Mike МиГ 20:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Flowerparty. -- Dave C.talk | Esperanza 04:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Flowerparty. The first hint that this template is not necessary is that half the linked articles don't exist. --Cholmes75 21:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still working on a lot of the articles. Sorry to break the bad news to you. Cjmarsicano 05:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 5 September PM – 9 September PM (+one late comment): 4 days
Removed from TfD: 13 September AM: 7.2 days (yay!)


Template:FAD[edit]

Tagged for speedy by User:Hydnjo as "a redirect with no links except to my talk page". There is, however, disagreement on Template talk:FAD and the tag has been both removed and replaced. So it comes here instead. No notvote from me. -Splash 04:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I had originally chosen this template title for documenting on a featured article's talk page the date on which the article was published on the Main page. The title was intended as an acronym for Featured Article Date. After some discussion with Rick Block we decided that the title was not a good choice and moved the template to Template:Mainpage date.The reasoning for the move was that the acronym was in conflict with its intended meaning of Main page publication date and in fact may give the misleading impression that it was the date of promotion to featured article and additionally, using an acronym gives no hint as to a template's function and thus is easily overlooked in list of templates or any other cataloging scheme. I don't disagree with the notion of a "shortcut" title redirect, I just don't think that this is the right one. hydnjo talk 12:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily, per WP:CSD#General #7. Hyndjo created it, renamed it, and has asked the resultant redirect be deleted due to a potential naming confusion. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:13, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how it falls into WP:CSD#General #7 anymore because the redirect was the result of a decision to rename a template - a page that was edited by two different editors before it was moved. [3] I do think we could use a shortcut just like {{d}} and {{db}}. But now that I have thought about it, I specifically vote Delete because this is not really a good acronym to have. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot my edit to the template was before it was moved, so yes CSD-General#7 does not technically apply. Not to belabor the point, but I believe the spirit of this speedy criteria certainly applies (particularly since I made the only other change to the template and I'm agreeing to the speedy). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rd232 16:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mpartprotected[edit]

This template should probably be kept, in case it is helpful, for the same reasons I voted to keep the template immediately below this (its sister template). Keeping it won't hurt anything; however, in the Spirit of intellectual honesty, I am listing this template in the {{tfd}} page here ,to get clear community concensus and review.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It can't hurt to keep it, and, for the reasons listed below, in the vote of its sister template, it could prove very useful. "What can it hurt to keep these two templates?"--GordonWattsDotCom 02:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's the difference between the two, besides that Template:ProtectedMainPageArticle has the wrong category? --Carnildo 03:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer: I'm just a dumb college-educated country boy, and I am not an expert in templates -by any stretch of the means, but I found that I had to create this other template to make the one below list the right title -don't ask my why, but it had to be, in order for its sister template to fully work: The "image protect" was set up this way, and I merely copied the format, and changed a few things around.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons cited below. —Lifeisunfair 03:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as below. Septentrionalis 18:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Template:ProtectedMainPageArticle[edit]

Standard procedure, established after much arguing all over the place, is that articles on the main page, featured or otherwise, are not protected. It is felt that the improvement that results outweighs the brief period of vandalism that results. --Carnildo 00:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It is felt that the improvement that results outweighs the brief period of vandalism that results." Oh? Then, why, pray tell, must you insist on not deleting these "image" templates, displayed here? (and shown below)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mpimgprotected
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ProtectedMainPageImage
Apparently, there is sufficient vandalism. See the template talk page here here please before you act in a way which contradicts your own lack of actions in regards to the image protect templates.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image protection is for images that are actually displayed on the main page not for stuff linked from it. IMO that’s quite a significant difference. Also images are far less likely to receive constructive updates than articles. Plugwash 00:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world, Plugwash, that would be OK, but tell that to the editor (only one, who shall remain nameless) at Schiavo who keeps opposing documented past consensus and throwing a perfectly good Featured Article candidate into instability.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see any policy to support this template. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I commented or asked clarification of most or all the others who voted below, and I don't want to cheat you, lol, Evil Monkey: So, I would like to point out contra, I see neither policy nor logical reasoning to delete this template (nor its sister template above). I could be wrong here, but what would it hurt to keep these templates?--GordonWattsDotCom 02:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template would only protect the article for 24-hours while it basked in the light of main page. Besides, we protect images.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The use of this template is a violation of the protection policy. →Raul654 00:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Clarification sought: I just got finished looking at both Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace and Wikipedia:Template_namespace, Mark, and I see no such "policy." Where is policy on this located? Even if I am out-voted here (and I may be wrong??), there should be a page on policy, and if there isn't one, it should be incorperated in policy -if indeed it is a good idea and concept.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the Protection policy does allow for highly visible pages to be protected, this has never been extended to include pages link from visible pages (e.g, pages linked from the main page) - hence by above comment. When others have suggested protecting main page featured articles in the past (and it's been suggested quite often) I have repeatedly scolded them for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are the fact that (A) Featured articles almost without exception are improved by their time on the main page, and (B) featured articles are (by definition) supposed to exemplify what makes wikipedia unique, and this means it is unprotected and editable by anyone. →Raul654 03:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I'll be a Monkey's Uncle, Mark, you are right: Thank you for the link above. Policy here does say: "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." I don't agree with this policy, at all!! However, you may keep it --and proceed at your own risk. My personal pages (non-wiki, that is), are ALL protected, and VERY, very stable.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • (quoting Mark here) "When others have suggested protecting main page featured articles in the past (and it's been suggested quite often)..." Oh... It has been suggested "quite often," no less, eh..., as I suspected: I wonder why... Maybe because it has merit, eh? Therefore, I ask that you at least think about my suggestions, whether or not you vote in my favour, OK? Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the template, per the existing consensus to discontinue the practice to which it applies; the prudence of this decision should not be debated here. —Lifeisunfair 01:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question, Life Is Unfair: (quoting you) "per the existing consensus to discontinue the practice..."Do you mean to say that you are voting "delete" simply because of other concensus -and not providing a reason? "the prudence of this decision should not be debated here." Why not? Is this not the proper page for that -and, if not, then what page? Please justify your reasoning to not debate it here.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you mean to say that you are voting 'delete' simply because of other concensus -and not providing a reason?"
No. That consensus is my reason. It was formally determined that pages are not to be protected simply because they're linked to from the main page, so this template serves no valid purpose. —Lifeisunfair 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, Life; I had not seen the link to the policy before Mark showed it to me; still ,I disagree with this policy.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Why [shouldn't the prudence of this decision be debated here]? Is this not the proper page for that"
No, it isn't. This project page is used to discuss the proposed deletion of templates. It isn't used to establish or challenge Wikipedia policy. —Lifeisunfair 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I apologize: Since it was concensus from the past (and not just here), you're right: It should not be debated here (or at least to a large extent, but I want to make one more comment to Mark: It has OFTEN been discussed because it IS an idea with merit.)--GordonWattsDotCom 03:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"-and, if not, then what page?"
How about this one or this one? —Lifeisunfair 03:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been around, but on this, I'm a "newbie." May I'll check it out; Thx 4 the heads up.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles listed on the main page generally improve. - SimonP 01:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment.You might be right, SimonP, and for that reason, I believe that the Schiavo article (which has had all the problems identified by the Fac editor finally removed) would have improved had it been featured, but it wasn't and an edit war resulted. If you are so sure of this logic, Simon, then ask Mark (AKA →Raul654), the Fac editor, to list this article as a Featured Article. My Logic: If it's true that "Articles listed on the main page generally improve," then I want to see this article improve.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because featured articles are to advertise Wikipedia's best articles. That these articles could still use some tweaks does not imply that they are not of high quality. - SimonP 19:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per article improvement and keeping faith in readers/editors. This has nothing to do with protecting from image vandalism on the Main Page.--Pharos 02:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Pharos, I made a comment to Simon above, and, since you share his view on the influence to improve the article, without repeating them -for brevity, I direct these comments/question above to Simon also to you.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy — while established consensus states that pages should not be protected just because of being linked from the main page, I don't think anyone would have a problem with this being used for user pages linked from the main page. --Corvun 05:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Question: Does "userfy" mean to place it in my user or talk pages? Also, whether or not the templae is there, does it make it work any different? Lastly, why would we expect user names to be on the main page?--GordonWattsDotCom 06:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your first question - yes, he means put it on your user page. To answer your last question - user pages are occasionally linked from the main page on the weekends, when we run a featured picture (in place of Did You Know). The featured picture section lists the photographer, which means it often links to a user's page. →Raul654 06:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • Hmm... Cool. Thx; Y'all handle this and behave while I sleep a weekend away, OK? Take care.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles on the main page should not be protected, and for user pages linked from the main page for the featured picture, it's badly worded. Lupo 08:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. When necessary, main page articles can be protected, and have been, using the standard WP:RfPP. Usually it's not necessary. This template is useless in both cases. Septentrionalis 18:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per discussion above use of this template violates current policy, so should not be used, so should be deleted according to deletion criteria #3. If the policy changes in the future, the template can be recreated easily enough. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:39, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but. It should only be placed if the article is recieving vandalism. mrholybrain 12:08, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Violates current policy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Franz Ferdinand[edit]

Don't get me wrong, I love this band. But do we need a giant 3x5 template for every band, esp. those with only one or two albums? Categories and links are more than sufficient. Gamaliel 18:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It seems to me that this information would be better conveyed by proper ordianryu links in the relevant articels. It would also be easier to edit that way. DES (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. No point in a template for a band with only two albums. Toveling 05:04, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is against established conventions. --Joy [shallot] 23:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The band doesn't have enough history or recorded material to justify a template box so soon. --Madchester 23:41, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why does it need to be deleted? I don't think that having a template box for this and other bands are a drain on bandwidth or anything. These would be good for any band, with or without a long and prolific career. --Nathew 07:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem with the band templates is that if we keep one, 1,000 non-notable bands with templates pop up and we're stuck with a mess. Titoxd 05:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IR[edit]

No benefits to having this be a template instead of a category, a lot of redlinks, only sets up precedent clutter people like Kant with a horde of boxes. Also, organized uselessly - it spans such a vast historical period (Thucydides to Woodrow Wilson), and yet is in alphabetical order. At once too broad and too idiosyncratic - no useful overall picture is given by reading this particular sequence of articles. Snowspinner 16:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Categorify, leaning more towards delete, as I'm not sure of the usefulness of such a category. Too broad, introduces clutter. android79 19:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite. The vast historical period is purposeful: IR has been evolving for long, and many authors (specially English School ones) agree that the IR may be said to begin with Thucydides. The template´s purpose is to include 1) foundation political theorists used to label schools, such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Grotius, Kant and Marx; 2) actual IR theorists, be they realist (Mearsheimer, Waltz); liberal (Martin, Keohane); or constructivist (Wendt, Onuf); 3) men of action that influenced IR academic tought (Kissinger, Wilson, Lenin). In this sense, Template experts may want to create labels inside the template so as to make it in sections. As for red links, they are a mere invitation to create new articles that Wikipedia craves for - it lacks info on contemporary IR tought and in IR theory as a whole, a lack that only recently is being filled by the efforts mostly of Mintchocicecream. Cheers. Doidimais Brasil 04:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This list cannot possibly be complete, and so the selection must be PoV. This is much better handled by a list of links in the main article, or a separate list article. Such a list could certianly include redlinks. It would also be much easier to expand without space issues. DES (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Replace by {{Otherarticles-alph}} which will Categorefy; all of which will make it much easier to revise, which this very badly needs. What is the imagined justification for including Hobbes??? or Marx, for that matter? Are the redlinks contributors to a particular textbook? Septentrionalis 18:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Answering: English School IR theorists (such as Hedley Bull and Martin Wight) recongize three ample schools of tought in IR. They are labeled Hobbesian, Grotian and Kantian. As for Marx, he´s the inspirer of (tcham) Marxist tought in IR, including Fernando Henrique Cardoso´s, for instance. As for the redlinks: they are not simply contributors to a particular textbook, they are major 20th and 21th century IR thinkers and the main actors in the Realism x Liberalism x Constructivism debate. Doidimais Brasil 03:15, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Template:AfricanAmericanL and Template:AfricanAmericanR[edit]

OB and redundant to Template:African American topics sidebar. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     20:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Verifieduse[edit]

From February to May 2004, we had an experimental process for determining "fair use". Wikipedia:Fair use was used as a discussion forum to determine whether a particular image could be used under the "fair use" clause, and if so, tagged by this template. However, there are a number of problems: first, the template is badly worded as it neither indicates which uses were considered "fair", nor gives any link to the discussion that presumably took place. I've just gone through all the about 60 images tagged as "verifieduse": all of them were tagged as such without any discussion, and even after that old process had been discontinued on June 1, 2004. The template is no longer used now (most were {{albumcover}}s anyway) and should be deleted to simplify our tagging and also to avoid intentional or unintentional mistagging. The associated Category:Verified fair use images should also be deleted. Lupo 09:10, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and rewrite. One problem that I keep running into is that many Wikipedia editors, both newbies and regular editors, use the {{fairuse}} template when they really, really want to use an image, but when it really doesn't fit any of the criteria for fair use. Remember that each fair use claim must be evaluated on its own merits and it is best to give the specific reasons that you are claiming fair use. My personal opinion is that we should keep the more specialized fair use templates such as {{albumcover}}, but the general fairuse template should be deleted because it is abuse way too often. If that doesn't happen, then this template, or something like it, is going to have to be used. BlankVerse ∅ 10:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know about fair use. The problem with this template is that the whole process for which it was intended doesn't exist anymore, no images use it, and the large majority of the 60 or so that did use it until this morning should have used another one like e.g. {{albumcover}} or {{screenshot}}. The "fair use discussion" process was discontinued in early 2004. Any uses of this template since then were just plain wrong. In fact, it seems as if all images that were indeed discussed at Wikipedia:Fair use had already been retagged when the process was abandoned, as all of the aforementioned ~60 images were uploaded after that. Instead of rewriting the template, you could just turn it into a redirect to {{fairuse}}, but then why keep it (and its category) at all? Lupo 10:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A new system of marking "approved" usage should be created, but this one isn't it and should't be encouraged -- it is a vestige of an older, now defunct, system. The current text of Wikipedia:Fair use seems to imply that one should just add this template in exchange for a normal "fair use" template if you, the uploader, think it is "verified", but there is no verification system with the exception of knowing to use the template. It isn't being used in an effective manner, and the paltry number of things tagged with it (60 out of some 20,000 fair use images) makes that quite clear. --Fastfission 12:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to also note that we've recently been developing new templates for requesting verification of fair use status, disputing fair use status, and verifying fair use status, which I think will work a lot better. --Fastfission 19:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New_page[edit]

Delete: A template for creating a skeleton article. While clearing out Category:stubs I encountered a number of articles which had been started off using this template. It's a nice idea in theory, but in practise it seems that people are not removing all the extra boilerplate text which means that someone else has to do it, as with the Padayachi article. This leaves articles with seemingly nonsensical content, a broken German interwiki link to "article names in German" and places it in Category:Stubs regardless of content length/depth. TheParanoidOne 22:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. I don't think many new pages start out needing a bunch of headings, let alone subheadings. HollyAm 22:52, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Destroy with multiple ICBMs. If you can remember basic wiki-markup there's no reason to use this, and if you can't you probably won't have found out about these "template" things either. ~~ N (t/c) 22:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a nice idea in theory, either. Although, it makes it possible for me to mention Wikipedia:Use subheadings sparingly. :) --Joy [shallot] 23:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. It does look... fun. Doidimais Brasil 06:17, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. violet/riga (t) 10:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful. If people don't tidy up after using it, nag them. Kappa 10:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the articles I saw were by anons, so nagging would be ... pointless. --TheParanoidOne 10:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simplify. It used to default to Category:Appropriate category for this article (which will be empty shortly). I changed it to default to category:stubs. I think this is a good idea bringing an article to the notice of the stub watchers and preventing it from becoming a complete orphan. (Demarest Hall is a recent example of someone who has used the template properly, ie. removed all the unwanted stuff - but they have gone a bit wild on the categories!) -- RHaworth 10:27:27, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't throwing all new pages into the Stubs category, whether stub or not, just duplicate Special:Newpages? HollyAm 18:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • No. Articles scroll off Special:Newpages when enough new articles are created after it; articles leave Category:Stubs when a human sorts them out of it and ideally triages them as well. Also (and here's a scary thought) Special:Newpages can't hold more than 5000 articles. —Cryptic (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, add to the template at least one example of a Wikilink. -- RHaworth 19:09:13, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
  • Demolish. BlankVerse ∅ 12:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral This template loads up when you use the "Create page" form on Help:Starting a new page. So if we do delete the template, we should replace that form on Help:Starting a new page. But at the very least, I think that the raw text of the template should preserved so it can be used as a guide for newbies who are trying to start their first article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, so that's where all these pages are coming from. I was wondering how these new users knew how to subst a template but not work out the rest. --TheParanoidOne 14:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Guide to layout instead. Even if the template is kept, it shouldn't feed into Category:Stubs. Conscious 15:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good for beginners. -- Thorpe talk 17:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Good for beginners new to discussions. (SEWilco 18:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Hurl into the Pits of Hades (um, that's a delete, if you haven't guessed). This explains why so many items are turning up in Category:stubs that 1) don't have a stub template on them; 2) are not stubs, and or 3) have various subsections headed "Subsection", "Item" or similar inanities - all of them interwikied with an article in the German Wikipedia called "new article". It greatly slows down the stub sorting process, since all of these new articles need serious tidying up before they can even be considered stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It assumes that every new article should be a seven section opus, when, especially for new editors, almost all new articles are only a couple of paragraphs. - SimonP 13:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SimonP, among others. — ceejayoz ★ 16:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting, but it causes more problems than it solves. Flowerparty 02:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nice idea, but it looks like more work to insert the template and clean up all the extra headers. Wiki headers are incredibly easy to create, so there is hardly any need for it. -- Sunny256|✎ 09:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template does far more harm than good. As noted above, its layout simply doesn't apply to most new articles. Users should be encouraged to learn the correct page creation process, rather than following a shortcut that leads to significant flaws and added work for others. —Lifeisunfair 19:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have had to clean up several articles made with this template when doing new page patrol. Article structure is usually enforced by the new page patrollers anyway, and page layout can be learned by looking at other articles. NSR (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with fire (delete). Please, make things easier for the stub-sorters. I don't know how an article that is deep enough to have a level-3 heading (which is what this template assumes) could ever be a stub. Fix the problem at Help:Starting a new page, but get rid of it. Titoxd 20:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Aircraft infobox alternate [edit]

Delete: This template was included in Template:Infobox Aircraft accident as a way of adding multiple aircraft with alternating background colours. After experimentation I found a way to include a transparent background colour in Template:aircraft infobox and this alternate template is now surplus. See Template talk:Infobox Aircraft accident (history) for an example of how it was supposed to work. I have made all necessary changes in the few articles that so far use this template. This is a non-controversial deletion. Jumbo 06:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medium_Neutral_HCA[edit]

Delete somebody's expriment gone wrong (at least according to its talk page). No page uses this template. --Valentinian 15:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just speedy deleted it per author request on talk page. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: VA_Highways [edit]

Delete: Redundant over Category:Virginia state highways. Also inaccurate. Virginia state highways are not, as the template suggests, divided into primary highways (1-99) and connector routes (110 up). Instead, they are divided into primary routes (1-599, with rare exceptions), secondary routes (600 up), and frontage roads (F-numbered); there is no separate class of routes called connector routes. Finally, the template is full of red links. Doctor Whom 01:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rearrange. Navigation boxes are always better for causual users than Categories. e.g. The red-links mean it lists all highways, not only those that just happen to have had an article written about them yet. And if you rearrange it to accurately reflect the differences between primar routes, secondary routes and frontage roads, this will be something else that a Category can't do. Finally, just look at how ugly the category is, especially the confusing way it tries to handle numerical ordering. Very off-putting for new users. — P Ingerson (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: For primary routes alone, the template as thus rearranged would require sixty rows of mostly red links. I don't see how you could accommodate secondary routes, whose numbers go into five digits (at least they do in Fairfax County). If you added them on a case-by-case basis, that would defeat the purpose of the template. Doctor Whom 16:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and then delete before someone gets the bold idea to do the same for California. A mess of numbers is practically meaningless, while a good list (see List of California State Routes) can be much getter than either categories or navigation boxes. BlankVerse ∅ 13:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete optionally first creating a list article. Large nav boxes such as this are usually a bad ides, partucularly when filled with red links. complete lists are the proper province of lists, rather than categories or navboxes. DES (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree that a category would be far more useful in this instance. - SimonP 15:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categorize and/or list-of is better. Wins prize for ugliest template. User:Stbalbach:Stbalbach 15:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete. Virginia State Highways are supposed to be called "Virginia State Highway x" anyway, and it would take too long to change. A cat and a list would be much better for this, and when a VA state hwy WP is created, a nightmare will occur.--Rschen7754 20:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is one for Rhode Island and West Virginia too. The Interstate one and the US highway one is actually practical because it lists only the major highways. --Rschen7754 20:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is to be listified, categorified, and then deleted. -Splashtalk 02:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Listing takes up to much space. The Template is patterned after the US Highway template which works well. The template is easier to navagate. --71Demon 02:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC) The debate has already concluded. --Rschen7754 03:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep, useful template for a proven encyclopedic topic.Gateman1997 23:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Vote has concluded already. Titoxd(?!?) 01:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RitaWarning[edit]

Delete: Redundant, now that someone created the more flexible Template:HurricaneWarning instead. 67.171.74.109 23:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I can not edit the template itself to mark it for deletion, as it is protected.)
I've added {{tfd}} to the template. Delete, personally I think {{HurricaneWarning}} should go too but I won't nominate it right now. JYolkowski // talk 23:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone who knows the deal (i.e. not me) needs to change the articles over to the new template. Those pages are likely to be high visibility at the moment and the TfD tag is not the most pleasant thing in the world. -Splashtalk 23:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just swapped out all the references in articles. --Zetawoof 00:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, as it has now been superceded by {{HurricaneWarning}}. Titoxd 01:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Hottentot
  • Delete. It's probably, um, ultimately my fault this template existed at all. ;) IceKarmaॐ 04:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. No it isn't. I'm the one who made it without knowledge of your deeds or existence. I cheerfully acknowledge the later template as superior, can this be speedied with the request of the sole author? --Kizor 08:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 2005-09-21 09:24 to 2005-09-21 22:20 UTC: 0.539 days
Removed from TfD: 2005-09-22 09:14 UTC: 0.993 days —IceKarmaॐ 23:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yello[edit]

Delete: Created as a test template by an anon IP and contains no useful content. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedied by me. --nixie 06:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Period of comment: 2005-09-14 11:57 to 2005-09-14 16:41 UTC: 0.197 days
Removed from TfD: 2005-09-22 09:17 UTC: 7.9 days —IceKarmaॐ 23:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SouthAfricaImages[edit]

Delete: Is not even used in the South Africa article, and if you look at that article, the images are in a completely different order. Unnecessary template. --Hottentot

Template:vfdclosed[edit]

Never used by anyone but me, made obsolete by the AFD reform. - Sikon 15:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am also wondering if anybody uses {{oldvfd}}? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't seen it used recently, but it is still widely linked to in talk: pages, which would take an awful lot of subst:ing. Not impossible though. -Splashtalk 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only time I used {{oldvfd}} was when I closed subpages of VfD that hadn't been renamed as AfD subpages. But since that isn't the case anymore, I think it should be safe to redirect it to {{oldafd}}. Titoxd 19:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure if you're talking about redirecting {{vfdclosed}} or {{oldvfd}}, but if you mean the latter, please don't. The vast majority of pages at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/whatever have not been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/whatever, so the links wouldn't work anymore. —Cryptic (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seconded. {{oldvfd}} and {{oldvfdfull}} must keep pointing to the old Votes for deletion subpages, unless someone goes and subst: both in all places they are used.
          • Hmm, I hadn't thought of that, since I usually substed it whenever I used it. So, I've changed my vote to delete, seeing it has been substed. Titoxd 22:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • subst: and delete, since the nominator doesn't want it anymore. Be sure not to just delete it, or the pages it appears on will suddenly no longer have their vfd/afd link. -Splashtalk 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Substed. - Sikon 01:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to take any action on the other templates discussed here because 1)it seems that none is wanted and 2)it seems that if any is wanted, it needs a seperate TfD. -Splashtalk 13:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FR-location[edit]

Context should be provided as prose within an article's lead section, not as a generic template tacked onto the top. Worse, in several articles on my watchlist, prose leads have been replaced by this. I'm afraid to look at the other articles where it now appears. —Cryptic (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe should people agree on each others. Look here:

This article is about Faerûn, a fictional continent, the primary setting of Forgotten Realms

As for the “worse, prose leads have been replaced”, you may be interested into this, too:

Removed redundant header

I'm a bit fed up with all of these. Lot of critics, few additions. As we say in computing: “Where is your patch?” Reply to David Latapie 13:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer the template. I prefered the original bolded statement, but there does not seem to be support for that. Because someone went through and awkwardly rewrote lead paragraphs, I tried a relatively generic statement on top: "X" is a "(city, village, castle, region, character, etc.)" in the Forgotten Realms setting of Dungeons & Dragons. When the new italicized template is added (and I'm not saying the phrasology can't use some work) I went back and removed the header that I added to the articles that I had written. My main reference was a number of Harry Potter articles that systematically state the fictional setting and type in a seperate sentence before the Content box. That is my preference. I wouldn't mind seeing the reference to Toril go, and add a reference to D&D in the opening sentence. --RYard 16:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on Baldur's Gate discussion page, I'm OK for the Toril reference too, and everyone seems to agree on that. To change the content of the template is very easy: just go to the templates's page and change the text.
On the other hand, I consider that repetitive information should be templated, this is smaller, more elegant (yes, this is subjective) and, most importantly, add consistency to articles. The reason why they are scarcely used seems, IMHO, to be that people don't know how to create template — actually, it is "disarmingly" simple, I think that is the main reason. Templating is for power users, and power users - myself included - are not accustomed to such a trivial way to do it. Reply to David Latapie 16:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I have mentioned elsewhere, standard Wikipedia practice, and in my opinion the best method, is to clearly note a topic's fictional nature within the prose of the introduction. - SimonP 16:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we should be enforcing editorial content with templates; they're more brittle, harder to change, and can "flatten" the editorial feel of the article. Consistency is good, but there are always exceptions. The solution is aggressive editing, not templating. Therefore, my opinion is to delete. Nandesuka 15:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
pardon me, but for me, aggressive editing is like polling in computing, a quick-and-dirty (and no so quick in the long run, especially with more than 140 articles) solution. Reply to David Latapie
  • Delete. This information should be at the beginning of the article, and not in italics. -- Reinyday, 20:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Cryptic and SimonP. The most commonly used form is to indicate the fictional context of a fictional place, character, or event in the prose of the lead paragraph. The exact format and wording of this varies. Some articvels may not follow this form, but that is not a good reason for encouraging others not to do so. see WP:FICT for more details. 205.210.232.62 20:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above comment was mine, it seems I was loggged out without realizing it. DES (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and reverse the many, many removals of clear, standardized information in the introductions of the articles. Quite apart from anything else, this template looks very ugly. I tried very hard to standardize these FR introductions as much as possible when creating them (see the gods articles), and so don't see any practical need to make them [sic] "neater". -Erolos 23:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The good thing about a template is that it is very easy to change it <wikipedia>If you don't like it, edit it.</wikipedia>. At least, it has the merit to exists.213.157.237.18
  • Delete. Articles about fictional subjects should make their fictional context clear as is appropriate to that particular topic, and the context shouldn't need to be bolded or italicized. Does Sherlock Holmes open with a boldfaced statement reminding the reader that he's not a real person? -Sean Curtin 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen too much {{context}} flags. I stopped counting and I can assure you it is very frustrating to see people just context-ing all your work. Really. That's why I created the template, because of all these context-ing. Now, if people could stop context-ing, I would be very happy (and could focus on the much more useful FR's template infobox.213.157.237.18

Template:WashDCInfoBox[edit]

Currently orphaned, redundant to all of the other city infobox templates, but looks like it was already "subst"ed onto Washington, D.C.. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JapanCopyright[edit]

Similar to Template:Philippines-fairuse (recently deleted), this image copyright tag states that the image is copyrighted in Japan and elsewhere, and that its use qualifies as fair use in both Japan and the United States. However, since Wikipedia's servers are in the United States and not Japan, we're concerned about whether something is fair use in the United States and not Japan. Furthermore, Japanese copyright law doesn't have "fair use" provisions. It does have a number of exceptions, but those are so different from United States fair use law that it's hard to imagine that something could be "fair use" in both countries and still be usable on Wikipedia. So, this template is redundant with Template:Fairuse. It's also only used on two images. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 15:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if modifications can be suggested I'd totally forgotten about this template, that's why it was only on two images (so far). Any suggestions as to modifying this template? I think it would be quite useful, especially given the growing number of Japan pop culture-related items being added to Wikipedia. Cjmarsicano 20:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Our general direction for fair use tags is to get away from blanket tags to ones that explicitly describe what category of image it is and where fair use applies (see WP:WPFU for more information). If it described something specific (say, promotional Japanese anime posters or official photographs of Japanese politicians or something like that) then it might be useful. Alternately it might be useful if it were an additive tag that would be used in addition to a fair use tag, and just stated that the image is believed to fall under one of the exceptions in Japan's copyright act. Note that I still prefer deletion to either of the two options I listed, though. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. US copyright law is the one that really matters, and for fair use, we want to use the topic-specific ones if at all possible. --Carnildo 22:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Freenet[edit]

Unused, nonsensical. Alas, I couldn't find a CSD case to fit it. —Cryptic (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete linkspam. Titoxd 19:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not nonsense or spam - it's used for links into Freenet (which runs as a proxy on localhost:8888). But as it's been decided not to have Freenet links, delete. ~~ N (t/c) 22:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_State [edit]

Delete: I made this template (along with Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_Fed), but I've since created a new (and hopefully better) template, Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt. --Markles 01:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_Fed [edit]

Delete: I made this template (along with Template: Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt_State), but I've since created a new (and hopefully better) template, Template:Infobox_Mass_Town_Govt. --Markles 01:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editwar [edit]

Delete: Redundant with Template: Disputed. The way it approaches the issue makes the tagged page look more like a web forum than an encyclopedia. -- Norvy (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And a red divbox doesn't help much at all. Delete. Titoxd 19:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful for marking contentious pages and just for kicks. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Norvy notes, it is redundant with other disclaimers, such as Template:POV and Template:Accuracy. Unlike these warnings, it provides no useful or relevant information to the average reader. While J. Hypothetical Reader should be warned if an article is biased or inaccurate, I do not think it is necessary to inform him of the existence of an edit war if that edit war has not affected the article's accuracy or neutrality. (I would say "confine to talk pages", but there'd be no point to that either: we already have Template:Controversial.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 21:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 21:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons cited above. Scary and unhelpful. And the image covers the start of the text unless the page is very wide indeed. DES (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant, uninformative, and possibly inflammatory depending on how it's applied. -Sean Curtin 22:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant, polarising, and shouldn't be on an article page in the first place. If there's a content dispute, take it to the Talk page, and if it degenerates into an edit war, go ask an admin for help instead of slapping a template on it (in other words, resolve the war instead of declaring it). --IByte 22:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fair dealing[edit]

Doesn't mention anything about U.S. copyright laws, so it's not a valid image copyright tag. Furthermore, fair dealing in Canada only applies to research, private study, criticism, review, and news reporting and various noncommercial purposes, and it doesn't look like most of the images so tagged would apply. It might potentially be useful as an additive tag, but since it's not used that widely, contains a redlinked category and isn't documented anywhere I would say delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. IceKarmaॐ 19:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a world outside the US, and images come from other countries too. Ambi 14:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm from Canada myself. However, what matters for the purposes of Wikipedia are U.S. copyright laws because that's where the servers are located, and this tag has nothing to say about those. JYolkowski // talk 22:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sesamestreetscreencapture[edit]

Delete: Overly precise, contains a badly-named and redlinked category, poor wording compared to Template:Tv-screenshot, just used in seven places before I changed them all to {{tv-screenshot}}. JYolkowski // talk 21:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simon_Clarke_Tube_Map [edit]

Delete: Now orphaned template was exclusively used for the now deleted and replaced Image:London underground zone 1 small.png. The template now serves no purpose. I suggest deleting talk page as well. —Gabbe 19:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. IceKarmaॐ 19:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missed most of [the time] this [was up for] discussion, or I'd have said Speedy Delete earlier (as author and only contributor to both the template and its talk page) - template was originally applied to a number of images which appeared to be derived from Simon Clarke's material, all of which have now been redrawn from free data. Whether Simon might have been persuaded to adjust his terms for certain specific derived works on wikipedia is now academic. --Stoive 22:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Font sample [edit]

'Strong Delete': The template is actually much more confusing than helping. It only works if users have the proper font installed (and the proper browser settings), and images work a lot better to illustrating them. Consider the entries Univers, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Antiqua, Calibri (font) and compare them with Garamond, AMS Euler, Gill Sans which feature pictures. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Um, don't see why this could be considered useful in any way. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speechless. — mendel ☎ 19:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly useless. I have a wide variety of fonts installed, yet all I see for any of the above samples is boring old Courier. IceKarmaॐ 19:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Proved useless beyond any reasonable doubt. Titoxd 23:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have more font than most and I can't see anything. Anonymous user.
  • Delete. Agree completely with Drini's concerns. Jgm 11:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too much potential to mislead. Susvolans ⇔ 12:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete. I only agree to the deletion of this template if and only if all the articles that use it have replacement images. Nohat 16:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of doing this. -- Thorpe talk 21:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Even without all the replacement images in place, I am in favor of deleting this template. For most users, it's worse than unhelpful - it's actively misleading. --Bob Schaefer 04:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ditto what others said. It's confusing. Images are more effective. --Lendorien 15:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for time being. I agree with Nohat – the template should only be removed once sample images of the fonts that use it have been created. I created this template originally because many font pages had their own 'font sample' section, which I just regularised with a template. I believe deleting this will only cause the font articles to start using {{Lipsum}} directly again. Nicholas 23:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mean to sound thick, but what is the point in keeping this template when it won't show the typical visitor what the font looks like? It seems unreasonable to expect users to purchase a font in order to read the Wikipedia article about that font. I agree that font sample images would be great, but the current template makes it look like we have a serious misunderstanding of how fonts work on the Web. (In the meantime we could replace this template with one that explains that we don't have a sample, and optionally contains an external link to a sample on the font vendor's website.) — mendel ☎ 00:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • """Delete, of course. It does not make sense as it confuses readers without these fonts installed. I am working in creating sample font images for all typography articles. Started today. First one done is media:Garamond pro roman.png ≈ jossi ≈ 15:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but modify. I aggree with Nicholas, but a warning like on Futura_(typeface) is most certianly in order. When I've had the fonts installed (as well as a properly configured Firefox and freetype) the template displays the font fine. Use of this template should also be suplemented by images. Jonathan Kollasch, Thu Sep 29 21:29 UTC 2005.

Template:Fairuse-ESA[edit]

Despite its name, it didn't say anything about fair use at all (until I added the bit at the end about how the image may or may not be usable in Wikipedia); rather, it appears to be a noncommercial-use-only tag, which is depreciated. Since there's only one use, let's delete it before it gets used any more. JYolkowski // talk 01:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. IceKarmaॐ 19:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT! It's a very helpful and necessary feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.88.184 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. If deleted, the users who upload these images will just mark them "fairuse" with or without reason. Better have then categorized to check for fairuse than have them all lumped under one label. I know, I know... But still keep. --Irpen 05:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this doesn't do the job, as described by the nominator, and considering that with the anon discounted, we have two-thirds I shall delete. Normally, I'd like a little more discussion but that can be hard to come by on TfD, and we don't demand unanimity to delete which is what I would otherwise be insisting on. -Splashtalk 02:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reuters[edit]

Blanked by creator, and subsequently edited to point to Template:Unverified. Also an orphan now that unverified images are CSDs. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AssociatedPress[edit]

Very misleading; Associated Press photos are probably not good fair use candidates because we could be construed as competing with them. Not used too much either. Delete. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Deleted/September_2005&oldid=1089442681"