Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

This page deals only with deleting templates (anything in the Template namespace). Templates are used, for example, to create reusable boilerplate messages and article series boxes. Please see Wikipedia:Template namespace.

On this page, templates that are nominated for deletion are discussed and voted on, preferably to reach consensus. Like WP:VfD, this forum is more about discussion than about voting, so please tell us why you vote in a certain way so that you may convince others.

Deletion criteria

Deletion of templates may be appropriate if the template does not conform to the following.

• Templates should be helpful and noteworthy;
• Templated should not be redundant;
• Templates should be used;
• Templates should not be POV;
• Templates should not generally be used within other templates -- however single use subtemplates are acceptable

If you want a template changed or reworded, or its layout changed, please discuss that on the template's talk page rather than listing it for deletion here.

Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion if either a general consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised. Such templates are then either unlisted and kept, or listed at the bottom for deprecation and deletion.

Archived discussions are logged per the instructions at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log, and are located at /Log/Deleted and /Log/Not deleted.

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

Voting and discussion

Anyone can vote, but please give a reason when doing so. Please explain how, in your opinion, the Template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual vote (i.e. Keep or Delete).

Nominating stub templates for deletion is perfectly valid here - the votes at WP:WSS do not have deletion priviliges. Templates that reside in userspace should instead be nominated on the regular WP:VFD page, but please note that Wikipedia is very lenient about userspace.

Examples of votes

• Keep
• Delete
• Convert to category (categorify); to indicate that you feel that all pages containing this (article series box) template should be moved into a single category. The template can then be deleted.
• Convert to list (listify); to indicate that you feel that all pages containing this (article series box) template should be moved into a single list. The template can then be deleted.
• Redirect redirect to more popular or fitting title.
• Rewrite suggests that the template serves a purpose (thus should be kept), and that it could do this more elegantly.
• Retitle / rename / move; usually for offensive or otherwise poorly chosen titles.
• Userfy suggests that the template should be moved to a user's subpage. Used for personal templates.
• Subst: single-use templates can be replaced by the template values by using the subst: parameter in the template (e.g. {{subst:templatename}}). Then the template can be deleted.
• BJAODN Copy to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense before deletion.

How to list templates for deletion

Wikipedia:Votes (articles) for deletion.

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.

To list an article/page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted)

I.	Edit PageName.   Enter the following text in the top of the template: {{subst:tfd|Pagename}} Be sure to include "subst:", not just {{tfd}}; this is easier on the servers. Please include "Tfd" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. Also, try to minimise page disruption, by using the Preview button to check the revised template, as its new look will be visible on all pages that use it. If adding the tag interferes with the template in use, remove it at once and place it on the nominatied template's talk page instead. Do not blank the template.
II.	Create its TfD subsection.   You willl have to create a section on the Templates for deletion page, under the subheading for 'today's date' (June 5). You may have to create the heading for today's date. Add this text to the section, at the top: ==== [[Template:templatename]]==== '''Your vote''': Your reason for nominating the template ~~~~ Suggest what action should be taken for the template.
III.	Give due notice.   Add {{subst:tfdnotice|Templatename}} on relevant talk pages, which will create a section, warning other editors.

Also consider adding to your watchlist any articles you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that your TfD tag is not removed without being replaced on the nominated template's talk page.

Listings

Please put new listings under today's date at the top of the section.

June 2

Template:Wikicode

I created and used this template at a time at which I thought that the idea of a standard pseudocode might actually be adopted. Since then it's become clear that the community is vehemently opposed to the idea of a standard pseudocode, particularly this one, and I would very much like to erase every vestige of it from the article namespace, which means mainly every use of this template. Deco 19:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete exactly as Deco said. -- Taku 01:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pseudocode needn't be formalized. --MarSch 11:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mutate. IMHO, standard means wikicode has become a language, and using it is as good/bad/POV/NPOV as using any other one. The 'problem' of having many languages remains. It would be great if the reader could choose to see everything in his favorite language. This would require some tweaking in the engines of wikipedia, I guess. --Comocomocomocomo 11:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Sub

Template which reduces number of keystrokes to subscript, mainly used for chemical formulas. Should be substituted, but that defeats the purpose. Thus use copy paste tactics and delete this template.--MarSch 16:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: I didn't know about this template, but now that I do, and assuming it'll survive Tfd, I think I'm going to use it often. -- Ec5618 09:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain but this is something that should always be subst'ed. Radiant_* 09:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but that defeats the purpose of saving keystrokes, so it is never going to happen. --MarSch 11:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Free software

Used on very few pages. Seems hardly useful. --MarSch 14:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It does seem useless, as well as being undescriptive. jeffthejiff 21:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:LanguageDispute

"According to some people there is an inherent neutrality issue in the use of a particular language... This may itself have been challenged by other people who assert that the language choice does not affect the neutrality of the article and that therefore this warning should not apply" Er, what? Apart from the fact that this isn't in use and has been reworded to the point of meaninglessness, I fail to see what this template is trying to accomplish. Radiant_* 11:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused, ugly, verbose, poorly written, POV, etc. BlankVerse ∅ 12:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ouch. That hurts to read. Is this a template designed to make it easy to find Gdansk/Danzig pages? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. generalization of deleted Template:Hawaiian. --MarSch 14:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Proposed template

This is based on the fallacy that, in WikiPedia, you need to discuss the appropriateness of templates before using them. Instruction creep. Radiant_* 11:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with User:Eloquence's sentiments ("a measure against template madness"). I am not sure, however, what the best method of dealing with the problem is. At the moment, I doubt that this particular template is a workable method solution to the problem. Is there a way of getting a version of Special:Recentchanges that would only show the pages being created in the Template namespace? BlankVerse ∅ 12:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. See [1] for rationale. To quote: "The problem with templates is that it is very easy to create them, and very hard to get rid of them. Virtually all problem templates I've seen have survived being listed on 'Templates for deletion' because, usually, there are multiple passionate fans -- the people who have been using the template and who don't want to modify their existing workflows. This has led to an abundance of pastel colored boxes, as every editor seems to want a template to call their own. I believe we have to treat new templates in the same way we treat new policy proposals. We can keep them around as proposals, but before we actually *use* them, there has to be a consensus to do so. That way, we fix the current asymmetry: We make it harder to *adopt* templates; then it doesn't matter so much that it's hard to *delete* them."

This is the exact opposite of instruction creep -- it is a way to prevent instruction creep. It is a similar mechanism we use for policies. Since templates are not just isolated pages but are applied to other pages, it is not sufficient justification for their usage that they have survived deletion. There needs to be consensus for usage, not just a lack of consensus for deletion -- otherwise you have an asymmetry that leads to instruction creep (as it demonstrably has).--Eloquence* 12:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't think this leads to instruction creep since it's not aimed to be used on every new template, but just on disputed ones. This allows people to discuss the use of a problematic template before either putting it into use or putting it on TfD. There isn't currently a way of getting a version of Special:Recentchanges that would only show the pages being created in the Template namespace, but MediaWiki 1.5 will let you view recent changes by namespace. Keep until there is an alternative way of preventing the use of highly disputed templates. Angela. 13:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I completely fail to see the point of this template. Suppose that we test this template, while it is being proposed. Then it should be tagged by itself, accomplishing... nothing useful that I can see. Perhaps we need to restrict creation of templates to admins? --MarSch 14:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That's like saying we should propose proposing policies before proposing policies. It's always been the case in Wikipedia that far-reaching changes require consensus, and a template that is potentially tagged onto hundreds of pages is a far-reaching change just as a policy is. Even within a single page, you're encouraged to seek consensus for a major change. A new template affects many, many pages once it's been put into use. That's why a lack of consensus for deletion is not sufficient justification to use a template, since those using it will virtually always argue against deletion.--Eloquence* 15:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm really not clear on how this is supposed to be used. How would anybody ever see this notice unless the subject template had been used someplace, except that the proposal seems to be that templates are not used until they've been ratified somehow? I thought we were supposed to be bold, but I suppose the problem is with people who are bold and don't like finding out they're wrong (they should be wrong more often, like I am all the time, then they'd get used to it :-). Maybe we could have a Wikipedia:Proposed templates page? --Phil | Talk 16:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, templates can be freely used as they are today. Only if there is a dispute, they will be tagged. I would be open to renaming this to Template:Disputed template.--Eloquence* 17:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ironically, the 'proposed template' is a proposed template. Anyway. The problem with labeling a template as disputed is that it doesn't attract people's attention to the matter (because WP has too many of that kind of mechanism). If you have a problem with the wording of a template, you could be WP:BOLD and reword it, or discuss it on its talk page. If you have a problem with the existence of a template, you can list it for TFD, or you could start a content-RFC on the matter. Radiant_* 08:50, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Template:AmE and Template:BrE

"This page is in American English" and "This page is in British English". Not in use, and both kinds of English are acceptable by the Manual of Style so I fail to see the point. Radiant_* 10:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Bit of a toss up, really... either delete or create Templates: IrishE, SAfricanE, AussieE, NZE, CanadE, and GibberishE. Eeeny, meeny... oh just delete it. Grutness...wha? 10:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is tempting to try to set in stone the English usage that is used for a particular article, if only to try to prevent the edit wars that can occasionally flair up over the issue. On the other hand, I think that there are already enough guidelines on English usage in the Wikipedia:Manual of style, so this is only an issue with problem editors who will ignore these templates anyway. BlankVerse ∅ 12:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's not deleted, please revert to this version which makes it clear the template is only proposed. Angela. 13:46, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Grutness. Jacob 17:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Otheruses5

Unnecessary over complication of disambiguation, we have enough disambiguation templates to do everything we could possibly want to do, the only thing this one does as well is give a short introduction to what page is about. Which the introduction will do anyway. Joe D (t) 23:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The other disambig templates just do not work well for proper names where the disambiguation is not because they have the same name. For example Jesus, Brazil For other uses, see Jesus (disambiguation just doesn't sound right. Trödel|talk 03:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Seeing as this one had hardly any discussion, and the votes are exactly tied, and the related Template:Otheruses4 was deleted, I am relisting this to get a consensus. Its lack of discussion is possibly because it never had a TFD template on it; I've added one now. Radiant_* 07:13, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Also Template:Otheruses4 has a tfd on its talkpage, but was probably never listed here. What I see also from otheruses3, otheruses2 and otheruses, there seems to be a trend of increasing generalization. But personally I think {{for}} is all we need. --MarSch 15:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Otheruses4 is in the holding cell, and I've now replaced all instances with {{dablink}} so it's ready to go. Joe D (t) 16:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Some of these templates are used to refer to a disambiguation page, others to refer to one alternate page with a similar title. Thus I see the need for two templates. One that says "For disambiguation of PAGENAME, see [[{{{1}}}]]", another that says "There is also an article called [[{{{1}}}]]" or something. --MarSch 15:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox CVG/monitor

Optional line Not used. The creator decided to merge the arcade template infobox and the Computer and video games infobox, however, there was no support for it so it was abandoned. K1Bond007 04:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I am the creator, and since the optional lines for the arcade infobox will be separate, these are no longer needed. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox CVG/cabinet

Optional line Not used. The creator decided to merge the arcade template infobox and the Computer and video games infobox, however, there was no support for it so it was abandoned. K1Bond007 04:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I am the creator, and since the optional lines for the arcade infobox will be separate, these are no longer needed. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox CVG/arcade system

Optional line Not used. The creator decided to merge the arcade template infobox and the Computer and video games infobox, however, there was no support for it so it was abandoned. K1Bond007 04:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I am the creator, and since the optional lines for the arcade infobox will be separate, these are no longer needed. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:stylehowto

I'm splitting up the style and how-to categories, per WP:CFD. Wikipedia:Style and How-to Directory is getting split up, too, and there are more comprehensive navigational templates in use to unify these pages. (For instance, Template:Style.) At the end of this process (which will take several days), this template will no longer be needed. -- Beland 02:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 1

Template:explain-significance

Redundant - there are many other, better cleanup templates. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 02:38, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Disagree. This is a good template to use for an article that would otherwise risk outright deletion. --Alabamaboy 02:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Which templates did you have in mind as replacements, Dan? Template:Unencyclopedic doesn't quite serve the same purpose, but we might be able to come up with a single notice that could unify the two. -- Beland 02:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I will point out that this template was created in full knowledge that similar templates existed, because certain people were doing things like going through every single article that had been tagged with those templates and ripping them out, because they referred to "non-policy". This template was specifically designed so that people who do have concerns about significance can actually address those concerns by saying "if this subject does have some form of notability, please consider bringing it to the fore" without intolerant Wikipedians having an excuse to declare that all concerns about importance are non-policy and therefore will not be heard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, widely in use. Radiant_* 11:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too widely in use, but not wisely used. If it was only being added to the Talk pages of questionable articles I would have no objections, but seeing the ugly, tedious mess that it creates on some articles (e.g. Tanga News, which is tagged with both Template:explain-significance and Template:cleanup-context) has convinced me that the Wikipedia is better off without this template. BlankVerse ∅ 12:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, even useful templates can be misused. And that article really does have serious problems. It doesn't even explain whether "Tanga News" is a radio or a television broadcast, and it has the wrong stub template too. I'd correct and improve the article, but I can't find any information beyond Wikipedia mirrors. It desperately needs verifiability, context, and even a decent substub worth of information. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the template; it gives a article a softer push towards cleanup than Template:Vfd. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; it is a gentle way to encourage editors to improve an article before taking the harsher step of nominating it for Vfd. Russ Blau (talk) 18:31, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Russ Blau said it best. Thryduulf 20:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It is a useful template that covers the grey area where an article is not quite worthy of a VFD, but is still of questionable quality in its current state. --Randolph 20:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:President

This template was created almost a year ago as a blank page/template. Has remained a blank page/template ever since. One talk page comment saying someone had trouble getting it to work. Template has never been used in a year of existance. Was going to speedy it but figured it'd be better to bring it here. Hedley 23:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete this sandbox stuff. --MarSch 15:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now that we have Infobox President, but it should be noted that this template was not created as a blank template. This was the original template, but the editor seems to have given up after "having trouble making [it] work". -Frazzydee|✍ 04:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:ScroogeUniverse

Another huge template. This one is three or four times larger than many of the articles it is on. - SimonP 02:41, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Yikes. Could it be trimmed (aggressively!) to encompass the major characters, and include a reference to some sort of family tree article (perhaps a filled-out Scrooge McDuck universe page?) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Listify. A cat would be nice for the major characters (but Category:Donald Duck already exists), but this template contains far too many minor ones. Radiant_* 08:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• As huge as the rail navigation boxes below, but without duplicate links. Convert to lists and categories or (2nd choice) rewrite as a summary navigation box that is much, much smaller. BlankVerse ∅ 14:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Categorify, listify, shrink -- Agree with BlankVerse. — Xiong熊talk* 17:04, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Comment -- To me, it seems like most of the characters in that ginormous box should be condensed into a few articles of minor characters, according to WP:FICT -- Majromax 00:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Incorrect

Created by an anonymous user, I assume as a prank. Obviously, placing this template on an article does nothing at all. — Asbestos | Talk 01:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Quickly, if not speedily. -- Ec5618 10:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It is no more daft than some of the other templates we have. But of course, it should be deleted. Pcb21| Pete 11:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think that it is a prank. I think that it is just one more well-meaning person creating yet another cleanup/warning template that is nothing more than m:Instruction creep. I hadn't looked at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup in quite awhile, and just recently noticed that there are several new templates on that page that I also think fit into the same instruction creep category. My personal opinion that most could be replaced with a {{cleanup-because}} template. On the other hand, without an active Template WikiProject similar to the Stub-sorting WikiProject, the folks here at TFD will just be doing more reactive mop duty. BlankVerse ∅ 17:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Duplicates the function of the "Edit this page" link. — Xiong熊talk* 17:06, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

May 29

Template:POS

A rediculous template, that not only called an article a 'Piece of shit' but also refered to the user page of User:SPUI. And it included the template for speedy deletion, which is rediculous in any case (I removed it). - Ec5618 17:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• While it refered to the user page of User:SPUI, it wasn't created by him; so, he quickly slapped a speedy deletion tag to it. And I agree with him that it should be speedy deleted. --cesarb 17:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. Pcb21| Pete 17:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mendelevium

An unused template that is almost larger than the text that it creates (it's just a WikiLink, so it shouldn't be a template anyway). BlankVerse ∅ 16:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 16:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's subst:ed, it doesn't save any characters; it costs you three more. And there's no reason to transclude it unless one expects the name or symbol for mendelevium to change any time soon. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unused. And it is an inappropriate way to use a template. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and hold -- and probably move to a better name. It looks like a useful tool, and certainly does not "cost" anything. But the whole value of such a tool is ease of use, and it might have been named Template:Md, except that the creator wisely feared name conflict. Let me get in touch with the creator, find out how she is using this template -- obviously, she's substituting it -- and see what must be done to fix it. — Xiong熊talk* 22:13, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Keep. It would be quite silly to delete this, as these templates are useful for creating linked chemical formulas in a standard and easily typed manner — e.g., {{carbon}}{{sub|6}}{{hydrogen}}{{sub|6}} produces Template:Carbon₆Template:Hydrogen₆, the formula for benzene. I don't know offhand where an odd element such as Template:Mendelevium might actually be used in this way, but it would be strange for some elements to be excluded. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 01:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• (Ah, so that's what {{sub}} was for!) Keep this template then. --cesarb 01:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this inappropriate use of a template. Use copy paste instead. --MarSch 16:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Another class of templates that could benefit from this feature. JRM · Talk 22:11, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Template:Mentitle

A joke template that is only on two user pages. It should be Subst:'d, BJAODN'd, and deleted. Sooner or later there is going to have to be a BJAODN page that is just joke templates: Transcluded nonsense and other multisyllabic templates. BlankVerse ∅ 16:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN, and delete (and userfy?). BlankVerse ∅ 16:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, definetly. One of the better one, I'd say :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. But feel free to post it on BJAODN. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userify. It's a joke template used only in user space, given the freedom usually given to user space creations, I think this should get a pass too. Not really harming anything. Dragons flight 05:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not even "used" on User pages, only linked to (so it doesn't even need to be "Subst:'d". Besides, if it is a User-only template, it is better to have it as a User subpage than as an article in the Template namespace. BlankVerse ∅ 14:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Wojsyl 06:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete if you feel the need~to; BJaODN - if someone finds it funny... Halibutt 12:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- This might have been speedied, due to its offensive content and obvious lack of utility. — Xiong熊talk* 22:14, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this pollution of the template namespace.--MarSch 16:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_U.S._school and Template:Infobox_school

While templates for schools are a good idea, these particular two aren't actually in use, and are very different in design from the one described and used at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Thus, for consistency's sake, removing and redirecting them seems best. Radiant_* 11:06, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Oops, I forgot about them after I mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools that they were unused. [2]. But I guess that ten days didn't make a whole lot of difference. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unused, unwanted, uneeded, unhelpful. BlankVerse ∅ 16:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep please. I've only started to learn the use of templates, and I'll edit them and make use of them shortly. I don't think anyone actually designed a template to match the one at WikiProject Schools, they're actually just copy/pasting in the example table. I think a template may be more useful, but need a bit more time to get familiar with them. Leaving these for me to modify won't hurt anything if they're slated for deletion anyway. Otherwise I'll have to recreate them from scratch, and I don't think that'll be as easy as editing an existing work. Thanks. --Unfocused 19:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe there's Template:School. Anyway, if you want to work with this template, would you mind if we userfied it for now? Radiant_* 07:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and NOOB -- These templates are very nice-looking, and a lot of hard work has obviously gone into them. It is immaterial whether they are in use yet. Unless the relevant WikiProject expresses a strong consensus against them, this nomination is inappropriate. — Xiong熊talk* 22:19, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • As has been stated before, templates are the business of TFD. And as has been stated twice in this nomination and discussion, WikiProject:Schools uses another template. Radiant_* 07:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tu-civ-trans-text

No longer used in any articles; was originally nested in template:Tu-civ-trans, also up for deletion. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 02:15, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Template:EMD diesels, Template:British Rail Locomotives, Template:British Rail DMU, and Template:British Rail EMU

All these templates are huge and they are flooding Special:Wantedpages with requests for British Rail Classes. I see no reason why they can't be replaced by categories. At the very least they should be split up with a separate template for each type. - SimonP 18:37, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• keep. Every one of the BR clases is encycolopaedic, although some can be combined into one article (e.g. 220/221). The information is out there, and I find these templates very useful for navigation between the classes as they provide a very useful summary of the classes, particularly with reagard to what generation the DMU/EMU/DEMU each class is. Thryduulf 21:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As said above these templates are very useful. They also easily show the various different classifications used for the same type of locomotive/unit (i.e. pre-1968, TOPS etc.). As for the argument they are generating requests for British Rail Class xx articles, eventually all articles will be created so this is fairly irrelevant. If the templates are too big they can be condensed by using 90% text size. Our Phellap 01:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Convert to list or category, this is far too large and unwieldy for a template. Radiant_* 09:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but only until all the redlinks on the template get their own article. When that day arrives I will support turning these into a categories instead. Sjakkalle 11:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Gawd, they're huge! These templates are train-cruft that are meaningless to the average Wikipedia user. They should either be Converted to lists or categories or drastically shrunk. For example, Template:EMD diesels could list only the various classes of locomotives (switchers, 4-axle, 6-axle,streamliners, experimentals, etc.) of EMD diesels (but NOT the trains themselves), and the links would go to overview articles on each class. BlankVerse ∅ 11:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There are already the categories Category:British Rail diesel locomotives, Category:British Rail electric locomotives, Category:British Rail gas turbine locomotives, Category:British Rail diesel multiple units and Category:British Rail electric multiple units which all of the British Rail Class xx articles are listed under (the category isn't part of the template to facilitate sorting of articles under each category).
  • However, simply listing the articles under categories will remove a useful navigational tool that only a template can provide. For example, the British Rail Class 421 has at various time also been known as a 4Cig, 3Cop, 8Dig, 8Mig and 3Cig - which the template Template:British Rail EMU shows by highlighting all the above names in bold (this explains why the template is large since it has links to one particular article several times). A category cannot show this, and furthermore since redirects cannot be categorised, redirects cannot be used as an alternative. If size is really a problem (rather than just an asthetic comment) then I suggest using 90% font size for each template as to reduce the overall size. Our Phellap 13:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • No wonder they are so huge—they have multiple links going to the same article. That's unnecessary in a information template. I've just looked at a bunch of the articles that the templates are on, and often the templates are larger than the articles themselves—especially since many of the articles have one or more additional templates and/or tables. These templates are really trying to do something that is much better handled in a list (see List of GM-EMD locomotives for an example). My decision has been reduced to Convert to list BlankVerse ∅ 13:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
      • There is already a list at List of British Rail classes. The template is still a more useful navigational aid than either a list or categories Our Phellap 23:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I have produced a reduced size EMU template at Template:British Rail EMU/test for comparison. The other templates can be modified similarly. Our Phellap 11:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The whole point of navigation templates is to have links conveniently sorted in a way that categories can't do, or that list only the most relevant identification information without descriptions. Categories and lists have their place (and indeed we are using both in Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains), but navigation templates have their place too. slambo 20:59, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Big, bold and brash. However, there are few other examples of such excellent navigation aids when one wants to browse similar articles. I wouldn't recommend trying to apply similar techniques to other articles, but these work well for this subject matter. --Unfocused 19:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful navigational aid between related articles. Any problem with Special:Wantedpages can be eliminated by quickly stubbing out all the red links. I might note that Wantedpages lists highest multiple vandal pagemoves, and then a vast number of US Navy ships which are on there for similar reasons. —Morven 20:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Seemain

According to what it's written on its talk page, this template is used in the section and the Template:Main is for the top of the article. But look at the "what links here" page of both of the templates: "Seemain"" is rarely used, and "Main" is located in most of the times on top of the sections. So what is the use of this template? 500LL 09:29, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: As it also says in the Talk page, the purpose of the templates are different and the appearance may also change. In essense, "Seemain" tends to be links from parent articles to child articles, while "Main" is for a single link in a child article up to the parent article. Different templates allows Wikipedia to distinguish the intent behind the links. As for the frequency of usage, note that "Seemain" has acquired its list during its existence of only three months. Template author: (SEWilco 15:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC))

But look at the template "main", it's never used on top of the page, and always in the sections to link to child articles. So what is the point in "Seemain"? 500LL 07:47, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, people were misusing "main", which is one reason "seemain" was created. The point is so Wikipedia can distinguish the two types of usage. For example, it might later be decided that links to general coverage of a topic should be marked by large blinking labels, and that can be done by changing Template:main. Or semantic mapping of WP may find the different meanings of the links to be useful. (SEWilco 00:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC))

• Comment. I would hope that "What links here" shows it is rarely used; it's boilerplate text that shouldn't change with time and should therefore be subst:ed wherever it is used. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib)

One good point, whoever said the above, someone may use subst:. So I added an HTML comment which identifies the generating template. However, one of the reason for using templates is because boilerplate may change. But the dynamic or static behavior of templates is an implementation detail; labeling the intent of the link is the significant difference. (SEWilco 00:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC))

• Redundant with Template:Main, so delete (and redirect if needed) Radiant_* 11:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

The definition is presently the same; I chose the same definition to avoid breaking things, but there are many definitions with more meaning: "For details see:", "Detailed information:", "Related article:". The usage and intent are different. (SEWilco 00:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC))

• Keep The two places the template(s) can be used are very distinct in meaning, so should use different templates. They probably should be different in appearence, but that may be difficult (given the example of the uproar against a recent indent change on T:Main). Nevertheless the templates can be different in wikicode & html to signal the different use. -R. S. Shaw 04:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Templates like these are exactly what is needed for clarifying the relation between a lot of math articles. Like group theory and group, and vector field and tangent bundle. --MarSch 16:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know, but what is the use of "Seemain" if the template "main" is used the same way?500LL 09:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

After just using them in exactly the opposite way intended, I agree that they need to be replaced by something a bit more clear. Thus I recast my vote to rewrite and possibly (move and delete the old), see Template_talk:Main for a suggestion. --MarSch 10:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Page fixing tools

Some collaboration pages used this template for a while, but have since been switched back to the more comprehensive Template:Resources for collaboration without complaint, as far as I know. Mostly it's now just linked from user pages, and I wonder whether it shouldn't just be redirected to or replaced by "Resources for collaboration". I checked, and "Page fixing tools" this is indeed entirely a proper subset of "Resources for collaboration".-- Beland 03:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• redirect seems to be the most apropriate course of action for a superceded template that is still linked to in places. Thryduulf 21:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment If it's still in use on user pages, shouldn't we ask any currently active users who have it if they'd like to keep using this, or would rather use the more comprehensive version? Some may prefer the simpler version. I know I wouldn't be happy if someone cut a template out from under my user page without asking me. --Unfocused 19:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- What possibly reason is there to delete this? It's a toolbox, somebody once found it useful, somebody probably finds it useful now, and somebody may find it useful again. Do you imagine that there will be a desperate need in the near future to put some other content in this same place? Do you fear somebody will use these tools? Do you hope that by taking the tools from editors' hands, they will stop working? Anyone who so desires may use it; nobody is forced to do so. Anyone who wants a different toolbox can make or borrow another. This nomination is inappropriate. — Xiong熊talk* 22:28, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

• Keep. Invective aside, some editors apparently find the template useful and it doesn't seem to do any harm. As a courtesy, it might be worthwhile to mention to them that there is a more comprehensive toolset template available, in case they want to upgrade. Someone might want to add a link to Template:Resources for collaboration, perhaps wikilinked as More tools... or somesuch.
  • Don't I feel blind. The link is already right at the bottom of the template box. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tu-civ-trans

An aircraft template, now against WikiProject aircraft standards. Not used in any articles. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 01:06, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

• Delete. unused

May 27

Template:Star stub

I know what you're thinking, but no - this isn't a stub template. When WP:WSS was looking for undiscovered stub templates a few weeks ago, we discovered {{star stub}}, a stubby infobox used by the Astronomical WikiProject. WP:WSS had star-stub (for articles on stars), and thought the names were too easily confused. With the great cooperation of WikiProject Astronomical objects, {{Star stub}} has become {{Starbox short}} (to which Star stub currently redirects). It's also been deprecated - all the articles which used it have had the new template name put on them. To remove potential confusion, then, Star stub should now be deleted. Grutness...wha? 12:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed a few people now think "stub" is a general term for any template :| Joe D (t) 12:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, WPAO called this one star stub because it was a shorter version of their normal star template. Grutness...wha?

• Delete. An easy decision. A confusingly named, and now unused template. BlankVerse ∅ 13:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to astronomy stub template or whatever the most suitable is. Dunc|☺ 13:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what this template is ... (ie. not a stub template). --TheParanoidOne 19:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Less confusion = more usability. Feco 19:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Preferably Delete, or, failing that, redirect to {{star-stub}}. -- grm_wnr Esc 03:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't make an easy one look confusing. Gene Nygaard 03:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: no longer necessary and likely to cause unwanted confusion. --Phil | Talk 10:21, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Template:PD-Germany

The template is severely misleading/plain wrong: normal photographs are copyright until 70 years after the death of the creator (as agreed on the template talk page). There should be some PD-Germany template, but a corrected template would not necessarily apply to the images which currently are tagged with this template. I therefore suggest deleting and starting again rather than rewriting this template. (Note: the template is protected; I hope it was OK to add the tfd tag). Mark¹ 06:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, delete this, and check and re-tag all images where it is used. German copyright law is complicated: whether something is PD (i.e., copyright expired) depends on a whole lot of factors, including which version(s) of the law was/were in effect while something was still under copyright protection and the question of who (if anybody) holds the copyright on WWII images. And the newest version of the copyright law, intended to make it compliant with EU law, even retroactively puts previously "copyright expired" stuff under copyright protection again because suddenly Spain's longer 80-year term is said to apply. It's a mess. To be on the safe side, just assume there are no German PD images post-1905. Lupo 08:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Post-1905? 100 years? Why?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm no lawyer. If you can find a later date, be my guest. But to be on the safe side, I'd only assume PD for anything from Germany if I'd tag it with {{PD-old}}. Lupo 10:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
      • And I just see that 1905 would apply to the year the author died... Oh well. Lupo 10:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. We could definetly use a clear explanation about the copyright of Nazi-made WIII images, I find a lot of arguments 'it was done by Nazis so it is not copyrighted', and I don't know what to respond. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "It was done by Nazis so it is not copyrighted" is fallacious. As a rule of thumb, everything is copyrighted unless past its expiration date (varies by country, generally 70-100 years), or explicitly released by the author. Radiant_* 10:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This template was TfDd a few weeks ago, see here. There were complications and no consensus was reached. Joe D (t) 12:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I can support the opinion that German copyright law is complicated. The template is misleading because most photographs we use here are protected not as simple photographs with 50 years but as works 70 years post mortem auctoris. The law has changed in 1995: As a result of an EU directive lots of photographs in the PD were protected again. I agree with the deletion request. Historiograf --134.130.68.65 20:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This template might be changed - but it is the justification of the inclusion of many WWII pictures. Enquiries to the German Government about their copyright status get meaningless responses - indeed it is not clear that any copyright holder exists or whether the archives amount to war booty. (I once tried on a version of Image:Surreydocks1941.jpg which may have been originally published/dropped from an airplane with misleading information on its origin). But given how amny images use this template, it may need to be changed, but should not be removed. User:Henrygb

I see the problem, but even if we do find a summary of German copyright law small enough to fit onto a template, we have no way of knowing whether any particular image is PD under that law without checking the date and origin of each image. Mark¹ 02:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Holding Cell

Move templates here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met.

• Consensus for delete for the below (all discussions have been moved to the log page)
  • Template:Video Editing
  • Template:Sub-stub
  • Template:Substubs
  • Template:Protecteds
  • Template:Tfds
  • Template:New TFD (and redirect at Template:TFDNotice)
  • Template:Pnpov-d
  • Template:Pseudoprotected
  • Template:Helpout
  • Template:Boxstub
  • Template:Protected/sandbox
  • Template:lgbt
  • Template:Notpolicy
  • Template:2005Calendar through Template:2024Calendar
  • Template:Rfmf
  • Template:WikiProject:Community
  • Template:Ambiguous
  • Template:See2
  • Template:Project usage
  • Template:EU 10 and Template:EU coins
  • Template:history
  • Template:USculture
  • Template:PD-MNGov
  • Template:Standard template style
  • Template:GenericCountryStub and its redirect GCS
  • Template:GenericCountryStubDetail and its redirect GCSD
  • Template:2stub
  • Template:Importantstub and the redirect Template:Important-stub
  • Template:Fridtjof Nansen class frigate
  • Template:Cobauth
  • Template:Tc
  • Template:AU-bio-stub
  • Template:AU-actor-stub, Template:FR-actor-stub, Template:SE-actor-stub
  • Template:Color dot (userfied, listed on RFD)
  • Template:Wiki (userfied, listed on RFD)
  • Template:Smoothhenry (userfied, listed on RFD)
  • Template:Box (cannot userfy, created by anon)
  • Template:GC
  • Template:User en-! (potential BJAODN)
  • Template:Special (userfy)
  • Template:Olditalic
  • Template:Ha
  • Template:Hc-list
  • Template:Hc-ref
  • Template:Hac
  • Template:Obsolete SI prefixes
  • Template:Otheruses4
  • Template:USculture (categorify to Category:American culture)

• Nobody objected (or even responded) to nomination for the below (all discussions have been moved to the log page)
  • Template:Template_messages
    • This one never had the TfD warning slapped on it, so I'm leaving it. Noel (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I think it's safe to remove it; its creator (and sole user) said, in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/May 2005, that it was "Archived - deleted". Radiant_* 09:51, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should remove them from pages so that they can be deleted.

To convert to category

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

• None at present

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete.

Template:Intro

• has been subst and is now orphaned, although there are still two listed on what links here erroneouly. Don't forget to delete its five subtemplates: 1, 2, 3, selected and unselected. --MarSch 17:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I oppose this deletion. This template was 2-1 to delete (3-1 with nominator)the original editor has described his reasoning for the subtemplates was to allow easy modifications to the headings without having to reedit the three templates. This talk page has indicated that the use of subtemplates is fine as long as we don't edit them (or very rarely edit them). I suggest that we stop seeking out subtemplates for deletion because that just creates additional edits on templates that are very rarely edited. Trödel|talk 22:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Manga

• It's been orphaned, and discussion has been logged. - mako 18:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The template has been delted, but the talk page is still there. Is there a reason for this? Thryduulf 10:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Listings to log

Templates with completed discussions which have not yet been logged; remove from this page entirely when logged. Anyone can do this, not just an admin; please see the directions at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.