Wikipedia:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:09, 30 December 2005

A proposed replacement layout for this page is being drafted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Temp. Your input is welcome.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

December 30

Template:Off-topic

Looks like a one-off created for one specific dispute. Redundant with {(sofixit}}? -- Netoholic @ 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep. Has the potential to be usefull, but is overly specific. Also, that yellow burns my brain.--Sean|Black 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I've de-uglified it, and it may be useful if given a chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon reflection, I've changed my mind. Still a tad specific, but okay.--Sean|Black 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of existing template. Only new purpose seems to create a category structure for POV disputes by date (see Quickly). I don't think we need that. -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Couldn't that new date field be integrated into template:NPOV (Without category thing, I don't think we need to categorize that by date)? Adrian Buehlmann 10:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Objective

Unused, and redundant with other dispute templates. -- Netoholic @ 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lucidinformationsystems

Unused. —Cryptic (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various icon image templates

(namely Template:MacOS-icon, Template:Windows-icon, Template:Gnome-icon, Template:Kde-icon, Template:X-icon, Template:Oss-icon, Template:Free-icon, Template:Nix-icon, Template:Linux-icon, Template:FreeBSD-icon)
We don't use templates merely to insert an image at a given size. Further, the only place any of these are used are in Comparison of image viewers, Comparison of accounting software and Comparison of bitmap graphics editors, where their use is purely decorative and thus runs afoul of WP:FUC (at least for MacOs-icon and Windows-icon), and in Template:OS-icon-key, listed below. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - I dunno about the fair use argument... but the templates should go away. Someone needs to learn to use image tags. -- Netoholic @ 09:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OS-icon-key

Unused, and we don't use fair-use icons for things like this anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If equal g

It's deprecated, so let's kill it. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hack & Slay~~ Delete: it's horrid: put it out of its misery (sorry, burst of enthusiasm there :-). —Phil | Talk 08:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and unneded variant. Looks like a leftover from a failed try. Adrian Buehlmann 09:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divizia A

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divizia A: "It is unused. It was copied from Romanian Wikipedia (including fonts). There's another similar template, Ro Divizia A, in use. Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs) 05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)" --Idont Havaname 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 29

Template:ROT13

Delete — Failed experiment to ROT13 old talk page archives. Was used on the Talk:Elvis Presley archives. cesarb 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, everyone knows double ROT13 is more secure. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncategorized

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

delete self-defeating in other ways, too, since the editor - in the time taken to write {{Uncategorized}} - could just as easily add at least a general category to the article. In other words, this simply doubles the editorial work. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in September 2005 and kept. Nothing has changed since then, and the template has remained useful. Keep. Uncle G 06:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, oddly enough I just used this today; when you're not sure where to categorize an article (but you know it needs a category), this is better than leaving the article as-is. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This unbreaks Special:Uncategorizedpages, which only displays the first thousand entries and is rarely updated, so doesn't show anything past the B's. Keep. —Cryptic (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I seen it used alot, and also per Cryptic --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need this template, Special:Uncategorizedpages is redundant and not useful. - Darwinek 09:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 2

Not used. Replacement: template:web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not make template forks. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- These templates were made over a year ago. Uncle G 06:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We may need this because eventually the citation templates will have to stop using meta-templates. Multiple similar templates may have to be re-implemented as the solution. -- Netoholic @ 07:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 4

Was an unused redirect to Template:Web reference 2 which I intend to nominate later too (needs some work first). Adrian Buehlmann 19:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not make template forks. R adiant _>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox University5

Template:Infobox University5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used. In fact all of Infobox University4-6 are used very sparingly and could probably be fixed not to be used at all. --platypeanArchcow 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC) platypeanArchcow 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not make template forks. R adiant _>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web-reference

Was a redirect to Template:Web reference. Deprecated and defunct. Adrian Buehlmann 15:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Incomplete license

Redundant with Template:No license. --Puzzlet Chung 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not make template forks. R adiant _>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tuberculosis

Not really a candidate for an article series, given that the top two in this list will be merged. JFW | T@lk 12:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European communist parties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like the images. It is not an unimportant matter, as the choice of symbolism also denotes political differences. Compare KPÖ/PCF with KKE, for example. Or note that some parties include national colours and other don't. BTW, aren't all communist parties Leninist by definition? --Soman 21:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nationality law

Template:User ai kago-5

Template:User ai kago-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Master race? Hello? A userbox announcing to the world one's intention to create a master race? Is this Wikipedia or Fuehrerpedia? We don't need this crap here. Contributes nothing to Wikipedia, and it offends people. Like me. On second thought, maybe delete everything in the series except one. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything in the series and all associated categories. Usercruft. android 79 06:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is orphaned and unlikely to be used; note that I'm principally against deleting it just because it is usercruft. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two of them, specifically Ai Kago-4 and Ai Kago-5. Those two clearly crosses the line on appropriateness. Ai Kago-1 and Ai Kago-2 looks fine, Ai Kago-3 is a little disturbing and somewhat of a border case in my opinion, but hey, if that's what float's the person's boat. ;-) --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Todo, trains

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

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

Template:WIP

Template:WIP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template poorly duplicates a couple we already have, as well as utomatically feeding any article its marked with into the general stubs category (to give an example of why this is a bad thing, it's currently in use on only one article, and that is clearly not a stub). Unnecessary. 210.54.198.105 01:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (um, that's Grutness...wha?. Damn computer logged me out).[reply]

Strong Delete. No Wikipedia article is a "work in progress by one author", and nobody needs "permission to edit this page". Useless at best, fundamentally anti-Wiki at worst.--Sean|Black 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, instructions are blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Firebug 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it from the one article it was attached to. Any objections to a speedy? This violates so many Wikipedia fundamentals that there's no chance it will be kept. android 79 01:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, people can't own articles. {{inuse}} can be used if someone really needs to do a major edit. And having non-stub templates add pages to Category:Stubs hurts too. (I wouldn't be against a speedy, and since this has gotten 4 votes in 10 minutes on tfd, it looks like people really don't like it.) - Bobet 01:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Inuse. Very logical name for it. —Cryptic (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cryptic. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not make template forks. R adiant _>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, covered by inuse and incorrectly implies ownership.--SarekOfVulcan 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Template:Inuse already exists and appears to be better designed. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NRL Grounds

Template:Freenet links

A template dependent upon Freenet/Ways to view a freesite (AFD discussion). Doesn't seem at all useful without it. —Cryptic (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

Template:Atlanta conventions

Unused nav template. All links in the template are red. - TexasAndroid 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is also an orphan --Chris 22:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if no article uses the template, then does the template really exist? --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 09:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Security Risk

This template reads "this article poses a risk to international security and should be edited." If one of our articles actually poses a risk to international security it needs far more than a template, and any such issues should be brought directly to the board. However, since all Wikipedia articles merely repeat already verifiable information this should not be a concern. - SimonP 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See British Embassy in Washington, D.C. and its talk page for an example of this template in action. - SimonP 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this template serves no purpose, delete per nom's arguments. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lol what. --Golbez 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:SimonP is using logo of the incorporated City of Ottawa as an identifying mark. Said user is involved in a Wikiproject that is posting addresses of diplomatic embassies without providing mechanism to trace users requesting such information. Wikipedia is not an addressbook. PeterZed 19:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's rather simple to find the addresses of diplomatic embassies... I mean, they kinda want people to come find them usually. That .001% of people want to bomb them doesn't mean we have to request the names, addresses, and social security numbers of everyone. I'm very confused by this comment. --Golbez 19:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there was some reason for not putting embassy addresses on Wiki articles, why the spod do the embassies themselves put them on their websites? Why do regional authorities list the addresses of embassies on their websites? Why are they in the yellow pages fer crissakes? Grutness...wha? 06:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The squirrels are coming to get me. -- Jbamb 19:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "However, since all Wikipedia articles merely repeat already verifiable information this should not be a concern" - This is simply not the case as the board is already clearly aware of. Posting the addresses of diplomatic embassies on a website that provides no mechanism to identify those making such requests is a security risk. If User:SimonP is actually a representative of the government body that his identifying mark represents, perhaps said user should co-ordinate with members of the RCMP or Canadian Security Intelligence Service.PeterZed 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — As per PeterZed. It seems SimonP only wants this template deleted so he can carry on giving addresses and telephone numbers of embassies for psychotic murders. -__

This is akin to those who publish other peoples' personal information on Wikipedia and is just as bad. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, a person's information is private and even if it weren't it would be hard for it to be verifiable, an information on an embassy or other government building on the other hand is verifiable and publicly available and therefore eligible for inclusion. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per my argument above and the fact that these so called claims to national security are just straw man arguments. Information about embassies and other governmenmt agencies is publicly available and verifiable so it's eligible for inclusion and therefore having an article to tell people to remove it is flawed. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since terrorists would much rather attack world leaders, can I trust that the addresses for the residences of the leaders of the US and UK will be purged from Wikipedia? --Golbez 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAgain: Wikipedia IS NOT an addressbook and has no mechanism to trace those individuals looking for the address information of diplomatic missions. Other websites have this ability. Since the only medium we can compare this issue is to the Internet, it is important that we remain vigilant in the war on terrorism and the ability to track those that would cause harm to others. The strong will and desire of others to continue to delete these security templates is itself a matter of concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterZed (talk • contribs) 19:55, December 28, 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit, A) it's impossible for us to know who's viewing this information and it's not our job to police information, we are a free encyclopedia that consists of verifiable and factual information, what you want is censorship due to a percieved threat which is baseless. WP:NOT should be expanded to state that Wikipedia is not censored at the behest of people who have irrational national security fears. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Addresses of international embassies are trivially easy to find in an untraceable manner, usually from things like "phone books". We may furthermore presume that any organization which can acquire the tools necessary to blow up an embassy or otherwise commit terrorist action against it will probably not have much difficulty finding out the target address in any case. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 20:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Extreme Unction and JTKiefer; utterly bizarre template, also appears to categorise articles into non-existent category. Palmiro | Talk 20:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Simply put, these embassies WANT to be found. What use is the embassy to a Brit in America if they can't go there for needed assistance? --Golbez 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic Delete utter rubbish (besides which, with what nations' security is Wikipedia supposed to be concerned with - without infringing NPOV? An article on the North Korean nuclear programme could endanger N.Korea's national security.) --Doc ^ask? 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - I say this quite a lot but this time I mean it. This is the stupidest counter-proposition I have ever heard. Part of me is inclined to believe that it is an elaborate hoax that several of us have been drawn into... but we're nowhere near April. Just google "British embassy, Washington DC"... what do you find? A damn sight more information than is contained on Wikipedia. Absolute claptrap. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another disclaimer template. --cesarb 20:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, silly. android 79 20:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — per Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer _→AzaToth 22:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just plain retarded. Even if these are really "security threats," then this really isn't the way to deal with these "dangers to our nation's security." This info is easy to find elsewhere anyhow. Any real terrorist knows how to use Google. --Chris 22:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is quite silly, this is public information. And even if the template is used and the "offending" information is removed, it is still there in the history! Waste of space. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please be WP:CIVIL and remember to WP:AGF Some of the comments on this template ("just plain retarded", "stupidest template ever", "bullshit" and the like) may be going too far. Is it possible the creator meant well? ++Lar
- That said... delete. It does seem unnecessary and not likely to be an effective deterrent. ++Lar 23:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Did he mean well? Sure, probably. Is he himself engaging in personal attacks and incivility? See for yourself. android 79 01:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All information on Wikipedia must be supported with publically available sources. As a corollary of that, anything that can be included in Wikipedia under WP:CITE must be available from other sources. So the template is useless. In the particular case cited, the addresses of embassy's are trivial to find (it wouldn't be much of an embassy if you couldn't find it), so this is a plainly nonsensical argument. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently, "security specialist" Peter Zed is unaware of that huge security risk known as the Washington, DC, telephone directory -- which ANYONE can just use without being traced. Ludicrous. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, maybe the British Embassy could use PeterZed's security advice, since they have foolishly put their street address at the top of their home page. The naive fools! When will they ever learn? --Calton | Talk 01:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV and patent nonsense. Firebug 01:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Hopefully, the debacle that has unfolded here demonstrates to Wikipedia editors, adminstrators and arbitrators the need to KEEP important templates such as these. Rather than deal with the case in a fair and polite manner, this IP was banned from WIKI to prevent further comment. Irregardless of the fact that the 3 Revert Rule was not adequately and fairly re-inforced when it came to the original vandalizer User:SimonP, and irregardless of the fact that two seperate admins banned my IP twice within a minute for the same infraction (how is that even possible?) When real security matters arise here on WP, what are the mechanisms Jimbo Wales et al have implemented to ensure that there is a secure method to report users to police/security/proper authorities when material of a sensitive nature continues to be posted? I hope none of the long-time admins here who have ignored this issue would suggest that this template does not have a place here on Wikipedia. PeterZed 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, administrators and arbitrators are all watching you make a fool out of yourself. The addresses and locations of foreign embassies are as sensitive and vital to national security as my shoe size. FCYTravis 05:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have you as a size 10EE. If this information is in error, please let us know so we can update our records. Thank you. - National Security Agency Helpdesk 07:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very silly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AnnH ^(talk) 22:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My aluminum-foil hat isn't working; the mind-control rays telling me we should delete this are getting through. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BJAODN and delete. Raul654 23:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Let's see... Editors of the Animal Liberation Front use the term target to describe current operations here on Wikipedia. How is this not a candidate to be tagged as an international security risk when they are possibly identifying post-secondary institutions as potential locations for terrorist activity? yet Wikipedians suggest that there is noneed for a security template? PeterZed 23:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that Peter Zed has been a little too zealous and failed to actually read the article. It lists universities that have been attacked in the past by groups claiming to be the Animal Liberation Front. By the same logic, you may as well add that template to the Al Qaeda article if it mentions the US embassy in Nigeria or the Twin Towers.--BobBobtheBob 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think it's up to any of us to determine what constitutes a "national security threat". And we certainly shouldn't be censoring content. Private spying on citizens is bad enough already ... we don't need Wikipedians going around throwing Orwellian "violates national security" tags on article. What's next, is this going to be put on nuclear physics because it might describe how North Koreans could build a nuclear bomb? Ugh. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's difficult to elabourate any further on previous comments, so I guess I'll repeat: who would have the authority to say what constitutes a national security risk? Which country's national security is an international project meant to protect? BobBobtheBob 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. This is entirely too ludicrous. I'm sure the world is in grave danger from Wikipedia articles. R adiant _>|< 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. We're a national threat because we're providing information that is in the public domain. BJAODN and nuke with a WMD. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODN, per Radiant. Ambi 00:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke this template. FCYTravis 01:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tinfoil hat template. Bishonen | talk 01:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is so BJAODN that I must vote. Delete? Sure.--Jyril 01:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN this is such overblown tripe that this needs to go. ALKIVAR™ 02:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN per Tito. Pepsidrinka 02:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong Evil Terrorist Cabal Delete of Doom per above. -- SCZenz 03:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 04:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete and speedy if any arguably criteria can be found. DES ^(talk) 04:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT The matter has now been referred to Mr. Jimmy Wales himself. PeterZed 04:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Great. Now he can tell you personally to please remove your tin foil hat. FCYTravis 05:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Cyde. --Improv 05:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or WP:) - this is, how do you say... too much of a self-reference. :) Concur with the others. Beware the fnords. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong, Speedy Delete in the name of freedom - only fascists would consider censoring information of an article because of fear of security risks. Even if one of us took a photograph inside Area 51 and uploaded it to the commons, and put it on an article, that would still be not a legitimate excuse to edit it out of fear of "security risk" - we are a free encyclopedia dedicated to representing the total sum of human knowledge. Plus, it doesn't account for the fact that whether it would pose a risk or not would be disputed, anyhow. Template:NPOV, for example cites "the neutrality is disputed", and doesn't immediately jump to conclusions about the certainty of the neutrality. -- Natalinasmpf 05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The names of all those who have voted delete have been noted and the list of names will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities. (Ah well, better add myself to that list, then... delete) Grutness...wha? 06:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ... I would hope that national authorities have sufficient cyber wisdom to see if anything is posted on the Internet that is inappropriate from a National Security perspective, be it in the news media, blogs, terrorist web sites, or Wikipedia, and WHEREVER it is, they contact the ISP, registered owner of the site, and do their thing to get the stuff they not want removed. This is only my hope. I have various reasons to believe that cyber wisdom is, and has been, lacking in high places. Also if any of us Wikipedians see something that we think is a threat to our respective nations security, I would hope that we know how to bring this to the attention of some important personage in the Wiki community who can get an admin or sysop to block it pending resolution of our suspicions. There have been some questions raised on the Reference Desk of an explosive nature, that I have been careful not to give an explicit answer to, that in my opinion, is not a real good idea to be posting, such as how to smuggle weapons on board a commercial airliner, of the kind that can be used by hijackers. User:AlMac|^(talk) 06:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree what was said above. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 06:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Well the latest from Jimbo Wales himself is "I am not supportive of your template." I am confused by this comment. Is that to mean he is not supportive of the template in its current form and would advocate for its total exclusion or simply a modification? Or is he suggesting that the idea of allowing editors to flag certain articles as security risks be completely disallowed here on WP...Can somebody from Wikipedia please clarify this? PeterZed 07:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Seems pretty plain to me what he means. If you want it clarified for sure, you must ask him, but I'm pretty sure he means the same thing that all of us who voted delete do. --Chris 07:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- **I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that he is, politely, saying that the template is bound for the bit bucket, whatever tortured reading you give to that post. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even funny --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with {{unreferenced}}, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE. --Carnildo 08:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, hilarity! —Locke Cole • t • c 09:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not keep. Very tough to decide what would qualify as a security risk.... you should find another way to handle the address issue :-) Anthere
Because I've been feeling bold today, I have speedy deleted this. There is an overwhelimg consensus here, and the word has come down from on high, so I no purpose in keeping this around any longer.--Sean|Black 09:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User NoSanta

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep, bad Santa, Bad Santa! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the entry on autofellatio would be more harmful (as well as the plethora of wikipr0n) to children than this tag... -- Jbamb 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ummmmm, I'm Jewish? And atheist? And a skeptic? Daykart 19:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If we delete this, we might as well delete all the other userboxes while we're at it. --D-Day 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If we delete this, we might as well delete all the other userboxes while we're at it. Zocky 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drink to that. Let's act unilaterally! Rob Church ^Talk 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with prejudice. Despise userboxes. Rob Church ^Talk 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — No harm, it's Wikipedia project content, not encyclopaedic content and so is acceptable to show a users' POV.

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

Comment: Looking at the original user, it seems to me that this might be just a joke nomination. --AySz88^-^ 20:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, userbox-creep. android 79 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Of course userboxes have POV. Nominator uses them, what's the problem? This vote looks like a for-against vote regarding userboxes in general. Maybe that's something to consider - but not here. Ifnord 22:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not doing anyone any harm, if people want to state that they don't believe in Santa then they should be able to by using this template. I do however support scrapping the accompanying category. --Cooksey 22:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Template only intended to upset children. Mark ¹ 22:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have other userboxes based on users' religious beliefs. Guettarda 22:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless humor on userpages. --Chris 22:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Userboxes do noone any harm. (Third edit conflict... grumbles) ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 22:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (edit conflict, grr) per ian13 - Trysha ^(talk) 22:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete and utter nonsense. Soltak | Talk 22:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a user box! If someone doesnt like someone else's userbox - tough. Its the user's choice what he/she puts on their own userpage. If people are moaning about a userbox against Santa, then you really need to find something better to do. Its just a bit of fun!If someone wishes to show that they dont believe in Santa - so be it! If this gets deleted, i call for the deletion of every single userbox that has a shred of a user's belief in it, or something that may offend - even religion! - Bourbons3 23:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - er, maybe this is a joke nomination? But if it passes, I'll be tempted to nominate every other userbox that comments about beliefs held or not held. Lead me not into temptation! ++Lar 23:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several userboxes that depict beliefs and opinions and I don't see anything wrong with this one. I really don't see what the big deal about it is anyway. It's just some fun little thing. I mean geez people, where's the humility here? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 06:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a harmless userbox. Most of them are non-encyclopedic, true, but that is beside the point; they're intended for userspace. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: bad Santa! No biscuit! —Phil | Talk 10:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mostly Harmless. 1001001 16:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no point, and it's not funny or happy, because we all know that there's no such thing as Santa, it'd be like saying {{Wikipedians who believe the sky is blue}}, and there's no humor or hapiness in that. -Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 23:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - All in fun! Even if there were wikipedians who believed in Santa, they know some people do not believe in it. Moresoever, the Man Scientist template is not any better persay. Don't do away with it! Jake0geek 01:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Humor doesn't kill. Lack of humor does.--Jyril 02:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jyril.--Matei Tache 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep user page entries in general, and userboxes in particualr, are suppose to indicatge things about the user, and are ofte PoV. WP:NPOV applies primarily to articles. DES ^(talk) 04:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be a joke nomination. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's funny, why not? Plus, you have a "Believe in Santa" template, why not have the contrasted? Эйрон Кинни 06:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- userboxes are POV and don't hurt anyone. If you don't like this template, don't use it. -- Tetraminoe 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio

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

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

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

Of course, I could have done better on the wording, but it could solve the problem with the template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently it works, because this rewrite is now in the actual template, and the below votes indicate this. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. --Chris 22:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it appears the objections have been met. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rewritten version. -- Natalinasmpf 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Language/Malayalam

See below - identical template.

Template:MalayalamScript

Performs the exact same function as the existing {{IndicText}}. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sukh emptied the category, changing all previous uses of {{MalayalamScript}} to {{IndicText}}. Thanks/wangi 14:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks??? The malayalam template was presumably created after being vetted by the usual long process, now somebody summarily empties the category without so much as a by-your-leave?? I am speechless. ImpuMozhi 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I hope this is sarcasm. What vetting process do you speak of? This template was used on at most four pages. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Best practice, and best intention is served by keeping the categorgy intact durign this process. wangi 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having that warning in Devnagiri script will not serve the purpose. The 'Kerala' written in the page is in Malayalam script, which is no where close to the Devnagiri script. The people who can read 'Kerala' written in Malayalam script(and if that person doesn't know devnagiri script) will readily go and modyfying it(assuming his/her browser is not indic script compliant). Even with that warning some people try to correct it. I hope i have made my point clear.--Raghu 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in the current template is not in Devanagari, it is in Gurmukhi and it isn't meant to show every single possible Indic script (there could very well be hundreds of Brahmi descended scripts that the Indic text template is useful for). It's merely a VERY SIMPLE representative example and does not indicate that the script on the page must be Gurmukhi. What should we do for pages that contain, Malayalam, Devanagari and Gurmukhi? List three identical templates with different pictures!? How about pages that might list even more Indian languages and scripts?

The template talks about the technology to enable support for Indic scripts in general which applies just as much to Malayalam as it does to Gurmukhi, Devanagari, Bengali, Tamil etc. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the same principle to apply to all Indic scripts (which is only fair of course), we'd need at least 23 to account for all the ones currently encoded in Unicode. This does not include scripts YET to be encoded in Unicode. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Answers

The difference between scripts of Devanagari and Gurumukhi is minor. Even i was able to understand Gurumukhi with a knowledge of Devanagari only.
Your point that it will necessitate 100's of template is not correct beacause all North Indian languages scripts are similar and most people who speak other north Indian languages like Punjabi, Gujarathi, Marathi and Bengali have a good knowlege of Hindi (and consequently Devanagari or the very similar gurumukhi script). So we are left with four South Indian langauges. Telugu and Kannada script are mutually intelligible. Tamil and Malayalam are pretty close but if needed we can have separate one for Tamil. so totally we need 4 templates.
If a page has more than one indic script? There are few pages like that. In case it is there use the generic Gurumukhi Template as more people will understand that.
If there exists a template which does the needed function in a better way. Why delete?

Regards--Raghu 16:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 - The scripts are similar yes, but there is no way you would be able to decipher Gurmukhi characters when you know just Devanagari. Some characters are deceptively similar (e.g. Devanagari प /pa/ looks like Gurmukhi ਧ /dha/) while I do admit, some are similar in appearance. Also Gurmukhi has a special nasal sign called Tippi, it uses Adhak for geminates and it does not employ half forms. Gurmukhi departs in greater ways from Devanagari (from which it didn't descend) than some South Indian scripts do.

Point 2 - The picture is merely representative of the rendering technology (I picked it because it was the most simple representation of complex rendering). You can consider it to be a bit of a 'logo' and it could be replaced with a star, an asterisk or anything else to grab attention. You also fail to realise that Brahmic (Indic) scripts are not just the preserve of India, and Mongolian, Lao, Tibetan, Thai and others are visually very distinct and don't correspond to similarities in North/South Indian scripts. So how do you propose adding templates for these? Indeed what about many older scripts that come under the umbrella of complex text rendering?

Point 3 - But then what to do about all the people who in your opinion won't recognise it because it's in Gurmukhi? Surely the same problem occurs. Multiple Indic scripts are used on many pages already on Wikipedia, and this will only increase as time goes by.

Point 4 - This isn't in my opinion any better than the existing template. Indeed, the only reason I think it was made was because someone saw the Gurmukhi (or, Devanagari-esque) characters and deduced it may be some latent means of promoting North Indian scripts or languages. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 - You are missing the point. The alphabet shown in the image on the template 'Vi' to explain the concept is similar (I was able to decipher)to the one in Devanagari. Leave alone the rest of the difference you say there exist between the two.

Point 2 - I agree with you. It would need hard labour to do that in all Languages. If somebody is going to do that for some other languages, it would be really useful.

Point 3 - The 'many' pages you are talking about will be less than 2% of all pages containing indic texts. I already told what can be done about those pages.

Point 4 - that seems to be your POV. I can't help with that.

Regards --Raghu 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gurmukhi one actually says 'ki' not 'vi'! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for both the templates as per above. Indic script warning is good enough and if the person knows Malayalam, he will be able to see if it has downloaded correctly or not. While the idea of creating the template is indeed noteworthy, I feel that the creator did not understand about the redundancy of the template. --Gurubrahma 16:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't understand why we need more than one template for this, since the instructions for setting up your system for indic doesn't differ that much. If you have any issues with the Image:Example.of.complex.text.rendering.(small-white).png, you should probably discuss it on the template's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics. (Personally, I feel, an image in devanagari showing a vattu, ie., half-consonant being rendered with & without unicode is more suitable). --Pamri • Talk 13:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions are not the only thing provided my that. It also warns the innocent newbie users to not go ahead and try editing to make it look correct (this warning is provided inside the edit section as a comment but has proved to be not good enough, check the Chennai page to see how many corrections have taken place in the lst 200 edits or so. Atleast 5-6). This warning will be best when it is given in the native script of each language. The alphabet should also be chosen carefully like 'ka' for Kerala. 'Ma' for Tamil Nadu etc. It would simply be great if User:Sukh could design a template that would take an alphabet as the input and display it!!--Raghu 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the image with something neutral. The template could also be changed to take the language of the page and display it, in place of IndicText. See {{user wikipedia}} for an example. --Pamri • Talk 04:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having a separate malayalam template doesn't hurt anyone, and to assume that Devanagari alone is the best symbol of Indic scripts is essentially Aryanocentric. --Soman 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to do with Devanagari on the entire IndicText template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I mistook it for a Devanagari 'vi'. Anyways, it hardly doesn't make my argument less valid. Why should Gurkmukhi get to represent all Indic scripts? Isn't that one of the latest inventions, out of which none of the other major scripts have emerged? --Soman 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Isn't that one of the latest inventions" - more of a gradual evolution, but yes, maybe that is the reason? :D No, but seriously, we could replace it with a star, or something that doesn't show a particular script if that is the only reason people don't want to use this template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It could even be replaced with an image of a Brahmi character. That is, after all, the mother script ;) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a damn. Guys, you are arguing about a warning template that will hopefully be obsolete in half a year, or whenever MS decides to fix their browser. Maybe we should delete both templates, and leave it to people to figure out their own browser instead of plastering templates about browser issues all over Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 22:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first point at which Microsoft will automatically enable complex text support is in Vista - so you're looking at at least six years before we see the trickle down effect. Indeed, in some of the pages that the template is listed, it not only ruins the flow of the page, but is obtrusive (this can be fixed on a page-by-page basis by repositioning it and other boxes). Indeed, I hope to prevent the proliferation of lots of different script boxes that will become harder to maintain and will have no advantage over the current template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where exactly is the problem. I have WinXP with service Pack 1 and 2. My IE shows the indic scripts properly!!! My problem is with the Firefox browser. --Raghu 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However, a suggestion: two syllables are featured on the "Indic" template; need they both be Gurmukhi? Perhaps if one were Malayalam, it would serve to mollify all concerned. The choice of these two scripts as representative would also be "nice" in the sense that both of them are, to coin a word, "non-rampant" in India and do not elicit strong emotions (script-evolution theories, 'aryanocentrism', all find mention in the day-long discussion above). ImpuMozhi 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the two pictures indicate what complex rendering does. In that example, it's repositioning vowel sign i. So it shows a 'before complex text rendering' and an 'after complex text rendering' image. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: wangi 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The term "Indic" and its subsequent direction to the appropriate page is sufficient. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With all due respect to Malayalam script, the function this template is supposed to provide - "help" steps - remains the same irrespective of if its Malayalam or other Indian scripts. Hence, one template can do. However, replacing the original image of {{IndicText}} with a kind of crooked India flag seems inappropriate. Suggestion - you may want to consider CDAC illustration where one character each from many Indian languages is indicated. (This may defeat the purpose of showing the change in rendering though). --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 08:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 6

Possibly unused redirect (I do not know how to check that for shure, due to the possibly incomplete "what links here" list) to Template:Web reference 3, which is barely used either (I intend to nominated that later too, needs some work first). Adrian Buehlmann 11:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I thought we'd got all of those pesky varmints. —Phil | Talk 08:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dichotomouskey

Redundant with the very flexible Template:Wikibookspar. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UNSecGen

Too specific. There are only seven of them, and I've moved them to use the more generic Template:Infobox Person. -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer UN Secretary-General

Compelety unused. The infobox provides predecessor/sucessor links. -- Netoholic @ 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since succession boxes should be used, if they are used. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Jbamb 13:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saskatchewan

delete or categorize — This navigational tempalte is so large it overshadows every article it is on, and is ~80% redlines. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, it is a redlink farm, and it is very obtrusive. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Modify,Rather than delete it, can it be modified? For example instead of the long list of districts, how about a single entry to point to the listing of thse districts? Cadillac 13:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless radically pruned. - SimonP 19:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Modify and keep besides the red-link farms (most of which will eventually be created, as I'm actually surprised there's no Politics of Saskatchewan already), it's a near-standard templete:see {{quebec}}, {{ontario}} and {{BritishColumbia}} for refenrence, also all united states templates. The thematic links obviously have to go, and the template needs standardization, but I believe deletion is over the board. Circeus 04:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Bigfoot. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. It serves the same function as similiar ones for other provinces. --Rob 04:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It definitely needs to be chopped down to a reasonable size but there is no reason that the province should be without a template, and this is a start. The appropriate action is to edit, not delete. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As long as other provinces and states have similar templates, there's no viable reason to treat Saskabush any differently. Keep, with whatever modifications are appropriate. Bearcat 09:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Although, it needs some fixing up which I will do now. --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 01:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Album infobox 2

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

December 27

Template:Battlebox no campaign

Delete: No longer used, deprecated by Template:Infobox Military Conflict. —Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. -- Jbamb 13:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no point to have a template that is no longer used --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:the pillows

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

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

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

Keep - Pretty much what Cyde said, it's good for navigation between albums, and the members thing has been taken care of. --Itamae 17:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyde and Itamae. — Wackymacs 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please I created this template so it would make it easier for me and others to get to the albums and edit them. Alus 22:30, 28 December, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This template makes perfect sense to me. --Phoenix Hacker 05:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attack on population center

Delete: It is a redundant template - the only two articles that used it now use the Template:Infobox Military Conflict. Loopy 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Kirill Lokshin 06:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Jbamb 13:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep template users ought to have a choice to display whether the conflict involved civilian as opposed to strictly military casualties. --James S. 20:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing preventing you from adding civilian casualties to {{Infobox Military Conflict}}; see Battle of Stalingrad, for example. —Kirill Lokshin 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I speak for vast majority of the world's civilians when I say that the most important thing about any military conflict is whether civilians were vicitims of it. Therefore it is just and proper that the template heading display that information. Plus, Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict provides much less detailed information. I can't believe that Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is being suggested as a serious alternative to Template:Attack on population center --James S. 21:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into philosophical issues here, I still don't see how the older template is better; it has the exact same casualties fields as the new one. —Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference between the two templates is the design. Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is a flexible infobox that can be used to represent anything from a war, to a battle, to a mass slaughter of military or civilians, to any kind of conflict you would like to put in. I'm not really sure how you can argue that Template:Infobox_Military_Conflict is much less detailed than Template:Attack on population center when, as Kirill Lokshin pointed out above, they're precisely the same... --Loopy 23:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SoLando (Talk) 21:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless fork. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 02:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 26

Template:US City infobox

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

Keep - it's a redirect that is useful. There's also no way to know if any articles still use that. A page may call "US City infobox" but the Whatlinkshere will show a link to the target of the redirect, not the redirect itself. -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a technical question: I thought the "What links here" clicked on the redirect page (the one that contains the #redirect instruction) lists all articles that refer to the redirect. Am I wrong? Adrian Buehlmann 09:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No you are not wrong. [1] I'm not clear why Netoholic said what he did; the redirect is plainly not used anywhere, merely referenced in discussions and so forth. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pick some random articles from the Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox U.S. City. Now, you'd think that those would all call that template directly, but you're wrong. I picked Portland, Maine and as of this note, it is using "{{Template:US City infobox|". The link skips the redirect and refers to the redirects target instead (not listed at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:US City infobox. It may be a bug or a feature, but redirects have been working like this for at least a couple weeks. -- Netoholic @ 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's annoying. I was puzzled as to why there was anything listed at all in Whatlinkshere, but it seems that only wikilinks to the template are listed, not actual template calls. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I could reproduce that. Thanks for the example. I thought I had found all instances of articles that still use the redirect "US City infobox" (old name of the template) but I didn't due to the incomplete "what links here list" on the redirect. I think that's a bug, but maybe I just cannot see for what this behaviour should be good. Well, however changing my vote to Keep. Adrian Buehlmann 12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Netoholic is correct here, and this is a deceptive bug/feature. I noted that performing a null edit on Portland, Maine did not correctly update the Whatlinkshere list either. This is frightening in light of the recent movement to delete stub template redirects, as the effects of such deletions (i.e., a red link at the bottom of pages previously flagged as stubs) would go unnoticed for a greater period of time. For related discussion, see [2] — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:27, Dec. 27, 2005
- actually, not at all - we've been working with the problem at SFD for some time. Didn't realise no-one here knew about it. As far as stubs are concerned, since all stub templates have dedicated categories, it's simply a case of a manual or bot-assisted check of all articles within the category. With templates that have no dedicated categories, though, it could be a fairly major problem. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  For what its worth, this was listed at VPP several weeks back. It was reported after first being noted on WP:SFD in early November (see Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion#Template redirects). Not sure whether anyone filed a bug report, and unfortunately the Village pump isn't archived that I know of and I can't recall what the outcome of the discussions there was - but it is a known bug. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plumed Basilisk1

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Plumed Basilisk2

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pulmed Basilisk

Delete: Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mos4

Delete: This template contradicts principle 2.2 from the jguk 2 case. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Mos2-3, and half of its category. Phil Sandifer 17:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Jbamb 17:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Srleffler 19:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid. More Wikipedia Deletionism Gone Mad. With nominations like this is it no wonder so many top quality Wikipedians are quitting the site in frustration. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them. violet/riga (t) 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but re-word to align with Mos3, and re-word to make intention clearer, and note that this template applies only to changes that do nothing except deliberately deviate from MoS. Any edit that adds content does not count. Neonumbers 23:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- after all, the MoS itself contradicts this template in the first paragraph. Neonumbers has a point, though...--SarekOfVulcan 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User UT-Austin

Delete: This template is redundant; one serving the same purpose already exists at Template:User_longhorn. -Rebelguys2 09:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. -Scm83x 09:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created in error, unaware of existing template. Mea Culpa.1001001 10:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and other university userboxes. Wikipedia is not LiveJournal. Phil Sandifer 21:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per delete request of original creator (1001001). Adrian Buehlmann 21:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Adrian Buehlmann. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

Template:Infobox Proprietary Software

Delete: Obsolete by {{Infobox Software}}. - David Björklund (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Wikiacc (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless someone can provide a way to properly hide the license field of Template:Infobox Software in *all* browsers (including lynx). None of the methods proposed so far do this. The template was introduced to solve a specific problem see Template_talk:Infobox Software. - Motor (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Direct consequence from WP:AUM. Splitting templates does not harm the servers. CSS trick does not work for lynx and most probably also not for screen readers. See also Template talk:Taxobox#Eliminating meta-templates and especially this example of the CSS trick in lynx (Updated) Adrian Buehlmann 21:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to delete per Netoholic. Non-working lynx argument does hurt, but we have no other option than breaking lynx anyway (see my argument), so it's not resonable to fork Infobox Software into Infobox Proprietary Software just for the sake of an optional field. Adrian Buehlmann 12:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and bring back meta-template on {{Infobox Software}} until such time as a solution is developed that doesn't break some browsers. Firebug 16:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flensburg infobox

Delete unused and redundant with {{Infobox Town DE}} --Sherool (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Equatorial Guinea infobox

Delete: This template seems to be a copy of the infobox in article Equatorial Guinea and is apparently not used anywhere. Thuresson 18:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphaned. --Wikiacc (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PureStates

Delete: "Pure" states? Anyway, not used. dbenbenn | talk 03:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like this was created for a user page, but the user doesn't have it on his user page anymore, so it can be deleted without affecting anyone or anything. --Metropolitan90 04:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recommend creator to use user page subpages for this purpose in the future. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. -- Jbamb 17:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Feminist

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 24

Template:Infobox BridgeSpecificWithMap

Duplicates main Template:Infobox Bridge now that support for the map was made optional. Was only used on four articles, so I moved them to Infobox Bridge. -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thanks for making the changes to make the parameters optional by the way! ++Lar 20:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Adrian Buehlmann 21:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. - Bobet 14:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Police Officer

Seems a tad too specific. Only used on two articles, which are themselves up for deletion. -- Netoholic @ 09:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete, yes it does seem too specific, and prone to encourage memorials which are unencyclopediatic. — Eoghanacht ^talk 10:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the idea is not to encourage memorials. It is to pay tribute to those warriors who are living today and those who have left this world. I see that Wikipedia is being infiltrated by editors who wish to bring politics into these situations. A few rogue Vandalizers should not be able to wield power in such a negative way.CelebritySecurity 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not the place for memorials. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not a memorial. It part of an ongoing effort to encourage information about living and deceased warriors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_law_enforcement_officers Please respect the hard work of others and the political implications of your actions. Reminder: This is "free" encyclopedia. The overhwleming effort by certain individuals/admins here on wikipedia to both vandalize and eliminate those parts of the encyclopedia that include a broader focus on law enforcement issues is alarming and should be of concern to those who believe in freedom of information. CelebritySecurity 18:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOT a soapbox, either. android 79 18:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Prone to encourage" memorials can be said about ANY of the biographical infoboxes here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebritySecurity (talk • contribs)
- That's not right; that's not even wrong. --Calton | Talk 01:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nomination. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "Only used on two articles, which are themselves up for deletion". Adrian Buehlmann 21:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...the idea is not to encourage memorials. It is to pay tribute... Guy, you contradict yourself almost immediately. Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor a soapbox. Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly specific. --Wikiacc (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 02:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it lends credence to the idea that memorials should be part of the 'pedia. --NormanEinstein 14:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the standard is if the template has any legitimate use, not whether it "might" be abused, or whether newbies have a mistaken idea about what Wikipedia is for. Firebug 16:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Srleffler 19:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (template, not idea): I disagree with the arguement its just for memorials, or encourages them. At least one of two uses, Mark Bourque is clearly not a memorial, but is somebody who's been written about in the media long before he died. Also, it's worth reading WP:NOT carefully. It's against people who's only claim to fame is being fondly remembered by friends and family. This is analogous to why we give bio articles to people with hit singles (even short term) but not those who just sing to the locals. National media attention *may* indicate concern beyond the friends and family. The only reason I'm not voting keep, is I find the this particular template, as it stands now rather useless. It's rather oversimpliefied, and I would rather people actually write out the information in paragraphs. Officers with lengthy and varied careers would not fit neatly in this box, and those are the very people I want articles on. --Rob 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not useful, encourages bad articles. --Improv 09:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Early Muslim conflicts

Listing for Zora. gren グレン 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands this template really gets in the way. If it's kept, which I think right now is a bad idea, it should be made much smaller and so it is put at the bottom of articles. We have battle boxes which are supposed to go where Striver has put it. gren グレン 05:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i also agree that it should be deleted. at the very least, someone needs to edit it, as it has numerous grammar and spelling errors (why are there no apostrophes?!). but moreover, i'm just not sure how the template really adds anything. Dgl 11:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't really know much about the topic, but if it makes sense to group them together, I don't see why not have it. Further, the complaint about the apostrophes is trivial, I have just fixed that. –Andyluciano 19:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "them" that are being grouped are highly heterogeneous. They aren't all "conflicts", for one thing. The Hijra was not a conflict. Succession to Muhammad was a political struggle, but not a battle. Treaties aren't conflicts! The timeline is also undefined. After complaining to the creator of the template, who is a Shi'a Muslim, that ending the template with the Battle of Karbala was POV, he added one other revolt. But why stop there? Why not everything that happened during the Umayyad caliphate? Also, even with the punctuation problems fixed, there are still red links, mispellings, etc. We have one editor weighing in here, Dgl, who has a master's degree in Islamic studies. He wrote the article on the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah. If he thinks this template is useless, it's useless. We already have extensive interlinking between Islamic history articles, plus an article on Islamic history, plus a timeline of Islamic history. That's enough to orient readers. Zora 20:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very well, I stand corrected. I made my post because no one explained why it ought to be deleted, and now you have done that. Thanks. –Andyluciano 08:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your openmindedness and willingness to listen. Zora 09:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If all that is needed is a chronological list of battles, the proper way to do it is via a campaignbox template. —Kirill Lokshin 21:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zora. Pepsidrinka 04:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Use the campaignbox, Luke. Ashibaka tock 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Warbox or Campaignbox can replace it. Roy Al Blue 02:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 23

Template:Literarypunkgenre

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

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

Delete Avogadro94 01:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep see changes since December 22: [3] All articles currently included are very wikipedia worthy, and the template is a useful navigation Circeus 04:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — Important template for Punk culture and the relevant articles should not be deleted either. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Signed

Delete: Considering that we already have the "unsigned" template, I don't think we need a "signed" one. HappyCamper 23:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's signed, why would we have to...? This template confuses me.--Sean|Black 23:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN? Pointless template, most decidedly a bad idea because of ~~~~. The only uses I've seen are an anon just wanting to sign as User:anon. At the very least delete. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image-license

Delete: Created to standardize image templates and leave room for the EXIF Metatable (in its old location). ~~Now that the metatable has moved and some uses have been reverted, it's time for this to go. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)~~ Please see below for a short but important note regarding the nomination.[reply]
~~Delete~~: seems to have relatively little usage? I added {{tfd-inline|Image-license}} to it to alert folks. ++Lar 16:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason there was no TfD notice on the template was to prevent any problems with how it is used with subst. (I put it on the talk page instead). I do not object to its appearance, however. (The subst part just gives the impression it is not used, but of all of our licensing templates it still hasn't enjoyed widespread use.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. Well the subst usages aren't going to be affected by it going away, they already are subst'd in, right? The actual transcludes of it seem very rare unless I was misinterpreting "what links here"... But please feel free to revert me if you like! ++Lar 21:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I checked the whatlinkshere... no transclusion that I can tell. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somebody should have checked the talk page. It's a work in progress to standardize all image license, primarily to make license information machine-readable. Any help with that work is appreciated. Zocky 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zocky ++Lar 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er, never mind then. Abstain and withdraw nomination. (Although the spacing for the EXIF Metatable can go...) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:if

Delete: Not used. – Adrian | Talk 09:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is an API to be used in other templates. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 09:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been deprecated and is defunct. See also Template talk:if. – Adrian | Talk 09:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to know. Changing my vote to to Del ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 09:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now it's no longer required. —Phil | Talk 10:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my bot didnt touch 15,000 articles for nothing. Martin 10:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to {{qif}} Delete and rename {{qif}} to {{if}}. Once we've got rid of the old template, the new and improved one should be given the obvious name. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. More to come soon. -- Netoholic @ 14:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I never want to see this thing again. —Lifeisunfair 14:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and related templates; the trouble and confusion they cause more than offsets the value they add. R adiant _>|< 18:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rename {{qif}} to {{if}}, per Ilmari Karonen. Shawnc 22:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose not to do a redirect. qif is at the moment an extreme high use template: What links here lists 31'000+ articles. A redirect means an additional database lookup, which should be avoided. At least, if there is a real need to have qif under the name if, please copy the contents of qif to if. Do not create a redirect. Disclaimer: Beware of WP:AUM. Adrian Buehlmann 12:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My intent was to imply that, if a rename is done, another bot run should be performed to change all instances of {{qif}} (back) to {{if}}. But the naming issue is actually rather minor, and it may not actually be worth doing anything about until this entire logic template controversy is settled. Hopefully we'll eventually get new MediaWiki syntax that will obsolete all these templates, preferably sooner that later. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer protecting it as a blank template, so editors can have access to its edit history. Keep the talk page so that people who're interested would be able to know what'd been happening. — Insta ntnood 20:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, meta-template, unused and deprecated in favor of {{qif}}. --Wikiacc (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and protect per Instantnood... ++Lar 14:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HKCrownCopyright

in zh wp deleted. seezh:Wikipedia:删除投票和请求/2005年12月15日 and [4]--Shizhao 01:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template:Middle-earth portal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep - Obviously as the creator I'm biased. That said, at most I'd think the template should be changed if consensus finds that it's purpose is confusing. Some of the issues listed above are actually standard practice for portals. For instance, it is standard to link articles related to a portal to that portal and put the portal links at the top of the page - see for instance Template:Philosophy portal and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Philosophy portal. Where images at the top of the page conflict the portal link can be moved down, as it always was for The Lord of the Rings, Middle-earth, History of Arda, and various others. The 'easter egg' was intended to be self evident to anyone familiar with the topic and follow the general concept of making portals 'personalized' to the topics they cover, but if there is concern about that the text can easily be replaced with a generic 'Middle-earth portal' message. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Undecided at the moment, but I'd like to add that I had no idea what it was when I first saw it. My first impulse was to delete it from the page because I took it for an irrelevant image (on The Hobbit, where the door of Moria isn't germaine to the subject) and didn't notice what it was until I was editing the page. It doesn't communicate its purpose very well even to one intimately familiar with the subject. But really, I think Wikipedia features should be aimed at the general reader. I'd vote to delete it in its present form, but with appropriate changes I'd vote to keep it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Recent changes are improvements, but could a different image be found? The current one is barely recognizable, and unless you already know what it's supposed to be it doesn't look in the least like a door. Not at my screen resolution anyway. (1024x768 on a 19" CRT. Didn't look good on the flat panel I use at work either.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  Really? It looked pretty good on my screens, but I tend to use higher resolution (1280 x 1024). I'll check it under different settings and see if it can be cleaned up. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm glad I spotted this one. It's creative. An element that is often stifled in encyclopedias. But this is Wikipedia, which encourages creativity and novel approaches to encyclopedia design. Though a portal link such as this should mention the portal. Simply add the link "Middle-earth portal" in a sentence immediately following the fabled line from the book. So that takes care of the easter egg issue. As for the picture, is there any way to make a picture part of a link? I'd really like to know. If not, perhaps it can be iconized. But this doesn't matter, since the picture is definitely on-theme, and if its text includes "Middle-earth portal", the user will know that's a clickable link. But the picture is a bit dark, and itself needs to be freshened up, but that's easy to fix. I agree that the template clashes on some pages, but it is a nice touch on those with nothing to clash with. And the statement about "this kind of link would be more appropriate in text form under "See also" headings" argues against portal link templates in general, but they are in common use throughout Wikipedia, so this is not the place to be pushing such an agenda, as it pertains to general policy. Portal link templates are a Wikipedia tradition, and are a means to centralize portals, which helps portals be precisely what they are supposed to be: centralized. Therefore, this deletion nomination should never have been posted. Instead, an effort should have been made to fix the template and adjust its placement. I don't see any evidence of such an effort on Qirex's part. Just a knee-jerk "let's kill it" response. Besides, this portal link accents the Middle-earth theme quite well, and using a picture of a portal to represent a Wikipedia portal is brilliant. This one's a keeper. Go for it! 02:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think to characterise this nomination as "a knee-jerk "let's kill it" response" is a misrepresentation. I came across template when I noticed some placement issues of {{bakshi}}, and went to ~10 pages to see if I could resolve the problem (see the second and third pages of my contribs). I am a firm believer in fixing problems where they exist. I nominated this template because I honestly do not see the need to place large and prominent links to portals mixed in with the main body of text, and if the template is to go at the bottom of the page anyway, then it may as well be represented with plain text under an internal links section; simpler is better. --Qirex 08:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  Qirex, I can see your viewpoint, but the problem is that it runs contrary to virtually EVERY portal on Wikipedia. I didn't come up with the idea of putting portal links with images at the top of related articles... I just followed the standard set by earlier portals in doing so. Most of them use the generic portal link template, but it's still an image box. I haven't found a single WikiPortal which follows the 'text link in 'See also' section' standard you propose. This is therefore really a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Portal to determine if the way all portals are linked should be changed. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to vote 'delete' but alas, I cannot. I wouldnt read them books if I was tortured, but I understand that some people adore poor prose – so for their sake I vote this way.--Ezeu 02:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Phil Sandifer 02:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've fixed it so if the image is clicked on, it also takes you to the Portal (and not to the Image info). —Locke Cole 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's pretty cool. I know that's not exactly the strongest argument on Wikipedia, but there you have it. Kafziel 03:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

December 22

Template:ReligionScotland

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 21

Some User templates

To remove

Template:User 2.05, Template:User es 1337, Template:User ca 1337, Template:User_ast_1337

Delete — Strange templates _→AzaToth 20:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All four seem like abandoned tests. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all four not used, first looks like a test, the others look like somone was trying to reserve userbox fictious languages' foreign language equivs. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 08:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violet/riga (t) 10:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy

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

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

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

Holding cell

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Template linking and transclusion check – Toolforge tool to see which pages are transcluded but not linked from or to a template
WhatLinksHereSnippets.js – user script that allows for template use to be viewed from the Special:WhatLinksHere page
AutoWikiBrowser – semi-automatic editor that can replace or modify templates using regular expressions
Bots – robots editing automatically. All tasks have to be approved before operating. There are currently five bots with general approval to assist with implementing TfD outcomes:
- AnomieBOT – substituting templates via User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster
- SporkBot – general TfD implementation run by Plastikspork
- PrimeBOT – general TfD implementation run by Primefac
- BsherrAWBBOT – general TfD implementation run by Bsherr
- PearBOT II – general TfD implementation run by Trialpears

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

Template:Infobox_tropical_cyclone2024 March 10 – Infobox_tropical_cyclone ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Infobox_storm2024 March 10 – Infobox_storm ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Merge into the singular {{infobox ship}} (currently a redirect):
- Template:Infobox_ship_begin2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_career2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_characteristics2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_characteristics ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_class_overview2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_class_overview ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_image2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_image ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_service_record2022 April 30 – Infobox_service_record ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  I have hacked Module:Infobox ship which implements ship infoboxen without the external wikitable that the above templates require. Uses Module:Infobox; {{infobox ship begin}} is no longer required; parameter names are changed from sentence- to snake-case; section header height for career, characteristics, service record sections is normalized; custom fields are supported. I chose to retain the individual section templates as subtemplates:
  - {{Infobox ship/image}}
  - {{Infobox ship/career}}
  - {{Infobox ship/characteristic}}
  - {{Infobox ship/class}}
  - {{Infobox ship/service record}} – Module:Infobox ship implements only the 'ship' portion of {{Infobox service record}}
  In the main infobox these subtemplates are called with the |section<n>= parameters (aliases of |data<n>=).
  
  Comparisons between wikitable infoboxen and Module:Infobox ship infoboxen can bee seen at my sandbox (permalink).
  
  —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Since the intent is to use Module:Infobox directly, why is Module:Infobox ship being used to generate the infobox? I can understand if there is need for a backend module to validate a value or something, but is there really a reason to have this unique code? Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The original complaint was that the ship infoboxen templates are table templates masquerading as infobox templates. None of those templates use Module:Infobox. Module:Infobox ship answers that complaint. Yeah, we still have subtemplates, but, in my opinion, that is a good thing because the appropriate parameters and their data are contained in each particular subtemplate. The container subtemplates make it relatively easy for an editor reading an article's wikitext to understand. The current ship infobox system allows sections in any order (except for the position of {{infobox ship begin}} – not needed with Module:Infobox ship); whatever the final outcome of this mess, that facility must not be lost.
  
  Module:Infobox ship does do some error checking (synonymous parameters |ship_armor= / |ship_armour=, |ship_draft= / |ship_draught=, |ship_honors= / |ship_honours=, and |ship_stricken= / |ship_struck=). Whether {{infobox ship}} directly calls Module:Infobox or whether {{infobox ship}} calls Module:Infobox ship which then calls Module:Infobox is really immaterial so long as the final rendered result is a correctly formatted infobox.
  
  —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Trappist the monk are you still interested in working on this Module? If not, I'd like to try to get it finished myself. The massive deviation I had in mind was to make one invocation of the module do everything. Each page will require individual attention to complete the merge into a proper infobox anyway, so I reason to go the extra mile to make it nicer in general. Repeatable parameters will have the normal n number appended to the end of the parameter. An alternative would be to have subboxes for repeating sections, which would be easier in general to replace and implement. SWinxy (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, but I don't think that this page is the proper place to discuss. Choose some place more proper and let me know where that is?
  
  —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replacement with {{Infobox aircraft}}:
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_type2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_type ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_career2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_program2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_program ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_begin2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_engine2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_engine ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
  - For {{Infobox aircraft engine}}, There is an ongoing discussion about whether the aircraft engine Infobox should be merged with the Infobox aircraft or not. Except for the engine Infobox, other Infoboxes can be orphaned and there are no objection for that. Prarambh20 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - This discussion is still ongoing, so I have moved it back to the "to merge" list with the others. Primefac (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - The discussion has now ended (diff), with the consensus NOT TO MERGE {{Infobox aircraft engine}} with the others. However {{infobox aircraft begin}} may or may not end up being merged into {{Infobox aircraft engine}}. The template pages should be updated accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox_climber2024 June 29 – Infobox_climber ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Infobox_mountaineer2024 June 29 – Infobox_mountaineer ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

Navigation templates

Link templates

Template:Lx2023 October 1 – Lx ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Pagelinks2023 October 1 – Pagelinks ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Because Lx has the option to hide certain links and PageLinks itself doesn't, a direct merge is impossible. The next best thing would be to convert the transclusions to invocations of Module:PageLinks. Doesn't look too impossible at first glance. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Problem: Lx's 20,000 transclusions are kinda fake, because almost all of them are transclusions of transclusions.
  Even if we restrict it to the template namespace, most of those are transclusions of transclusions of transclusions in the doc subpage. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The more I look at this, the more it appears technically infeasible. Lx has some really bizarre arguments like tag and label which can't be replicated by Module:PageLinks. When Lx was used to link to a normal page, namespace is usually Talk and label is usually talk, but when it's used to link to a talk page, either could be anything. Also, the recursive transclusion issue means the only way to get our pages would be an insource search, which means we'd also have to deal with pages like this.
  Replacing all uses of the format \{\{[Ll]x\|1=\|2=(.*)\|3=Talk\|4=talk\}\} with {{Pagelinks|$1}} could be a start. From there, I'm totally lost. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  What if we only replaced uses matching an insource search in the template namespace, and then substed everything else? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Template:Football_squad_player22020 February 1 – Football_squad_player2 ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) and Template:Football_squad_player2020 February 1 – Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Note Pending Redesign RfC robertsky (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've closed the RfC. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point this is ready for large scale replacement. I said a while ago that I could do it but due to me being quite busy IRL this seems unlikely to get done in a timely manner. If you feel like doing a large scale replacement job feel free to take this one. --Trialpears (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trialpears, what large-scale replacement? I (foolishly?) jumped into this rabbit hole, and have been in it for over a day now. This is a very complex merge; I've got the documentation diff to show fewer differences, but there's still more to be done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Auto_compact_TOC2023 March 6 – Auto_compact_TOC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Compact_TOC2023 March 6 – Compact_TOC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Wikisource author2023 July 5 – Wikisource author ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Wikisourcelang2023 July 5 – Wikisourcelang ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Hi now that {{Wikisourcelang}} is being merged, how do I use the merge target template to point to sister language Wikisources? All the links keep incorrectly pointing to the English version and the documentation of {{Wikisource}} has not been updated about this. Folly Mox (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Folly Mox, the merge has not yet been completed, so you should use the appropriate currently-existing template to do whatever it is you are planning until the merge is complete. The existing uses will be converted appropriately at that time. Primefac (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops, I forgot I had posted here. My assertion was incorrectly based on the first instance I had tested, which had been misusing parameters in such a way that it worked prior to the start of the merge process but not afterwards. The links to en.s/lang:page do properly redirect if the parameters are used correctly, but I didn't initially follow the links to check. It was quite an embarrassing hour or so of my contribution history. Folly Mox (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Wikisourcehas2023 July 5 – Wikisourcehas ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

I see I am not supposed to use {{Wikisourcehas}} on "additional padverages" so I have had to move to using {{Sister project}} because {{Wikisource}} does not have the required functionality. I shall look out for further developments because some very clever coding will be needed. Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For over a year now we have been instructed not to use {{Wikisource author}}, {{Wikisourcelang}} and {{Wikisourcehas}} and this is a nuisance because avoiding their use is not at all trivial. Can we have a report on progress with the merge, please, or permission to again use these templates? Thincat (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Primefac's note above. Just keep using the existing templates. They will be converted for you during the merge process, whenever it happens (these merges sometimes take a while, as you can see above). When the conversion is done, the merged template will support the features that you need. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's helpful. Is there a change that could be usefully made to the display text in {{being deleted}}? Or maybe the assumption is that no one reads beyond the first line anyway. Thincat (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Facebook_page2024 February 21 – Facebook_page ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Facebook2024 February 21 – Facebook ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- While the result was "merge" it seems that this should be moved to "convert" as looking at Craig Kilborn, the ID used there is "The-Kilborn-File/107748632605752", while the new one is at https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100082874612029. The number is different. Unless I'm missing something else there is nothing here to merge. --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Image_template_notice12024 September 7 – Image_template_notice1 ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:File_template_notice2024 September 7 – File_template_notice ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_fully_protected2024 September 17 – R_fully_protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_template-protected2024 September 17 – R_template-protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_extended-protected2024 September 17 – R_extended-protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_semi-protected2024 September 17 – R_semi-protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_protected2024 September 17 – R_protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Advert2024 September 19 – Advert ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → *{{Promotional_tone}}
- Please note that this merge is complex; see the discussion for the steps required to perform this merge and subsequent edits. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reworded {{Advert}}; redirected {{Promotional tone}} to it and put a CSD tag on {{Promotional tone/doc}}, as a first step. It just remains, I think, for an admin to move {{Advert}} over the dab page {{Promotional}} and then someone can notify the Twinkle crowd and tidy up the loose ends. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:AfD_new_user2024 October 18 – AfD_new_user ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:BLP2024 October 22 – BLP ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

2023 October 25
- Template:R to related2023 October 25 – R to related ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - convert to {{R from related word}} or {{R to related topic}} as appropriate
- Adding this from RfD as it's template related. --Gonnym (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Started toying with this and came to the conclusion that I was very the wrong person because there are definitely cases where the appropriate template is neither of the two of interest. We need to leave this refinement on the user talk pages of some people who know what they're doing. Izno (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_left/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_right/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia2024 April 25 – Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:S-s2024 September 30 – S-s ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Austronesian languages2024 September 17 – Austronesian languages ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - split into separate templates

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

Template:FA_pass2024 October 13 – FA_pass ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:FT_pass2024 October 13 – FT_pass ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:DYK_pass2024 October 13 – DYK_pass ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

Template:IPhone_models_minimal2024 October 9 – IPhone_models_minimal ( redirects | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

Listings

December 30

Template:Off-topic

Looks like a one-off created for one specific dispute. Redundant with {(sofixit}}? -- Netoholic @ 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep. Has the potential to be usefull, but is overly specific. Also, that yellow burns my brain.--Sean|Black 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I've de-uglified it, and it may be useful if given a chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon reflection, I've changed my mind. Still a tad specific, but okay.--Sean|Black 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NPOV-date

Fork of existing template. Only new purpose seems to create a category structure for POV disputes by date (see Quickly). I don't think we need that. -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Couldn't that new date field be integrated into template:NPOV (Without category thing, I don't think we need to categorize that by date)? Adrian Buehlmann 10:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Objective

Unused, and redundant with other dispute templates. -- Netoholic @ 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lucidinformationsystems

Unused. —Cryptic (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various icon image templates

(namely Template:MacOS-icon, Template:Windows-icon, Template:Gnome-icon, Template:Kde-icon, Template:X-icon, Template:Oss-icon, Template:Free-icon, Template:Nix-icon, Template:Linux-icon, Template:FreeBSD-icon)
We don't use templates merely to insert an image at a given size. Further, the only place any of these are used are in Comparison of image viewers, Comparison of accounting software and Comparison of bitmap graphics editors, where their use is purely decorative and thus runs afoul of WP:FUC (at least for MacOs-icon and Windows-icon), and in Template:OS-icon-key, listed below. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - I dunno about the fair use argument... but the templates should go away. Someone needs to learn to use image tags. -- Netoholic @ 09:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OS-icon-key

Unused, and we don't use fair-use icons for things like this anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If equal g

It's deprecated, so let's kill it. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hack & Slay~~ Delete: it's horrid: put it out of its misery (sorry, burst of enthusiasm there :-). —Phil | Talk 08:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and unneded variant. Looks like a leftover from a failed try. Adrian Buehlmann 09:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divizia A

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divizia A: "It is unused. It was copied from Romanian Wikipedia (including fonts). There's another similar template, Ro Divizia A, in use. Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs) 05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)" --Idont Havaname 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 29

Template:ROT13

Delete — Failed experiment to ROT13 old talk page archives. Was used on the Talk:Elvis Presley archives. cesarb 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, everyone knows double ROT13 is more secure. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncategorized

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

delete self-defeating in other ways, too, since the editor - in the time taken to write {{Uncategorized}} - could just as easily add at least a general category to the article. In other words, this simply doubles the editorial work. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in September 2005 and kept. Nothing has changed since then, and the template has remained useful. Keep. Uncle G 06:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, oddly enough I just used this today; when you're not sure where to categorize an article (but you know it needs a category), this is better than leaving the article as-is. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This unbreaks Special:Uncategorizedpages, which only displays the first thousand entries and is rarely updated, so doesn't show anything past the B's. Keep. —Cryptic (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I seen it used alot, and also per Cryptic --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need this template, Special:Uncategorizedpages is redundant and not useful. - Darwinek 09:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 2

Not used. Replacement: template:web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 20:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not make template forks. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- These templates were made over a year ago. Uncle G 06:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We may need this because eventually the citation templates will have to stop using meta-templates. Multiple similar templates may have to be re-implemented as the solution. -- Netoholic @ 07:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book reference 4

Was an unused redirect to Template:Web reference 2 which I intend to nominate later too (needs some work first). Adrian Buehlmann 19:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not make template forks. R adiant _>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox University5

Template:Infobox University5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used. In fact all of Infobox University4-6 are used very sparingly and could probably be fixed not to be used at all. --platypeanArchcow 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC) platypeanArchcow 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not make template forks. R adiant _>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web-reference

Was a redirect to Template:Web reference. Deprecated and defunct. Adrian Buehlmann 15:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Incomplete license

Redundant with Template:No license. --Puzzlet Chung 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not make template forks. R adiant _>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tuberculosis

Not really a candidate for an article series, given that the top two in this list will be merged. JFW | T@lk 12:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European communist parties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like the images. It is not an unimportant matter, as the choice of symbolism also denotes political differences. Compare KPÖ/PCF with KKE, for example. Or note that some parties include national colours and other don't. BTW, aren't all communist parties Leninist by definition? --Soman 21:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nationality law

Template:User ai kago-5

Template:User ai kago-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Master race? Hello? A userbox announcing to the world one's intention to create a master race? Is this Wikipedia or Fuehrerpedia? We don't need this crap here. Contributes nothing to Wikipedia, and it offends people. Like me. On second thought, maybe delete everything in the series except one. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything in the series and all associated categories. Usercruft. android 79 06:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is orphaned and unlikely to be used; note that I'm principally against deleting it just because it is usercruft. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two of them, specifically Ai Kago-4 and Ai Kago-5. Those two clearly crosses the line on appropriateness. Ai Kago-1 and Ai Kago-2 looks fine, Ai Kago-3 is a little disturbing and somewhat of a border case in my opinion, but hey, if that's what float's the person's boat. ;-) --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Todo, trains

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

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

Template:WIP

Template:WIP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template poorly duplicates a couple we already have, as well as utomatically feeding any article its marked with into the general stubs category (to give an example of why this is a bad thing, it's currently in use on only one article, and that is clearly not a stub). Unnecessary. 210.54.198.105 01:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (um, that's Grutness...wha?. Damn computer logged me out).[reply]

Strong Delete. No Wikipedia article is a "work in progress by one author", and nobody needs "permission to edit this page". Useless at best, fundamentally anti-Wiki at worst.--Sean|Black 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, instructions are blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Firebug 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it from the one article it was attached to. Any objections to a speedy? This violates so many Wikipedia fundamentals that there's no chance it will be kept. android 79 01:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, people can't own articles. {{inuse}} can be used if someone really needs to do a major edit. And having non-stub templates add pages to Category:Stubs hurts too. (I wouldn't be against a speedy, and since this has gotten 4 votes in 10 minutes on tfd, it looks like people really don't like it.) - Bobet 01:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Inuse. Very logical name for it. —Cryptic (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cryptic. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not make template forks. R adiant _>|< 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, covered by inuse and incorrectly implies ownership.--SarekOfVulcan 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Template:Inuse already exists and appears to be better designed. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NRL Grounds

Template:Freenet links

A template dependent upon Freenet/Ways to view a freesite (AFD discussion). Doesn't seem at all useful without it. —Cryptic (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

Template:Atlanta conventions

Unused nav template. All links in the template are red. - TexasAndroid 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is also an orphan --Chris 22:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if no article uses the template, then does the template really exist? --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 09:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Security Risk

This template reads "this article poses a risk to international security and should be edited." If one of our articles actually poses a risk to international security it needs far more than a template, and any such issues should be brought directly to the board. However, since all Wikipedia articles merely repeat already verifiable information this should not be a concern. - SimonP 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See British Embassy in Washington, D.C. and its talk page for an example of this template in action. - SimonP 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this template serves no purpose, delete per nom's arguments. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lol what. --Golbez 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:SimonP is using logo of the incorporated City of Ottawa as an identifying mark. Said user is involved in a Wikiproject that is posting addresses of diplomatic embassies without providing mechanism to trace users requesting such information. Wikipedia is not an addressbook. PeterZed 19:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's rather simple to find the addresses of diplomatic embassies... I mean, they kinda want people to come find them usually. That .001% of people want to bomb them doesn't mean we have to request the names, addresses, and social security numbers of everyone. I'm very confused by this comment. --Golbez 19:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there was some reason for not putting embassy addresses on Wiki articles, why the spod do the embassies themselves put them on their websites? Why do regional authorities list the addresses of embassies on their websites? Why are they in the yellow pages fer crissakes? Grutness...wha? 06:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The squirrels are coming to get me. -- Jbamb 19:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "However, since all Wikipedia articles merely repeat already verifiable information this should not be a concern" - This is simply not the case as the board is already clearly aware of. Posting the addresses of diplomatic embassies on a website that provides no mechanism to identify those making such requests is a security risk. If User:SimonP is actually a representative of the government body that his identifying mark represents, perhaps said user should co-ordinate with members of the RCMP or Canadian Security Intelligence Service.PeterZed 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — As per PeterZed. It seems SimonP only wants this template deleted so he can carry on giving addresses and telephone numbers of embassies for psychotic murders. -__

This is akin to those who publish other peoples' personal information on Wikipedia and is just as bad. -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, a person's information is private and even if it weren't it would be hard for it to be verifiable, an information on an embassy or other government building on the other hand is verifiable and publicly available and therefore eligible for inclusion. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per my argument above and the fact that these so called claims to national security are just straw man arguments. Information about embassies and other governmenmt agencies is publicly available and verifiable so it's eligible for inclusion and therefore having an article to tell people to remove it is flawed. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since terrorists would much rather attack world leaders, can I trust that the addresses for the residences of the leaders of the US and UK will be purged from Wikipedia? --Golbez 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAgain: Wikipedia IS NOT an addressbook and has no mechanism to trace those individuals looking for the address information of diplomatic missions. Other websites have this ability. Since the only medium we can compare this issue is to the Internet, it is important that we remain vigilant in the war on terrorism and the ability to track those that would cause harm to others. The strong will and desire of others to continue to delete these security templates is itself a matter of concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterZed (talk • contribs) 19:55, December 28, 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit, A) it's impossible for us to know who's viewing this information and it's not our job to police information, we are a free encyclopedia that consists of verifiable and factual information, what you want is censorship due to a percieved threat which is baseless. WP:NOT should be expanded to state that Wikipedia is not censored at the behest of people who have irrational national security fears. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Addresses of international embassies are trivially easy to find in an untraceable manner, usually from things like "phone books". We may furthermore presume that any organization which can acquire the tools necessary to blow up an embassy or otherwise commit terrorist action against it will probably not have much difficulty finding out the target address in any case. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 20:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Extreme Unction and JTKiefer; utterly bizarre template, also appears to categorise articles into non-existent category. Palmiro | Talk 20:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Simply put, these embassies WANT to be found. What use is the embassy to a Brit in America if they can't go there for needed assistance? --Golbez 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic Delete utter rubbish (besides which, with what nations' security is Wikipedia supposed to be concerned with - without infringing NPOV? An article on the North Korean nuclear programme could endanger N.Korea's national security.) --Doc ^ask? 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - I say this quite a lot but this time I mean it. This is the stupidest counter-proposition I have ever heard. Part of me is inclined to believe that it is an elaborate hoax that several of us have been drawn into... but we're nowhere near April. Just google "British embassy, Washington DC"... what do you find? A damn sight more information than is contained on Wikipedia. Absolute claptrap. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another disclaimer template. --cesarb 20:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, silly. android 79 20:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — per Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer _→AzaToth 22:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just plain retarded. Even if these are really "security threats," then this really isn't the way to deal with these "dangers to our nation's security." This info is easy to find elsewhere anyhow. Any real terrorist knows how to use Google. --Chris 22:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is quite silly, this is public information. And even if the template is used and the "offending" information is removed, it is still there in the history! Waste of space. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please be WP:CIVIL and remember to WP:AGF Some of the comments on this template ("just plain retarded", "stupidest template ever", "bullshit" and the like) may be going too far. Is it possible the creator meant well? ++Lar
- That said... delete. It does seem unnecessary and not likely to be an effective deterrent. ++Lar 23:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Did he mean well? Sure, probably. Is he himself engaging in personal attacks and incivility? See for yourself. android 79 01:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All information on Wikipedia must be supported with publically available sources. As a corollary of that, anything that can be included in Wikipedia under WP:CITE must be available from other sources. So the template is useless. In the particular case cited, the addresses of embassy's are trivial to find (it wouldn't be much of an embassy if you couldn't find it), so this is a plainly nonsensical argument. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently, "security specialist" Peter Zed is unaware of that huge security risk known as the Washington, DC, telephone directory -- which ANYONE can just use without being traced. Ludicrous. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, maybe the British Embassy could use PeterZed's security advice, since they have foolishly put their street address at the top of their home page. The naive fools! When will they ever learn? --Calton | Talk 01:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV and patent nonsense. Firebug 01:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 11:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Hopefully, the debacle that has unfolded here demonstrates to Wikipedia editors, adminstrators and arbitrators the need to KEEP important templates such as these. Rather than deal with the case in a fair and polite manner, this IP was banned from WIKI to prevent further comment. Irregardless of the fact that the 3 Revert Rule was not adequately and fairly re-inforced when it came to the original vandalizer User:SimonP, and irregardless of the fact that two seperate admins banned my IP twice within a minute for the same infraction (how is that even possible?) When real security matters arise here on WP, what are the mechanisms Jimbo Wales et al have implemented to ensure that there is a secure method to report users to police/security/proper authorities when material of a sensitive nature continues to be posted? I hope none of the long-time admins here who have ignored this issue would suggest that this template does not have a place here on Wikipedia. PeterZed 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, administrators and arbitrators are all watching you make a fool out of yourself. The addresses and locations of foreign embassies are as sensitive and vital to national security as my shoe size. FCYTravis 05:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have you as a size 10EE. If this information is in error, please let us know so we can update our records. Thank you. - National Security Agency Helpdesk 07:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very silly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AnnH ^(talk) 22:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My aluminum-foil hat isn't working; the mind-control rays telling me we should delete this are getting through. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to BJAODN and delete. Raul654 23:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Let's see... Editors of the Animal Liberation Front use the term target to describe current operations here on Wikipedia. How is this not a candidate to be tagged as an international security risk when they are possibly identifying post-secondary institutions as potential locations for terrorist activity? yet Wikipedians suggest that there is noneed for a security template? PeterZed 23:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that Peter Zed has been a little too zealous and failed to actually read the article. It lists universities that have been attacked in the past by groups claiming to be the Animal Liberation Front. By the same logic, you may as well add that template to the Al Qaeda article if it mentions the US embassy in Nigeria or the Twin Towers.--BobBobtheBob 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think it's up to any of us to determine what constitutes a "national security threat". And we certainly shouldn't be censoring content. Private spying on citizens is bad enough already ... we don't need Wikipedians going around throwing Orwellian "violates national security" tags on article. What's next, is this going to be put on nuclear physics because it might describe how North Koreans could build a nuclear bomb? Ugh. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's difficult to elabourate any further on previous comments, so I guess I'll repeat: who would have the authority to say what constitutes a national security risk? Which country's national security is an international project meant to protect? BobBobtheBob 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. This is entirely too ludicrous. I'm sure the world is in grave danger from Wikipedia articles. R adiant _>|< 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. We're a national threat because we're providing information that is in the public domain. BJAODN and nuke with a WMD. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODN, per Radiant. Ambi 00:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke this template. FCYTravis 01:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tinfoil hat template. Bishonen | talk 01:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is so BJAODN that I must vote. Delete? Sure.--Jyril 01:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN this is such overblown tripe that this needs to go. ALKIVAR™ 02:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN per Tito. Pepsidrinka 02:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong Evil Terrorist Cabal Delete of Doom per above. -- SCZenz 03:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 04:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete and speedy if any arguably criteria can be found. DES ^(talk) 04:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT The matter has now been referred to Mr. Jimmy Wales himself. PeterZed 04:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Great. Now he can tell you personally to please remove your tin foil hat. FCYTravis 05:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Cyde. --Improv 05:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or WP:) - this is, how do you say... too much of a self-reference. :) Concur with the others. Beware the fnords. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong, Speedy Delete in the name of freedom - only fascists would consider censoring information of an article because of fear of security risks. Even if one of us took a photograph inside Area 51 and uploaded it to the commons, and put it on an article, that would still be not a legitimate excuse to edit it out of fear of "security risk" - we are a free encyclopedia dedicated to representing the total sum of human knowledge. Plus, it doesn't account for the fact that whether it would pose a risk or not would be disputed, anyhow. Template:NPOV, for example cites "the neutrality is disputed", and doesn't immediately jump to conclusions about the certainty of the neutrality. -- Natalinasmpf 05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The names of all those who have voted delete have been noted and the list of names will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities. (Ah well, better add myself to that list, then... delete) Grutness...wha? 06:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ... I would hope that national authorities have sufficient cyber wisdom to see if anything is posted on the Internet that is inappropriate from a National Security perspective, be it in the news media, blogs, terrorist web sites, or Wikipedia, and WHEREVER it is, they contact the ISP, registered owner of the site, and do their thing to get the stuff they not want removed. This is only my hope. I have various reasons to believe that cyber wisdom is, and has been, lacking in high places. Also if any of us Wikipedians see something that we think is a threat to our respective nations security, I would hope that we know how to bring this to the attention of some important personage in the Wiki community who can get an admin or sysop to block it pending resolution of our suspicions. There have been some questions raised on the Reference Desk of an explosive nature, that I have been careful not to give an explicit answer to, that in my opinion, is not a real good idea to be posting, such as how to smuggle weapons on board a commercial airliner, of the kind that can be used by hijackers. User:AlMac|^(talk) 06:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree what was said above. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 06:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Well the latest from Jimbo Wales himself is "I am not supportive of your template." I am confused by this comment. Is that to mean he is not supportive of the template in its current form and would advocate for its total exclusion or simply a modification? Or is he suggesting that the idea of allowing editors to flag certain articles as security risks be completely disallowed here on WP...Can somebody from Wikipedia please clarify this? PeterZed 07:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Seems pretty plain to me what he means. If you want it clarified for sure, you must ask him, but I'm pretty sure he means the same thing that all of us who voted delete do. --Chris 07:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- **I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that he is, politely, saying that the template is bound for the bit bucket, whatever tortured reading you give to that post. --Calton | Talk 07:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even funny --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with {{unreferenced}}, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE. --Carnildo 08:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, hilarity! —Locke Cole • t • c 09:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not keep. Very tough to decide what would qualify as a security risk.... you should find another way to handle the address issue :-) Anthere
Because I've been feeling bold today, I have speedy deleted this. There is an overwhelimg consensus here, and the word has come down from on high, so I no purpose in keeping this around any longer.--Sean|Black 09:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User NoSanta

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep, bad Santa, Bad Santa! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the entry on autofellatio would be more harmful (as well as the plethora of wikipr0n) to children than this tag... -- Jbamb 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ummmmm, I'm Jewish? And atheist? And a skeptic? Daykart 19:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If we delete this, we might as well delete all the other userboxes while we're at it. --D-Day 19:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If we delete this, we might as well delete all the other userboxes while we're at it. Zocky 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drink to that. Let's act unilaterally! Rob Church ^Talk 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with prejudice. Despise userboxes. Rob Church ^Talk 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — No harm, it's Wikipedia project content, not encyclopaedic content and so is acceptable to show a users' POV.

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

Comment: Looking at the original user, it seems to me that this might be just a joke nomination. --AySz88^-^ 20:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, userbox-creep. android 79 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Of course userboxes have POV. Nominator uses them, what's the problem? This vote looks like a for-against vote regarding userboxes in general. Maybe that's something to consider - but not here. Ifnord 22:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not doing anyone any harm, if people want to state that they don't believe in Santa then they should be able to by using this template. I do however support scrapping the accompanying category. --Cooksey 22:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Template only intended to upset children. Mark ¹ 22:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have other userboxes based on users' religious beliefs. Guettarda 22:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless humor on userpages. --Chris 22:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Userboxes do noone any harm. (Third edit conflict... grumbles) ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 22:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (edit conflict, grr) per ian13 - Trysha ^(talk) 22:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete and utter nonsense. Soltak | Talk 22:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a user box! If someone doesnt like someone else's userbox - tough. Its the user's choice what he/she puts on their own userpage. If people are moaning about a userbox against Santa, then you really need to find something better to do. Its just a bit of fun!If someone wishes to show that they dont believe in Santa - so be it! If this gets deleted, i call for the deletion of every single userbox that has a shred of a user's belief in it, or something that may offend - even religion! - Bourbons3 23:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - er, maybe this is a joke nomination? But if it passes, I'll be tempted to nominate every other userbox that comments about beliefs held or not held. Lead me not into temptation! ++Lar 23:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several userboxes that depict beliefs and opinions and I don't see anything wrong with this one. I really don't see what the big deal about it is anyway. It's just some fun little thing. I mean geez people, where's the humility here? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 06:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a harmless userbox. Most of them are non-encyclopedic, true, but that is beside the point; they're intended for userspace. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: bad Santa! No biscuit! —Phil | Talk 10:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mostly Harmless. 1001001 16:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no point, and it's not funny or happy, because we all know that there's no such thing as Santa, it'd be like saying {{Wikipedians who believe the sky is blue}}, and there's no humor or hapiness in that. -Mys e kurity^{(have you seen this?)} 23:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - All in fun! Even if there were wikipedians who believed in Santa, they know some people do not believe in it. Moresoever, the Man Scientist template is not any better persay. Don't do away with it! Jake0geek 01:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Humor doesn't kill. Lack of humor does.--Jyril 02:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jyril.--Matei Tache 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep user page entries in general, and userboxes in particualr, are suppose to indicatge things about the user, and are ofte PoV. WP:NPOV applies primarily to articles. DES ^(talk) 04:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be a joke nomination. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 06:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's funny, why not? Plus, you have a "Believe in Santa" template, why not have the contrasted? Эйрон Кинни 06:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- userboxes are POV and don't hurt anyone. If you don't like this template, don't use it. -- Tetraminoe 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio

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

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

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

Of course, I could have done better on the wording, but it could solve the problem with the template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently it works, because this rewrite is now in the actual template, and the below votes indicate this. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. --Chris 22:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it appears the objections have been met. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rewritten version. -- Natalinasmpf 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Language/Malayalam

See below - identical template.

Template:MalayalamScript

Performs the exact same function as the existing {{IndicText}}. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sukh emptied the category, changing all previous uses of {{MalayalamScript}} to {{IndicText}}. Thanks/wangi 14:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks??? The malayalam template was presumably created after being vetted by the usual long process, now somebody summarily empties the category without so much as a by-your-leave?? I am speechless. ImpuMozhi 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I hope this is sarcasm. What vetting process do you speak of? This template was used on at most four pages. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Best practice, and best intention is served by keeping the categorgy intact durign this process. wangi 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having that warning in Devnagiri script will not serve the purpose. The 'Kerala' written in the page is in Malayalam script, which is no where close to the Devnagiri script. The people who can read 'Kerala' written in Malayalam script(and if that person doesn't know devnagiri script) will readily go and modyfying it(assuming his/her browser is not indic script compliant). Even with that warning some people try to correct it. I hope i have made my point clear.--Raghu 15:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in the current template is not in Devanagari, it is in Gurmukhi and it isn't meant to show every single possible Indic script (there could very well be hundreds of Brahmi descended scripts that the Indic text template is useful for). It's merely a VERY SIMPLE representative example and does not indicate that the script on the page must be Gurmukhi. What should we do for pages that contain, Malayalam, Devanagari and Gurmukhi? List three identical templates with different pictures!? How about pages that might list even more Indian languages and scripts?

The template talks about the technology to enable support for Indic scripts in general which applies just as much to Malayalam as it does to Gurmukhi, Devanagari, Bengali, Tamil etc. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the same principle to apply to all Indic scripts (which is only fair of course), we'd need at least 23 to account for all the ones currently encoded in Unicode. This does not include scripts YET to be encoded in Unicode. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Answers

The difference between scripts of Devanagari and Gurumukhi is minor. Even i was able to understand Gurumukhi with a knowledge of Devanagari only.
Your point that it will necessitate 100's of template is not correct beacause all North Indian languages scripts are similar and most people who speak other north Indian languages like Punjabi, Gujarathi, Marathi and Bengali have a good knowlege of Hindi (and consequently Devanagari or the very similar gurumukhi script). So we are left with four South Indian langauges. Telugu and Kannada script are mutually intelligible. Tamil and Malayalam are pretty close but if needed we can have separate one for Tamil. so totally we need 4 templates.
If a page has more than one indic script? There are few pages like that. In case it is there use the generic Gurumukhi Template as more people will understand that.
If there exists a template which does the needed function in a better way. Why delete?