Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

This page is for deleting things in the Template namespace, which is used for reusable boilerplate messages and article series boxes. Deletion of these may be appropriate if the template:

• is not helpful or noteworthy;
• is redundant with categories, lists, or other mechanisms;
• or is simply unused.

For guidelines on acceptable boilerplate messages, see Wikipedia:Template messages.
For guidelines on acceptable article series boxes, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes.

If you vote, please give a reason how it either does or does not fulfill these criteria. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement.
In addition to voting "Keep" or "Delete," a valid vote on this page is "Convert to category." In this case, all pages with the template should be added to an appropriately named category, and the template should be deleted.

Templates listed on this page do not need to be orphans prior to listing, and in fact should not be removed from pages prior to listing. However, templates must be removed from all pages prior to deletion. Currently, this can only be done manually.

Marking templates to be voted on: Insert the text {{tfd}} to the top of templates you list here. This adds the following message:

When adding this message to templates that are in the form of series boxes, the message should be placed inside the box, to make it clear what is being proposed for deletion. When being added to templates which have already been blanked, and are just sitting around as blanks, the message should be added to the template talk page. Again, do not blank templates to list them here - this is just if the template is already blank when you are listing it.

Templates that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised. Such templates should be dealt with as soon as possible.

Archived discussions are located at /Log/Deleted and /Log/Not deleted.

Listings

Please put new listings under today's date at the bottom of the page.

February 8

Template:Cities of são paulo

Maaan but this is a big template. Can you say "Category"? Probably with accompany "List of..." article because of the (200!) red links on the template Grutness|^hello? 04:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Convert to categories -- Chris 73 Talk 05:29, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Convert to categories. Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:21, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Convert to List/Category – flamurai (t) 06:43, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• There is a category Cities in São Paulo, although a lot of the entries (enough to look at using a bot for) are in its parent category São Paulo state. Many of them may also be best merged into a list. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Category. Probably good value as a "list of cities" article, too (for the red links) - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 14

Template:A1 and friends

(A1, A2, A3, A4, E1, E2, E3, E4, I1, I2, I3, I4, O1, O2, O3, O4, U1, U2, U3, U4, and their corresponding MediaWiki: redirects.)

Each of these creates a different diaretic character, but no articles use them, probably since it's easier to just use the clickable characters below the edit box. Goplat 16:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all - you beat me to it. -- Netoholic @ 18:42, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete all. Agreed. – flamurai (t) 19:09, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Since they now appear at the bottom of every page, this seems quite redundant. Niteowlneils 19:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Redundant. jni 13:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Deletebecauseoncommons

(and redirect at Template:dbc)

We already have two templates which handle both aspects of this one. Template:NowCommons documents that the image is at Commons, and Template:ifd marks those images which are up for deletion. Compare here where I replaced use of this template with the appropriate ones. There is no special reason to combine these two ideas into a single template. -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Keep - it should be encouraged to upload files to commons under the same name, to avoid having to change the articles. And there's no reason {{NowCommons}} shouldn't be like this one (which I created not knowing of NowCommons's existence, if it existed at the time). --SPUI (talk) 22:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, but we already have templates to handle this. This one is redundant with those established ones. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 15

Template:February 26

(also the redirect MediaWiki:February 26) Old duplicate of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 26. Goplat 00:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Netoholic @ 19:54, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 06:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Netherlands

Unused. It was tagged speedy, but templates aren't candidates, so I'm listing it here. dbenbenn | talk 18:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Netoholic @ 19:54, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
• Delete. jni 13:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 16

Template:Politics of Taiwan

This template should be renamed Template:Politics of the Republic of China. Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate.". — Instantnood 19:39, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

See also the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Politics of Taiwan. — Instantnood 10:54, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

• • By nominating I support renaming. — Instantnood 19:41, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
• Plase be consequent with the dicussion at the move Politics of China page. (I oppose there).Gangulf 20:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Most people would be confused about the term "Republic of China", which is hardly ever used. Use the more common and the only generally understood term, jguk 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Taiwan" is not an accurate and NPOV title. If one gets confused it just a few clicks to double check at the relevant artices on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 20:00, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This is an Wikipedia internal matter and has no effect on the content of articles. I dont see what would be gained by moving this.--Jiang 04:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really. If the title is not renamed I will proposed to remove contents not related to the island or the province of Taiwan, and to add brief contents about politics of Taiwan during Japanese occupation, the Qing era, the Cheng Ch'eng Kung era, and the early colonisation by Dutch and Portuguese, with the politics sections in history of Taiwan as the main articles. — Instantnood 11:20, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
    • ...which will simply make more work for yourself, and take up more time which could be used for debating oher things, since I seriously doubt that that move would be supported. Grutness|^hello? 09:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Agree. But that's the cost of keeping this title. Assistance from whom opposed the move would be necessary. — Instantnood 10:57, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Neutrality^talk 20:23, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with Jguk - the term "Republic of China" is not understood to mean Taiwan in much of the world, rather the term would instantly make people think "China", which would make them think mainland China. Grutness|^hello? 09:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The content of the template already tells it's about "Politics of the Republic of China (Taiwan)". — Instantnood 10:58, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose or move and keep as a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 11:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • So do you support a move? — Instantnood 12:47 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Support Rename. "Taiwan" is ambiguous. I personally prefer "Politics of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" which is the most precise and accurate wording. There are also probably enough stubs that a "Politics of Taiwan - pre-Republic of China" stub should also be created. BlankVerse ∅ 05:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's not the conventionally understood name, and this is used by editors rather than readers - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Taiwan to the ROC is pretty much like England to the United Kingdom. — Instantnood 18:30 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

I had some discussion with Instantnood and I suggested the compromise to name these kind of templates ..of Republic of China - Taiwan. I think this might be less POV Gangulf 22:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gangulf agreed with "..of Republic of China (Taiwan)" but she/he prefers "..of Republic of China - Taiwan". — Instantnood 22:21 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

• Seems livable to me, though the name might become unwieldy for editing. The name should have "Taiwan" in it, though - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 17

Template:Hawaiian

This template is not used in any article right now, which would imply that the "Hawaiian NPOV dispute" is either dead or just hitting a dry spot. Either way, it doesn't seem like a template like this is the best way to handle this type of dispute. Szyslak 08:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete since it's not used and unecessary. I never saw the point of this template from the beginning. Angela. 15:52, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Rename

Inferior to and redundant with Template:Move. "rename" is just another name for "move". This template is only being used by one user--its creator. Delete the related category too--Jiang 20:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect if only to prevent recreation by someone else caught unawares. Move and Rename are both correct terms. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
• Oppose, see comment below. — Instantnood 17:49, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Jiang would you mind showing the evidence that this template is only used by OwenBlacker who created it at 23:33, Jul 5 2004? — Instantnood 17:51, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not a argument against redunandacy. Why not redirect and merge the categories? --Jiang 18:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I opposed because of possibly inaccurate information by the nominator. I might cross my vote out if it got settled. — Instantnood 19:16, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
      • crossed out. please provide a legitimate reason for opposing--Jiang 21:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • First it is not anybody's obligation to provide reasons to satisfy your standard of legitimacy. Second please verify your arguments before listing them out.
          To my understanding the two templates are not redundant or overlapping, whatever you call it. The two templates are also not inferior to each other. The rename template serves as an notice that they is such a proposal, and readers can discuss with it at the discussion page, or should at least be aware of the accuracy of the title and the scope of the content of the article. It is not the same as a vote for renaming/moving, like what the move template is functioning as. — Instantnood 22:55, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
          • If it's just a proposal, then the tag should not be necessary. People dont stick up tags every time they post something on the talk page. It just makes the article ugly. If it is to be discussed, then I dont see why we should be circumventing Wikipedia:Requested moves or else that page should not exist at all. I see the difference in procedure, but I dont see the difference in intended result and therefore the necessity to have a different procedure. --Jiang 23:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • With this notice added, readers can be aware of the accuracy of the title, and the scope of the content of the article or category. Whether such article or categories should be put forward to Wikipedia:Requested moves or Wikipedia:Categories for deletion depends on the relevant conventions, and will be subjected to lengthy discussion. In other words the two templates have different functions. — Instantnood 23:36, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
              • If the title is "inaccurate" then why not just go ahead demand that it be moved? If there's something confusing in the content, we add a disambiguation notice or make it obvious in the intro. I really dont see how this is necessary when we dont otherwise tag articles just to discuss something. This template is hideous and certainly isnt inciting lengthy discussion. Putting it on requested moved (for articles) or categories for deltion (for categories) does, however, promote discussion and is much more effective.--Jiang 04:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                • The proposed new title of many of these articles or categories are vacant, and the renaming could be done by clicking the "move" button on the top of the page. Whether they should be renamed depends on the naming conventions and perhaps the relevant ongoing discussions. I know the title of the two templates look alike, but the two templates do not have the same function at the time being. — Instantnood 11:05, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
                  • Then discuss and then move. The template is not necessary. It's ugly --Jiang 02:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                    • Do you think the {{move}} can fill the time gap before the move? — Instantnood 11:12, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Either a move is disputed, it needs admin attention because of history issues, or you just do it yourself. I don't see the need for this template. Anyway, it should be used on the talk page, not the article. – flamurai (t) 07:05, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Move to Wikipedia

A joke? -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

• Delete, we should really be able to speedy nonsense like this. I wonder if a patent nonsense claim would be acceptable for junk like this... -Frazzydee|✍ 23:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 18

Template:CompactTOCwithnumbers

(and redirect at MediaWiki:CompactTOCwithnumbers)

Completely redundant with Template:CompactTOC, and badly named. -- Netoholic @ 07:55, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

• Delete - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:CompactTOCwithnumbers2

(and redirect at MediaWiki:CompactTOCwithnumbers2)

Completely redundant with Template:CompactTOC2, and badly named. -- Netoholic @ 07:55, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

• Delete - David Gerard 13:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Taiwan-stub

(and the category Category:Taiwan-related stubs)

The flag of the Republic of China (ROC) is used in this template, and the articles linked to it can be ROC-related. Taiwan is not an accurate and NPOV terms to refer to the ROC, for neither the island of Taiwan nor the province of Taiwan covers 100% of ROC's territories.
Suggestions: rename as Template:ROC-stub (or Template:Republic of China-stub), or spliting into Template:ROC-stub and Template:Taiwan-stub.
(see also relevant discussions at Wikipedia:Requested moves) — Instantnood 19:20, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

• By nominating I support renaming as Template:ROC-stub. — Instantnood 19:21, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The term ROC is not commonly used (at least outside the US). Most people would just find it confusing. Keep with the less-confusing name (and change the flag if you wish!) jguk 19:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Taiwan" is not an accurate and NPOV title. And I don't think the wikipedians who have set up the conventions and placed the ROC article at Republic of China (but not Taiwan) are all from the states. — Instantnood 19:26, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• OPPOSE Calling "Taiwan" as a term to be POV is just like calling "Hong Kong" a POV. That template only needs to change the current logo into a logo with Taiwan island. I have been trying to look for a proper sized logo for that replacement. Does the template of China-sub imply all the Chinese people are Lizard? Certainly not. Is every single Chinese are Han and thus the decendence of the Dragon? Nope. Taiwan stub does not have to cover everything that has to be covered in Taiwan island. It only needs to cover Taiwan-realted topics. By your suggestion to enforce the NPOV policy upon Taiwan without pratical ambiguity, we might need to apply the same standard upon the China-stub too.Mababa 20:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Should stubs about Quemoy, Matsu and perhaps Pratas and Taiping be added the tag {{Taiwan-stub}}? — Instantnood 20:49, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
    • I would stand neutral if it split into ROC and Taiwan. Still, please also note that Taiwan is a name more representitive than ROC in all aspect. If we want to confuse people and make readers not able to recognize the political entity based on Taiwan, replacing Taiwan with ROC is the way to go.Mababa 07:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • "Taiwan" fails to represent the entirety of the territories under ROC's control. — Instantnood 11:13, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
        • Quemoy and Matsu could be classified as Taiwan-related since they are ruled by ROC, a government based in Taiwan. If you insist to separate Taiwan and ROC, I do not see a problem to split the two entities if a large overlapping in the two category is not a big deal to other Wikipedians.Mababa 00:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • The situation would be more complicated to include non-Taiwan-related topics as Taiwan-related. — Instantnood 11:21, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
            • I do not think contributers who are familiar with the geopolitics in this area would find it difficult to exert their fund of knowledge to make the appropriate discretion.Mababa 06:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • Very true. But this is an encyclopedia. — Instantnood 08:05 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)
                • That's exactly why people should be educated on what is Taiwan-related and Taiwan-unrelated.Mababa 04:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Gozo is politically part of Malta, even though it's not on Malta. Isla de Pinos is politically in Cuba even though it's not on Cuba. Quemoy is politically in Taiwan, even though it's not on Taiwan. Grutness|^hello?
          • Quemoy is not politically in a political entity named Taiwan. The only political entity named Taiwan that really exists is the province of Taiwan of the Republic of China. — Instantnood 07:48 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)
          • Quemoy is politically related to Taiwan since it is currently ruled by a government based in Taiwan.Mababa 04:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • But that's not a justification. Some pro-independence politicians do not regard the islands as part of their country. — Instantnood 07:06 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)
              • You're complicating the interpretation. My statement is neutral. No matter if those people do or do not consider the islands as part of their country, they are currently managed by the same government based on Taiwan-island. I am certain that you must know the fact: a large portion of Taiwnaese do not consider Taiwan to be part of China. Should we interpret the current usage of China category capping Taiwan-category as pro-unification/Chinese nationalism oriented and thus constitutes POV? These wordings all contains their political meaning in some aspects. I believe the content of these related articles should bear enough neutral knowledge for the readers to learn what is going on and make judgement without being politically brainwahsed. If we keep on quiblling over these trivials, I wonder when can we conclude this vote. China-stub is done, when do you think we can conclude on this one?Mababa 06:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                • Let me put it in this way. The Republic of China, then led by Kuomintang, retreated from mainland China, and continued its existence by controlling some islands in the East China Sea, the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait and along the coast of Fukien. It established a "provisional capital" in Taipei. It retained the legitimate representation of China at the United Nations until 1971, and maintained diplomatic relations with many countries as the sole representative of China until the late 1970s (and notably, with the United States until 1978). Not until the transfer of government from Kuomintang to DPP in 2000, Taiwan and the other islands are administered by a government led by a party from the mainland. In other words, Taiwan, together with the other islands, are part of this regime. Although this regime had then had based in Taiwan for more than half a decade, some of the other islands, namely Quemoy and Matsu, have never been part of any political entity named "Taiwan". They are, together with the island of Taiwan, part of this regime which bore the name "Republic of China".
• Suppot. ROC is shorter and more accurate. Neutrality^talk 21:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is only three letter shorter and not necessarily more accurate. I remember there are ~20 countries' name could be shortened as ROC.Mababa 07:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Would you mind giving some examples? The only one I could name is Republic of the Congo. — Instantnood 11:14, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
      • So the actual number is 11 excluding the ROC discussed here:

		Republic of Cyprus,Republic of Chile,Republic of Colombia,Republic of Cuba,Republic of Costa Rica,Republic of the Congo,Republic of Cameroon,Republic of Cape Verde,Republic of Chad,Republic of Cote d'Ivoire,Republic of Croatia.Using ROC to call Republic of China is not more accurate than using Taiwan.Mababa 00:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
	Is "ROC" a common acronym for any of the named countries? — Instantnood 11:22, Feb 20 2005 (UTC) possibly not, but is it a common abbreviation for Taiwan? The only time I've ever heard of ROC as an abbreviation, it was in psychophysics graphs (Type I and type II decision making processes), the Russian orthodox Church, or for Right of Centre politics. Grutness|hello? 04:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) On the packets of many of the products from Taiwan, "Product of Taiwan, R.O.C." is marked. — Instantnood 12:48 Feb 21 2005 (UTC) let me put the question a different way - is it used as an abbreviation for Taiwan anywhere except Taiwan? Grutness|hello? 05:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) Less and less products are labeled as "Product of Taiwan, R.O.C.", instead, more and more use Taiwan directly.Mababa 07:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) I am not from Taiwan and I do not know what is written on the packets of products for the domestic market. My observation is based on the packets of products exported. — Instantnood 07:49 Feb 24 2005 (UTC) You just need to purchase more.Mababa 04:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) Yes I know one some products, "R.O.C." is not written. That's why I said "on many of the products from Taiwan, "Product of Taiwan, R.O.C." is marked". — Instantnood 07:08 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)

strongly oppose. 1) Category:Taiwan-related stubs is a subcategory if Category:Taiwan. Taiwan is by far the more widely known name for the country/province. 2) By referring to it by its official name of "Republic of China", there will be more confusion, since the China People's Republic is also a "Republic of China". Grutness|^hello? 23:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• There are already Category:Republic of China and Category:Taiwan. The same rule should be applied. Only the current government in Taipei bears the official title of "Republic of China", but not the one in Beijing. — Instantnood 11:14, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and if you asked 100 people what the capital of the Republic of China was, 95 would probably say Beijing. (Well, quite a number would probably say Peking, but...). "Republic of China" is simply too confusing a name to use. (Perhaps China-Taipei would be a reasonable compromise, but that ignores everywhere except the capital). Grutness|^hello?
    • I could compromise to have the category titled "Republic of China (Taiwan)..." or "ROC (Taiwan)...". — Instantnood 11:23, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Courtland 23:59, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Oppose. --Viriditas | Talk 00:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Agree with Grutness. --jag123 17:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support Rename. "Taiwan" is ambiguous and imprecise. I personally prefer "Republic of China (Taiwan)stub" which is the most accurate wording. BlankVerse ∅ 05:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment What are being supported here? Changing name or supporting splitting the two entities, ROC and Taiwan? Though Taiwan and ROC overlaps greatly, the political implication and also the legal implication is entirely different. For a great population in Taiwan, they have differently meanings.Mababa 05:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggested both, although I guess renaming would perhaps be more practical at the time being. Taiwan is currently entirely administered by the ROC, but not all ROC-related topics are Taiwan-related. — Instantnood 06:07 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you suggenting that ROC governemt had a role in helping Dutch rule Taiwan? Or perhaps Japanese rule was a colloaboration between the two government? Not all Taiwan-related topics are ROC-related either.Mababa 06:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Splitting will be the most appropriate, but it's not practical at the time being. To create a new stub template/category, normally at least 100 stub articles are needed. (See WP:WSS#Policy) — Instantnood 06:48 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
        • Please apply the same standard toward your Hong Kong sub categories before calling on Taiwan stub.[1] All the HK stubs add up only meeting the criteria for creating merely one stub category. I do not see any reason why HK deserves six stub categories while Taiwan cannot have one.Mababa 03:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • They are already created, and it relies on the decision at WP:WSS/Criteria to have them merged and resorted. To have a new stub category, the requirements have to be fulfilled. — Instantnood 07:11 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the information. I think perhaps we should focus on the current proposal and see any consensus is reached. If not, we can go on and propose the ROC template as well. I do not see either way would be a problem.Mababa 08:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • You are welcome. You may also be interested to read the ongoing discussion concerning the stub and biostub template for Quebec-related topics. — Instantnood 08:13 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, for all the reasons other experienced Wikipedia editors of China/Taiwan-related topics state above. —Lowellian (talk) 09:07, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Your ridiculous nationalist POV-warring has even less place in Wikipedia's editorial space than in Wikipedia's article space. VOte to rename to Gdanszkig-stug - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Not all ROC-related topics are Taiwan-related, and vice versa. — Instantnood 10:48 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

Comment China-stub discussion is closed. Shall we also conclude this vote?Mababa 04:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:China-geo-stub

(and the category Category:China geography stubs)

Currently it covers geostubs of both mainland China and territories under the control of the Republic of China (ROC). Hong Kong geostubs are already covered by Template:Hong Kong-geo-stub.

The suggestion is to split the template into two, with the titles Template:Mainland China-geo-stub and Template:ROC-geo-stub (or Template:Republic of China-geo-stub) respectively. — Instantnood 20:56, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

There are currently 201 articles in the category of China geography stubs.

Two involves both mainland China and the ROC

• Taiwan Strait,
• Cathay,

16 are related to the ROC only

Chiayi, Chungli City, Cishan, Kaohsiung, Douliou City, Fongyuan, Fort Zeelandia (Taiwan),

Guanmiao, Tainan, Guantian, Tainan, Jhubei City, Jhudong, Hsinchu, Kenting National Park,

Tsoying, Wufong, Taichung, Xiaonanmen Branch, Yongkang City, Yunlin County,

and 183 are related to mainland China only. (No article is related to Hong Kong or Macao.) — Instantnood 19:03, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

Currently, most ROC stubs related to geography are listed at Category:Taiwan-related stubs instead of Category:China geography stubs. Probably people are hestitated to put on {{China-geo-stub}} tag on ROC geography stubs. — Instantnood 12:31 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

• By nominating I support spliting the template. — Instantnood 20:57, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
• strongly, violently, and vociferously oppose Many of the geography items in this category deal with both the Mainland and Taiwan. Many of the people working on expanding these items into full articles are working on items relating to both the Mainland and Taiwan. instantnood, you seem to fail to realise exactly what the purpose of stub templates is - to place small articles which need expansion into categories where they will be most easily accessible to the editors working in these fields. As such, the current schema works well. And if it ain't broke, why try to "fix it" so that it won't work as well? At the very least, shouldn't you run these suggestions past Wikiproject Stub Sorting? Grutness|^hello? 23:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There are currently 201 articles in the category of China geography stubs. Two involves both mainland China and the ROC, 14 are related to the ROC only, and 185 are related to mainland China only. No article is related to Hong Kong or Macao. I don't think readers would recognise Category:China geography stubs covers geostubs related to the ROC, until they read the notice on the of the category, or see category's link at an ROC-related article. — Instantnood 11:50, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Designating a large stub-category for deletion just to draw attention to it's need for splitting ( in your opinion ) is pretty close to vandalism, Insta. Courtland 23:55, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
  • Renaming for categories are done at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. I didn't know templates, or specifically stub categories, are dealt with different procedures. Thank you for telling. — Instantnood 11:52, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Viriditas | Talk 08:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Grutness. --jag123 17:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support split into [[Template:ROC-geo-stub|

]] and [[Template:PRC-geo-stub|

]]. Both are shorter, easier to type, and more accurate, folks. Neutrality^talk 20:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment: Hong Kong already has its own geo stubs template and category. It would be better to use "mainland China", a term that excludes Hong Kong and Macao from the rest of the PRC, than "PRC". — Instantnood 19:01, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hong Kong only has a separate category because there is a WikiProject:Hong Kong. If there was not, then these stubs would also be part of China-geo-stub. If Instantnood wants to start up his own WikiProject:Taiwan, then a separate stub category would be called for. As it is, he has pointed out several things - that people are using the stub category for Taiwan (as the 16 stubs show), that some of the stubs relate to both China PRC and Taiwan, and that there are too few Taiwan stubs to have a viable separate category. These are three very good reasons to keep the current category as is. Grutness|^hello?
    • I suppose you are referring to the fact that Hong Kong is covered by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Republic of China is also covered, but not Taiwan. — Instantnood 12:15 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I'm referring to the projects being run by the people on the Hong Kong Wikipedian noticeboard (it seems I was wrong in that they haven't set it up as a distinct WikiProject, however). Grutness|^hello? 03:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nationalist POV-warring idiocy. - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Not actually. Although {{China-geo-stub}} is supposed to be applied to ROC-related geostubs, but it had happened to be ROC-related geostubs are mostly tagged with {{Taiwan-stub}}. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#The China-Taiwan Mess. — Instantnood 10:54 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

A suggested compromise

The names of stub templates - in fact the names of templates in general - are only used by Wikipedia editors and aren't displated on the articles. Why not keep the names as they are at present, but amend the text of the templates? Hey Instantnood? Would that make you happier?Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Grutness|^hello? 03:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• However most ROC related geostubs are now added the {{Taiwan-stub}} tag and listed at category:Taiwan-related stubs, instead of {{China-geo-stub}} and category:China geography stubs. Although the names of the template are not displayed in the articles, the names of the categories are. — Instantnood 13:01 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and changing the text of the template would change the destination category of the stubs, would it not? Grutness|^hello?
    • Theoretically yes. If the template is changed to be linked to a category with another title. However there is a known bug of category linked by a template. Articles with the template stay in the previously linked category until they are edited.
      Nevertheless, creating a new stub template and category for ROC-related geostubs, and changing the stub category China geography stubs to category:Mainland China geography stubs can better solve the problem. — Instantnood 04:57 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
      • Currently the only problem is that you perceive the stub messages as being wrong. I was suggesting a way of keeping stub sorting working as is it is now (i.e., well), yet having a stub message more favourable to you. Seemed a good compromise. Changing and/or splitting stub categories (i.e., no compromise on your part) would create unnecessary stub categories changes and/or unneccessary new stub categories. Grutness|^hello? 06:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I understand. But as Mababa has mentioned, The frame of topics of ROC-related and Taiwan-related do not entirely overlap. Changing the wordings of the templates and the categories that the templates linked with would not solve the problem entirely. — Instantnood 08:03 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps we're both looking at this the wrong way. I' ve just looked in category:Taiwan-related stubs. Of the 80 articles in there, almost 70 should be in China-geo-stub. In which case, there has been some dreadful miscategorising going on. With 70 more Taiwan (RoC, whatever) geo-stubs, that should be enough for a separate geo-category. it would also mean that there are far too few Taiwan (yada yada)-related stubs for a viable category... This may need more thought over at WSS... Grutness|^hello? 11:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• That's very true indeed. And at the time when I was editing Taiping I found it difficult to tell which stub category should it be added to. — Instantnood 11:56 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)

Update: After some deep thought, more information coming to light, and seemingly endless wrangling on tfd, I've come up with a possible solution to the Taiwan/RoC and China/PRChina stub issues, which I've listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria. Please have a look and make any comments you see fit! Grutness|^hello? 11:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. — Instantnood 12:02 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)
  • No need to thank me - I'm still opposing your views! Grutness|^hello?

February 19

Template:Phys-stub

Currently a redirect to Template:Physics-stub, which was created since "phys-stub" was ambiguous (physiology? physics? etc). Since this is redundant, all articles have already been changed to use the new template. --jag123 17:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• delete. Ambiguous and unnecessary. BlankVerse ∅ 05:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 20

Template:Quebec-bio-stub

There are only a few articles using this, it can use the broader Canada-bio-stub. --Spinboy 06:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Quebec is a unique province, but I'm not convinced it requires a separate bio stub. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 13:39 Z
• Delete. Not covered in hierarchy of stub-sorting categories. Or rather, is covered - by canada-bio-stub. Unlikely there will ever be the 50+ stubs usually considered necessary to justify a separate category. And general consensus is that nationality should be further split into occupations rather than subnational divisions. Grutness|^hello? 03:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a useful distinction, and the category could easily be populated if more widely used. -- Curps 05:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that, as I said, this is contrary to the current consensus at stub sorting - or should Canada be categorised differently to othe countries? Grutness|^hello? 06:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Will there be stubs for every province in Canada, every state in the US or Australia, every county in England, etc.? Grammarian 21:39, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it's useful to editors - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Quebec-stub

Can use Canada-related-stub. Stub is unnecessary. --Spinboy 06:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support Merge back to Canada-stub and Canada-geo-stub. While the template has the potential to be a useful addition, there is no concerted effort from Quebec wikipedians (no wikiproject, no bulletin, no collaboration) to support it. Circeus 12:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) Keep I have just created the Quebec wikipedians' notice board which will certainly be able to make good use of it once the board has been sufficiently publicized. Circeus 18:43, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • They do have Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Quebec —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 13:39 Z
  • Like many other page, it is merely a list of topics. The CWNB has many of these page with listing by theme and areas. OTOH, we could consider, at the Wikiproject Stub Sorting, dividing the massive amount of Canada location stubs into provinces, like it is being considered for US states Circeus 02:57, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is being considered only in those states where there are separate WikiProjects (of which there are three). Currently there are several thousand US-stubs - there are 300 canada-stubs. Grutness|^hello? 04:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I was refering to Canada-geo-stub. Circeus 15:52, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • In which case, you should be talking about the nonexistent Quebec-geo-stub.
• Comment Do other Canadian provinces and territories have stub and biostub template? — Instantnood 12:55 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
  • None that I have seen. --Spinboy 17:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unlike Quebec-bio-stub, I think this template is/will be useful. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 13:39 Z
• Delete No call for separate category - Canada-stub is not hugely populated (about 300 items), and almost all of them relate to the country as a whole. Doubt this would reach the usual criteria either (see previous item on list). And no, Instantnood, other Provinces do not have their own stubs. Up until now, it hasn't been necessary to have them (and it isn't now, either). Grutness|^hello? 04:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a useful distinction, and the category could easily be populated if more widely used. -- Curps 05:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is only logical to have stubs for a given national culture, like Quebec's. Quebec matters experts are not necessarily Canada experts and vice-versa. A Quebec stub under the Canada-stub system is diluted and lost in a foreign subject pool. Again, I hope I do not have to remind people of the offensive nature of comparing Quebec with regional provinces or having it brought down under another national flag. --Liberlogos 18:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • so you'll also be wanting Basque-stub, Catalan-stub, Breton-stub, Corsica-stub, Kashmir-stub, Chechnya-stub, Somaliland-stub, Hawaii-stub, Newfoundland-stub, Padania-stub, Val d'Aoste-stub, Cornwall-stub, Occitan-stub, Nagorno-Karabakh-stub, and Karelia-stub, I take it? As for quebec experts, as Circeus pointed out, there is no wikiproject or similar. If there were one, it might make sense to keep this category. There isn't. Grutness|^hello? 04:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Quebec isn't a nation. --Spinboy 05:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As I stated higher, will there be stubs for every province in Canada, every state in the US or Australia, every county in England, etc.? Grammarian 21:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For a new stub, and even never regional notice board, there are already a couple of dozen articles in the Category:Quebec-related stubs (with another dozen in Category:People from Quebec stubs). I suggest that we give Circeus, Liberlogos, and any other Québécois a chance to see if the Quebec-stub can be useful. Let's give them a few months to find all the Quebec stubs that might be hidden among the stubs and substubs, and to also show that once identified, that they can turn some of the new Quebec stubs into full-fledged articles. BlankVerse ∅ 05:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it's useful to editors - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Liberal party

This reminds me of Wikiproject Alternative medicine spam. Those boxes spanning every single article deemed to be related to alternative medicine was deleted. Link to categories suffices.--Jiang 10:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• KeepI do not agree and I think this discussion we had earlier on Wikipedia. It helps to place an article in a more overall context. Category is not enough, since it links also to other related articles. --Gangulf 10:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• tentative keep, though possibly reworded; the top is awkward. --SPUI (talk) 12:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion? Gangulf 21:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — Instantnood 12:49 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Delete categories are sufficient. - SimonP 06:16, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While some of these aren't useful, I don't see what's wrong with this one. It's no different than creating a ==See also== section but as several pages would have the links a template makes sense. ( Personally, I hate the extra click to get into categories, then wade through a bunch of things that all probably need to get recategorized and barely knowing what's really related to the incomplete article I was just looking at. Anything to give readers an alternative to the category system seems to be a good thing, IMHO.) --Sketchee 07:40, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this sort of thing is why categories are here. Also, malformed name - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For a template the name is absolutely irrelevant, it is about the content. I agree totally with Sketchee on his argument. Some favor categories, others prefer other ways to browse Wikipedia. So having a template and a category is compatible. Gangulf 07:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:not child safe

Falsely implies that Wikipedia's content can be assumed to be child safe. Every page on Wikipedia contains a link to the content disclaimer, the relevant part of which is also summarised in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

delete, hopelessly POV. Got it in right as I was about to. --SPUI (talk) 12:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 12:30 Z

Delete. --Conti|✉ 14:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. See content filtering proposals on mailing list and meta. -- Karada 14:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is then {{Template:morbid warning}}? Just a content warning, on top of the page, not as User_talk:The_Anome#Template_not_child-safe suggested on the bottom. By the way, POV stands for (non-neutral) point of view. However the template was perfectly NPOV: the pages were not child-safe. --J heisenberg 12:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Child safe" is POV itself. Who says that descriptions of sexual activity or violence aren't child safe? --Dave2 15:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stating that descriptions of every sexual act is suitable for a child of any age is very POV. --J heisenberg 15:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not stating this though - not having any notice for "is not suitable for minors" is not the same as saying that "every sexual act is suitable for a child of any age". Different people have different views. I guarantee that just about anywhere that this template would be used there would be a dispute over its NPOVness. It's better just to avoid the whole mess and not have a template, IMO. --Dave2 17:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't avoid the mess, but takes up the most lax proposition: Everything visible to all. Certainly, some cases will be disputed, but on the whole, a consensus can be reached what is "adult" material and what isn't. Want to argue that this is child-safe/work safe? --J heisenberg 17:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to argue whether it is child/work safe or not. Different cultures have different views. I'm sure in some cultures, there would be no problem with showing that to kids. Hell, I don't particularly see any problem. It's not even a sexual act, it's merely a piece of someone's body. What, exactly, is wrong with a penis? However other people would think that it's not safe for kids (this group appears to include you). Likewise with work safe - one of my cousins worked in a place where goatse was work-safe - but to a lesser extent, as most workplaces have similar rules. Neither group is right or wrong, it's just different points of view. Hence why this template is, by its very existence, POV. --Dave2 18:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Curiously, neither CNN nor FOX News nor Guardian nor Der Spiegel would publish this on their web-site, even in an article on erotic piercing. I can't even think of a major news/info site that would.--J heisenberg 18:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which is beside the point. They are expected to censor themselves in this way. Wikipedia isn't. However the reason why these are censored is because the general viewpoint of the places that these organisations are based is that it should not be shown. Hence it still comes down to viewpoint. Note, however, that I imagine that Channel 4, for example, would not have any qualms about putting an image like that up on a show about erotic piercings. I don't see either one of us convincing the other to change their mind, however, so we'll have to agree to disagree. --Dave2 19:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree to disagree. Just shows that here is one point where WP has very significant bias. Way more than in politics--J heisenberg 19:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV. The content disclaimer already covers this, as well. --Dave2 15:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Davenbelle 15:32, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, more POV then previous templates. User:Oven Fresh/sig 16:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this POV crap. Vacuum c 17:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless at best, and more accurately highly misleading. James F. (talk) 17:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This deserves to leave skid marks on the bowl. →Raul654 17:34, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, individual and cultural POV.--Oldak Quill 18:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Not that we need another delete vote, but delete. POV. -Seth Mahoney 19:09, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Based on societal perceptions of what's proper for children. – flamurai (t) 05:23, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this POV-pushing - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete, inherently POV. IMHO the Prince Albert piercing picture is apropriate viewing for children, and I would much rather they watched a TV program showing that than one with even half the violence that is in a film like Home Alone. Thryduulf 23:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:morbid warning

No content censorship; information needed for downstream content selection should be possible to obtain from category information, not templates. --J heisenberg 12:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. See Talk:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 13:39 Z

Note that I'm not against a link to the no-pic page, just against a special template. --J heisenberg 13:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is a template such a bad thing? The template simplifies the process if future articles to do the same. And by the way, Oral sex isn't one of those articles. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 14:15 Z

Putting a big blue (green?) template indicates that pictures on this page are somehow crazily offending. Someone from other cultures might find them something normal, while finding pics in Oral sex offending. Everything above a one-liner is POV (IMO). I'll try to edit the Template to make it one line. A title change would be good too, since "morbid" is weaselly. Maybe "offensive content"? --J heisenberg 14:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with J Heisenberg; also, this template encourages article forking, which is a bad thing. Please see the proposals for content filtering / image linking on meta, which aim to address all of these problems. -- Karada 14:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it prevents article forking. Try editing the no picures version: it's derived from the top of the article page. Cool Hand Luke 14:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Template is nice for the no pictures page, although it could work without it (we could have a bar that says something like what's at the top of my user page, for example). Feel free to replace "potentially morbid" with something you find less weasily. Cool Hand Luke 14:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep for now. A page that requires this template has survived VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete post haste. This is nonsense. →Raul654 15:16, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sorry, but most users aren't going to receive a favorable impression of Wikipedia if they are surprised with a severed head. Vacuum c 17:19, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User:Oven Fresh/sig 17:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this discussion has already occurred once, and it was decided that this is OK (used very sparingly). User:Rdsmith4/Sig 18:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - utter POV rubbish. --Oldak Quill 18:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. -Seth Mahoney 20:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this attempt at POV nannyism, before I get tempted to add it to George W. Bush. Grutness|^hello? 04:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — wrong, wrong, wrong; per all above deletes; — Davenbelle 04:54, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Jirate 04:59, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
• Delete. "Morbid" and "offensive" are POV terms. Specific pages should use specific, objective wording: i.e., for the Abu Ghraib page, "This page displays uncensored photographs of people being tortured, nude people, and a human corpse. For a version without these photographs, see ..." – flamurai (t) 05:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that this "no pictures" process is inherently POV, however, I believe it's needed in certain circumstances. Perhaps we could create some sort of guideline as to when this procedure is necessary. For example, take a poll, and if x percent of those polled believe a "no pictures" version is needed, then it should be used. You're ignoring the fact that it's also POV to think that everyone expects Wikipedia to contain photographs like this. They should not be censored, but people should be warned in extreme situations and given the option to view a version without images. – flamurai (t) 05:22, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for POVness. Tuf-Kat 21:54, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this POV-pushing - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wi

• I don't get the point in this: (1) All the information it displays is already in MediaWiki:Noarticletext; (2) Everything you ever want to put in here you better put in either MediaWiki:Noarticletext or the text that appears when you edit a non-existent page (forgot the MediaWiki name); (3) Keeping articles around with only "{{wi}}" in them bloats the DB unnecessarily; (4) Makes links appear blue when an article doesn't actually exist. — Summary: Useless, redundant, should be deleted. — Timwi 12:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  (1) and (2) are wrong. Noarticletext appears for all articles, whether a relevant page exists on Wiktionary or not. {{wi}} is used when we know wiktionary is appropriate. Re (3) ... this really isn't an issue in the grand scheme of things... we only use this templates when a vfd vote has shown we want to move to wiktionary... re (4) there has been some discussion about whether a different colour could be used but it was not considered an important enough thing to change the db scheme for.

• Keep. See Wikipedia:Soft redirect. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 13:39 Z
• Keep, nominator underestimates usefulness. Pcb21| Pete 15:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. User:Oven Fresh/sig 17:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Scrap this trash. Vacuum c 16:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Are people so rude to you about your contributions? Please explain why you think this is "trash", particularly as Markaci and myself have give clear indications why it is actually useful? Pcb21| Pete 19:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I disagree that (1) is invalid as I have encountered a number of {{wi}} pages that pointed to blank Wiktionary entries. Also it floods short pages. - SimonP 06:13, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've not noticed any cases of that sort myself, and even if it has happened deleting the whole template seems like a rather alarming case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Even before people went round systematically removing uses of this template it never "flooded" shortpages by itself - that page has basically been unusable for lots of other reasons for ages. Pcb21| Pete 17:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I go through shortpages every day, which is why I run into so many erroneous uses of This template. - SimonP 21:46, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Translate

Links to Google translations didn't used to work, due to bug 361. This has now been fixed, making Template:Translate no longer necessary. No article is currently using the template. Angela. 15:55, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete redundant - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 21

Template:Findincommons

Redundant now that all Commons images have a text caption with a link to the original version (see, for example, Image:LakeOkutamaAerPhTyoJp76-01.jpg). -- Netoholic @ 19:21, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

• Delete - now redundant. Thryduulf 23:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sisterproject

Relisting. This is a "meta-template" created to be used on the Sister projects linking templates. Since it was first listed here, though, a page describing the negative side-effects of using meta-templates has been developed, with input from our primary database admin, User:Jamesday. The only use of this lately has been by its creator, where he's been continuing to edit war by re-inserting it into the templates, in spite of the negative side-effects, such as caching problems and database load. -- Netoholic @ 19:21, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

• Keep. Neutrality^talk 00:41, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The server load caused by editing this is no worse than that caused by editing every template that uses this style. Goplat 03:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Jamesday, our primary database admin, disagrees, and frankly should know better than anyone else. -- Netoholic @ 04:50, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
• Keep. Using meta-templates is the simplest method of ensuring a consistent format across a group of similar templates, and using the "subst:" feature when creating the "daughter" templates gets rid of the problems mentioned at the Wikipedia thinktank article WP:Meta-templates are considered harmful by Netoholic. BlankVerse ∅ 04:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, then I'd point out that the "daughter" templates have already been converted, and this template can now be deleted. It need not remain just to provide future "subst:" functionality, since it is far better to just copy an existing one or document the basic format on the project page. It seems obscure to keep a template just to perform subst:. In fact, on some templates, subst: will fail to generate properly when there are extra parameters (sometimes, it just breaks), meaning you have to rework it anyway. -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been up for deletion before and voted to be kept with an overwhelming majority. A survey has decided (with a smaller majority) that it should be used. Netoholic's determined that his formatting should be used, and disregards all other opinions. — Itai (f&t) 19:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Previous votes don't matter when new information is presented. Your survey on the talk page was improperly run from the start (which I pointed out), and holds no sway over this. Were it not for the documented technical problems raised by its use, I'd have no quarrel. The fact of life is that your template has no beneficial use. -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
• Keep and keep - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 23

Template:reproductive system

• Delete. Redundant, all articles already in category. Neutrality^talk 00:41, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that this template is a good example of how a navigational template can work better than a See also section, or using Categories. It covers a reasonable number of closely related articles without being too large, and it nicely divides the articles into those for the female and male reproductive systems. I also think that a navigational template is appropriate for this particular topic since many of the people who are looking up information on one part of the reproductive system will then want to move on to look at information on another part of the reproductive system. BlankVerse ∅ 04:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is actually a good example of how to use these templates. →Raul654 21:22, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 04:35, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Snowspinner 04:59, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Is handy and compact. Also, here is solution to POV problem: add third line for any Intersex issues. WpZurp 05:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful and stated problems are eminently fixable - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep excellent example of this type of template. Thryduulf 23:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not really comparible to a category. This seems much more intuitive alternative for browsing, IMHO. If it is POV, edit it. --Sketchee 00:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox European regions

This template is based on the premise that phrases such as "Western Europe" and "Southern Europe" have precise meanings that statistics can be compiled for. Despite repeated requests, the creator of this template has failed to justify this premise. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Johan Magnus 13:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's only so much excessive insistence on how things are black and white (or that nuances can be strictly enumerated) that the region pages can take... --Joy [shallot] 00:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sectstub

No no no! We do not need to marking individual sections as stubs. Articles are stubs, not sections. Dump this nonsense. →Raul654 15:24, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

• It is a bit of a misnomer, but I think we do need a template to mark sections for expansion (but only one). Move/Merge to Template:Expandsect. -- Netoholic @ 15:36, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
• Comments: Actually there are currently four templates for inadequate article sections since Template:Stubsection redirects to Template:Expandsect, and there is also Template:Sect-stub (which requires a section #). There should be only one, but both Template:Sectstub and Template:Expandsect leave much to be desired. Template:Expandsect, for example, links to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, although none of the articles that I looked at that used the template were listed on that page (and it is probably inappropriate to list just sections there anyway). That template is also way too wordy so it is usually larger than the rest of the text in the section it is put into. On the other hand, I think that the graphic included with Template:Sectstub calls too much attention to the notice to itself and should be further shrunk or removed from the template. In my opinion, there should probably a new template (Template:Expandsection ? — an easier to remember name), with wording something like: "note: this article section should be expanded. You can help Wikipedia by editing it.". Also, this notice should always be put at the bottom of the section instead of at the top where most of the current ones are located. BlankVerse ∅ 21:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think your suggestions are good, and you should feel free to adjust Template:Expandsect (in other words, creating a fifth template "expandsection" seems unnecessary). -- Netoholic @ 03:18, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
• More comments: I've started wondering about the utility of any of the four section-stub/expand templates. Where you would think that they would be mostly likely be used is for articles using a common format with predetermined sections (countries, cities, computer game characters, etc.), but in almost all of those articles the empty section(s) are just left blank with no template added. However, I think that is a good enough indicator of here is a section that needs to be filled out that it doesn't need any other notice (although those articles should probably get a category added to help those Wikipedia editors who like to the grunt work of fixing articles with problems—something like Category:City article with empty section). For all of the other articles with inadequate sections, it would be much better to explain the problem in more detail, saying what is missing and what should be done in a ToDo list on the article's Talk page. Occasionally it might be nice to have a notice on the article's Main page (something like: "note: this article section should be expanded. Please see this article's [Talk page].", but in most cases even that is not needed. I can also envision too many Wikipedia editors just adding that template without adding the ToDo information on the Talk page. My current opinion, then, is to delete all four section-stub/expand templates. BlankVerse ∅ 20:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merging with the expansion template is okay, but it shouldn't be deleted altogether. Marking inadequate sections as such is a good thing. --Joy [shallot] 00:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Bad idea. Delete - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 24

Template:vfd votes

Template:Vfd votes This template is highly counter-productive, and encourages a "voting" mentality instead of a discussion mentality, exactly what we don't want. Please see WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy, WP:GVFD#Discussion, m:Don't vote on everything, and the many times that administrators have been annoyed by this sort of thing (the latest that I've personally encountered was Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Logarithmic timeline of current events). If reference to policy and to meta don't convince you that this is a very bad idea for WP:VFD, then I have five further words for you to consider that might: WP:TFD may well be next. Uncle G 22:05, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

• Keep and allow for organic template growth. GRider\^talk 22:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Uncle G on principle. -- Netoholic @ 23:09, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
• Delete and allow for organic decay. ;) Agree with Uncle G's arguments. Carrp | Talk 23:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Uncle G's "arguments" to the fullest. A small box tallying up keep/delete votes does not prohibit nor discourage discussion in the least. Has any official study been conducted to verify this claim, or is this a totally baseless assumption? If anything at all, a quick concensus summary encourages and fosters further discussion. I've yet to see any real evidence on the contrary. GRider\^talk 00:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vote-counting in the middle of a VfD itself inevitably leads to arguments as to whose vote counts as what (i.e. "I said merge and redirect, not keep or delete"), and whether or not certain users' votes (new users and anons, mostly) do or do not count. More importantly, the count isn't auto-updating, so the admin who handles the VfD after it concludes has to count the votes anyway, regardless of the theoretical usefulness of this template. -Sean Curtin 03:58, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the template could auto-update, an admin would still have to count votes to gauge sock-puppetish votes, votes to merge or redirect or transwiki, or other irregularities. If it doesn't auto-update, then entering the final numbers is just one more step in the closing process. As Uncle G pointed out, WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_democracy, so the number of votes isn't the only factor that is examined. Joyous 04:30, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Helps keeps us admins honest. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There have been a few times when looking at v-e-r-y long VfD discussions that I have wished that there was some sort of tally of the votes. On the other hand, there is already enough vote stuffing, sock puppetry, and other shenanigans in the VfD process, and this template would only encourage that. BlankVerse ∅ 09:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The title "Votes for Deletion" is misleading enough. A template like this perpetuates the misconception. It also has the problem that in most discussions, counting votes is not required and thus the template is not needed. However, the few discussions where actual counting is needed are exactly those where the acting sysop needs to exercise judgement, perform due diligence inspecting user contribution records, etc. These are just the ones where a casual semi-mechanical tally is least helpful. It also can lead to contention when the apparent "vote tally" does not concord with the sysop's judgement. And, finally, it lends itself to misinterpretation as a kind of "scoreboard" and invites factions to monitor VfD to see whether they are "winning" or "losing" and call in outside reinforcements. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We can do without this, for reasons given above and also because there's a lot of work needed just to decide how to do it properly, for no obvious benefit. See this for an example. The vote is given as 1:6 in favour of deletion, a clear consensus, but that's only because three merge and redir votes aren't counted at all. Andrewa 21:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although this template is well intended, it can be subjected to abuse. Besides, I am certain that administrators know how to count when they conclude the debate. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 22:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Count votes at the end not the middle. --Henrygb 10:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above reasons. jni 17:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Uncle G and User:Dpbsmith. cesarb 00:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Its the reasons that are important not the numbers. Thryduulf 23:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Audio format

This is redundant with template:listen →Raul654 22:50, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - While not exactly redundant, I don't see the value in it. -- Netoholic @ 23:14, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
• Keep. This template is intended to be used when there are multiple consecutive audio files. In this case, stacked listen templates look unappealing and give a lot of redundant information. Compare this current version to this old version. – flamurai (t) 23:17, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh, multiple music files is what template:multi-listen is for (which is, admittedly, still under development). This template is neither of them. →Raul654 02:43, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • These templates have been created with no consensus and they are not heavily used. What makes your method any better than my method? This is something so universal that I feel there needs to be discussion on it, not just two users creating things and forcing their will onto the rest of the encyclopedia. – flamurai (t) 04:03, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I feel insulted that Raul and I are being said to be "forcing their will on the rest of the encyclopedia" and that we are acting "without consensus". What happened to Wikipedia:Be bold? Have I reverted or got into an edit war with you over the template? What exactly do you think is going on, on Template talk:Listen? Dysprosia 10:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a silly little template? Both of them are! Why are people getting upset about these things?! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Deletable, redundant - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Please speedy this. The listen template is okay in its current form. – flamurai (t) 22:50, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

February 25

Template:Substub

An article should be either a stub or a speedy deletion candidate. This template is instruction creep, and should not have been created in the first place. →Raul654 18:38, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, And while you're at it, get rid of all the other stubs too. Yes they provide nice categorization but at the cost of server resources. {{stub}} should be more than enough for any article in my humble opinion. Inter 18:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It is large categories with too many articles (such as Category:stub) that cause a large hit on database performance. The stub category grew to be so huge, and such a drag on the servers, that it was removed from the Template:Stub for a long time (there are currently over 15,000 articles with the stub template). According to one of the developers, User:Jamesday, the goal for the developers is to have each category under 500 articles, and having the stub category divided into topic stubs is beneficial. BlankVerse ∅ 21:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with BlankVerse. The stub subcategories are far less of a drain on the servers than having one big stub category. And it makes the stubs easier for editors to find. Grutness|^hello?
• Delete. Presents a POV which happens to run counter to Wikipedia deletion policy as generally understood. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia is filled with very stubby articles that don't quite fit the criteria for Speedy Deletion. Unfortunately (again), way too many of those articles would never reach a consensus for deletion if put though the VfD process (and would swamp VfD if anyone actually started nominating a large percentage of the 3,000+ substubs). Many of the substubs are good "merge and redirect" candidates, but until that happens (or someone changes the substub into a topic stub), it is probably best to leave them as substubs. BlankVerse ∅ 21:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 22:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Though I agree that substub is a useless distinction, I vote keep - for now. However, I also vote that mention of substub be removed from Wikipedia's "How to" pages for newbies and from its lists of templates. Having those articls available for stub sorting is very useful - to delete the template would consign those articles to the unfindable void (unless they are all changed to stub - a huge drain on servers). Far more useful is to somehow keep those items available and discourage people from using the template (at least in part by hiding it). Significantly reduce the number of articles in Category:Substub, then we can kill the template. Grutness|^hello? 00:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - some articles are most definitely substubs. Can't agree with deleting this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - can we say "don't shoot the messenger?" --Joy [shallot] 00:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User:Oven Fresh/sig 03:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Stubs need to be distinct from substubs. Andros 1337 03:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A stub is a stub is a stub. Snowspinner 06:17, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this, but delete every other stub type as unneeded clutter. - SimonP 06:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Need something for "worse than a stub". --Henrygb 10:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A stub is a stub. Categorised stubs (e.g. Template:Bio-stub) are useful for people interested in a subject area, but this isn't - David Gerard 13:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a grey area between stubs and CSDs. Expand the definition of either set first, preferably by deleting few thousand random substubs, and I reconsider this vote. jni 17:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Henrygb mentions, something for "worse than a stub" makes articles that are very short be more likely to be expanded. I see no reason why articles can't be listed as (eg) both Actor-stub and Sub-stub. — OwenBlacker 19:34, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Since I became aware of this vote (earlier today) I've been flipping through the sub-stubs and finding that a) very many can be categorized to existing stub categories other than general-stub, b) very many could, in fact, be merged into larger articles (or stubs) that already exist, and c) as pointed out before, few meet the speedy deletion criteria. In my opinion, the best fate for a sub-stub that is not a candidate for speedy delete is a merge into a larger article or stub rather than re-categorization. However, the number is so vast that this isn't immediately practical, unfortunately Courtland 19:37, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
• Delete - does not help with classification as other stub subcategories do. -Sean Curtin 00:49, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been discussed to death on Wikipedia talk:Substub for months already... Anyway a lot of stubs seem pretty complete compared to some of the articles listed here. Ideally all the substubs would become full articles (or merged or deleted as is appropriate). However that's unrealistic in the short term. For now I'd probably favor categorized articles. Category:Substubs already recommends interest related stubs over the use of sub and substub. If we're talking about dumping hundreds (thousands) of articles into the general stubs category, then I still have to say the split will help. These articles probably need more attention than the average stub anyway. --Sketchee 06:59, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All substubs could either be: merged, deleted, tagged as a stub, moved to Wiktionary, etc. No need for yet another type of stub. --jag123 20:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. When I see a substub, I know that I should add information to it (if I can) with a certain amount of urgency. When I see a stub, I think, okay, whatever, it's not a complete article yet, no big deal. There's quite a difference — a stub is maybe a decent short paragraph, while a substub might be a sentence fragment. QuartierLatin1968 15:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A request

If the vote is for delete, I would like to request that I be able to compile a list of the articles in the category before the template is removed from them, in order to keep the names of these 3100 articles available to the stub-sorting project. Grutness|^hello? 12:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the event of a final delete decision, I think there would be enough people to actually put together a WikiProject aimed at depopulating the template; the task is large enough, I would think. Or am I misinterpreting the scope and purpose of WikiProjects in general? I certainly wouldn't suggest the template being deleted prior to a "major offensive" of this type. Courtland 00:03, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

template:technical

Another pointless cleanup-type template. →Raul654 18:44, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Any template which makes assumptions about the reader, positively or negatively, should at the very least be rewritten. But this one is just pointless. Inter 19:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Or redirect to {{attention}}. BlankVerse ∅ 21:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redundant with Template:Cleanup-technical. Delete. -Sean Curtin 23:49, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

February 26

Template:Nintendoitems

This template is futile. It is not exhaustive, and has no chance of ever becoming exhaustive, due to the sheer number of Nintendo titles, and the thousands of "items" found in these. Besides, the assumption that anyone looking at Mr. Saturn would be interested in Rare Candy is rather dubious. Phils 11:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete with savageness. Snowspinner 22:00, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - SimonP 16:37, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It reeks of "game guide content", and it should be on wikibooks instead - no wait, we don't have a wikibook on it, and it would be inappropriate to have a template on it there... kelvSYC 19:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, it's pretty silly. Delete. Andre (talk) 21:43, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Seems pretty broad. If we really wanted it, then Pokeball would go with Pokemon and Fire Flower with Mario. Items ... from games ... that were made by Nintendo? That's a Delete. (Or move to Universe Earth Video Game Nintendo Items!) ;D --Sketchee 06:32, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as really bad idea - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Toronto landmarks

What is a landmark is inherently POV, and a template listing all the structures someone considers a landmark in a city the size of Toronto would be vast. - SimonP 16:39, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

• it should be altered, not deleted -- how about changing its name to "Toronto structures" or "Toronto buildings" or "Toronto locations" or "Places in Toronto"? Paradiso 20:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Useful and problems should be fixable - David Gerard 13:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ditto David Gerard. If somebody disputes whether something's a landmark, we should probably err on the side of inclusivity unless there's a compelling reason not to. But looking over the list, I really don't see much cause for grief. QuartierLatin1968 15:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:listdev or Template:expand list

Surely we don't need both of these - of the two, I'd prefer to keep listdev (quicker to type, to start with). And what's up with this page? Green??? Grutness|^hello? 23:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep listdev. It has the stubby icon that satisfies in part the desire of some to label such lists with a stub template as well, and it is easier to type, agreed. Should use a bot to do the merger from one to the other. Also, I think that a new icon, like a receipt tape raggedly torn off, might be good. Note that the recommendation @ Wikipedia:Incomplete_lists is for "expand list". Courtland 03:30, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
• Keep listdev: My personal opinion is that I would rather not see any icon with this particular template. Delete Template:expand list, and Template:Stublist, and either Rewrite or Delete Template:Dynamic list. There probably needs to be a separate template for lists that only ocassionally need to be updated (e.g. Wimbledon champions (Men's Singles)), but most of the lists where the dynamic list template is currently being used don't fit that description. BlankVerse ∅ 07:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep only listdev. I also agree with BlankVerse's suggestions above. -Sean Curtin 23:27, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

February 27

Template:Fictional Setting

An article's context should be made plainly obvious in the actual text of the article, not in an obtrusive template. This is at best redundant with the intro to any article that would use it, and at the absolute worst an excuse to omit context in the article itself. -Sean Curtin 01:09, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Very weak keep: The text for this template is awkward and confusing, so it desperately needs to be rewritten. Furthermore, articles in the Wikipedia should not need to have such a template. On the other hand, when I've looked through the stubs and substubs on the Wikipedia, I've stumbling upon way too many bits of fancruft that did not make it clear from the beginning that the article was about a fictional setting, so maybe this template really is necessary. BlankVerse ∅ 06:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the style manuals already say we need to make this clear in the introduction. This is a little too much clutter. -- Netoholic @ 13:26, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
  • The problem with the Wikipedia style manual is that both Wikipedia newbies and veteran editors rarely follow the manual that closely—except when they want to quote from it as a blunt weapon in an edit war. I think that if the Fictional Setting template is kept, that it should be made clear that it should only be used when the article does not make it clear that it is about a fictional setting, and then only kept until the article has been rewritten, so the template will be essentially a specialized {attention} template for problematic fancruft. BlankVerse ∅ 20:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That's what Template:Fiction is for; we don't need a more specialized version of that cleanup tag. I haven't checked all of the articles that use the template in question, but the ones that I checked already started with words to the effect of "in fiction context X, [aricle name] is...". -Sean Curtin 23:20, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

February 28

Template:buddhism

You have already deleted the imitation, Template:CamMenu, now here is your chance to delete the original.

See September 13, 2004 tfd history below,

*Template:CamMenu - More MNH alternative medicine spamming and an attempt to put in a lever to edit lots of articles at once without it showing in recent changes. Redundant with the category, to say the least - David Gerard 11:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Delete. Snowspinner 17:33, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

**delete. --Jiang 20:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Delete. CryptoDerk 22:50, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

The same dumb reason should apply since only the subject matter differs- Spamming and an attempt to put in a lever to edit lots of articles at once without it showing in recent changes. Redundant with the category, to say the least.

To update the argument against this particular template: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes says that this template is a prohibited article series box because the Buddha articles do not form a complete linear series. Snowspinner has this thing about non-complete linear series being used in an article series box. "The importance of the subject matter is not a consideration" according to Snowspinner's Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes guidelines. Sorry, but the Buddha articles simply don't have a natural ordering. -- John Gohde 12:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• See WP:POINT. Keep - David Gerard 04:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Which is to say, Keep until a reason that's not sour grapes is offered. Snowspinner 04:29, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC) Still keep. This comes to the limits of what I can accept as an ordered list, but it's barely within the mark. Snowspinner 23:25, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What is true for one template is also true for an identical template on another topic, unless of course the first template was deleted for bogus reasons. -- John Gohde 05:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and someone set up a cage match for John and Snowspinner to keep them out of the rest of wikipedia. Night Gyr 09:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. John Gohde's point regarding deletion of the article List of Buddhist topics may have merit (see here for his deletion nomination for that article), but deleting both would be bad form, IMO. The template is the standard unifying structure developed for most religions. And well needed, again IMO. HyperZonk^talk 17:38, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Originally I wanted to get rid of it too, but thinking about it now I do believe it adds some much needed structure. Buddhism in particular is so varied that this mechanism, despite being a super-kludge, is required to maintain any sort of serious interconnectivity within articles. Related articles is simply too full of holes (and time consuming to re-copy!) in many cases. prat 00:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Holding Cell

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (admin or otherwise) should remove them from pages so that they can be deleted. If you've cleared a page, note it here.

• Template:Sejm Marshals
  • Is this really to be deleted? It has no {TfD] tag, and a large number of pages link to it. Noel (talk) 20:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, so whoever moved it to the holding cell needs a spanking. I've put the discussion on the template talk page. (The Divide has been done already) — MikeX (talk) 20:51, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Template:1930s U.S. military aircraft by type

Still used on a few pages. Needs to replaced with Template:military aircraft by decade2.

Need depopulation before removal

• Template:1, Template:2, Template:3, Template:4, Template:5, Template:6 - These are no longer necessary in MediaWiki 1.4, since it doesn't interpret the {{1}} inside {{{1}}} as a template. Goplat 07:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Delete all -- Patrick 10:24, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all --Evice 00:11, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • I went to delete these, and a zillion things use them (well, I only checked 1, 2, and 6, but even 6 has a good number, so I'm sure the rest must too). So, waiting for them to be depopulated. Noel (talk) 17:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Those are false-positives. Those pages/templates haven't been edited since the MediaWiki upgrade, so there is a leftover "link" to these templates. -- Netoholic @ 18:47, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
      • Ah, got it. I wonder if doing a cache flush (with "&action=purge") will update the links table. I wonder if any pages use these templates for other reasons, or are we sure that all the link entries are these false-positives? Noel (talk) 16:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • No, you have to do a "null-edit" to each article (open it, then save without making changes) to refresh the links. I used to have a bot that could do that... :) -- Netoholic @ 17:45, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
        • Right, that bug (and all the related ones - categories have a similar set) is really a PITA. The right fix is that extra links table, though, so until someone tackles adding that we'll have to live with the consequences. I did look idly through part of the lists of linked articles (ignoring templates), and all the handful I found using any of these templates were the results of errors, so I'd guess it is safe to go ahead and delete them. Certainly, anything that is using them for real will blow up, because the TfD notice will screw up the syntax. So, I'd say, let's just be lazy and take the easiest way of all out - just wait a while and see if anyone reports any errors, and if not, zap. There's no urgency to get rid of them, I don't think. Noel (talk) 20:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ready to remove entirely

• Template:CompactTOC (external links)
  • Clear BlankVerse 09:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Has block-compressed versions in history, delete on hold. Noel (talk) 16:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There's a Template:Pending deletion for these. -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Template:CompactTOC (see also)
  • Also clear, but also on delete hold. Noel (talk) 16:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Template:CompactTOCallplustwo2
  • Ditto. Noel (talk) 16:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Template:Aboutwikipedia
  • This can't be deleted at present due to a software flaw. Snowspinner 01:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Same block-compressed issue as the ones above. Noel (talk) 02:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Template:Bookshelf- block-compressed revisions. I have rmv'd all linking pages and logged it (preemptively). -Frazzydee|✍ 23:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Template:Cowstub, block-compressed da da da. I've subst'd it on to (all?) of the pages it was on, because IIRC it wasn't ever used seriously. It's on a bunch of BJAODN pages, and I think it does belong there, and should be preserved. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Convert to category