Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[Template: Slashdotted]]: '''Keep''': I have been bold and converted it to a "Talk-Notice" template, moving all current instances to talk pages in the process and fixing the history link
Line 47: Line 47:
*'''Keep.''' But generalize and move to talk page. BTW, see [http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167489&cid=13965719 this]. :-) --[[User:Pamri|Pamri]] <sup>&bull; [[User_talk:Pamri|Talk]] &bull; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User_talk:Pamri|action=edit&section=new}} Reply]</sup> 07:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' But generalize and move to talk page. BTW, see [http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167489&cid=13965719 this]. :-) --[[User:Pamri|Pamri]] <sup>&bull; [[User_talk:Pamri|Talk]] &bull; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User_talk:Pamri|action=edit&section=new}} Reply]</sup> 07:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Lifeisunfair makes a great point; articles rarely visited are at vastly more risk from vandalism than ones receiving a huge influx of traffic. They may get fewer attacks, but the ones they do get can last horrifically long times. There's no reason this stuff can't just be said in the talk page; we don't need to subdivide every aspect of our waking lives into an elaborate, monotonous series of templates. Just wait and see, someday we'll have templates for having entire conversations with each other. <nowiki>{{hello}} {{hello2}} {{q-howu}} {{Iam|ok|today}} {{didyousee3|The Simpsons}}</nowiki>... -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 07:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Lifeisunfair makes a great point; articles rarely visited are at vastly more risk from vandalism than ones receiving a huge influx of traffic. They may get fewer attacks, but the ones they do get can last horrifically long times. There's no reason this stuff can't just be said in the talk page; we don't need to subdivide every aspect of our waking lives into an elaborate, monotonous series of templates. Just wait and see, someday we'll have templates for having entire conversations with each other. <nowiki>{{hello}} {{hello2}} {{q-howu}} {{Iam|ok|today}} {{didyousee3|The Simpsons}}</nowiki>... -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 07:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
* '''Keep''': I have been bold and converted it to a "Talk-Notice" template, moving all current instances to talk pages in the process and fixing the history link. Is it now a helpful tool for keeping track of possible vandalism? HTH HAND [[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 08:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


==== [[Template: Academies ]]====
==== [[Template: Academies ]]====

Revision as of 08:21, 7 November 2005

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Stub templates for deletion

Main page: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

Template:Sfd-current

Listings

Adding a listing

  • Please put new listings under today's date (August 2) at the top of the section.
  • When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages.

November 7

Template: Slashdotted

Delete: Non-encyclopedic. Reads like an ad for Slashdot, which is a fine site, but which has no place in Wikipedia. Yath 00:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unencyclopedic, current for at most 24 hours, and significently overstates the impact of Slashdot links and Slashdot in general, especially when used in relation to links that are just in commets. If it isn't deleted, it needs to be firmly established that this sort of template only belongs on talk pages, and should only be used for links that are on Slashdot's main page, while they are on its main page; there is some basis for putting such things on talk, but none whatsoever for putting them on articles. --Aquillion 00:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand the idea behind this, but it seems unnecessary; a recently Slashdotted article is a likely vandalism target, but so are countless other high profile pages. (And of course, any page can be vandalized, with the less visited articles being the most likely to retain malicious edits for extended periods of time.) If an article has been featured on Slashdot, it most likely is on enough watchlists that any vandalism will be reverted within minutes. I seriously doubt that many people regularly check this template's associated category for new entries, so it really doesn't serve much of a purpose beyond advertising Slashdot (not that they need the plug). —Lifeisunfair 00:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can see the reason for this, but it's just an ad for slashdot; perhaps someone could remove the "slashdot" and just replace /. with "A high traffic site"--Rdoger6424 01:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The massive trolling that follows slashdot must be pointed out.
  • Delete. No reason that we can't flag slashdot vandalisim the same way we flag regular vandalisim. --Quasipalm 01:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there is a decision to delete, please consider creating a similar but neutral template as per Rdoger6424. The warning has helped me spot vandalism in the past (though after that I was wary of pages linked to from /. without needing a reminder). I think the notion that this works as an ad for Slashdot is fairly ridiculous, though. Maybe MediaWiki should offer some way that pages with unusual activity automatically get flagged - this could also work well for current events. --01:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or generalize, this template is basically used to spot vandalism as it occurs. I have no objection to something along the lines of "This page was noted recently in _____ and as a result, can be filled with vandalism" or something better-sounding. Titoxd(?!?) 02:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or generalize. It's useful info for people who keep track of the page, but keep it on talk pages in the future. -- SCZenz 02:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this template is incredibly helpful when a site is listed on Slashdot, and it's true, once linked there's invariably vandals lurking on tagged articles. -Locke Cole 02:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How does this template's presence assist in countering the vandalism? —Lifeisunfair 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It adds them to Category:Linked from Slashdot. If you check that every so often it might provide a good way to note articles likely to be vandalized. FWIW I'd also be for generalizing the template. -Locke Cole 03:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vandals can check categories too. If this template is generalized, won't the associated category serve as a one-stop list of the most visible targets? —Lifeisunfair 03:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you give the average vandal a bit too much credit, assuming they'd know their way around the wiki so well. Besides, the most visible targets are also going to be the best-policed. ～J.K. 03:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"I think you give the average vandal a bit too much credit, assuming they'd know their way around the wiki so well."
It isn't the average vandal that I'm worried about. Some of the more sophisticated vandals target high-use templates (thereby defacing hundreds of articles simultaneously) or run bots that vandalize dozens of pages in the minute or two before they're blocked. It's safe to say that such vandals "know their way around the wiki" well enough to consult a category.
"Besides, the most visible targets are also going to be the best-policed."
Yes, I noted that fact in the comments accompanying my vote. But these targets are highly visible and carefully watched without such a template. I don't understand how it's supposed to help matters. —Lifeisunfair 03:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Academies

Rename: The template itself is a borderline example of a navigation template in my opinion, but I brought it since it deals with only Swedish Royal Academies and not Academies in general, therefore it should be renamed so that it's name reflects that. Caerwine 02:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

Template:New York State Highways

Delete: This was just deleted a few days ago by TFD. Recreation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairusein2

Delete. Because media should only be used as fair use where they are essential to the article, images that are fair use in two or more articles are few and far between. For the few that are, use two instances of {{fairusein}} instead of creating a whole bunch of new templates. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I can easily imagine dual fair use being common for pictures showing an actor in a particular production, and this template can also handle the rarer cases of 3 or more articles. Caerwine 01:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Images can be fairuse in many articles. For example, a fairuse image of Pope John Paul II would be fairuse in the article about him, in an article on major figures of the 20th century, in an article on key figures in the collapse of communism, in an article on leaders who were the victims of assassination attempts, etc. A fairuse image of a pope wearing a triple tiara could be fair use for an article on that pope (especially if there were no images of anyone wearing that particular tiara), in an article on papal tiaras, in an articles on crowns, in an article on goldsmiths, etc. The most recent image added in of the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall at the White House is fairuse for articles on both, and would be suitable for articles on diplomatic visits, on controversial visitors to the White House, on the first official visit abroad by Camilla, etc. In each case it would be fair use. It makes sense to reuse images where they have a unique value to each article rather than having to trace a different image of Charles and Camilla at the White House for separate articles on Charles, on Camilla and on their first foreign visit together. It would also be legally problematical. If you already have an photograph of the topic you need a photograph, you can hardly call getting a second fairuse as it would be pointless duplication. I really don't think Wikipedia actually knows the law on fairuse. Having 50 fairuse images used twice makes more sense legally that 100 used once photographs where 50 are a needless duplication that both doubles the chances of legal problem and are unnecessary since we already have an alternative image on file. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone thinks an image is fair use in two articles, they should stick two {{fairusein}} templates on it. --Carnildo 05:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having two parameters isn't much of a problem to me. Wcquidditch | Talk 13:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairusein3

Delete per reason at Template:Fairusein2 listing above. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairusein4

Delete per reason at Template:Fairusein2 listing above. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairusein5

Delete, this is way over the top. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irish Republic infobox

Before you vote...
Please note that there is some confusion about this vote. It is not asking for the contents of the template to be deleted, but for those contents to be placed into the Irish Republic article.

Delete and subst into Irish Republic wich is the only article using it. Alternatively delete and replace it with an apropriate generic infobox template. --Sherool 21:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:First MinistersNI

Delete, not used anywhere. --Sherool 20:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edittemplateinfobox

delete: orphaned -- Zondor 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edittemplate

delete: not used -- Zondor 18:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edns

delete: only used by one article -- Zondor 18:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editurl

delete: not used. -- Zondor 18:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editorbox

delete: orphaned. -- Zondor 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Monarch_Basic

Delete: This template is not used anymore. Was replaced by Template:Infobox Monarch Basic. JW1805 18:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template as in intermediate template to enable the early English monarchs to be migrated to a standard template. JW1805 has completed this task, so I am happy for this template to be deleted.Martin.Budden 08:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Monarch_Basic_no_image

Delete: This template is not used anymore. Was replaced by Template:Infobox Monarch Basic. JW1805 18:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template as in intermediate template to enable the early English monarchs to be migrated to a standard template. JW1805 has completed this task, so I am happy for this template to be deleted.Martin.Budden 08:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edcomment

Delete: not used. not appropriate for articles in main namespace -- Zondor 18:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: orphaned. seems useless. -- Zondor 17:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ednote

Delete: orphaned. would not belong on article. -- Zondor 17:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: bacteria-stub

Delete: This template had been accidentally modified unpurposely by the creator using 'edit this page' option after clicked the link in Category:Bacteria-stub. However, the creator decided to cancel it as the creator had found the relevant information that was going to be added in other section of Wikipedia. Therefore, it is not used in any article, and their category is empty.

  • Thank you for your response. I admit I accidentally messed up a bit.

I will really appreciate if anyone have any solution for this. Thank you.Amalthea cute

Template:Cc-by-sa-any

Delete: Very confusing tag, as while it clearly and understandably can handle commercial use under a Cc-by-sa 1.0, it uses both the "commercial" (regular) and non-commercial 2.0 licenses! That makes as much sense as GFDL and "by-permission, Wikipedia only" dual-licensed, for example. It doesn't even suggest anything about choosing just one, which could save this template and help weed out the speedy-able I3s. If kept, -- and I strongly emphasize if here -- possible rename to {{Cc-by-sa-both}} to remove the non-commercial bit, and most definitely should be clarified so it can actually be understood. Wcquidditch | Talk 16:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SocEur

Delete: On Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags, someone noted that this template's use as a "free use" template was wrong, that usage of images from http://www.soccer-europe.com required "written perimission from the webmaster." Therefore, this is a misleading template. Wcquidditch | Talk 15:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might also be a good idea to ask the webmaster what permission he could give Wikipedia to use those images, to determine if post-May 19 images with this template are to be speedied as I3s. Wcquidditch | Talk 15:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked for, and received written permission from the webmaster (post-May 19; I didn't know at the time why "by permission" on its own was bad). I asked him to double-check every use of an image (at first), and every change to the category and the template back when I made them, and he said it was fine (including the copyright tag). I also asked him to update the website, because it was causing a little confusion (User:Quadell nominated an image for deletion as a copyvio), but he just said to forward any queries on to him (I guess, since you're planning to email him, I don't need to tell you to go do so :-)). Perhaps he doesn't want to bung a laxer licence up on his website for fear of encouraging people to take images, but doesn't mind them doing that from Wikipedia; perhaps he doesn't know that people can take images from Wikipedia. Either way, it's something you'll have to resolve with him. (Thanks for the warning, by the way). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

Template: Failed presidential candidates democratic

We already have Template:USDemPresNominees which is to a very large extent the same list. It looks bizarre to have a full listing of those who were nominated followed immediately by those who were nominated but lost at least one an election. Honestly, I can't see what useful informational purpose this serves beyond the nominees template itself. I could maybe see a category, but a full template listing of everyone ... that takes up a lot of real-estate for no obviously useful purpose. Derex @ 03:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Itdb

Delete: This template has been created since May and it has only been linked to one page thus far.

While its original intent (to link to the Internet Theatre Database conveniently) is understandable, using the template requires the user to know the id of that play in the ITD site. This would require a visit to the site at the very least - and if you check that page for reference, why not use a direct link instead?

Last of all, the ITD itself has no article; this leads me to doubt how widely known and reliable that source is... Jeekc 15:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The ITDb suffers from the problem AFAIK that at present there is considerable overlap with the IBDb in its coverage. It does however have some coverage of Off-Broadway and U.S. Regional Theatre and it intends to do more, but with volunteer staff and no ad-driven funding like the IMDb has, it has been slow to get off he ground. However that has nothing to with my delete vote. It's that if we have such a template, then it should be {{itdb person}}, {{itdb show}}, etc. for the same reason why {{imdb}} was turned into a deprecated redirect to {{imdb name}}. Since this only has one usage at present, let's go ahead and delete this and if desired have it be redone right. Caerwine 20:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sig

This template is just amonth old and it's becoming transcluded in several pages (unsubsted I mean). The original purpose was to let people have signatures showing up as ~~~~ (by including it unsubsted it within a signature in the preferences dialog). Using it for that purpose would mean this would become an ubiquitous unsubsted template.

Some people have commented it about using it within another template. But then it becomes the additional problem of transcluded template within template. And if it's substed, why not typing ~~~~directly ?

Finally, this tempalte cannot be edited (as seen me breaking it by inserting the tfd tag, please check the history and previous version to see how it was before the tfd) unless you use a hack related to the preferences dialog (basically changing your name to ~~~~ and thenn iserting your signature. Delete-- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Here's the diff showing the previous version and the current nowiki-version (which then makes it redundant) [1]
  • Annihilate. Very dangerous. Why would anyone ever need this when they could use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>? (BTW, {{tfd}} includes a large <noinclude> section, so you should never subst it, like you did on that template.) ~~ N (t/c) 04:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didnt use to, but I read somewhere I should do it so. I'll get you the link. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ok It seems I misread, I apologize. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If ArbCom ruled, than should it be speedied? -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
so it a self reference one according to the origanl reason. Why not move the instrucitons on its talk page to somewhere about templates.

--☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 00:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made this template to show someone on help desk that it could be done (they wanted the sig to be added automagically by a template). I have no use for it. Delete Broken S 03:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strongest delete of this debate. Not sure if this qualifies as a speedy under new evidence, but placing ~~~~ in a template is probably the worst thing that could ever go into a template. The {{vw}} series was a similar template, containing a usage of the appropriate {{test}} series template in addition to this bad signature system, before it was turned into normal redirects to the correct templates. We cannot handle these types of things, and they very depreciated, especially after that ArbCom ruling. Wcquidditch | Talk 15:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this thing, it has been placed on a blacklist by the ArbCom saying it was a bad idea to begin with, as Splash points out, and the idea is really bad overall. Titoxd(?!?) 19:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

Template:Philosophy (navigation)

Edit Notice: Okay, I scaled it down. Take a look at it now. Not as intimidating; a good side-door into the field of philosophy. The removed list is alive and well on Wikipedia's lists, and links have been provided on the template to that material. There wasn't/isn't enough to make a portal, since the template was/is nothing more than a sequence of topic lists. For a comparison, see this template:Spirituality

24.18.171.99 00:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Main problems of this template:

  • Size: over 200 entries and growing
  • Cohesion: for a large number of articles where it is inserted, only a fraction of the link provided are usefull
  • NPOV: especially the Major philosophers section is an invitation to NPOV problems
  • Use for link spamming: Two contributors consider it a good idea, to have external links in the template, effectively putting them in over hundred articles

Pjacobi 18:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of the template:

  • Size: this can be refined over time, toward the goal of making the template of optimum usefulness, which is a much better option than summarily deleting the template. Then again, perhaps 200 entries is the right size for a concise map of philosophy, which itself is pretty complex.
  • Cohesion: this can be improved upon as well. The template was just created, and has yet to be categorized sufficiently. I thought it better to get the material up there, than worry about formatting. Even so, it looks pretty good, and now that it's there, everyone can play with it and improve it in the Wikipedian way. As for the usefulness argument, having a map while you are trying to navigate the complex maze we call philosophy is highly useful. A user can rapidly achieve a good understanding of philosophy by using this template. Besides, if the template is more of a hindrance than a help for a particular article, then it would be better to remove the template from the article, rather than delete the template from the Wikipedia. I believe a better option would be to add more refined templates in addition to this general template which could naturally follow in a complementary fashion. But above all, if a template is useful in more than a single article, then it deserves to be a template.
  • NPOV on major philosophers: the majorness of a philosopher is easily verified. Besides, the NPOV argument needs to be made on a philosopher by philosopher basis. Which ones aren't major? Simply axe the minor ones from the template itself. Here, Pjacobi is worrying about a problem that hasn't even surfaced yet, the same problem that threatens the entire Wikipedia at all times. If his logic were extended to the Wikipedia as a whole, that would mean deleting the Wikipedia itself. The list of philosphers is one of the most useful features of the template!
  • "link spamming" - Pjacobi's choice of words is highly rhetorical, and I object to his manipulative labeling here, as the links do not fall under the definition of spam at all. They are external resources, very much like Wikipedia itself is a resource, and precisely the sort of links that are encouraged in Wikipedia articles. And since these links are to general resources on philosophy, they fit the context and scope of the template perfectly. These are the links Pjacobi is having trouble with: External Online Resources: Introducing Philosophy Series. By Paul Newall (for beginners) | Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names | The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Guide to Philosophy on the Internet

Keep

P.S.: Infinity0, sorry about removing your topics, that was done inadvertantly during an expansion. My apologies.

24.18.171.99 19:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a good idea, maybe it can be eventually replaced with Portal:Philosophy. Just because it's messed up now doesn't mean it always will be. Infinity0 19:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portalize, agree with Infinity0's idea. - SimonP 20:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually portalising was Pjacobi's idea. I don't know how Portals work, but I was given the impression there isn't enough to make one, from the content atm. However, a separate portal would be more useful than this huge nav menu - the nav menu should be kept, but scaled down. Infinity0 20:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portalize Actually, it's a shame it doesn't exist yet. Jules LT 21:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Actually the Category:Philosophy is already portal-like, and making it a real portal has already been evoked in the talk page. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy to see people who might be interested in helping. You should join the wikiproject, btw Jules LT 22:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portalize. Plus, it only deals with Western philosophy and completely ignores philosophy from the Middle East, Northern Africa, South Asia, and East Asia. —thames 21:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I actually found it very useful. While it does need to be scaled down a bit, or maybe just be relabled to "Western Philosophy," it's definately not something you want to just chuck out the window. Let's fix it, not get rid of it. I suggest we make it look more like the Creationism Template, which I think is pretty good. --Michael 22:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creationism template serves a pretty small category. It's a category of the philosophy of religion, which in turn is a category of philosophy, which is HUGE. Perhaps a smaller category like epistemology could use the creationism template format effectively, but philosophy needs another approach than the creationis template referred to above. See the other one: Template:Creationism. 24.18.171.99 06:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these should be in a category, not as a template, articles are too varied - humanism, for example - some people call it philosophy, others something different - it's fine to be in a philosophy category, but doesn't necessarily make sense to display that huge mess of other stuff at the bottom of the page - people interested can click on the category and get to all the same info, yes? Tedernst 16:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, although you can be sure that I very quickly removed this monster from the pages I watch. I can't imagine this is likely to get very wide acceptance, but go ahead and try. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like the idea. It is a bit too big for its use now, but I don't think it should be deleted. The most drastic change I would approve is to move it somewhere else (i.e. Philosophy Portal?). ANYTHING but delete though. FranksValli 19:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Template:Western philosophy. The current template is incredibly biased, which can much more easily be solved by renaming the template than by trying to make an already-too-large navigation box even larger. -Silence 19:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Western Philosphy, and reduce more. I'd roll together the Concepts and General Philosophy sections, removing a bunch of the concepts and the Western/Eastern Philosophy entries. And remove major philosophers until it was a bare-bones list. My suggestions: cut Bentham or Mill, Francis Bacon, Confucius, Democritus (?), Galileo Galilei (not really a philospher in the modern sense), Laozi, Ernest Nagel (unless someone expands his wikipedia entry), William of Ockham (?), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Ayn Rand, and either Moritz Schlick or the Vienna Circle (don't keep both if the idea is to slim this down). And add some pre-Socratics, like Parmenides, or Empedocles - or if there's an entry, pre-Socratics as a whole? Once a real Philosophy portal is activated, though, I'd delete this.--Andymussell 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Large, clumsy, inherently incomplete, inherently PoV. Replace by a template with a link to Western Philosophy. Lists should be in list articles, where there is room for a complete list, with footnotes. Septentrionalis 03:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Incomplete, and making it complete would make it far too large, and it already is far too large.

Keep Not perfect, but nothing's perfect. I find it useful, and the categories judiciously chosen. The suggestion above to delete Confucius is absurd. William of Ockham is often quoted, though not a major philosopher, so he should stay. Bacon is major. Rand is not, but again, often quoted, so keep. Rick Norwood 15:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 1000edits

Oh for heaven's sake. This panders to the worst kind of editcountitis. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tonofedits

Same as Template:User 1000edits. Rubbish. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - what next? an edit count league-table (oh, forgot we already have one) --Doc (?) 18:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC) OK, keep understood as a post-modern ironic parody of editcountis. (but, yes, it is a bad joke)Doc (?) 19:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

Template: Football squad player/other/

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Football squad player/other/captain

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Football squad player/other/vice-captain

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

Template:New Jersey New

Speedy delete: Testing ground for {{New Jersey}}, obsolete now that it has been merged in. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POTS-appointment

Delete: I am nominating this template for deletion because it seems unencyclopedic. First of all, it actively highlights a temporary state of affairs. While this is sometimes unavoidable, there is a reason Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly is part of the style guide. Second, it doesn't contribute anything to the article, while creating a lot of blank space unnecessarily; the fact that there is a vacancy in an office seems to almost always be redundant with information presented in the article. Third, the link for "qualified applicants" seems out of place, particularly in articles such as Supreme Court of the United States (from which it was deleted with the comment "Is this a joke?" while I was writing this nomination). That should be enough to start with. — DLJessup (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I orphaned it. BJAODN and delete. ~~ N (t/c) 23:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The creator speaks
  • Keep, but if you really want to, delete. I don't think it's nonsense. I don't think it's a bad joke, either. It's a damn good joke, and it's encyclopedic. It presents a notable fact in an interesting (and entertaining) way. At the time I created that, I had been doing much CSD screening on new pages and images for several days, and I really just sort of snapped. I needed to do something encyclopedic and lighthearted. The hilarity of it results from the fact the the Executive Office of the President of the United States of America solicits applications for Senate-confirmed positions on the main White House website. The template actually presents the user factual information - that this particular HR mechanism has made it all the way into the highest realms of even the federal government. I think the concept is encyclopedic. In hindsight, the template presentation is, well, unusual. A note might be added to George W. Bush Administration in the nominations section about this web application mechanism if it is deleted. --Mm35173 18:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, keep. Many jobs are notable enough that they have articles which deal with them on Wikipedia. How one gets said jobs is notable and important. We have a whole discourses on how men become popes, presidents, etc. How to get a presidentially appointed position is pertinent to each article about such positions. Since the information is reusable, and would likely change on all of these pages at once, templatization is a good way to present it.--Mm35173 18:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already said keep jokingly but I like Mm's idea. A page on how applications are made is definitely encyclopædic and a reworded version of this template would be perfectly suited for such a page. But full marks to Mm for giving us all a great laugh. I've added a doctored version of it onto my user page, reworded in a humorous vein. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mormon jew

Why does there need to be a merge of Mormon and Jewish templates? There's no article using it. ~~ N (t/c) 22:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hey, I created it guys. Not trying to offend anyone, simply wanted to place a templete on the article that included topics of both faiths. It was to be frank, an attempt at maintaining a neutral point of view. If it offened anyone why is there no complaint on the discussion page of the actual article? The template would have been removed then and there, as the Mormonism and Judaism article is being written to not offend anyone, and a place where both Mormons and Jews are comfortable reading. From my perspective view, I believed I was allowed to re-use the template under the GFDL, and as far as citing my sources I included a link to the original article and template at the top of the new template. Plagiarization is not even a reasonible complaint. Also, the template is several months old, and these complaints are fairly new. Again, I'd like to stress the point that I am not intrested in offending anyone, nor confict. For these reasons I am have no complaints about its removal. VChapman (4 Nov 05 01:36 UTC)
    • Mormonism is not a form of Messianic Judaism. As a Latter-Day saint, I accept the Jews place in the House of Israel, but do not believe that Messianic Judaism has any authority to even operate as Christs church, neitherless convert individuals into The House of Israel. Mormon belief does however give everyone the right to worship who, how and what they may. Please don't be so quick to associate, what I believe to be, a christian church of mostly gentiles with the LDS faith. It is my personal belief that mormonism is a continuation of the religion. Messianic Judaism has several striking differences with Mormonism, to include the Messianic belief in the christian trinity. Messianic Jews claim to fall under the Tribe of Judah, and thus proclaim themselves as Jewish, whereas Mormons believe they are mostly Ephraim. Although Ephraim and Judah are pitted against each other in the Torah(Bible), they are both Members of the House of Israel, who's reunification is also proficied in the Torah. If you accept the Mormon place in the House of Israel as Ephraim or not is your right, but please remember, worldwide there are just about as many mormons as Jews (+ or - 2 Million or so). As far as the argument that Mormons and Jews are more likely enemies, I want to remind you both faiths, UNDER HEBREW LAW prohibit discriminatiion against the other.(Exedus and 2nd Nephi) I appologize if I offended anyone, but I wanted to dispute the complaint against me that I was attempting to promote Messianic Judaism.
  • Delete totally unnecessary. Izehar 17:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hoax

Delete. I'm nominating this template for the same reason why I support the deletion of {{DisputeCheck}} and {{Cleanup-nonsense}}. Massive warning templates disparage entire articles' quality in the eyes of readers, and therefore should be confined to situations in which concrete allegations of major editorial problems exist. If someone suspects that an article is a hoax (and isn't certain of this), the appropriate course of action is to research the subject further and/or consult others (such as major contributors to related articles). When in doubt, it's important to assume good faith. There's absolutely no need to compromise the appearance of a potentially legitimate article by advertising a mere hunch. —Lifeisunfair 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It should only be used where there is real suspicion, after some research, that the article is likely to be a hoax not in case of mere hunches. When the editor feels the need of advice in specialist areas, for example. Dlyons493 Talk 22:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, when someone suspects that an article is a hoax, it certainly is appropriate to seek the advice of those who are more knowledgeable in the area. In no way, however, does this require the user to add a proclamation of his/her suspicion to the article (which might be legitimate). —Lifeisunfair 22:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dlyons. ~~ N (t/c) 23:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with {{twoversions}} and {{cleanup-nonsense}}, the community at large cannot be trusted to use these templates sensibly. If you think something is a hoax, the correct course of action is to look further into it, and tag it with {{delete}} or to AfD it, or to raise it on the talk page for the article. Chris talk back 23:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The origin of this template was a discussion at WP:CSD if hoax vandalism ought to be speedy deleted. A concern was that just tagging it as {{delete}} would not give the article sufficient exposure to eyeballs. As far as responsible use goes, I see no rampant misuse of the {{delete}} template. Pilatus 10:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Under current policy, alleged hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates on that basis. And even if this were to change (which would be ill-advised, in my opinion), the {{hoax}} template encourages readers to place a scarlet "H" on articles that are merely "suspected" to be hoaxes. (Hurl accusations now, ask questions later.) —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Hoaxes are speediable under G1 if the article give insufficient context for turning it into a valid article. Johntex\talk 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I explicitly stated that "alleged hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates on that basis" (new emphasis). Hoaxes are subject to G1, but this has nothing to do with the fact that they're hoaxes. —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Recent examples show that once spotted, the legitimacy of an article is quickly established either way. Pilatus 13:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • How is it beneficial to display a disparaging notice in the meantime? —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ordinary vandalism (including adding nonsense) is reverted on sight and doesn't stay visible for too long. Hoax entries on entirely fictional people on the other hand must go through the AfD process to be removed and take a week or so to go away. A notice that the hoax has been discovered in addition to the AfD notice (which will be slapped on once the hoax is confirmed) will hopefully discourage the vandal. Pilatus 14:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. Until sufficient evidence exists to reasonably establish a high level of probability that the article is a hoax (thereby warranting an AfD listing), it's inappropriate to place a deprecatory label on the (potentially legitimate) page. Even a non-definitive declaration is injurious to an article's reputation — and more importantly, that of its contributor. In the case of a false alarm, this is likely to be a new, inexperienced member of our community (who might be offended/discouraged by the false vandalism accusation to the extent that he/she decides to cease all participation). "Assuming good faith" doesn't mean "assuming that a borderline suspicious article is a hoax until proven otherwise."
2. When there is sufficient evidence to warrant an AfD listing, it remains inappropriate to tag an article with a supplementary template (in addition to {{afd}}). This unfairly conveys an out-of-context, one-sided, POV-based assessment of the content. The correct procedure is to simply insert the {{afd}} tag (and nothing more). This promulgates the fact that the article has been nominated for deletion (itself an unfortunate but unavoidable circumstance for valid articles), and directs readers to the AfD discussion (where all pertinent viewpoints and specific evidence may be addressed). —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoaxes are alluded to in that paragraph, but not in a context that would render them eligible for speedy deletion. An unambiguously nonsensical joke ("Lushy McDrinksalot traveled to Earth from the planet Foamymug in his magical, hops-powered rocket ship to become the first openly drunk President of the United States . . .") fits the speedy deletion criteria, but a plausible hoax (meaning one that might be taken seriously by a rational adult) is explicitly excluded from speedy deletion: "This does not include . . . hoaxes . . ." Of course, this is irrelevant to the matter at hand; even if "likely hoax" were added as a new CSD, your template would be inappropriate. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • G1 contains the page's one and only instance of the word "hoax." Thus far, every attempt to expand the speedy deletion criteria to include hoaxes has failed. If the current proposal or any future proposal succeeds, your template still will be inappropriate (IMHO). —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • G1 has a definition of "patent nonsense", which excludes hoax and continues that "pure vandalism" fits into category G3. Speedy deleting obvious pranks is practiced. Pilatus 01:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your description does not correspond to the template's actual wording (which clearly encourages application to a "suspected" hoax that has not yet been "confirmed to be a hoax" or "nominated[d] for deletion," and that might be "confirmed true"). If you were to reword the template for use in the manner that you describe above (confining its application to a situation in which the user is confident in his/her assertion that an article is a hoax), it would become nothing more than an inappropriate companion to {{afd}} that shouts "HOAX! HOAX!" at readers who haven't had the opportunity to read such a claim in the context of the AfD discussion (which might contain weak evidence of wrongdoing and/or valid a defense of the article's legitimacy). —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If can come up with better phrasing for the intended use, please do so. Pilatus 13:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't believe that this template has a valid application; any rewording would merely shift it from one inappropriate purpose to another. —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just now, on New Page Patrol, I came across two hoax articles that the hoax template was intended for. Barry Cahill committed a "triple murder" when he killed the "Larkson Family"; Google throws up no hits for this. Dr. Julian Godfray won the 1972 Booker Prize with for his novel "The Sun Disk Pharaoh". Neither author nor title are listed in the catalogue of the British Library. I didn't check if a building is named after him at King's College School, Wimbledon; probably it isn't and the school may not exist. The 1972 Booker Prize was awarded to John Berger. Does that really need to hang around for a week on AfD? Pilatus 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a hypothetical example, suppose that an individual by the name of "Larry Cahill" murdered a family by the name of "Clarkson." What initially appears to be a clear-cut hoax could turn out to be nothing more than a couple of honest factual errors. (The level of notability would be a separate issue.) This is the sort of realization that sometimes occurs at AfD, and that's why we bother to conduct the discussions.
Again, this is irrelevant to the matter at hand; even if "likely hoax" were added as a new CSD, your template would be inappropriate. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is always the risk that speedy-deleting hoax vandalism might kill a legit article, that is precisely why it's preferable to have some people look over it before the hoax is deleted. Hence the template.
It always is a good idea to seek community feedback before deleting an article because it's believed to be a hoax, irrespective of how that deletion occurs. But once again, why is it necessary to solicit such advice via a deprecatory template? —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already have such a template; it's called {{not verified}}. —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(hits himself) sorry - missed that, thanks --Doc (?) 02:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we are 51-90% sure something is a hoax, we do the unsuspecting reader a disservice if they are not warned of this possibility while we continue our fact-checking. Johntex\talk 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are 51-90% sure something is a hoax, then it gets AfD'd, with the statement that it might be a hoax there, and a great big sodoff link at the top saying the article might be deleted. Is that somehow not enough for the discerning reader to think twice about the article's content? Chris talk back 19:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much of this discussion is the wrong way round. It isn't a question of whether we are 50-90% sure it is a hoax. We only include verifiable info. If there is 1% possibility of hoax, we try to verify the article. If we can't verify it - we delete it, period. {{not verified}} or {{afd}} are all we really require. --Doc (?) 10:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that this conflicts with what Chris wrote above. We seek to verify everything (and remove the content that cannot be verified), but we shouldn't allege that an article is a "hoax" unless we're fairly certain of this. There's a big difference between "I can't confirm that this article is true" (which could simply mean that the article is in need of cleanup) and "I believe that this article is false." In fact, {{hoax}} goes a step further by specifying an accusation of vandalism. (Not all inaccurate articles are hoaxes. Some are written in good faith by people who mistakenly believe the information to be accurate.) —Lifeisunfair 14:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An AFD notice is insufficient, as most articles nominated are truthful, and the nomination is usually unrelated to truth. The five days the hoax gets on wikipedia (and much longer on mirrors), is part of what helps the spread of these hoaxes (there can also be a circular effect, where others pick it from us, and we pick it back from them when it's recreated). Sure, this tag could be misused, but somebody who does that, could just as easily edit the article to say something isn't real. Spreading a lie, even for five days, is simply wrong. --rob 15:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. We already have {{not verified}}, which warns readers that an article might not be factual, and does so in NPOV fashion (without hurling accusations of bad faith). This certainly can be used in conjunction with {{afd}}.
2. {{Hoax}} is explicitly indicated for application not strictly to articles that are strongly believed to be hoaxes, but to articles that are merely "suspected" to be hoaxes, including ones that have not been listed at AfD, and are merely being investigated. Again, {{not verified}} covers such a situation well (without assuming bad faith). —Lifeisunfair 15:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm quite open to improved wording of the template (that can be discussed on the talk page). The "unverified" tag isn't good enough, because there are countless articles where verification is needed, but the information is likely true, or there's simply an honest mistake. A massive proportion of Wikipedia articles are like this. Hoaxes are maliscious attempts to deceive people. As an example, in a recent hoax, somebody pretended to be a famous music producer, working with a big-name rapper. They were using Wikipedia to promote what might have an illegal reproduction of the artists music (I'm not sure of the exact agenda). Tagging that as "unverified" puts it in league with many other music bios, that have all sorts of unsourced sales figures. There is a huge difference between Wikipedia making an honest mistake of information (which is sadly common) and helping a hoaxer intentionally deceive people. --rob 16:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The template in question is called {{not verified}} — not {{unverified}}, which redirects to {{no source}}. (The latter is an image tag, so I assume that you simply mistyped the name.)
No one is arguing that a deliberate hoax is the same thing as an honest mistake. The point is that it isn't always possible to differentiate between the two, so we should err on the side of caution. (It's better to tag a hoax as "not verified" — a true statement — than to risk tagging a good faith submission as "a hoax.") The purpose of such templates is not to punish contributors (including malicious ones); it's to warn readers that the article's information might not be accurate. From a reader's perspective, it makes no difference whether the inaccuracy is intentional or inadvertent (both of which justify removal, via either deletion or replacement). Unlike the {{not verified}} template, the {{hoax}} template is inherently non-NPOV. —Lifeisunfair 17:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was working from (faulty) memory, and I mistyped the template name (oops). I appreciate you have the best of intentions, but think you're trying to be to nice here. Take vandalism, we warn people nicely at first, but repeated vandalism, can escalate into a block within the first day, not five days. Also, think of all the times people say "vandalism" or "rvv" in edit summaries. I fully agree caution must be used before calling something a hoax, just as we shouldn't label users vandals, in cases where they screwed-up. Also, when you say from a reader's perspective there's little difference between inaccuracy or intentional error; that's wrong. Readers can forgive honest mistakes, but may not, and should not forgive maliscious errors. Template:Not verified is used in hundreds of articles, and its high use, means it has little impact. Template:Hoax would be used in only a few at any given time. Also, we already have rules in place to prevent overuse. WP:NPA and WP:AGF seem to prohibit baseless allegations of a hoax. I've seen you give great arguements for *rare* use of this tag, but I can't understand why you oppose any use. --rob 17:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"I appreciate you have the best of intentions, but think you're trying to be to nice here."
I'm not trying to be nice to vandals; I'm trying not to asperse legitimate articles and their contributors.
"Also, when you say from a reader's perspective there's little difference between inaccuracy or intentional error; that's wrong. Readers can forgive honest mistakes, but may not, and should not forgive maliscious errors."
The average Wikipedia reader neither knows nor cares about the specific identity of an article's author; he she uses the site strictly for informative/educational purposes. Obviously, those of us who participate in Wikipedia's creation and maintenance should treat a vandal much differently than we treat someone who committed an honest mistake. There's no need, however, to advertise this fact within the articles.
"I've seen you give great arguements for *rare* use of this tag, but I can't understand why you oppose any use."
In my assessment, the template is inherently non-NPOV and potentially harmful (even if used with extreme caution). —Lifeisunfair 19:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Not verified is in no way a suitable substitute for Template:Hoax. The language on the not-verified template is far too mild for cases where we are pretty sure (but not yet sure enough to delete) than an article is a hoax. The not-verified template should be used for routine cases where there is some doubt about the facts, but not enough to say that the article is probably a hoax. Johntex\talk 17:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Template:Not verified is in no way a suitable substitute for Template:Hoax."
Template:Hoax is in no way a suitable substitute for NPOV and the assumption of good faith.
"The language on the not-verified template is far too mild for cases where we are pretty sure (but not yet sure enough to delete) than an article is a hoax. The not-verified template should be used for routine cases where there is some doubt about the facts, but not enough to say that the article is probably a hoax."
I understand the theoretical benefit of drawing such a distinction, but I don't believe that it's possible to do so reliably. (I've seen cases in which articles that appeared to be clear-cut hoaxes turned out to be legitimate.) To paraphrase an old legal principle, it's better to give ten vandals the benefit of the doubt than to unfairly accuse one innocent party of vandalism. —Lifeisunfair 19:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should publish 10 wanton lies, so that we can publish one poorly written truth. In fact, the 10 lies mean nobody will beleive us when we write the truth. Wikipedia has already gotten substantial bad press for much of the bogus info we publish. We generally defend ourselves, on the grounds that we quickly fix our errors. For some weird reason, we keep on letting articles that are 100% maliscious lies, sit for five days. Now, my first choice is a quicker delete, but if we must keep the lies, lets give an honest warning. --rob 10:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't believe that placing two enormous banners at the top of a page — one indicating that the article's veracity has not been verified, and the other indicating that the article is being considered for deletion — serves as an honest warning to our readers? It also is necessary to throw in a one-sided, non-NPOV opinion?
As the newbies are scared away by false accusations of vandalism, the legitimate : malicious content ratio will only shift for the worse. Of course, you've indicated above that you aren't interested in preserving "poorly written truth[s]." If someone isn't a master author from day one, let's brand him/her a vandal along with the liars and other worthless contributors. We mustn't bother with this assumption of good faith nonsense. Right?
To be clear, the above is not an actual allegation of such a viewpoint on your part; it's my description of an unfortunate side effect that I believe is being overlooked by some. —Lifeisunfair 11:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to protect the reputation of the accused, than please support speedy deletes of confirmed hoaxes. We can improve the process, to ensure such deletes are verified by a second opinion (e.g. other admin). We can also require a message on the author's talk page, giving them a chance to explain themselves (and a message on the deleted articles talk page). But, you continue to understimate the serious lasting harm to readers, and Wikipedia's reputation, by these hoaxes. To me, this is like a store selling a product that it knows is probably inherently defective to the customer. Ideally, they wouldn't sell it, but if they do sell it, they ought to share their knowledge of the problem. --rob 12:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attempting to downplay the harm of fraudulent articles. I simply believe that this template is likely to cause more damage than it prevents, and therefore is not a viable solution to the problem. I would support a much shorter AfD discussion period for deletions purely on the basis of wholesale unverifiability (2 days, perhaps?), but not a speedy deletion criterion. A second (or even third) opinion is insufficient, because there's no reason to assume that a small group of random admins is qualified to assess the veracity of a seemingly plausible (but unverifiable) claim. It isn't unheard-of for one person (out of everyone participating in an AfD discussion) to rescue an article from deletion by uncovering an elusive piece of evidence that establishes its legitimacy. It certainly helps to have the contributor take part in the debate, but suspicious articles often are authored by users who don't regularly visit Wikipedia and/or haven't registered accounts. —Lifeisunfair 13:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that this template categorizes articles in Category:Suspected hoaxes. —Lifeisunfair 21:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be more specific. I felt like seeing what the issue was on this after having used it once on an article that will most likely be deleted soon. I figure under the concerns of POV, general reputation, etc., lies a distinction to be made between amongst different types of hoaxes:
  1. Silly user-created hoaxes - {{nonsense}}
  2. Elaborate user-created hoaxes - {{afd}}
  3. Notable verified real-world hoaxes - Keep and Category:Hoaxes
  4. Real-world memes stated as truth despite documented evidence of hoaxness - Assume good faith and re-write according to consensus.
  5. Real-world memes researched by both sides with no consensus, yet too notable to delete - Edit Wars? Conclude that {{not verified}} is inappropriate as the matter's truth is believed unverifiable? Wait for the truth to become known (Snickers bar, anyone)? Delete for unverifiability and/or the crystal ball clause? Leave a bunch of red links pointing to it? Or conclude that the notability of a possible hoax might justifies the article's existance?

I guess go ahead and delete this, then figure out our actual goals regarding hoaxes and start from scratch. Ok, I've probably exceeded my alotted bandwidth. ~~~~ 03:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:FAOL

This template was created to highlight articles that have a featured-article equivalent in an other language wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages). But I think that it should be replaced by Template:FA link, a smaller template that puts a small star in the interlanguage box (see Boeing 747). check also here the same proposal that I've made but didn't get any responses. CG 18:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The "Featured Article" interwiki star only works with the Monobook skin. --Carnildo 00:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Template:FA link (currently a redirect to Template:Link FA) only notes for the benefit of readers that an article is featured in another language. Template:FAOL has a somewhat different meaning. It notes for the benefit of contributors that a featured article in another language is a likely source of additional information (which definitely isn't true for all featured articles in other languages). It also places the article in a category under Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages. --Hoziron 03:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. {{FAOL}} and its companion {{FAOLdone}} are complementary to {{link FA}}: they perform different tasks in different contexts. —Phil | Talk 11:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wait. Which is it? Is the purpose of Template:FAOL (1) to accomodate people who don't use the Monobook skin, or is it (2) to note articles which aren't just featured articles on other languages, but also happen to have valuable information that could assist the English article if it were utilized, or is it (3) to put the articles into the category of featured articles in various languages? The motivation here seems fairly confused. What if a featured article on a foreign-language Wikipedia doesn't have any information that we haven't yet utilized for our English Wikipedia article, but we do want to make it clear to non-monobookers that the article is a featured one, or we do want to put it in that category? What then? Or what if an article isn't featured on a foreign language Wiki, but does have lots of information on that Wiki that we would find highly valuable to use if it was translated and properly formatted? Why include the additional "featured article" requirement, if the chief point of Template:FAOL is to note foreign-language articles we can use to improve the English Wikipedia, rather than a template just to point out when there's a featured article in another language, a task already well-handled by Template:FA link for anyone who uses monobook. And wouldn't it make sense to have template:FA link also put articles into categories, so we wouldn't have to use two redundant templates for every featured article in every foreign language? This whole idea seems like an inefficient doubling of the steps required to note that a certain article is a featured one in a foreign language, one that could only lead to inconsistencies and unnecessary work. Never do with two templates what you could do with one. -Silence 12:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, thank you for your comment. I'll try to answer your questions. The Template:FAOL was created as the template of the Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages page, which aims to provide good sources for translators, but also to make some kind of statistics to see the kind of articles that are being improved in other languages (for example the Hebrew Wikipedia emphasis on Israeli-related articles, while the French one has a big number of good philosophy and linguistics articles). And yes, you're right, a lot of these FA in other languages are doesn't contain valuable information (that's why you would find 7 templates in Talk:World War II), and it has been deleted from a number of talk pages because of it uselessness. That's there's should be a discussion to make a consensus about the use of these two templates. CG 16:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though after that discussion takes place, it might be time to re-nominate this thing for deletion. This nomination is premature, but not necessarily a bad idea eventually, if we can come up with a better system (or at least a better name, though probably we'll keep this one even if we change its content) for this project, most ideally one that does both everything the Interwiki links do and everything the FAOL templates do, but at the very least a more consistent and less intrusive method for the Talk page templates, since, unlike many other Talk page templates, these are almost always of less than critical importance; the vast majority of editors on any page will find them useless, due to not speaking those other languages. I also still don't understand why a non-featured article on another language that has a lot of information we could use wouldn't have this template used on our wiki for such a page. The "featured article" requirement for something like this seems completely arbitrary, silly, and counter-productive, if its intent is to improve our articles, not just provide a repository for ones on other languages—as the InterWiki links do, though the fact that they don't categorize the featured articles for easy browsing is significant—of course, one could always go through the categories for such things on the foreign-language wikis, if one has even that much skill for navigating the pages.... -Silence 22:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is needed for users relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia's arcane nomenclature and semiotics to transfer contents from featured homologues to those that need improvement. Saravask 01:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though its flawed beyond reason, this needs consensus in other locales before deletion. If you doubt that's its useless, see Talk:World War II where about 7 featured articles are linked. Of course, none is as thorough or as well written as the one in English (the Arabic one is laughably short), and many are translations of the English, but of course, that's not important. However, that's not really a reason to delete it. I think there need to be guidelines to its use, however.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same is true to a lesser degree for Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien. God, these things sure are excessively space-consuming. Can't we at least turn it into a Babel-style template, where it only states the information about the WikiProject and all once, and then just lists all the featured articles within a single template? That would also make it a lot easier to include every foreign language featured article for a page, thus making it a vastly more effective alternative to the Interwiki links, which are currently a thousand times less obtrusive and space-consuming. -Silence 22:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unicode hack

Delete: Blank, orphan, abandoned experiment. Phil | Talk 16:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Danger

Delete: Also Template:Danger-adultsuper and Template:Danger-professional. See Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates for the rationale. Also being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Warning boxes for dangerous activities and products. cesarb 02:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the Disclaimers link is to suffice, it should be at the top of the framework, with a small warning box, so that it is seen immediately. Seahen 15:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brisbane infobox

Delete This infobox can only be used for a single city, and is redundant given the existence of Template:Infobox Australian City. --Dalziel 86 02:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

NOTE

A bot is under production to automatically subst certain templates. If you have suggestions for templates that should always (or never) be subst'ed, please contribute them to Wikipedia:Subst.

Template:Royal Welch Fusiliers

Delete Yet another, one article only type template. This one can only ever be used in Royal Welch Fusiliers and should just be substed into it. --Sherool 22:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

Delete, another one of those templates that are only used in one article namely The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. --Sherool 22:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert into infobox. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Subst/delete Chris talk back 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Avram table

Delete, this one was only used in Avram, don't rely see the point in a seperate template for this, I just substed it into the article itself. Some kind of "micronation infobox" template might be in order though if anyone is interested. --Sherool 21:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fair use-firefox

Delete and retag images as {{Logo}}, unlike the Disney logo ting this is not used for subcategorisation (it puts images in the generic Category:Logos), also it only apply to like 4 images (one of wich I nominated for deletion because it was only used on a userpage). Moreover the purpose of the template seems to be to validate the use of FireFox logos on userpages based on the fact that FireFox says that you can use the logo on your webpage to promote FireFox. IMHO this permission means little as Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy explicitly states that "fair use" images should not be used on userpages (or templates). --Sherool 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: IANAL, but as far as I know once you're granted permission to use an image on, say, your web page, the use of it in that context ceases to be fair use. Lord Bob 16:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As to permission for "promotional usage"--promotional usage tends to run counter to WP:NOT a soapbox. Also, on the page for button programs, it says at the bottom "Usage guidelines for the new logos is currently under development."[2] I'm not sure exactly what to make of that; it sounds like the conditions are subject to change.
For uses other than as a promotional button on a web page, there are restrictions to personal or non-commercial uses: "Sure, if it's just for you, or if it's for others and no money or other consideration changes hands" [3] All in all, it sounds like a grey area with no compelling justification for why we need to do this.
IMO, we should stick to fair-use {{Logo}} for these, and abide by the restrictions that entails: using the image in articles as identification or illustration when the product or trademark owner in question is a subject of discussion. --Tabor 18:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rewrite & rename:
    1. The copyright holder, firefox states that they are ok with the usage of the image on web pages, hence we have a greater level of permission compared to the standard "Fair use". And as far as copyrights are concerned the copyright holder granted me the permission to use the firefox logo on my userpage for a "promotional usage".
    2. It is plainly "kawaii" (cute) to have the firefox logo on my userpage rather than an annoying "FF" in its place.
    3. If I can say "I like firefox" on my userpage, I should also be allowed to use the logo as well as far as WP:NOT is concerned.
    --Cool Cat Talk 20:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is way too specific. Just use {{Logo}}, in combination with other existing tags if any apply. JYolkowski // talk 22:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The Problem is logo doesnt do the level of usage of the images we are granted by copyright holder. --Cool Cat Talk 14:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep re-write somehow. I'm out of my league here, but could {{Promotional}} be of any use? - RoyBoy 800 00:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 19:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cool Cat, and "not a soapbox" does not apply to user pages. ~~ N (t/c) 23:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template serves a very specific purpose, but said purpose is valid and unserved by other templates. When placed on a user page, this is not an example of fair use (because the copyright holder has provided explicit consent). While Wikipedia is not a personal hosting service, we're permitted to include some autobiographical information on our user pages (especially when it pertains to our Wikipedia participation, as browser selection does). —Lifeisunfair 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just how would you clasify these logos anyway? Free use? Defenently not, they are copyrighted and trademarked, and have several restrictions. Used with permission? That runs afoul of WP:CSD#I3. Promotional? All promotional images are still used under a fair use rationale. Conditional use? Nope, they must allow derivative works to fit in that category (wich they don't). We would have to invert a whole new licence type to allow this use as far as I can tell.

    Also note at the end of the quote from the FAQ it says "Put one or more of these buttons on your website to help us spread the word about Firefox." (emphasis mine), it does not say "use any Mozilla logo you like", and only Image:Firefox logo 305x150.png seems to actualy be one of those buttons. --Sherool 17:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom dr.alf 12:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pdf icon

Delete it's one and only function is to insert a PDF icon into an article, use of fair use images in templates is a big no-no acording to Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. It was only used in 3-4 articles all by the same person, so I just orphanded it because the articles would look extremely ugly with the huge TFD notice for these small icons. If someone wants to replace the image with a free one (some text saying "pdf" maybe) that's fine with me, but this current form has to go. --Sherool 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE I am the user who uploaded the icon. I have no problem with its deletion. Saravask 10:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and note that you can achieve the same functionality other ways, though it wouldn't be completely trivial. Something like this in your monobook.css, though you'll need to tweak it with padding and whatnot:
a[href$=".pdf"] { background-image: url('.../pdficon.png'); }
—HorsePunchKid→龜 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia Primetime Sunday

Also:

This is a procedural nomination moved from a misplaced listing on AFD. Bwithh's reasoning there was that "Wikipedia is not a TV guide. also, this is unmaintainable." No opinion from me. —Cryptic (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Get rid as soon as possible! We can't have this spammed on the pages of the series and I'm going to remove them from articles as this is clearly not appropriate. If the result is to keep then they could be readded. In some cases there are three templates per article and the problem would just get worse and worse. Have an article about the TV schedules, but not a template on every article for every channel in every country. violet/riga (t) 11:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. unmaintainable, too many templates, not a tv guide, ..... JPD (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is a US equivalent, and these are useful and interesting templates. I do suggest, however, removing them from foreign television shows, as they just would not scale if that were the case. Ambi 12:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Define "foreign" on an international website........--ElvisThePrince 13:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"foreign" means the country of broadcast is different from the country of production. --Scott Davis Talk 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK what about say HBO/BBC co-productions?--ElvisThePrince 01:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who created these templates. I just happen to stumble across Template:US Primetime Thursday when correcting links to Will & Grace. Liking the look of the template, I proceeded to create ones for Australian television and placed the templates on the appropriate pages. Ambi discovered what I was doing and some discussion regarding the templates took place on my talk page. However Chuq then suggested that templates be created for each network rather then each day. I then came up with the following:

Seven Network Daily Primetime Schedule
7:30
8:00
8:30
9:00
9:30
10:00
Sunday
??
Sunday Night Film
Monday
The Great Outdoors
Grey's Anatomy
24
Tuesday
Dancing with the Stars
All Saints
Wednesday
Beyond Tomorrow
Blue Heelers
Forensic Investigators
Thursday
The Mole
Las Vegas
24
Friday
Better Homes and Gardens
Friday Night Film

This is as far as it went. Now I discover that the templates have been put up for deletion. There is currently no tfd tags on any of the templates except for Sunday and most have been removed from the articles without discussion and without any notification to me.

So, may I suggest a compromise. Lets delete these nightly primetime templates and replace them with the network primetime templates like the example above. This way they can be placed on the article about the network (e.g. Seven Network). Also I agree with Ambi that these templates should only be placed on articles about Australian programmes. How does that sound with everybody?? -- Ianblair23 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! posted just after Ianblairs post above. I concur with his proposal. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment templates are not required if they only go on one article (the network). I guess templates are useful if they go on each member channel as well, but I don't know if they are always consistent across states (eg football). --Scott Davis Talk 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Network-specific tables would be nice, but I agree, they don't need templates. Also, I think it's more usual for the days to run horizontally and the times vertically, but that's a minor nitpick. Anyway, more should have been done before this TfD. Bwithh (the original nominator) should have made an attempt to contact the creator, ie User:Ianblair23. Obviously some work has gone into these. Let's not rush to throw out so much content so quickly. pfctdayelise 13:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the table is only on the network page, it shouldn't be a template. I don't personally see much value in having a table showing what's on on the programme pages, and am not really happy with the half-done solution of only having the table for the country of origin. Also, note that one of the US templates is also listed above - the Australian ones should definitely not be considered separately. JPD (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the one who originated the US Thursday template, I will refrain from voting. I will, however, make the following comments:
  1. I created that solely to see how people would react to it, and to see if anyone would pick up and create tables for the other days (again, to judge whether or not people found them useful). I thought the issue was dead when other days didn't pop up, not realizing someone in Australia had picked it up.
  2. I fail to see how this is "unmaintainable". Unless a show completely bombs by the end of October, it only requires updating at new season and midseason.
  3. I strongly object to whoever removed the templates from the pages before this vote was concluded. That's equivalent to blanking a page and then putting it up for deletion, in my eyes, and that's poor Wikipedia etiquette, also (perhaps) strictly IMO.

Otherwise, I don't care one way or another how this vote goes. Sahasrahla 22:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

Template:Partof

This template is overkill. To list a related article, we use a "see also" section towards the bottom. Using indented text at the top is improper format. Furthermore, an article is not part of a series (def: number of objects or events arranged or coming one after the other in succession) if it is not part of the list. This template is being used for articles that are not part of a series (only topically related to the series) and improperly labels them as being part of a series. --Jiang 13:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Instruments

In variation to Wikipedia:Babel, this page contains dozens of templates such as {{User horn-1}} ("this user is a novice hornist") and {{User org-4}} ("this user is a professional organist") and accompanying catagories. Nearly all of those aren't actually used. At the risk of going out on a limb, I would propose simplifying it a lot by removing the "skill levels" and simply leaving Category:Wikipedians by instrument. Radiant_>|< 10:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Totally harmless. As long as they serves some kind of community purpose and doesn't interfere with anything important, why get rid of things used in userspace? I would, however support getting rid of the categories for each skill level and just lumping as "Hornist", "Organist" etc. unless those categories get overly populated. The templates themselves, though, should stay. -- Tyler 10:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMO even levels should remain, because being able to play "Frère Jacques" is not the same thing as being able to play "The Flight of the Bumblebee" or "Eruption" by Van Halen. However, I might agree that four levels are not strictly necessary, maybe three or even just two would suffice; anyway, since they don't harm, they could as well stay. --Army1987 20:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that not only should the levels be left, but all the levels. I agree with Army1987 about Frère Jacques/The Flight of the Bumblebee, and while there may not be many higher level players for some instruments (for instance, there are currently only 3 professional saxaphone players) the fact that there is ONE is grounds for keeping that level. And for the sake of continuity (for lack of a better word- someone substitute the one I'm looking for) there should be the same number of levels for each one. Eventually (in theory at least) someone will fill themselves into each one- the same theory that Wikipedia eventaully approaches perfection.

Wildyoda 03:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean consistence. However, to avoid having many underpop'd categories as Tyler says, we could keep the templates, remove level-specific categories and replacing [[Category:User {{{instrument-cat-code}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]] with [[Category:User {{{instrument-cat-code}}}|{{{level}}}]]. This way there will be one category per instrument, but users will be sorted by level. (This is just an idea, IMO as long as those categories don't harm they can remain.)--Army1987 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User sco templates

These seem to be used by some of the user-language templates but not by others. And I can't really see why any of them would be used, since thyey are hardly "shortcuts". Who in their right mind would type in {{user sco 1}} rather than simply typing 1? And {{User sco N}} defies even the tenuous logic of having the rest of these as templates - it returns M! Unless there's a perfectly logical reason that I have overlooked, I don't think these should survive. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, they all just seem to be numbers. Unless there's some technical reason for this? -- SCZenz 08:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the reason for this is to hook to categories in the Scots Wikipedia. For some bizarre reason, they're using M instead of N for native speakers (even though other languages where the equivalent of "native" does not start with an N still use N). Since there is a parameter {{{level}}}, they'd need to have some way of changing the level. The only way to do this is to wrap it in another template by level. Chris talk back 03:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they were actual user-language templates they would be for speakers of Template:Ll. If someone cares to make them such, then of course keep. But in their current state, delete. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until someone knocks some sense into sco:, delete thereafter. Actually, it seems that several languages to this, see the list of included templates]. Keep until WM policy on how to do this across all Wikipediae can be formed. Chris talk back 03:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A possible technical reason: These seem to be for the purpose of mapping our system of language levels (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, N) to those of other languages. For these templates, it seems that speakers of Template:Ll also use 0-4 for language levels; however, they use 'M' instead of 'N'—apparently preferring mither tung (mother tongue) to native. A better example would be mapping the language levels to Template:Ll, where {{User ast 1}}, {{User ast 2}}, etc. map the numerals to equivalent words in Asturian. These apparently exist as templates (as opposed to just typing in the translated text/numeral) for more flexible use in templates like {{User language subcategory}}, to create properly-mapped interwiki links on user-language subcategory pages to the corresponding subcategories in other languages. For example, Category:User en-N (which uses the User language subcategory template) would link to the corresponding User en-M subcategory in Wikipaedia Scots. (It doesn't, actually, because the TfD message currently breaks the User language subcategory template when it tries to call {{User sco N}}.) Were these templates to be deleted, the interwiki link would point to the nonexistant subcategory User en-N. I vote a weak keep. These templates certainly have their legitimate uses; however, at least for the specific case with Scots, any breakage resulting from deleting these templates (to my knowledge) would seem to be relatively minimal and could be fixed by making a category redirect on Wikipaedia Scots and editing the User language subcategory template so it doesn't try to re-map the language levels for the Scots interwiki link.—Jeff 03:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

Template:D-t

This is a new way of proposing a template for speedy deletion without specifing a reason. As none of the WP:CSD apply specifically to templates anyway, this could only be legitimately used under the general criteria (vandalism or nonsense, for example). This is a very rare occurance, and such a mechanism is not needed for it. Delete DES (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:InMemoriam

  • Delete: Although I support linking to the memorial site from relevant articles, I don't see why we need a template simply for a link. I imagine this template was created to discourage people from creating overly conspicuous or elaborate links to the memorial, but hopefully that is no longer such a pressing problem. Instead of having a template, we should simply encourge editors to create normal links to the memorial from the External links sections of the various articles. That way we're not wasting processor power on generating a link from a template. Kaldari 19:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created this to resolve an edit war on Template:Sep11 over the placement of a prominent link to Sep11:Main Page. Some people wanted it in the series box, some people didn't, and most were quite pigheaded about it. Initially it was a box like the other sister project templates (Template:Wikiquote, Template:Commons, etc.), so the link would get the extra prominence that Side 1 wanted, but wouldn't be placed on the same footing as the articles in the series, which is what Side 2 didn't like. I don't care one way or another whether this is deleted or not; both the main edit warriors on the issue are long gone, so I doubt they care too much either. (Though, of course, others might take their place . . . but we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:RAÄ

Doesn't really say anything about use that Template:Restricted use doesn't, is used only on one image (which I'm retagging right now). As well, I don't really think we want to encourage uploads of such images by providing a template, so delete. JYolkowski // talk 16:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. In fact, take out the fair use bit, and this would be a double-whammy as "non-commercial use only" and '"'by-permission, Wikipedia only". (Both are prohibitted, of course.) Wcquidditch | Talk 01:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GameCoverInfo

Basically transcludes Template:Gamecover with a few parameters at the top to specify source and copyright info. However, the parameters are in such an unintuitive format that it's probably easier just to type them in in the upload box. It's unused to boot, so delete. JYolkowski // talk 16:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GameScreenshotInfo

Along the same lines as Template:GameCoverInfo, and I think it should be deleted for the same reason. JYolkowski // talk 16:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Project_namespace#Discussion, per

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place.

There is no operational alternative for the "Wikipedia subcat guideline" template yet; destroying it would cause problems for several active guidelines.

The discussion about the template on the "Template messages" talk page as mentioned above, was listed also on wikipedia:current surveys

So, please turn to Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Project_namespace#Discussion for further comments and/or improvement proposals. --Francis Schonken 09:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-ABN

Delete for several reasons, first of all it is incorect, images from that source is not PD, they can be used freely provided atribution is given, but they are not public domain. Secondly it's only used on one image, and finaly it's bascaly a duplicate of Template:ABr, wich corectly states that the images are copyrighted, but can be used as long as credit is given. I recomend it's one image be re-tagged {{ABr}} after this is deleted. --Sherool 00:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

Template:Limited Use-person

Nominated for sake of consistency with consideration of Template:Limited_Use below, for the same reasons. --Tabor 19:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly delete. I reproduce my comment from below for consistency. I fully appreciate the point of the template, but the fact is that anything you upload here to which you own the copyright is under the GFDL, and it does not matter what other templates you stick on it. The GFDL explicitly allows for any use, and this template spcifically restricts the usage and is thus incompatible with long-standing Wikipedia policy. Like the user-page template before it, creating a new template is not the way to change policy. The way to do that is to contact the Foundation's lawyers. Everything we do here ourselves we give away freely; if your work is not compatible with that, you need not contribute it. I note that compared to the template below, the word "encyclopedic" has been omitted, which is interesting, but makes no difference to the GFDL status. -Splashtalk 19:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that the people tagging their uploads as PD, CC-by-sa, or fairuse are not making valid license choices? Please clarify. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you upload something to which you hold the copyright, it is licensed under the GFDL, regardless of how else you tag it. You can also tag it in other ways, but the GFDL is always there: those who upload with cc-by-sa and the like are multi-licensing, not single licensing under their chosen tag. The presumption of this template on the other hand, is to upload something to which you hold the copyright but to not do so under the GFDL, an action that, under current policy, cannot be taken, as stated clearly on Special:Upload. Which is to say that the template is extremely misleading: you can tag with it sure, but I can then soundly ignore it and use the image in whatever way I like anyway. -Splashtalk 07:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not free. --Carnildo 20:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 19:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reasons as other template. Rhobite 22:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-free. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extension. Nominator failed to add tfd to the template. Decision should be delayed for a few more days although delete seems likely. RedWolf 17:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Twoversions

This template was deleted by User:David Gerard and then undeleted by User:DESiegel. I agree with David (Gerard), who stated [4] that this template is "...a blatant encouragement to violate NPOV and substitute Sympathetic Point Of View." Carbonite | Talk 16:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which David do you agree with? :) My undeltion does not seem to ahve been successful, at least I still can't see the earlier versions. I undeleted because this was delted with no process or consensus at all, and because the last TfD on this had a keep result. I agree that encouraging edit wars and PoV disputes is a bad idea. Abstain pending furhter debate on the merits of this template. DES (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, per Carbonite and David Gerard. Further existence of this template is poisonous to Wikipedia and immediate deletion is called for. Process is good for general cases, but isn't required when something this contrary to our core principles appears. Unfocused 17:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not speedy. Forks are evil, but instead of deleting this template out-of-process we can just fix any situation that it ends up being used in, until it's deleted. ~~ N (t/c) 17:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Unfocused. I don't really see the merits of this template, and it has caused more trouble than it was meant to prevent. Titoxd(?!?) 17:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A very useful template to halt edit warring, and possibly, bring the parties to discussion. Better guideline is necessary to state clearly which of the two versions should be displayed (e.g. based on what the articles were like before the disputes, in other words, based upon the original intents). Better enforcement is also necessary to avoid individuals like user:Huaiwei who ignored what the template said - " Please do not revert to the other disputed version unless it is decided on the discussion page that this should be done. " - and insisted to have their preferred versions displayed. The template tagged on the article should better be as minimal as possible, and the links to the other version and to the diffs can be provided on the talk page by a sister template. — Instantnood 17:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Far more often, the template is used inappropriately. For example, you tagged [5] National pastime due to a disagreement about how Hong Kong should be classified. In practice, this is almost always the manner in which this template is used. I've seen almost no evidence of it halting edit wars or helping parties to reach consensus. Carbonite | Talk 18:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mean I should not have applied the template? In your opinion, what should I do instead to stop the POV pushers like user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat who refused to follow how things were presented prior to their contentious edits? — Instantnood 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, yes, I believe that you shouldn't have applied the template in that instance. That dispute was about one line of text. I honestly have no idea about the POV of you, Huaiwei or STC, but I do know that placing the twoversions template on the article wasn't going to settle any dispute. This template shouldn't even be an option for settling a dispute. We need to work on getting one NPOV article, not two different POV articles. Carbonite | Talk 19:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What else can be done? Yes I can understand how frustated you must be feeling now that a Requests for comment and two arbcoms (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al., Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2) hasent managed to solve your problem. Poor individual admins who invest time and energy to try to resolve has faltered one after another, with the latest hanging in the balance with a threat like "I have no comment unless the first steps are done". But I sure hope you are not demanding for this template's existance by saying Carbonite cant give you a solution to your problem. Like I constantly remind, learn to take responsiblity and ownership of the problems you are part of, and quit constantly expecting others to solve them for you.--Huaiwei 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are not two ArbCom cases, the second part was a reopening for the close for the first part was procedurally and technically incorrectly performed. Please also take a look at what the arbitrators have said about user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat: [1] [2]. — Instantnood 20:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited there is no reason to expect people will follow how things are presented prior to their edits. Nobody owns the text, intent or title of an article and they can and will change. It's a wiki, get over it. SchmuckyTheCat 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obliterate We have {{POV}} for such things, whereas this template implies that you are looking at The Wrong Version. Chris talk back 18:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. User:Instantnood's himself has actually proven to be one of the worse abusers of this template, and for him to bring it up for undeletion and then to support its continued existance here demonstrates the extent to which individuals who circumvent the mediation and dispute resolution process can go to archieve their aims. Not a single usage of this template by instantnood has resulted in resolution of any kind, with all of them continuing to remain in their respective pages till this template was deleted. Plenty of these pages resulted in worse edit warring (not just over the version to be displayed as instantnood claims, but much more so over the usage of the template itself), with some even being on page protection just to preserve this template. Even now that the template has been deleted, he continues to add a "legacy" of its existance with "dispute notices" in [6] and [7]. A new revert war now erupts between us over the retention of this notice. As what User:Calton describes in [8], "nice try: it's the twoversions tag in different clothing".--Huaiwei 18:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Some of my usage of this template involved disputes with user:Huaiwei, who insisted to drop the template, and to display his preferred version, i.e. ignored what the template said. To my experience, that made discussion not quite possible, therefore better enforcement is needed to avoid people who ignore what the template said. — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As also mentioned here [9], lets get the facts straight via a simple chronological recount of how a typical usage of the template results in when it involves you. First, an edit war erupts. At the end of three reverts and with the page still not showing the version you prefer, you pop in a "twoversions" tag after reverting again to your version. When I proceed to remove this tag by reverting back to my version, you revert it back to your version with the template, saying "the twoversions tag is not meant to endorse any version", and insists I am "flouting its intentions by reverting the displayed version". And again, another round of reverts ensue over whether the template should appear at all or not. All this time, the talkpages remains empty. Obviously at this stage, the template has not worked, and at least it is plain obvious to me, it is also being abused. The same scenario is repeated across subsequent disputes we have, sometimes reaching the attention of admins. And that was when folks like myself told admins that you are abusing the template not to stop edit wars, but to basically justify your version irrespective of how you claim otherwise. Pressurised, you proceeded to display the tag this time on the preferred versions of your opponents, myself incluced, but only in some cases and only after extremely heated exchanges. Some pages ended up with your prefered version, some with mine. Subsequently, you lost your patience (or got a shot of viagra), and suddenly starts reverting them to your version again (and still with the template) when you think no one else is looking. Another round of editwars breaks out over which version is to be displayed (the only edit war you bothered to admit above). And the talkpages? Still starkly empty. Has any disputed pages been resolved? No. Has any of the templates abused by you been successfully removed after a compromise has been found? Zelch. Need I say more about the feasibility of this template, and its potential for abuse? Claiming that the template should stay because it didnt work with individuals like me who "ignore it" is laughable at best.--Huaiwei 18:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also a previous nomination. — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now why should I be surprised that STC is the nominator! And now we know who are the ones with foresight and who have been assuming good faith? Both virtues in themselves. :D--Huaiwei 19:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Is there any possible way to have a list of articles previous tagged with this template, so that we can know about its usage like the special:whatlinkshere tool? — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you that list, are you pretending not to see it? [14] I sure hope you're not pretending you can't see it, cuz you edited that very edit of mine. [15] SchmuckyTheCat 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Delete with scrubbing bubbles, for the same reason as Huaiwei. Instantnood, who uses this template more than anyone else on Wikipedia, simply DOES NOT EVER discuss it, he clams up until poked, prodded and provoked. It doesn't stop his edit warring, nor does it bring him to discussion. This template is just an endrun around content forking. Furthermore David Gerard was absolutely right to go rouge and delete. You can't vote on NPOV. The very proposed policy that led to this template to be created originally was dismissed out of hand as ridiculous, the templates continued life was a loophole of TfD voting instead of real discussion. SchmuckyTheCat 18:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not speedy. per Nickptar. --Tabor 18:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETE. I seldom support applications of WP:IAR, but this one by David Gerard was justified. When the original TfD debate was held, this template was relatively new and seemed like a reasonable idea. Since then, its overwhelmingly counterproductive nature has been proven time and again. Rather than being used by an objective third party (who merely wishes to halt edit warring) or by an involved party who adds it to the other party's version, it typically is inserted by an edit warrior who also reverts to his/her version (either simultaneously or immediately prior). He/she then acts as though the template is backed by some sort of authority that renders the first associated version sacrosanct for the time being. And even if this template is used as intended, it actually discourages long-term resolution (by essentially creating a fork, thereby reducing the incentive to gauge consensus and/or discuss possible compromises). It also uglifies articles and drags readers into editors' disputes. This simply is a terrible template, and it mustn't be allowed to continue harming Wikipedia. —Lifeisunfair 19:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the above debate, and recalling my one interaction with this template (during the debate over the spoiler-warnign templates IIRC) I have come to the conclusion that this tempalte is ill-advised. as User:Lifeisunfair says, it sounds like a good idea. if its use could be somehow restricted to uninvolved people sincerly trying to stop edit wars, it might be a good tool in some case. it doesn't sound as if that has been the most common result. Therefore, delete this template, but do not speedy delete it. I still don't see any reason why an out-of-process undiscussed deletion was needed for thsi -- there seems no problem in getting significant numbers of people to agree to delete it at this time. DES (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it makes sense to have a large number of templates for article content disputes so that the right one is available. JYolkowski // talk 22:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Used correctly, it can reduce the damage in sterile edit wars. If someone's abusing it, RFC him, tar and feather him, crush him by elephant, whatever, but that's no reason to delete the template. Plenty of other templates get applied incorrectly too. —Cryptic (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously. This template is only used to give extra credence to one side of an edit war, and tell the other side to STFU. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I'm not an administrator, I have zero idea what this template's text was. However, based on what's been said here, I assume that it left one version as the main page and placed an alternate version on a sub page. The problem with that approach (if that is what the template does) is that it gives the version on the main page a perceived degree of superiority. If such an approach is going to work at all, it will need to place all alternate versions (while rare, I have seen three-cornered edit wars before) on sub pages and make the main page just a protected stub pointing to them. I'm not certain how feasible such an approach would be, but the concept sounds intriguing. Caerwine 23:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming a Monobook skin, you'll find a "history" button atop the page. Chris talk back 23:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The template adds a link to the other version from the page's history. Aside from the arguably inappropriate nature of content forking, your suggestion would basically hide articles from the site's readers. That's entirely unacceptable. —Lifeisunfair 02:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unacceptable maybe, but less so than a template whose only use is to legitimise one side of an edit war. No amount of "This is not an endorsement of this version" can change this. If neither side is willing to play nicely, then neither side gets their version shown in main article space. Can you say fairer than that? Chris talk back 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Both options are unacceptable. I agree with your criticism of the template, but I believe that your Caerwine's alternative is even worse. The concept of removing an article from its correct location might seem like a fair way to treat the editors involved in the dispute, but it's unfair to readers (and patently unprofessional). And of course, it would impede one of the core functions of a wiki: the ability to edit pages. (Which forked version would someone edit? Neither? Both/all? The one that he/she prefers?) —Lifeisunfair 04:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to call into question your ability to read, but I assume when you say "my alternative" you are referring to Caerwine's suggestion above? Also, your point about impeding the users' ability is moot, for obvious reasons. Chris talk back 04:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Not to call into question your ability to read, but I assume when you say "my alternative" you are referring to Caerwine's suggestion above?"
Yes, I'm sorry about that. When I replied to Caerwine, I inadvertently copied-and-pasted your username (from the reply above mine) into the edit summary. When I actually replied to you, I was thinking that you were the same person to whom I already had replied. Additionally, I apologize for splitting your signature (also inadvertent).
"Also, your point about impeding the users' ability is moot, for obvious reasons."
Those reasons are not obvious to me. Could you please elaborate? —Lifeisunfair 14:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pages in such disputes are generally protected, rendering the question of which version to edit worthless. Chris talk back 17:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this template used on numerous unprotected pages. The fact that it can be inserted by a non-admin renders this inevitable.
Also, isn't the theoretical idea behind this template (and Caerwine's variation) to halt edit wars without the need for more drastic intervention? (If the involved parties agree to stop reverting — with or without the use of a special template — there's no need for page protection.) —Lifeisunfair 18:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After having read the above discussion, I'll go ahead and vote Delete on this template. I still think a variant of the {Protected} template that gave direct access to the competing versions might be useful, but it's clear that the method that this template used has been tried and found wanting. Caerwine 19:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fast company this template keeps: see the original use Zen master attempted to make of it over at Conspiracy theory, where his personal impressions are being undue weighted out by other editors (myself included). More evidence for the argument Lifeisunfair gives for a Delete? Adhib 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I assume a person of your level of experience is aware, this is not a simple majority vote count. When applied in a prudent manner, the prefixes "strong" and "weak" can assist the closing admin in gauging the nature of the consensus (or lack thereof). —Lifeisunfair 14:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong is VFD shorthand for "There's no way i'm going to change my position," Weak is short for "I am much more likely than usual to change my position on this subject"; things like 'Strongest possible ... indicate the same; it's not part of the vote or part of the comment or reason for deletion or keeping, and not to directly influence the outcome, but it is a message to others interested in the debate about the editor's level of conviction that that's the right way to go, and can have an indirect effect on the debate: The nature of the modifiers used to be explained briefly at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, apparently it's been lost in a recent rewrite. --Mysidia (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Removes an incentive to negotiate; Confuses casual readers; Looks unprofessional. Tom Harrison (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I used it once successfully in the process of stabilising a particularly "difficult" article, that had been protected for several weeks, and resumed edit-warring immediately after unprotection (of course, all factions accusing each other of POV, so the NPOV/POV template had no effect whatsoever) - The TwoVersions template appeared to be handy to get the discussion to the talk page (which had been unsuccessful with all other templates), and to allow time for elaborating a consensus version of the article on that talk page, which took several days with several contributors. The article in question is unprotected without major difficulties (and without any template) for several months now. As a remark I can add that there appeared to be some problem with the template software at the time, as it did not correctly link to the "other version"; don't know if that problem still exists today, but I'd rather fix that problem than delete the template. --Francis Schonken 10:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is unwilling to discuss such a dispute until a fork of his/her version has been pushed to the top or linked to via a gigantic, unprofessional banner, he/she should not be permitted to edit the article. —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with David Gerard, Tom Harrison, and others. --Pjacobi 11:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much abused and ultimately unhelpful. And yes, David Gerard was wrong to unilterally delete. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While I have chiefly seen it abused, the process made clear how it could be used for dispute management. It may be better than subpages for two texts so divergent that diffs are useless. Its chief problems are
    • It is worded so that abusive editors can read it as a permanent non-admin protection
    • It makes no allowances for a third version; either a proposed compromise or a radically different proposal, and those are, in fact desirable in many conflicts.Septentrionalis 03:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If another tool is created for the purpose of temporary comparison of versions of an article before merger, it should not be speedied on the basis of this discussion. Septentrionalis 03:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A statement of fact cannot be construed as POV -- and the NPOV policy does not justify blanking or deleting (vandalising) the template out of process, that was inappropriate -- if the template is used correctly, it should only appear on an article in an active editing dispute where just two versions of an article are currently in contention; it offers a method of temporarily calming the dispute and allowing other editors to more clearly see what the editing dispute is so that an appropriate compromise can be reached or the dispute can otherwise be resolved. Abuse of the template is another matter, but the template can and should be removed from an article in those cases. --Mysidia (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DisputeCheck

This seems to serve the same purpose as Template:Not verified, though there's a wide variance in the alarmingness of the banner. It seems to me that these templates and their associated categories should be merged. -- Beland 04:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I like the more alrming red color better, but with the text from Not verified. I think we want to be clear as possible that an article with such a banner should not be trusted until the issues are dealt with. But, anyway, merge. -- SCZenz 08:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-nonsense

Only one article is using this rather in-your-face template. I suggest merging it into Template:Cleanup-rewrite. -- Beland 04:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is supposed to fill in a specific niche: You come upon an article; you're not familiar with the subject area, so you have no idea whether the article is in need of Template:Cleanup-context (or some other cleanup template) or if the article is just straight nonsense. I'm not surprised the template is not frequently used: its primary function is to be replaced with another template by somebody who knows more about the subject area. (I admit this could be made clearer within the template itself.) Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 05:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, abrasive and needlessly biting (especially since this will hit new users with unusual frequency). Also, the one article it's used on isn't even nonsense! (Although that article does lack context and could probably be deleted on that basis.) Nonsense is defined as "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." How an expert could be expected to help with it, I don't know. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now, no articles are using it *ahem*. Chris talk back 13:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone is unfamiliar with a subject to the extent that he/she is unable to differentiate between patent nonsense and a legitimate article in need of cleanup, he/she is in no position to declare that the "article appears to be nonsensical" (thereby accusing its author of vandalism). The template's creator stated above that it serves as a means of consulting "somebody who knows more about the subject area," but this can be accomplished with far greater efficiency via other means. (Leave a note on the talk page of a user who has made substantial edits to a related article.) When in doubt, it's important to assume good faith. The insertion of this template marks the assumption of bad faith (placing the onus on a third party — not even the article's author — to counter a potentially false allegation of wrongdoing). —Lifeisunfair 01:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, --Masssiveego 08:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many times I have encountered work that could have used this template. 172 | Talk 15:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holding cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

To convert to category

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

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.

Stub templates for deletion

Main page: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

Template:Sfd-current

Listings

Adding a listing

  • Please put new listings under today's date (August 2) at the top of the section.
  • When listing a template here, don't forget to add {{tfd|TemplateName}} to the template or its talk page, and to give notice of its proposed deletion at relevant talk pages.

November 7

Template: Slashdotted

Delete: Non-encyclopedic. Reads like an ad for Slashdot, which is a fine site, but which has no place in Wikipedia. Yath 00:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unencyclopedic, current for at most 24 hours, and significently overstates the impact of Slashdot links and Slashdot in general, especially when used in relation to links that are just in commets. If it isn't deleted, it needs to be firmly established that this sort of template only belongs on talk pages, and should only be used for links that are on Slashdot's main page, while they are on its main page; there is some basis for putting such things on talk, but none whatsoever for putting them on articles. --Aquillion 00:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand the idea behind this, but it seems unnecessary; a recently Slashdotted article is a likely vandalism target, but so are countless other high profile pages. (And of course, any page can be vandalized, with the less visited articles being the most likely to retain malicious edits for extended periods of time.) If an article has been featured on Slashdot, it most likely is on enough watchlists that any vandalism will be reverted within minutes. I seriously doubt that many people regularly check this template's associated category for new entries, so it really doesn't serve much of a purpose beyond advertising Slashdot (not that they need the plug). —Lifeisunfair 00:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can see the reason for this, but it's just an ad for slashdot; perhaps someone could remove the "slashdot" and just replace /. with "A high traffic site"--Rdoger6424 01:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The massive trolling that follows slashdot must be pointed out.
  • Delete. No reason that we can't flag slashdot vandalisim the same way we flag regular vandalisim. --Quasipalm 01:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there is a decision to delete, please consider creating a similar but neutral template as per Rdoger6424. The warning has helped me spot vandalism in the past (though after that I was wary of pages linked to from /. without needing a reminder). I think the notion that this works as an ad for Slashdot is fairly ridiculous, though. Maybe MediaWiki should offer some way that pages with unusual activity automatically get flagged - this could also work well for current events. --01:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or generalize, this template is basically used to spot vandalism as it occurs. I have no objection to something along the lines of "This page was noted recently in _____ and as a result, can be filled with vandalism" or something better-sounding. Titoxd(?!?) 02:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or generalize. It's useful info for people who keep track of the page, but keep it on talk pages in the future. -- SCZenz 02:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this template is incredibly helpful when a site is listed on Slashdot, and it's true, once linked there's invariably vandals lurking on tagged articles. -Locke Cole 02:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How does this template's presence assist in countering the vandalism? —Lifeisunfair 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It adds them to Category:Linked from Slashdot. If you check that every so often it might provide a good way to note articles likely to be vandalized. FWIW I'd also be for generalizing the template. -Locke Cole 03:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vandals can check categories too. If this template is generalized, won't the associated category serve as a one-stop list of the most visible targets? —Lifeisunfair 03:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you give the average vandal a bit too much credit, assuming they'd know their way around the wiki so well. Besides, the most visible targets are also going to be the best-policed. ～J.K. 03:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"I think you give the average vandal a bit too much credit, assuming they'd know their way around the wiki so well."
It isn't the average vandal that I'm worried about. Some of the more sophisticated vandals target high-use templates (thereby defacing hundreds of articles simultaneously) or run bots that vandalize dozens of pages in the minute or two before they're blocked. It's safe to say that such vandals "know their way around the wiki" well enough to consult a category.
"Besides, the most visible targets are also going to be the best-policed."
Yes, I noted that fact in the comments accompanying my vote. But these targets are highly visible and carefully watched without such a template. I don't understand how it's supposed to help matters. —Lifeisunfair 03:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Academies

Rename: The template itself is a borderline example of a navigation template in my opinion, but I brought it since it deals with only Swedish Royal Academies and not Academies in general, therefore it should be renamed so that it's name reflects that. Caerwine 02:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

Template:New York State Highways

Delete: This was just deleted a few days ago by TFD. Recreation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairusein2

Delete. Because media should only be used as fair use where they are essential to the article, images that are fair use in two or more articles are few and far between. For the few that are, use two instances of {{fairusein}} instead of creating a whole bunch of new templates. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I can easily imagine dual fair use being common for pictures showing an actor in a particular production, and this template can also handle the rarer cases of 3 or more articles. Caerwine 01:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Images can be fairuse in many articles. For example, a fairuse image of Pope John Paul II would be fairuse in the article about him, in an article on major figures of the 20th century, in an article on key figures in the collapse of communism, in an article on leaders who were the victims of assassination attempts, etc. A fairuse image of a pope wearing a triple tiara could be fair use for an article on that pope (especially if there were no images of anyone wearing that particular tiara), in an article on papal tiaras, in an articles on crowns, in an article on goldsmiths, etc. The most recent image added in of the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall at the White House is fairuse for articles on both, and would be suitable for articles on diplomatic visits, on controversial visitors to the White House, on the first official visit abroad by Camilla, etc. In each case it would be fair use. It makes sense to reuse images where they have a unique value to each article rather than having to trace a different image of Charles and Camilla at the White House for separate articles on Charles, on Camilla and on their first foreign visit together. It would also be legally problematical. If you already have an photograph of the topic you need a photograph, you can hardly call getting a second fairuse as it would be pointless duplication. I really don't think Wikipedia actually knows the law on fairuse. Having 50 fairuse images used twice makes more sense legally that 100 used once photographs where 50 are a needless duplication that both doubles the chances of legal problem and are unnecessary since we already have an alternative image on file. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone thinks an image is fair use in two articles, they should stick two {{fairusein}} templates on it. --Carnildo 05:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having two parameters isn't much of a problem to me. Wcquidditch | Talk 13:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairusein3

Delete per reason at Template:Fairusein2 listing above. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairusein4

Delete per reason at Template:Fairusein2 listing above. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fairusein5

Delete, this is way over the top. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irish Republic infobox

Before you vote...
Please note that there is some confusion about this vote. It is not asking for the contents of the template to be deleted, but for those contents to be placed into the Irish Republic article.

Delete and subst into Irish Republic wich is the only article using it. Alternatively delete and replace it with an apropriate generic infobox template. --Sherool 21:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:First MinistersNI

Delete, not used anywhere. --Sherool 20:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edittemplateinfobox

delete: orphaned -- Zondor 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edittemplate

delete: not used -- Zondor 18:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edns

delete: only used by one article -- Zondor 18:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editurl

delete: not used. -- Zondor 18:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editorbox

delete: orphaned. -- Zondor 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Monarch_Basic

Delete: This template is not used anymore. Was replaced by Template:Infobox Monarch Basic. JW1805 18:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template as in intermediate template to enable the early English monarchs to be migrated to a standard template. JW1805 has completed this task, so I am happy for this template to be deleted.Martin.Budden 08:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Monarch_Basic_no_image

Delete: This template is not used anymore. Was replaced by Template:Infobox Monarch Basic. JW1805 18:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template as in intermediate template to enable the early English monarchs to be migrated to a standard template. JW1805 has completed this task, so I am happy for this template to be deleted.Martin.Budden 08:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edcomment

Delete: not used. not appropriate for articles in main namespace -- Zondor 18:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: orphaned. seems useless. -- Zondor 17:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ednote

Delete: orphaned. would not belong on article. -- Zondor 17:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: bacteria-stub

Delete: This template had been accidentally modified unpurposely by the creator using 'edit this page' option after clicked the link in Category:Bacteria-stub. However, the creator decided to cancel it as the creator had found the relevant information that was going to be added in other section of Wikipedia. Therefore, it is not used in any article, and their category is empty.

  • Thank you for your response. I admit I accidentally messed up a bit.

I will really appreciate if anyone have any solution for this. Thank you.Amalthea cute

Template:Cc-by-sa-any

Delete: Very confusing tag, as while it clearly and understandably can handle commercial use under a Cc-by-sa 1.0, it uses both the "commercial" (regular) and non-commercial 2.0 licenses! That makes as much sense as GFDL and "by-permission, Wikipedia only" dual-licensed, for example. It doesn't even suggest anything about choosing just one, which could save this template and help weed out the speedy-able I3s. If kept, -- and I strongly emphasize if here -- possible rename to {{Cc-by-sa-both}} to remove the non-commercial bit, and most definitely should be clarified so it can actually be understood. Wcquidditch | Talk 16:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SocEur

Delete: On Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags, someone noted that this template's use as a "free use" template was wrong, that usage of images from http://www.soccer-europe.com required "written perimission from the webmaster." Therefore, this is a misleading template. Wcquidditch | Talk 15:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might also be a good idea to ask the webmaster what permission he could give Wikipedia to use those images, to determine if post-May 19 images with this template are to be speedied as I3s. Wcquidditch | Talk 15:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked for, and received written permission from the webmaster (post-May 19; I didn't know at the time why "by permission" on its own was bad). I asked him to double-check every use of an image (at first), and every change to the category and the template back when I made them, and he said it was fine (including the copyright tag). I also asked him to update the website, because it was causing a little confusion (User:Quadell nominated an image for deletion as a copyvio), but he just said to forward any queries on to him (I guess, since you're planning to email him, I don't need to tell you to go do so :-)). Perhaps he doesn't want to bung a laxer licence up on his website for fear of encouraging people to take images, but doesn't mind them doing that from Wikipedia; perhaps he doesn't know that people can take images from Wikipedia. Either way, it's something you'll have to resolve with him. (Thanks for the warning, by the way). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

Template: Failed presidential candidates democratic

We already have Template:USDemPresNominees which is to a very large extent the same list. It looks bizarre to have a full listing of those who were nominated followed immediately by those who were nominated but lost at least one an election. Honestly, I can't see what useful informational purpose this serves beyond the nominees template itself. I could maybe see a category, but a full template listing of everyone ... that takes up a lot of real-estate for no obviously useful purpose. Derex @ 03:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Itdb

Delete: This template has been created since May and it has only been linked to one page thus far.

While its original intent (to link to the Internet Theatre Database conveniently) is understandable, using the template requires the user to know the id of that play in the ITD site. This would require a visit to the site at the very least - and if you check that page for reference, why not use a direct link instead?

Last of all, the ITD itself has no article; this leads me to doubt how widely known and reliable that source is... Jeekc 15:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The ITDb suffers from the problem AFAIK that at present there is considerable overlap with the IBDb in its coverage. It does however have some coverage of Off-Broadway and U.S. Regional Theatre and it intends to do more, but with volunteer staff and no ad-driven funding like the IMDb has, it has been slow to get off he ground. However that has nothing to with my delete vote. It's that if we have such a template, then it should be {{itdb person}}, {{itdb show}}, etc. for the same reason why {{imdb}} was turned into a deprecated redirect to {{imdb name}}. Since this only has one usage at present, let's go ahead and delete this and if desired have it be redone right. Caerwine 20:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sig

This template is just amonth old and it's becoming transcluded in several pages (unsubsted I mean). The original purpose was to let people have signatures showing up as ~~~~ (by including it unsubsted it within a signature in the preferences dialog). Using it for that purpose would mean this would become an ubiquitous unsubsted template.

Some people have commented it about using it within another template. But then it becomes the additional problem of transcluded template within template. And if it's substed, why not typing ~~~~directly ?

Finally, this tempalte cannot be edited (as seen me breaking it by inserting the tfd tag, please check the history and previous version to see how it was before the tfd) unless you use a hack related to the preferences dialog (basically changing your name to ~~~~ and thenn iserting your signature. Delete-- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Here's the diff showing the previous version and the current nowiki-version (which then makes it redundant) [16]
  • Annihilate. Very dangerous. Why would anyone ever need this when they could use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>? (BTW, {{tfd}} includes a large <noinclude> section, so you should never subst it, like you did on that template.) ~~ N (t/c) 04:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didnt use to, but I read somewhere I should do it so. I'll get you the link. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ok It seems I misread, I apologize. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If ArbCom ruled, than should it be speedied? -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
so it a self reference one according to the origanl reason. Why not move the instrucitons on its talk page to somewhere about templates.

--☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 00:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made this template to show someone on help desk that it could be done (they wanted the sig to be added automagically by a template). I have no use for it. Delete Broken S 03:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strongest delete of this debate. Not sure if this qualifies as a speedy under new evidence, but placing ~~~~ in a template is probably the worst thing that could ever go into a template. The {{vw}} series was a similar template, containing a usage of the appropriate {{test}} series template in addition to this bad signature system, before it was turned into normal redirects to the correct templates. We cannot handle these types of things, and they very depreciated, especially after that ArbCom ruling. Wcquidditch | Talk 15:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this thing, it has been placed on a blacklist by the ArbCom saying it was a bad idea to begin with, as Splash points out, and the idea is really bad overall. Titoxd(?!?) 19:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

Template:Philosophy (navigation)

Edit Notice: Okay, I scaled it down. Take a look at it now. Not as intimidating; a good side-door into the field of philosophy. The removed list is alive and well on Wikipedia's lists, and links have been provided on the template to that material. There wasn't/isn't enough to make a portal, since the template was/is nothing more than a sequence of topic lists. For a comparison, see this template:Spirituality

24.18.171.99 00:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Main problems of this template:

  • Size: over 200 entries and growing
  • Cohesion: for a large number of articles where it is inserted, only a fraction of the link provided are usefull
  • NPOV: especially the Major philosophers section is an invitation to NPOV problems
  • Use for link spamming: Two contributors consider it a good idea, to have external links in the template, effectively putting them in over hundred articles

Pjacobi 18:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of the template:

  • Size: this can be refined over time, toward the goal of making the template of optimum usefulness, which is a much better option than summarily deleting the template. Then again, perhaps 200 entries is the right size for a concise map of philosophy, which itself is pretty complex.
  • Cohesion: this can be improved upon as well. The template was just created, and has yet to be categorized sufficiently. I thought it better to get the material up there, than worry about formatting. Even so, it looks pretty good, and now that it's there, everyone can play with it and improve it in the Wikipedian way. As for the usefulness argument, having a map while you are trying to navigate the complex maze we call philosophy is highly useful. A user can rapidly achieve a good understanding of philosophy by using this template. Besides, if the template is more of a hindrance than a help for a particular article, then it would be better to remove the template from the article, rather than delete the template from the Wikipedia. I believe a better option would be to add more refined templates in addition to this general template which could naturally follow in a complementary fashion. But above all, if a template is useful in more than a single article, then it deserves to be a template.
  • NPOV on major philosophers: the majorness of a philosopher is easily verified. Besides, the NPOV argument needs to be made on a philosopher by philosopher basis. Which ones aren't major? Simply axe the minor ones from the template itself. Here, Pjacobi is worrying about a problem that hasn't even surfaced yet, the same problem that threatens the entire Wikipedia at all times. If his logic were extended to the Wikipedia as a whole, that would mean deleting the Wikipedia itself. The list of philosphers is one of the most useful features of the template!
  • "link spamming" - Pjacobi's choice of words is highly rhetorical, and I object to his manipulative labeling here, as the links do not fall under the definition of spam at all. They are external resources, very much like Wikipedia itself is a resource, and precisely the sort of links that are encouraged in Wikipedia articles. And since these links are to general resources on philosophy, they fit the context and scope of the template perfectly. These are the links Pjacobi is having trouble with: External Online Resources: Introducing Philosophy Series. By Paul Newall (for beginners) | Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names | The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Guide to Philosophy on the Internet

Keep

P.S.: Infinity0, sorry about removing your topics, that was done inadvertantly during an expansion. My apologies.

24.18.171.99 19:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a good idea, maybe it can be eventually replaced with Portal:Philosophy. Just because it's messed up now doesn't mean it always will be. Infinity0 19:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portalize, agree with Infinity0's idea. - SimonP 20:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually portalising was Pjacobi's idea. I don't know how Portals work, but I was given the impression there isn't enough to make one, from the content atm. However, a separate portal would be more useful than this huge nav menu - the nav menu should be kept, but scaled down. Infinity0 20:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portalize Actually, it's a shame it doesn't exist yet. Jules LT 21:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Actually the Category:Philosophy is already portal-like, and making it a real portal has already been evoked in the talk page. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy to see people who might be interested in helping. You should join the wikiproject, btw Jules LT 22:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portalize. Plus, it only deals with Western philosophy and completely ignores philosophy from the Middle East, Northern Africa, South Asia, and East Asia. —thames 21:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I actually found it very useful. While it does need to be scaled down a bit, or maybe just be relabled to "Western Philosophy," it's definately not something you want to just chuck out the window. Let's fix it, not get rid of it. I suggest we make it look more like the Creationism Template, which I think is pretty good. --Michael 22:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creationism template serves a pretty small category. It's a category of the philosophy of religion, which in turn is a category of philosophy, which is HUGE. Perhaps a smaller category like epistemology could use the creationism template format effectively, but philosophy needs another approach than the creationis template referred to above. See the other one: Template:Creationism. 24.18.171.99 06:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these should be in a category, not as a template, articles are too varied - humanism, for example - some people call it philosophy, others something different - it's fine to be in a philosophy category, but doesn't necessarily make sense to display that huge mess of other stuff at the bottom of the page - people interested can click on the category and get to all the same info, yes? Tedernst 16:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, although you can be sure that I very quickly removed this monster from the pages I watch. I can't imagine this is likely to get very wide acceptance, but go ahead and try. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like the idea. It is a bit too big for its use now, but I don't think it should be deleted. The most drastic change I would approve is to move it somewhere else (i.e. Philosophy Portal?). ANYTHING but delete though. FranksValli 19:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Template:Western philosophy. The current template is incredibly biased, which can much more easily be solved by renaming the template than by trying to make an already-too-large navigation box even larger. -Silence 19:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Western Philosphy, and reduce more. I'd roll together the Concepts and General Philosophy sections, removing a bunch of the concepts and the Western/Eastern Philosophy entries. And remove major philosophers until it was a bare-bones list. My suggestions: cut Bentham or Mill, Francis Bacon, Confucius, Democritus (?), Galileo Galilei (not really a philospher in the modern sense), Laozi, Ernest Nagel (unless someone expands his wikipedia entry), William of Ockham (?), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Ayn Rand, and either Moritz Schlick or the Vienna Circle (don't keep both if the idea is to slim this down). And add some pre-Socratics, like Parmenides, or Empedocles - or if there's an entry, pre-Socratics as a whole? Once a real Philosophy portal is activated, though, I'd delete this.--Andymussell 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Large, clumsy, inherently incomplete, inherently PoV. Replace by a template with a link to Western Philosophy. Lists should be in list articles, where there is room for a complete list, with footnotes. Septentrionalis 03:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Incomplete, and making it complete would make it far too large, and it already is far too large.

Keep Not perfect, but nothing's perfect. I find it useful, and the categories judiciously chosen. The suggestion above to delete Confucius is absurd. William of Ockham is often quoted, though not a major philosopher, so he should stay. Bacon is major. Rand is not, but again, often quoted, so keep. Rick Norwood 15:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 1000edits

Oh for heaven's sake. This panders to the worst kind of editcountitis. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tonofedits

Same as Template:User 1000edits. Rubbish. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - what next? an edit count league-table (oh, forgot we already have one) --Doc (?) 18:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC) OK, keep understood as a post-modern ironic parody of editcountis. (but, yes, it is a bad joke)Doc (?) 19:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

Template: Football squad player/other/

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Football squad player/other/captain

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Football squad player/other/vice-captain

Speedy Delete: Temporary template, not used any more. Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

Template:New Jersey New

Speedy delete: Testing ground for {{New Jersey}}, obsolete now that it has been merged in. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POTS-appointment

Delete: I am nominating this template for deletion because it seems unencyclopedic. First of all, it actively highlights a temporary state of affairs. While this is sometimes unavoidable, there is a reason Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly is part of the style guide. Second, it doesn't contribute anything to the article, while creating a lot of blank space unnecessarily; the fact that there is a vacancy in an office seems to almost always be redundant with information presented in the article. Third, the link for "qualified applicants" seems out of place, particularly in articles such as Supreme Court of the United States (from which it was deleted with the comment "Is this a joke?" while I was writing this nomination). That should be enough to start with. — DLJessup (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I orphaned it. BJAODN and delete. ~~ N (t/c) 23:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The creator speaks
  • Keep, but if you really want to, delete. I don't think it's nonsense. I don't think it's a bad joke, either. It's a damn good joke, and it's encyclopedic. It presents a notable fact in an interesting (and entertaining) way. At the time I created that, I had been doing much CSD screening on new pages and images for several days, and I really just sort of snapped. I needed to do something encyclopedic and lighthearted. The hilarity of it results from the fact the the Executive Office of the President of the United States of America solicits applications for Senate-confirmed positions on the main White House website. The template actually presents the user factual information - that this particular HR mechanism has made it all the way into the highest realms of even the federal government. I think the concept is encyclopedic. In hindsight, the template presentation is, well, unusual. A note might be added to George W. Bush Administration in the nominations section about this web application mechanism if it is deleted. --Mm35173 18:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, keep. Many jobs are notable enough that they have articles which deal with them on Wikipedia. How one gets said jobs is notable and important. We have a whole discourses on how men become popes, presidents, etc. How to get a presidentially appointed position is pertinent to each article about such positions. Since the information is reusable, and would likely change on all of these pages at once, templatization is a good way to present it.--Mm35173 18:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already said keep jokingly but I like Mm's idea. A page on how applications are made is definitely encyclopædic and a reworded version of this template would be perfectly suited for such a page. But full marks to Mm for giving us all a great laugh. I've added a doctored version of it onto my user page, reworded in a humorous vein. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mormon jew

Why does there need to be a merge of Mormon and Jewish templates? There's no article using it. ~~ N (t/c) 22:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hey, I created it guys. Not trying to offend anyone, simply wanted to place a templete on the article that included topics of both faiths. It was to be frank, an attempt at maintaining a neutral point of view. If it offened anyone why is there no complaint on the discussion page of the actual article? The template would have been removed then and there, as the Mormonism and Judaism article is being written to not offend anyone, and a place where both Mormons and Jews are comfortable reading. From my perspective view, I believed I was allowed to re-use the template under the GFDL, and as far as citing my sources I included a link to the original article and template at the top of the new template. Plagiarization is not even a reasonible complaint. Also, the template is several months old, and these complaints are fairly new. Again, I'd like to stress the point that I am not intrested in offending anyone, nor confict. For these reasons I am have no complaints about its removal. VChapman (4 Nov 05 01:36 UTC)
    • Mormonism is not a form of Messianic Judaism. As a Latter-Day saint, I accept the Jews place in the House of Israel, but do not believe that Messianic Judaism has any authority to even operate as Christs church, neitherless convert individuals into The House of Israel. Mormon belief does however give everyone the right to worship who, how and what they may. Please don't be so quick to associate, what I believe to be, a christian church of mostly gentiles with the LDS faith. It is my personal belief that mormonism is a continuation of the religion. Messianic Judaism has several striking differences with Mormonism, to include the Messianic belief in the christian trinity. Messianic Jews claim to fall under the Tribe of Judah, and thus proclaim themselves as Jewish, whereas Mormons believe they are mostly Ephraim. Although Ephraim and Judah are pitted against each other in the Torah(Bible), they are both Members of the House of Israel, who's reunification is also proficied in the Torah. If you accept the Mormon place in the House of Israel as Ephraim or not is your right, but please remember, worldwide there are just about as many mormons as Jews (+ or - 2 Million or so). As far as the argument that Mormons and Jews are more likely enemies, I want to remind you both faiths, UNDER HEBREW LAW prohibit discriminatiion against the other.(Exedus and 2nd Nephi) I appologize if I offended anyone, but I wanted to dispute the complaint against me that I was attempting to promote Messianic Judaism.
  • Delete totally unnecessary. Izehar 17:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hoax

Delete. I'm nominating this template for the same reason why I support the deletion of {{DisputeCheck}} and {{Cleanup-nonsense}}. Massive warning templates disparage entire articles' quality in the eyes of readers, and therefore should be confined to situations in which concrete allegations of major editorial problems exist. If someone suspects that an article is a hoax (and isn't certain of this), the appropriate course of action is to research the subject further and/or consult others (such as major contributors to related articles). When in doubt, it's important to assume good faith. There's absolutely no need to compromise the appearance of a potentially legitimate article by advertising a mere hunch. —Lifeisunfair 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It should only be used where there is real suspicion, after some research, that the article is likely to be a hoax not in case of mere hunches. When the editor feels the need of advice in specialist areas, for example. Dlyons493 Talk 22:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, when someone suspects that an article is a hoax, it certainly is appropriate to seek the advice of those who are more knowledgeable in the area. In no way, however, does this require the user to add a proclamation of his/her suspicion to the article (which might be legitimate). —Lifeisunfair 22:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dlyons. ~~ N (t/c) 23:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with {{twoversions}} and {{cleanup-nonsense}}, the community at large cannot be trusted to use these templates sensibly. If you think something is a hoax, the correct course of action is to look further into it, and tag it with {{delete}} or to AfD it, or to raise it on the talk page for the article. Chris talk back 23:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The origin of this template was a discussion at WP:CSD if hoax vandalism ought to be speedy deleted. A concern was that just tagging it as {{delete}} would not give the article sufficient exposure to eyeballs. As far as responsible use goes, I see no rampant misuse of the {{delete}} template. Pilatus 10:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Under current policy, alleged hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates on that basis. And even if this were to change (which would be ill-advised, in my opinion), the {{hoax}} template encourages readers to place a scarlet "H" on articles that are merely "suspected" to be hoaxes. (Hurl accusations now, ask questions later.) —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Hoaxes are speediable under G1 if the article give insufficient context for turning it into a valid article. Johntex\talk 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I explicitly stated that "alleged hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates on that basis" (new emphasis). Hoaxes are subject to G1, but this has nothing to do with the fact that they're hoaxes. —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Recent examples show that once spotted, the legitimacy of an article is quickly established either way. Pilatus 13:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • How is it beneficial to display a disparaging notice in the meantime? —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ordinary vandalism (including adding nonsense) is reverted on sight and doesn't stay visible for too long. Hoax entries on entirely fictional people on the other hand must go through the AfD process to be removed and take a week or so to go away. A notice that the hoax has been discovered in addition to the AfD notice (which will be slapped on once the hoax is confirmed) will hopefully discourage the vandal. Pilatus 14:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. Until sufficient evidence exists to reasonably establish a high level of probability that the article is a hoax (thereby warranting an AfD listing), it's inappropriate to place a deprecatory label on the (potentially legitimate) page. Even a non-definitive declaration is injurious to an article's reputation — and more importantly, that of its contributor. In the case of a false alarm, this is likely to be a new, inexperienced member of our community (who might be offended/discouraged by the false vandalism accusation to the extent that he/she decides to cease all participation). "Assuming good faith" doesn't mean "assuming that a borderline suspicious article is a hoax until proven otherwise."
2. When there is sufficient evidence to warrant an AfD listing, it remains inappropriate to tag an article with a supplementary template (in addition to {{afd}}). This unfairly conveys an out-of-context, one-sided, POV-based assessment of the content. The correct procedure is to simply insert the {{afd}} tag (and nothing more). This promulgates the fact that the article has been nominated for deletion (itself an unfortunate but unavoidable circumstance for valid articles), and directs readers to the AfD discussion (where all pertinent viewpoints and specific evidence may be addressed). —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoaxes are alluded to in that paragraph, but not in a context that would render them eligible for speedy deletion. An unambiguously nonsensical joke ("Lushy McDrinksalot traveled to Earth from the planet Foamymug in his magical, hops-powered rocket ship to become the first openly drunk President of the United States . . .") fits the speedy deletion criteria, but a plausible hoax (meaning one that might be taken seriously by a rational adult) is explicitly excluded from speedy deletion: "This does not include . . . hoaxes . . ." Of course, this is irrelevant to the matter at hand; even if "likely hoax" were added as a new CSD, your template would be inappropriate. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • G1 contains the page's one and only instance of the word "hoax." Thus far, every attempt to expand the speedy deletion criteria to include hoaxes has failed. If the current proposal or any future proposal succeeds, your template still will be inappropriate (IMHO). —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • G1 has a definition of "patent nonsense", which excludes hoax and continues that "pure vandalism" fits into category G3. Speedy deleting obvious pranks is practiced. Pilatus 01:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your description does not correspond to the template's actual wording (which clearly encourages application to a "suspected" hoax that has not yet been "confirmed to be a hoax" or "nominated[d] for deletion," and that might be "confirmed true"). If you were to reword the template for use in the manner that you describe above (confining its application to a situation in which the user is confident in his/her assertion that an article is a hoax), it would become nothing more than an inappropriate companion to {{afd}} that shouts "HOAX! HOAX!" at readers who haven't had the opportunity to read such a claim in the context of the AfD discussion (which might contain weak evidence of wrongdoing and/or valid a defense of the article's legitimacy). —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If can come up with better phrasing for the intended use, please do so. Pilatus 13:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't believe that this template has a valid application; any rewording would merely shift it from one inappropriate purpose to another. —Lifeisunfair 13:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Just now, on New Page Patrol, I came across two hoax articles that the hoax template was intended for. Barry Cahill committed a "triple murder" when he killed the "Larkson Family"; Google throws up no hits for this. Dr. Julian Godfray won the 1972 Booker Prize with for his novel "The Sun Disk Pharaoh". Neither author nor title are listed in the catalogue of the British Library. I didn't check if a building is named after him at King's College School, Wimbledon; probably it isn't and the school may not exist. The 1972 Booker Prize was awarded to John Berger. Does that really need to hang around for a week on AfD? Pilatus 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a hypothetical example, suppose that an individual by the name of "Larry Cahill" murdered a family by the name of "Clarkson." What initially appears to be a clear-cut hoax could turn out to be nothing more than a couple of honest factual errors. (The level of notability would be a separate issue.) This is the sort of realization that sometimes occurs at AfD, and that's why we bother to conduct the discussions.
Again, this is irrelevant to the matter at hand; even if "likely hoax" were added as a new CSD, your template would be inappropriate. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is always the risk that speedy-deleting hoax vandalism might kill a legit article, that is precisely why it's preferable to have some people look over it before the hoax is deleted. Hence the template.
It always is a good idea to seek community feedback before deleting an article because it's believed to be a hoax, irrespective of how that deletion occurs. But once again, why is it necessary to solicit such advice via a deprecatory template? —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We already have such a template; it's called {{not verified}}. —Lifeisunfair 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(hits himself) sorry - missed that, thanks --Doc (?) 02:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we are 51-90% sure something is a hoax, we do the unsuspecting reader a disservice if they are not warned of this possibility while we continue our fact-checking. Johntex\talk 19:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are 51-90% sure something is a hoax, then it gets AfD'd, with the statement that it might be a hoax there, and a great big sodoff link at the top saying the article might be deleted. Is that somehow not enough for the discerning reader to think twice about the article's content? Chris talk back 19:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much of this discussion is the wrong way round. It isn't a question of whether we are 50-90% sure it is a hoax. We only include verifiable info. If there is 1% possibility of hoax, we try to verify the article. If we can't verify it - we delete it, period. {{not verified}} or {{afd}} are all we really require. --Doc (?) 10:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that this conflicts with what Chris wrote above. We seek to verify everything (and remove the content that cannot be verified), but we shouldn't allege that an article is a "hoax" unless we're fairly certain of this. There's a big difference between "I can't confirm that this article is true" (which could simply mean that the article is in need of cleanup) and "I believe that this article is false." In fact, {{hoax}} goes a step further by specifying an accusation of vandalism. (Not all inaccurate articles are hoaxes. Some are written in good faith by people who mistakenly believe the information to be accurate.) —Lifeisunfair 14:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An AFD notice is insufficient, as most articles nominated are truthful, and the nomination is usually unrelated to truth. The five days the hoax gets on wikipedia (and much longer on mirrors), is part of what helps the spread of these hoaxes (there can also be a circular effect, where others pick it from us, and we pick it back from them when it's recreated). Sure, this tag could be misused, but somebody who does that, could just as easily edit the article to say something isn't real. Spreading a lie, even for five days, is simply wrong. --rob 15:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. We already have {{not verified}}, which warns readers that an article might not be factual, and does so in NPOV fashion (without hurling accusations of bad faith). This certainly can be used in conjunction with {{afd}}.
2. {{Hoax}} is explicitly indicated for application not strictly to articles that are strongly believed to be hoaxes, but to articles that are merely "suspected" to be hoaxes, including ones that have not been listed at AfD, and are merely being investigated. Again, {{not verified}} covers such a situation well (without assuming bad faith). —Lifeisunfair 15:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm quite open to improved wording of the template (that can be discussed on the talk page). The "unverified" tag isn't good enough, because there are countless articles where verification is needed, but the information is likely true, or there's simply an honest mistake. A massive proportion of Wikipedia articles are like this. Hoaxes are maliscious attempts to deceive people. As an example, in a recent hoax, somebody pretended to be a famous music producer, working with a big-name rapper. They were using Wikipedia to promote what might have an illegal reproduction of the artists music (I'm not sure of the exact agenda). Tagging that as "unverified" puts it in league with many other music bios, that have all sorts of unsourced sales figures. There is a huge difference between Wikipedia making an honest mistake of information (which is sadly common) and helping a hoaxer intentionally deceive people. --rob 16:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The template in question is called {{not verified}} — not {{unverified}}, which redirects to {{no source}}. (The latter is an image tag, so I assume that you simply mistyped the name.)
No one is arguing that a deliberate hoax is the same thing as an honest mistake. The point is that it isn't always possible to differentiate between the two, so we should err on the side of caution. (It's better to tag a hoax as "not verified" — a true statement — than to risk tagging a good faith submission as "a hoax.") The purpose of such templates is not to punish contributors (including malicious ones); it's to warn readers that the article's information might not be accurate. From a reader's perspective, it makes no difference whether the inaccuracy is intentional or inadvertent (both of which justify removal, via either deletion or replacement). Unlike the {{not verified}} template, the {{hoax}} template is inherently non-NPOV. —Lifeisunfair 17:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was working from (faulty) memory, and I mistyped the template name (oops). I appreciate you have the best of intentions, but think you're trying to be to nice here. Take vandalism, we warn people nicely at first, but repeated vandalism, can escalate into a block within the first day, not five days. Also, think of all the times people say "vandalism" or "rvv" in edit summaries. I fully agree caution must be used before calling something a hoax, just as we shouldn't label users vandals, in cases where they screwed-up. Also, when you say from a reader's perspective there's little difference between inaccuracy or intentional error; that's wrong. Readers can forgive honest mistakes, but may not, and should not forgive maliscious errors. Template:Not verified is used in hundreds of articles, and its high use, means it has little impact. Template:Hoax would be used in only a few at any given time. Also, we already have rules in place to prevent overuse. WP:NPA and WP:AGF seem to prohibit baseless allegations of a hoax. I've seen you give great arguements for *rare* use of this tag, but I can't understand why you oppose any use. --rob 17:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"I appreciate you have the best of intentions, but think you're trying to be to nice here."
I'm not trying to be nice to vandals; I'm trying not to asperse legitimate articles and their contributors.
"Also, when you say from a reader's perspective there's little difference between inaccuracy or intentional error; that's wrong. Readers can forgive honest mistakes, but may not, and should not forgive maliscious errors."
The average Wikipedia reader neither knows nor cares about the specific identity of an article's author; he she uses the site strictly for informative/educational purposes. Obviously, those of us who participate in Wikipedia's creation and maintenance should treat a vandal much differently than we treat someone who committed an honest mistake. There's no need, however, to advertise this fact within the articles.
"I've seen you give great arguements for *rare* use of this tag, but I can't understand why you oppose any use."
In my assessment, the template is inherently non-NPOV and potentially harmful (even if used with extreme caution). —Lifeisunfair 19:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Not verified is in no way a suitable substitute for Template:Hoax. The language on the not-verified template is far too mild for cases where we are pretty sure (but not yet sure enough to delete) than an article is a hoax. The not-verified template should be used for routine cases where there is some doubt about the facts, but not enough to say that the article is probably a hoax. Johntex\talk 17:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Template:Not verified is in no way a suitable substitute for Template:Hoax."
Template:Hoax is in no way a suitable substitute for NPOV and the assumption of good faith.
"The language on the not-verified template is far too mild for cases where we are pretty sure (but not yet sure enough to delete) than an article is a hoax. The not-verified template should be used for routine cases where there is some doubt about the facts, but not enough to say that the article is probably a hoax."
I understand the theoretical benefit of drawing such a distinction, but I don't believe that it's possible to do so reliably. (I've seen cases in which articles that appeared to be clear-cut hoaxes turned out to be legitimate.) To paraphrase an old legal principle, it's better to give ten vandals the benefit of the doubt than to unfairly accuse one innocent party of vandalism. —Lifeisunfair 19:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should publish 10 wanton lies, so that we can publish one poorly written truth. In fact, the 10 lies mean nobody will beleive us when we write the truth. Wikipedia has already gotten substantial bad press for much of the bogus info we publish. We generally defend ourselves, on the grounds that we quickly fix our errors. For some weird reason, we keep on letting articles that are 100% maliscious lies, sit for five days. Now, my first choice is a quicker delete, but if we must keep the lies, lets give an honest warning. --rob 10:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't believe that placing two enormous banners at the top of a page — one indicating that the article's veracity has not been verified, and the other indicating that the article is being considered for deletion — serves as an honest warning to our readers? It also is necessary to throw in a one-sided, non-NPOV opinion?
As the newbies are scared away by false accusations of vandalism, the legitimate : malicious content ratio will only shift for the worse. Of course, you've indicated above that you aren't interested in preserving "poorly written truth[s]." If someone isn't a master author from day one, let's brand him/her a vandal along with the liars and other worthless contributors. We mustn't bother with this assumption of good faith nonsense. Right?
To be clear, the above is not an actual allegation of such a viewpoint on your part; it's my description of an unfortunate side effect that I believe is being overlooked by some. —Lifeisunfair 11:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to protect the reputation of the accused, than please support speedy deletes of confirmed hoaxes. We can improve the process, to ensure such deletes are verified by a second opinion (e.g. other admin). We can also require a message on the author's talk page, giving them a chance to explain themselves (and a message on the deleted articles talk page). But, you continue to understimate the serious lasting harm to readers, and Wikipedia's reputation, by these hoaxes. To me, this is like a store selling a product that it knows is probably inherently defective to the customer. Ideally, they wouldn't sell it, but if they do sell it, they ought to share their knowledge of the problem. --rob 12:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attempting to downplay the harm of fraudulent articles. I simply believe that this template is likely to cause more damage than it prevents, and therefore is not a viable solution to the problem. I would support a much shorter AfD discussion period for deletions purely on the basis of wholesale unverifiability (2 days, perhaps?), but not a speedy deletion criterion. A second (or even third) opinion is insufficient, because there's no reason to assume that a small group of random admins is qualified to assess the veracity of a seemingly plausible (but unverifiable) claim. It isn't unheard-of for one person (out of everyone participating in an AfD discussion) to rescue an article from deletion by uncovering an elusive piece of evidence that establishes its legitimacy. It certainly helps to have the contributor take part in the debate, but suspicious articles often are authored by users who don't regularly visit Wikipedia and/or haven't registered accounts. —Lifeisunfair 13:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that this template categorizes articles in Category:Suspected hoaxes. —Lifeisunfair 21:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be more specific. I felt like seeing what the issue was on this after having used it once on an article that will most likely be deleted soon. I figure under the concerns of POV, general reputation, etc., lies a distinction to be made between amongst different types of hoaxes:
  1. Silly user-created hoaxes - {{nonsense}}
  2. Elaborate user-created hoaxes - {{afd}}
  3. Notable verified real-world hoaxes - Keep and Category:Hoaxes
  4. Real-world memes stated as truth despite documented evidence of hoaxness - Assume good faith and re-write according to consensus.
  5. Real-world memes researched by both sides with no consensus, yet too notable to delete - Edit Wars? Conclude that {{not verified}} is inappropriate as the matter's truth is believed unverifiable? Wait for the truth to become known (Snickers bar, anyone)? Delete for unverifiability and/or the crystal ball clause? Leave a bunch of red links pointing to it? Or conclude that the notability of a possible hoax might justifies the article's existance?

I guess go ahead and delete this, then figure out our actual goals regarding hoaxes and start from scratch. Ok, I've probably exceeded my alotted bandwidth. ~~~~ 03:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:FAOL

This template was created to highlight articles that have a featured-article equivalent in an other language wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages). But I think that it should be replaced by Template:FA link, a smaller template that puts a small star in the interlanguage box (see Boeing 747). check also here the same proposal that I've made but didn't get any responses. CG 18:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The "Featured Article" interwiki star only works with the Monobook skin. --Carnildo 00:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Template:FA link (currently a redirect to Template:Link FA) only notes for the benefit of readers that an article is featured in another language. Template:FAOL has a somewhat different meaning. It notes for the benefit of contributors that a featured article in another language is a likely source of additional information (which definitely isn't true for all featured articles in other languages). It also places the article in a category under Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages. --Hoziron 03:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. {{FAOL}} and its companion {{FAOLdone}} are complementary to {{link FA}}: they perform different tasks in different contexts. —Phil | Talk 11:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wait. Which is it? Is the purpose of Template:FAOL (1) to accomodate people who don't use the Monobook skin, or is it (2) to note articles which aren't just featured articles on other languages, but also happen to have valuable information that could assist the English article if it were utilized, or is it (3) to put the articles into the category of featured articles in various languages? The motivation here seems fairly confused. What if a featured article on a foreign-language Wikipedia doesn't have any information that we haven't yet utilized for our English Wikipedia article, but we do want to make it clear to non-monobookers that the article is a featured one, or we do want to put it in that category? What then? Or what if an article isn't featured on a foreign language Wiki, but does have lots of information on that Wiki that we would find highly valuable to use if it was translated and properly formatted? Why include the additional "featured article" requirement, if the chief point of Template:FAOL is to note foreign-language articles we can use to improve the English Wikipedia, rather than a template just to point out when there's a featured article in another language, a task already well-handled by Template:FA link for anyone who uses monobook. And wouldn't it make sense to have template:FA link also put articles into categories, so we wouldn't have to use two redundant templates for every featured article in every foreign language? This whole idea seems like an inefficient doubling of the steps required to note that a certain article is a featured one in a foreign language, one that could only lead to inconsistencies and unnecessary work. Never do with two templates what you could do with one. -Silence 12:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, thank you for your comment. I'll try to answer your questions. The Template:FAOL was created as the template of the Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages page, which aims to provide good sources for translators, but also to make some kind of statistics to see the kind of articles that are being improved in other languages (for example the Hebrew Wikipedia emphasis on Israeli-related articles, while the French one has a big number of good philosophy and linguistics articles). And yes, you're right, a lot of these FA in other languages are doesn't contain valuable information (that's why you would find 7 templates in Talk:World War II), and it has been deleted from a number of talk pages because of it uselessness. That's there's should be a discussion to make a consensus about the use of these two templates. CG 16:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though after that discussion takes place, it might be time to re-nominate this thing for deletion. This nomination is premature, but not necessarily a bad idea eventually, if we can come up with a better system (or at least a better name, though probably we'll keep this one even if we change its content) for this project, most ideally one that does both everything the Interwiki links do and everything the FAOL templates do, but at the very least a more consistent and less intrusive method for the Talk page templates, since, unlike many other Talk page templates, these are almost always of less than critical importance; the vast majority of editors on any page will find them useless, due to not speaking those other languages. I also still don't understand why a non-featured article on another language that has a lot of information we could use wouldn't have this template used on our wiki for such a page. The "featured article" requirement for something like this seems completely arbitrary, silly, and counter-productive, if its intent is to improve our articles, not just provide a repository for ones on other languages—as the InterWiki links do, though the fact that they don't categorize the featured articles for easy browsing is significant—of course, one could always go through the categories for such things on the foreign-language wikis, if one has even that much skill for navigating the pages.... -Silence 22:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is needed for users relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia's arcane nomenclature and semiotics to transfer contents from featured homologues to those that need improvement. Saravask 01:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though its flawed beyond reason, this needs consensus in other locales before deletion. If you doubt that's its useless, see Talk:World War II where about 7 featured articles are linked. Of course, none is as thorough or as well written as the one in English (the Arabic one is laughably short), and many are translations of the English, but of course, that's not important. However, that's not really a reason to delete it. I think there need to be guidelines to its use, however.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same is true to a lesser degree for Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien. God, these things sure are excessively space-consuming. Can't we at least turn it into a Babel-style template, where it only states the information about the WikiProject and all once, and then just lists all the featured articles within a single template? That would also make it a lot easier to include every foreign language featured article for a page, thus making it a vastly more effective alternative to the Interwiki links, which are currently a thousand times less obtrusive and space-consuming. -Silence 22:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unicode hack

Delete: Blank, orphan, abandoned experiment. Phil | Talk 16:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Danger

Delete: Also Template:Danger-adultsuper and Template:Danger-professional. See Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates for the rationale. Also being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Warning boxes for dangerous activities and products. cesarb 02:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the Disclaimers link is to suffice, it should be at the top of the framework, with a small warning box, so that it is seen immediately. Seahen 15:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brisbane infobox

Delete This infobox can only be used for a single city, and is redundant given the existence of Template:Infobox Australian City. --Dalziel 86 02:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

NOTE

A bot is under production to automatically subst certain templates. If you have suggestions for templates that should always (or never) be subst'ed, please contribute them to Wikipedia:Subst.

Template:Royal Welch Fusiliers

Delete Yet another, one article only type template. This one can only ever be used in Royal Welch Fusiliers and should just be substed into it. --Sherool 22:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

Delete, another one of those templates that are only used in one article namely The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. --Sherool 22:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert into infobox. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Subst/delete Chris talk back 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Avram table

Delete, this one was only used in Avram, don't rely see the point in a seperate template for this, I just substed it into the article itself. Some kind of "micronation infobox" template might be in order though if anyone is interested. --Sherool 21:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fair use-firefox

Delete and retag images as {{Logo}}, unlike the Disney logo ting this is not used for subcategorisation (it puts images in the generic Category:Logos), also it only apply to like 4 images (one of wich I nominated for deletion because it was only used on a userpage). Moreover the purpose of the template seems to be to validate the use of FireFox logos on userpages based on the fact that FireFox says that you can use the logo on your webpage to promote FireFox. IMHO this permission means little as Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy explicitly states that "fair use" images should not be used on userpages (or templates). --Sherool 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: IANAL, but as far as I know once you're granted permission to use an image on, say, your web page, the use of it in that context ceases to be fair use. Lord Bob 16:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As to permission for "promotional usage"--promotional usage tends to run counter to WP:NOT a soapbox. Also, on the page for button programs, it says at the bottom "Usage guidelines for the new logos is currently under development."[17] I'm not sure exactly what to make of that; it sounds like the conditions are subject to change.
For uses other than as a promotional button on a web page, there are restrictions to personal or non-commercial uses: "Sure, if it's just for you, or if it's for others and no money or other consideration changes hands" [18] All in all, it sounds like a grey area with no compelling justification for why we need to do this.
IMO, we should stick to fair-use {{Logo}} for these, and abide by the restrictions that entails: using the image in articles as identification or illustration when the product or trademark owner in question is a subject of discussion. --Tabor 18:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rewrite & rename:
    1. The copyright holder, firefox states that they are ok with the usage of the image on web pages, hence we have a greater level of permission compared to the standard "Fair use". And as far as copyrights are concerned the copyright holder granted me the permission to use the firefox logo on my userpage for a "promotional usage".
    2. It is plainly "kawaii" (cute) to have the firefox logo on my userpage rather than an annoying "FF" in its place.
    3. If I can say "I like firefox" on my userpage, I should also be allowed to use the logo as well as far as WP:NOT is concerned.
    --Cool Cat Talk 20:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is way too specific. Just use {{Logo}}, in combination with other existing tags if any apply. JYolkowski // talk 22:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The Problem is logo doesnt do the level of usage of the images we are granted by copyright holder. --Cool Cat Talk 14:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep re-write somehow. I'm out of my league here, but could {{Promotional}} be of any use? - RoyBoy 800 00:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 19:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cool Cat, and "not a soapbox" does not apply to user pages. ~~ N (t/c) 23:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template serves a very specific purpose, but said purpose is valid and unserved by other templates. When placed on a user page, this is not an example of fair use (because the copyright holder has provided explicit consent). While Wikipedia is not a personal hosting service, we're permitted to include some autobiographical information on our user pages (especially when it pertains to our Wikipedia participation, as browser selection does). —Lifeisunfair 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just how would you clasify these logos anyway? Free use? Defenently not, they are copyrighted and trademarked, and have several restrictions. Used with permission? That runs afoul of WP:CSD#I3. Promotional? All promotional images are still used under a fair use rationale. Conditional use? Nope, they must allow derivative works to fit in that category (wich they don't). We would have to invert a whole new licence type to allow this use as far as I can tell.

    Also note at the end of the quote from the FAQ it says "Put one or more of these buttons on your website to help us spread the word about Firefox." (emphasis mine), it does not say "use any Mozilla logo you like", and only Image:Firefox logo 305x150.png seems to actualy be one of those buttons. --Sherool 17:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom dr.alf 12:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pdf icon

Delete it's one and only function is to insert a PDF icon into an article, use of fair use images in templates is a big no-no acording to Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. It was only used in 3-4 articles all by the same person, so I just orphanded it because the articles would look extremely ugly with the huge TFD notice for these small icons. If someone wants to replace the image with a free one (some text saying "pdf" maybe) that's fine with me, but this current form has to go. --Sherool 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE I am the user who uploaded the icon. I have no problem with its deletion. Saravask 10:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and note that you can achieve the same functionality other ways, though it wouldn't be completely trivial. Something like this in your monobook.css, though you'll need to tweak it with padding and whatnot:
a[href$=".pdf"] { background-image: url('.../pdficon.png'); }
—HorsePunchKid→龜 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia Primetime Sunday

Also:

This is a procedural nomination moved from a misplaced listing on AFD. Bwithh's reasoning there was that "Wikipedia is not a TV guide. also, this is unmaintainable." No opinion from me. —Cryptic (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Get rid as soon as possible! We can't have this spammed on the pages of the series and I'm going to remove them from articles as this is clearly not appropriate. If the result is to keep then they could be readded. In some cases there are three templates per article and the problem would just get worse and worse. Have an article about the TV schedules, but not a template on every article for every channel in every country. violet/riga (t) 11:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. unmaintainable, too many templates, not a tv guide, ..... JPD (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is a US equivalent, and these are useful and interesting templates. I do suggest, however, removing them from foreign television shows, as they just would not scale if that were the case. Ambi 12:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Define "foreign" on an international website........--ElvisThePrince 13:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"foreign" means the country of broadcast is different from the country of production. --Scott Davis Talk 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK what about say HBO/BBC co-productions?--ElvisThePrince 01:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who created these templates. I just happen to stumble across Template:US Primetime Thursday when correcting links to Will & Grace. Liking the look of the template, I proceeded to create ones for Australian television and placed the templates on the appropriate pages. Ambi discovered what I was doing and some discussion regarding the templates took place on my talk page. However Chuq then suggested that templates be created for each network rather then each day. I then came up with the following:

Seven Network Daily Primetime Schedule
7:30
8:00
8:30
9:00
9:30
10:00
Sunday
??
Sunday Night Film
Monday
The Great Outdoors
Grey's Anatomy
24
Tuesday
Dancing with the Stars
All Saints
Wednesday
Beyond Tomorrow
Blue Heelers
Forensic Investigators
Thursday
The Mole
Las Vegas
24
Friday
Better Homes and Gardens
Friday Night Film

This is as far as it went. Now I discover that the templates have been put up for deletion. There is currently no tfd tags on any of the templates except for Sunday and most have been removed from the articles without discussion and without any notification to me.

So, may I suggest a compromise. Lets delete these nightly primetime templates and replace them with the network primetime templates like the example above. This way they can be placed on the article about the network (e.g. Seven Network). Also I agree with Ambi that these templates should only be placed on articles about Australian programmes. How does that sound with everybody?? -- Ianblair23 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! posted just after Ianblairs post above. I concur with his proposal. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment templates are not required if they only go on one article (the network). I guess templates are useful if they go on each member channel as well, but I don't know if they are always consistent across states (eg football). --Scott Davis Talk 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Network-specific tables would be nice, but I agree, they don't need templates. Also, I think it's more usual for the days to run horizontally and the times vertically, but that's a minor nitpick. Anyway, more should have been done before this TfD. Bwithh (the original nominator) should have made an attempt to contact the creator, ie User:Ianblair23. Obviously some work has gone into these. Let's not rush to throw out so much content so quickly. pfctdayelise 13:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the table is only on the network page, it shouldn't be a template. I don't personally see much value in having a table showing what's on on the programme pages, and am not really happy with the half-done solution of only having the table for the country of origin. Also, note that one of the US templates is also listed above - the Australian ones should definitely not be considered separately. JPD (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the one who originated the US Thursday template, I will refrain from voting. I will, however, make the following comments:
  1. I created that solely to see how people would react to it, and to see if anyone would pick up and create tables for the other days (again, to judge whether or not people found them useful). I thought the issue was dead when other days didn't pop up, not realizing someone in Australia had picked it up.
  2. I fail to see how this is "unmaintainable". Unless a show completely bombs by the end of October, it only requires updating at new season and midseason.
  3. I strongly object to whoever removed the templates from the pages before this vote was concluded. That's equivalent to blanking a page and then putting it up for deletion, in my eyes, and that's poor Wikipedia etiquette, also (perhaps) strictly IMO.

Otherwise, I don't care one way or another how this vote goes. Sahasrahla 22:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

Template:Partof

This template is overkill. To list a related article, we use a "see also" section towards the bottom. Using indented text at the top is improper format. Furthermore, an article is not part of a series (def: number of objects or events arranged or coming one after the other in succession) if it is not part of the list. This template is being used for articles that are not part of a series (only topically related to the series) and improperly labels them as being part of a series. --Jiang 13:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Instruments

In variation to Wikipedia:Babel, this page contains dozens of templates such as {{User horn-1}} ("this user is a novice hornist") and {{User org-4}} ("this user is a professional organist") and accompanying catagories. Nearly all of those aren't actually used. At the risk of going out on a limb, I would propose simplifying it a lot by removing the "skill levels" and simply leaving Category:Wikipedians by instrument. Radiant_>|< 10:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Totally harmless. As long as they serves some kind of community purpose and doesn't interfere with anything important, why get rid of things used in userspace? I would, however support getting rid of the categories for each skill level and just lumping as "Hornist", "Organist" etc. unless those categories get overly populated. The templates themselves, though, should stay. -- Tyler 10:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMO even levels should remain, because being able to play "Frère Jacques" is not the same thing as being able to play "The Flight of the Bumblebee" or "Eruption" by Van Halen. However, I might agree that four levels are not strictly necessary, maybe three or even just two would suffice; anyway, since they don't harm, they could as well stay. --Army1987 20:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that not only should the levels be left, but all the levels. I agree with Army1987 about Frère Jacques/The Flight of the Bumblebee, and while there may not be many higher level players for some instruments (for instance, there are currently only 3 professional saxaphone players) the fact that there is ONE is grounds for keeping that level. And for the sake of continuity (for lack of a better word- someone substitute the one I'm looking for) there should be the same number of levels for each one. Eventually (in theory at least) someone will fill themselves into each one- the same theory that Wikipedia eventaully approaches perfection.

Wildyoda 03:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean consistence. However, to avoid having many underpop'd categories as Tyler says, we could keep the templates, remove level-specific categories and replacing [[Category:User {{{instrument-cat-code}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]] with [[Category:User {{{instrument-cat-code}}}|{{{level}}}]]. This way there will be one category per instrument, but users will be sorted by level. (This is just an idea, IMO as long as those categories don't harm they can remain.)--Army1987 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User sco templates

These seem to be used by some of the user-language templates but not by others. And I can't really see why any of them would be used, since thyey are hardly "shortcuts". Who in their right mind would type in {{user sco 1}} rather than simply typing 1? And {{User sco N}} defies even the tenuous logic of having the rest of these as templates - it returns M! Unless there's a perfectly logical reason that I have overlooked, I don't think these should survive. Grutness...wha? 07:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, they all just seem to be numbers. Unless there's some technical reason for this? -- SCZenz 08:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the reason for this is to hook to categories in the Scots Wikipedia. For some bizarre reason, they're using M instead of N for native speakers (even though other languages where the equivalent of "native" does not start with an N still use N). Since there is a parameter {{{level}}}, they'd need to have some way of changing the level. The only way to do this is to wrap it in another template by level. Chris talk back 03:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they were actual user-language templates they would be for speakers of Template:Ll. If someone cares to make them such, then of course keep. But in their current state, delete. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until someone knocks some sense into sco:, delete thereafter. Actually, it seems that several languages to this, see the list of included templates]. Keep until WM policy on how to do this across all Wikipediae can be formed. Chris talk back 03:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A possible technical reason: These seem to be for the purpose of mapping our system of language levels (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, N) to those of other languages. For these templates, it seems that speakers of Template:Ll also use 0-4 for language levels; however, they use 'M' instead of 'N'—apparently preferring mither tung (mother tongue) to native. A better example would be mapping the language levels to Template:Ll, where {{User ast 1}}, {{User ast 2}}, etc. map the numerals to equivalent words in Asturian. These apparently exist as templates (as opposed to just typing in the translated text/numeral) for more flexible use in templates like {{User language subcategory}}, to create properly-mapped interwiki links on user-language subcategory pages to the corresponding subcategories in other languages. For example, Category:User en-N (which uses the User language subcategory template) would link to the corresponding User en-M subcategory in Wikipaedia Scots. (It doesn't, actually, because the TfD message currently breaks the User language subcategory template when it tries to call {{User sco N}}.) Were these templates to be deleted, the interwiki link would point to the nonexistant subcategory User en-N. I vote a weak keep. These templates certainly have their legitimate uses; however, at least for the specific case with Scots, any breakage resulting from deleting these templates (to my knowledge) would seem to be relatively minimal and could be fixed by making a category redirect on Wikipaedia Scots and editing the User language subcategory template so it doesn't try to re-map the language levels for the Scots interwiki link.—Jeff 03:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

Template:D-t

This is a new way of proposing a template for speedy deletion without specifing a reason. As none of the WP:CSD apply specifically to templates anyway, this could only be legitimately used under the general criteria (vandalism or nonsense, for example). This is a very rare occurance, and such a mechanism is not needed for it. Delete DES (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:InMemoriam

  • Delete: Although I support linking to the memorial site from relevant articles, I don't see why we need a template simply for a link. I imagine this template was created to discourage people from creating overly conspicuous or elaborate links to the memorial, but hopefully that is no longer such a pressing problem. Instead of having a template, we should simply encourge editors to create normal links to the memorial from the External links sections of the various articles. That way we're not wasting processor power on generating a link from a template. Kaldari 19:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created this to resolve an edit war on Template:Sep11 over the placement of a prominent link to Sep11:Main Page. Some people wanted it in the series box, some people didn't, and most were quite pigheaded about it. Initially it was a box like the other sister project templates (Template:Wikiquote, Template:Commons, etc.), so the link would get the extra prominence that Side 1 wanted, but wouldn't be placed on the same footing as the articles in the series, which is what Side 2 didn't like. I don't care one way or another whether this is deleted or not; both the main edit warriors on the issue are long gone, so I doubt they care too much either. (Though, of course, others might take their place . . . but we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:RAÄ

Doesn't really say anything about use that Template:Restricted use doesn't, is used only on one image (which I'm retagging right now). As well, I don't really think we want to encourage uploads of such images by providing a template, so delete. JYolkowski // talk 16:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. In fact, take out the fair use bit, and this would be a double-whammy as "non-commercial use only" and '"'by-permission, Wikipedia only". (Both are prohibitted, of course.) Wcquidditch | Talk 01:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GameCoverInfo

Basically transcludes Template:Gamecover with a few parameters at the top to specify source and copyright info. However, the parameters are in such an unintuitive format that it's probably easier just to type them in in the upload box. It's unused to boot, so delete. JYolkowski // talk 16:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GameScreenshotInfo

Along the same lines as Template:GameCoverInfo, and I think it should be deleted for the same reason. JYolkowski // talk 16:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia subcat guideline

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Project_namespace#Discussion, per

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place.

There is no operational alternative for the "Wikipedia subcat guideline" template yet; destroying it would cause problems for several active guidelines.

The discussion about the template on the "Template messages" talk page as mentioned above, was listed also on wikipedia:current surveys

So, please turn to Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Project_namespace#Discussion for further comments and/or improvement proposals. --Francis Schonken 09:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-ABN

Delete for several reasons, first of all it is incorect, images from that source is not PD, they can be used freely provided atribution is given, but they are not public domain. Secondly it's only used on one image, and finaly it's bascaly a duplicate of Template:ABr, wich corectly states that the images are copyrighted, but can be used as long as credit is given. I recomend it's one image be re-tagged {{ABr}} after this is deleted. --Sherool 00:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

Template:Limited Use-person

Nominated for sake of consistency with consideration of Template:Limited_Use below, for the same reasons. --Tabor 19:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly delete. I reproduce my comment from below for consistency. I fully appreciate the point of the template, but the fact is that anything you upload here to which you own the copyright is under the GFDL, and it does not matter what other templates you stick on it. The GFDL explicitly allows for any use, and this template spcifically restricts the usage and is thus incompatible with long-standing Wikipedia policy. Like the user-page template before it, creating a new template is not the way to change policy. The way to do that is to contact the Foundation's lawyers. Everything we do here ourselves we give away freely; if your work is not compatible with that, you need not contribute it. I note that compared to the template below, the word "encyclopedic" has been omitted, which is interesting, but makes no difference to the GFDL status. -Splashtalk 19:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that the people tagging their uploads as PD, CC-by-sa, or fairuse are not making valid license choices? Please clarify. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you upload something to which you hold the copyright, it is licensed under the GFDL, regardless of how else you tag it. You can also tag it in other ways, but the GFDL is always there: those who upload with cc-by-sa and the like are multi-licensing, not single licensing under their chosen tag. The presumption of this template on the other hand, is to upload something to which you hold the copyright but to not do so under the GFDL, an action that, under current policy, cannot be taken, as stated clearly on Special:Upload. Which is to say that the template is extremely misleading: you can tag with it sure, but I can then soundly ignore it and use the image in whatever way I like anyway. -Splashtalk 07:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not free. --Carnildo 20:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 19:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reasons as other template. Rhobite 22:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-free. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extension. Nominator failed to add tfd to the template. Decision should be delayed for a few more days although delete seems likely. RedWolf 17:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Twoversions

This template was deleted by User:David Gerard and then undeleted by User:DESiegel. I agree with David (Gerard), who stated [19] that this template is "...a blatant encouragement to violate NPOV and substitute Sympathetic Point Of View." Carbonite | Talk 16:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which David do you agree with? :) My undeltion does not seem to ahve been successful, at least I still can't see the earlier versions. I undeleted because this was delted with no process or consensus at all, and because the last TfD on this had a keep result. I agree that encouraging edit wars and PoV disputes is a bad idea. Abstain pending furhter debate on the merits of this template. DES (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, per Carbonite and David Gerard. Further existence of this template is poisonous to Wikipedia and immediate deletion is called for. Process is good for general cases, but isn't required when something this contrary to our core principles appears. Unfocused 17:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not speedy. Forks are evil, but instead of deleting this template out-of-process we can just fix any situation that it ends up being used in, until it's deleted. ~~ N (t/c) 17:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Unfocused. I don't really see the merits of this template, and it has caused more trouble than it was meant to prevent. Titoxd(?!?) 17:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A very useful template to halt edit warring, and possibly, bring the parties to discussion. Better guideline is necessary to state clearly which of the two versions should be displayed (e.g. based on what the articles were like before the disputes, in other words, based upon the original intents). Better enforcement is also necessary to avoid individuals like user:Huaiwei who ignored what the template said - " Please do not revert to the other disputed version unless it is decided on the discussion page that this should be done. " - and insisted to have their preferred versions displayed. The template tagged on the article should better be as minimal as possible, and the links to the other version and to the diffs can be provided on the talk page by a sister template. — Instantnood 17:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Far more often, the template is used inappropriately. For example, you tagged [20] National pastime due to a disagreement about how Hong Kong should be classified. In practice, this is almost always the manner in which this template is used. I've seen almost no evidence of it halting edit wars or helping parties to reach consensus. Carbonite | Talk 18:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mean I should not have applied the template? In your opinion, what should I do instead to stop the POV pushers like user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat who refused to follow how things were presented prior to their contentious edits? — Instantnood 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, yes, I believe that you shouldn't have applied the template in that instance. That dispute was about one line of text. I honestly have no idea about the POV of you, Huaiwei or STC, but I do know that placing the twoversions template on the article wasn't going to settle any dispute. This template shouldn't even be an option for settling a dispute. We need to work on getting one NPOV article, not two different POV articles. Carbonite | Talk 19:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What else can be done? Yes I can understand how frustated you must be feeling now that a Requests for comment and two arbcoms (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al., Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2) hasent managed to solve your problem. Poor individual admins who invest time and energy to try to resolve has faltered one after another, with the latest hanging in the balance with a threat like "I have no comment unless the first steps are done". But I sure hope you are not demanding for this template's existance by saying Carbonite cant give you a solution to your problem. Like I constantly remind, learn to take responsiblity and ownership of the problems you are part of, and quit constantly expecting others to solve them for you.--Huaiwei 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are not two ArbCom cases, the second part was a reopening for the close for the first part was procedurally and technically incorrectly performed. Please also take a look at what the arbitrators have said about user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat: [1] [2]. — Instantnood 20:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited there is no reason to expect people will follow how things are presented prior to their edits. Nobody owns the text, intent or title of an article and they can and will change. It's a wiki, get over it. SchmuckyTheCat 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obliterate We have {{POV}} for such things, whereas this template implies that you are looking at The Wrong Version. Chris talk back 18:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. User:Instantnood's himself has actually proven to be one of the worse abusers of this template, and for him to bring it up for undeletion and then to support its continued existance here demonstrates the extent to which individuals who circumvent the mediation and dispute resolution process can go to archieve their aims. Not a single usage of this template by instantnood has resulted in resolution of any kind, with all of them continuing to remain in their respective pages till this template was deleted. Plenty of these pages resulted in worse edit warring (not just over the version to be displayed as instantnood claims, but much more so over the usage of the template itself), with some even being on page protection just to preserve this template. Even now that the template has been deleted, he continues to add a "legacy" of its existance with "dispute notices" in [21] and [22]. A new revert war now erupts between us over the retention of this notice. As what User:Calton describes in [23], "nice try: it's the twoversions tag in different clothing".--Huaiwei 18:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Some of my usage of this template involved disputes with user:Huaiwei, who insisted to drop the template, and to display his preferred version, i.e. ignored what the template said. To my experience, that made discussion not quite possible, therefore better enforcement is needed to avoid people who ignore what the template said. — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As also mentioned here [24], lets get the facts straight via a simple chronological recount of how a typical usage of the template results in when it involves you. First, an edit war erupts. At the end of three reverts and with the page still not showing the version you prefer, you pop in a "twoversions" tag after reverting again to your version. When I proceed to remove this tag by reverting back to my version, you revert it back to your version with the template, saying "the twoversions tag is not meant to endorse any version", and insists I am "flouting its intentions by reverting the displayed version". And again, another round of reverts ensue over whether the template should appear at all or not. All this time, the talkpages remains empty. Obviously at this stage, the template has not worked, and at least it is plain obvious to me, it is also being abused. The same scenario is repeated across subsequent disputes we have, sometimes reaching the attention of admins. And that was when folks like myself told admins that you are abusing the template not to stop edit wars, but to basically justify your version irrespective of how you claim otherwise. Pressurised, you proceeded to display the tag this time on the preferred versions of your opponents, myself incluced, but only in some cases and only after extremely heated exchanges. Some pages ended up with your prefered version, some with mine. Subsequently, you lost your patience (or got a shot of viagra), and suddenly starts reverting them to your version again (and still with the template) when you think no one else is looking. Another round of editwars breaks out over which version is to be displayed (the only edit war you bothered to admit above). And the talkpages? Still starkly empty. Has any disputed pages been resolved? No. Has any of the templates abused by you been successfully removed after a compromise has been found? Zelch. Need I say more about the feasibility of this template, and its potential for abuse? Claiming that the template should stay because it didnt work with individuals like me who "ignore it" is laughable at best.--Huaiwei 18:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also a previous nomination. — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now why should I be surprised that STC is the nominator! And now we know who are the ones with foresight and who have been assuming good faith? Both virtues in themselves. :D--Huaiwei 19:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Is there any possible way to have a list of articles previous tagged with this template, so that we can know about its usage like the special:whatlinkshere tool? — Instantnood 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you that list, are you pretending not to see it? [29] I sure hope you're not pretending you can't see it, cuz you edited that very edit of mine. [30] SchmuckyTheCat 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Delete with scrubbing bubbles, for the same reason as Huaiwei. Instantnood, who uses this template more than anyone else on Wikipedia, simply DOES NOT EVER discuss it, he clams up until poked, prodded and provoked. It doesn't stop his edit warring, nor does it bring him to discussion. This template is just an endrun around content forking. Furthermore David Gerard was absolutely right to go rouge and delete. You can't vote on NPOV. The very proposed policy that led to this template to be created originally was dismissed out of hand as ridiculous, the templates continued life was a loophole of TfD voting instead of real discussion. SchmuckyTheCat 18:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not speedy. per Nickptar. --Tabor 18:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETE. I seldom support applications of WP:IAR, but this one by David Gerard was justified. When the original TfD debate was held, this template was relatively new and seemed like a reasonable idea. Since then, its overwhelmingly counterproductive nature has been proven time and again. Rather than being used by an objective third party (who merely wishes to halt edit warring) or by an involved party who adds it to the other party's version, it typically is inserted by an edit warrior who also reverts to his/her version (either simultaneously or immediately prior). He/she then acts as though the template is backed by some sort of authority that renders the first associated version sacrosanct for the time being. And even if this template is used as intended, it actually discourages long-term resolution (by essentially creating a fork, thereby reducing the incentive to gauge consensus and/or discuss possible compromises). It also uglifies articles and drags readers into editors' disputes. This simply is a terrible template, and it mustn't be allowed to continue harming Wikipedia. —Lifeisunfair 19:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the above debate, and recalling my one interaction with this template (during the debate over the spoiler-warnign templates IIRC) I have come to the conclusion that this tempalte is ill-advised. as User:Lifeisunfair says, it sounds like a good idea. if its use could be somehow restricted to uninvolved people sincerly trying to stop edit wars, it might be a good tool in some case. it doesn't sound as if that has been the most common result. Therefore, delete this template, but do not speedy delete it. I still don't see any reason why an out-of-process undiscussed deletion was needed for thsi -- there seems no problem in getting significant numbers of people to agree to delete it at this time. DES (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it makes sense to have a large number of templates for article content disputes so that the right one is available. JYolkowski // talk 22:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Used correctly, it can reduce the damage in sterile edit wars. If someone's abusing it, RFC him, tar and feather him, crush him by elephant, whatever, but that's no reason to delete the template. Plenty of other templates get applied incorrectly too. —Cryptic (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously. This template is only used to give extra credence to one side of an edit war, and tell the other side to STFU. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I'm not an administrator, I have zero idea what this template's text was. However, based on what's been said here, I assume that it left one version as the main page and placed an alternate version on a sub page. The problem with that approach (if that is what the template does) is that it gives the version on the main page a perceived degree of superiority. If such an approach is going to work at all, it will need to place all alternate versions (while rare, I have seen three-cornered edit wars before) on sub pages and make the main page just a protected stub pointing to them. I'm not certain how feasible such an approach would be, but the concept sounds intriguing. Caerwine 23:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming a Monobook skin, you'll find a "history" button atop the page. Chris talk back 23:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The template adds a link to the other version from the page's history. Aside from the arguably inappropriate nature of content forking, your suggestion would basically hide articles from the site's readers. That's entirely unacceptable. —Lifeisunfair 02:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unacceptable maybe, but less so than a template whose only use is to legitimise one side of an edit war. No amount of "This is not an endorsement of this version" can change this. If neither side is willing to play nicely, then neither side gets their version shown in main article space. Can you say fairer than that? Chris talk back 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Both options are unacceptable. I agree with your criticism of the template, but I believe that your Caerwine's alternative is even worse. The concept of removing an article from its correct location might seem like a fair way to treat the editors involved in the dispute, but it's unfair to readers (and patently unprofessional). And of course, it would impede one of the core functions of a wiki: the ability to edit pages. (Which forked version would someone edit? Neither? Both/all? The one that he/she prefers?) —Lifeisunfair 04:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to call into question your ability to read, but I assume when you say "my alternative" you are referring to Caerwine's suggestion above? Also, your point about impeding the users' ability is moot, for obvious reasons. Chris talk back 04:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Not to call into question your ability to read, but I assume when you say "my alternative" you are referring to Caerwine's suggestion above?"
Yes, I'm sorry about that. When I replied to Caerwine, I inadvertently copied-and-pasted your username (from the reply above mine) into the edit summary. When I actually replied to you, I was thinking that you were the same person to whom I already had replied. Additionally, I apologize for splitting your signature (also inadvertent).
"Also, your point about impeding the users' ability is moot, for obvious reasons."
Those reasons are not obvious to me. Could you please elaborate? —Lifeisunfair 14:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pages in such disputes are generally protected, rendering the question of which version to edit worthless. Chris talk back 17:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this template used on numerous unprotected pages. The fact that it can be inserted by a non-admin renders this inevitable.
Also, isn't the theoretical idea behind this template (and Caerwine's variation) to halt edit wars without the need for more drastic intervention? (If the involved parties agree to stop reverting — with or without the use of a special template — there's no need for page protection.) —Lifeisunfair 18:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After having read the above discussion, I'll go ahead and vote Delete on this template. I still think a variant of the {Protected} template that gave direct access to the competing versions might be useful, but it's clear that the method that this template used has been tried and found wanting. Caerwine 19:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fast company this template keeps: see the original use Zen master attempted to make of it over at Conspiracy theory, where his personal impressions are being undue weighted out by other editors (myself included). More evidence for the argument Lifeisunfair gives for a Delete? Adhib 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I assume a person of your level of experience is aware, this is not a simple majority vote count. When applied in a prudent manner, the prefixes "strong" and "weak" can assist the closing admin in gauging the nature of the consensus (or lack thereof). —Lifeisunfair 14:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong is VFD shorthand for "There's no way i'm going to change my position," Weak is short for "I am much more likely than usual to change my position on this subject"; things like 'Strongest possible ... indicate the same; it's not part of the vote or part of the comment or reason for deletion or keeping, and not to directly influence the outcome, but it is a message to others interested in the debate about the editor's level of conviction that that's the right way to go, and can have an indirect effect on the debate: The nature of the modifiers used to be explained briefly at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, apparently it's been lost in a recent rewrite. --Mysidia (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Removes an incentive to negotiate; Confuses casual readers; Looks unprofessional. Tom Harrison (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I used it once successfully in the process of stabilising a particularly "difficult" article, that had been protected for several weeks, and resumed edit-warring immediately after unprotection (of course, all factions accusing each other of POV, so the NPOV/POV template had no effect whatsoever) - The TwoVersions template appeared to be handy to get the discussion to the talk page (which had been unsuccessful with all other templates), and to allow time for elaborating a consensus version of the article on that talk page, which took several days with several contributors. The article in question is unprotected without major difficulties (and without any template) for several months now. As a remark I can add that there appeared to be some problem with the template software at the time, as it did not correctly link to the "other version"; don't know if that problem still exists today, but I'd rather fix that problem than delete the template. --Francis Schonken 10:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is unwilling to discuss such a dispute until a fork of his/her version has been pushed to the top or linked to via a gigantic, unprofessional banner, he/she should not be permitted to edit the article. —Lifeisunfair 11:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with David Gerard, Tom Harrison, and others. --Pjacobi 11:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much abused and ultimately unhelpful. And yes, David Gerard was wrong to unilterally delete. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While I have chiefly seen it abused, the process made clear how it could be used for dispute management. It may be better than subpages for two texts so divergent that diffs are useless. Its chief problems are
    • It is worded so that abusive editors can read it as a permanent non-admin protection
    • It makes no allowances for a third version; either a proposed compromise or a radically different proposal, and those are, in fact desirable in many conflicts.Septentrionalis 03:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If another tool is created for the purpose of temporary comparison of versions of an article before merger, it should not be speedied on the basis of this discussion. Septentrionalis 03:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A statement of fact cannot be construed as POV -- and the NPOV policy does not justify blanking or deleting (vandalising) the template out of process, that was inappropriate -- if the template is used correctly, it should only appear on an article in an active editing dispute where just two versions of an article are currently in contention; it offers a method of temporarily calming the dispute and allowing other editors to more clearly see what the editing dispute is so that an appropriate compromise can be reached or the dispute can otherwise be resolved. Abuse of the template is another matter, but the template can and should be removed from an article in those cases. --Mysidia (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DisputeCheck

This seems to serve the same purpose as Template:Not verified, though there's a wide variance in the alarmingness of the banner. It seems to me that these templates and their associated categories should be merged. -- Beland 04:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I like the more alrming red color better, but with the text from Not verified. I think we want to be clear as possible that an article with such a banner should not be trusted until the issues are dealt with. But, anyway, merge. -- SCZenz 08:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-nonsense

Only one article is using this rather in-your-face template. I suggest merging it into Template:Cleanup-rewrite. -- Beland 04:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is supposed to fill in a specific niche: You come upon an article; you're not familiar with the subject area, so you have no idea whether the article is in need of Template:Cleanup-context (or some other cleanup template) or if the article is just straight nonsense. I'm not surprised the template is not frequently used: its primary function is to be replaced with another template by somebody who knows more about the subject area. (I admit this could be made clearer within the template itself.) Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 05:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, abrasive and needlessly biting (especially since this will hit new users with unusual frequency). Also, the one article it's used on isn't even nonsense! (Although that article does lack context and could probably be deleted on that basis.) Nonsense is defined as "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." How an expert could be expected to help with it, I don't know. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now, no articles are using it *ahem*. Chris talk back 13:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone is unfamiliar with a subject to the extent that he/she is unable to differentiate between patent nonsense and a legitimate article in need of cleanup, he/she is in no position to declare that the "article appears to be nonsensical" (thereby accusing its author of vandalism). The template's creator stated above that it serves as a means of consulting "somebody who knows more about the subject area," but this can be accomplished with far greater efficiency via other means. (Leave a note on the talk page of a user who has made substantial edits to a related article.) When in doubt, it's important to assume good faith. The insertion of this template marks the assumption of bad faith (placing the onus on a third party — not even the article's author — to counter a potentially false allegation of wrongdoing). —Lifeisunfair 01:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, --Masssiveego 08:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many times I have encountered work that could have used this template. 172 | Talk 15:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holding cell

Move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete if process guidelines are met. Anything listed here or below should have its discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log.

To orphan

These templates need to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an admin, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed.

To convert to category

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

Ready to delete

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, have been orphaned, and the discussion logged to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted, can be listed here for an admin to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=27605265"