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
ScudLee (talk | contribs)
9,389 edits
Line 22: Line 22:
*'''Keep'''. (Creator). There is a secondary purpose to this template which I neglected to mention when I created it. My intention from the start was to replace the existing stars with images of my own. These images have a transparent interior, allowing the actual color of the stars to be decided by the background of a surrounding span tag. This is only really feasible if it is handled within a template. Because they have a different appearance to the current stars, I was going to do the switchover once I'd replaced all usages, to maintain consistency, that, perhaps, was a mistake. - Lee [[User Talk:ScudLee|<small>(talk)</small>]] 10:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. (Creator). There is a secondary purpose to this template which I neglected to mention when I created it. My intention from the start was to replace the existing stars with images of my own. These images have a transparent interior, allowing the actual color of the stars to be decided by the background of a surrounding span tag. This is only really feasible if it is handled within a template. Because they have a different appearance to the current stars, I was going to do the switchover once I'd replaced all usages, to maintain consistency, that, perhaps, was a mistake. - Lee [[User Talk:ScudLee|<small>(talk)</small>]] 10:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
**Oh, and I'd also add that the first switch template will be eliminated by the new images, since their file names match the parameter. The second switch template can be removed by a simple rewording. - Lee [[User Talk:ScudLee|<small>(talk)</small>]] 10:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
**Oh, and I'd also add that the first switch template will be eliminated by the new images, since their file names match the parameter. The second switch template can be removed by a simple rewording. - Lee [[User Talk:ScudLee|<small>(talk)</small>]] 10:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
**I've uploaded [[:Image:Transparent3.5of5.png]] as an example, and posted the potential Switch-less code on [[Template talk:Stars]]. - Lee [[User Talk:ScudLee|<small>(talk)</small>]] 12:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' it's not just the template, but because it only works on 5 stars. If it were to work for 3/4 or 8/10 it would be a std approach to handling ratings. [[User:KittenKlub|KittenKlub]] 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' it's not just the template, but because it only works on 5 stars. If it were to work for 3/4 or 8/10 it would be a std approach to handling ratings. [[User:KittenKlub|KittenKlub]] 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Largely on the strength of the strain on the servers, this becomes "Expense" which should be avoided, except for '''Real benefit'''. Tha's not quite the right way to put it, functionally this is a really good idea, but so is [[User:KittenKlub|KittenKlub]]'s (see last post). Personally the I believe the whole thing should be rethought and the issue of star ratings of different number base's included in the reworking. Ratings out of 10 are very common and should be allowed for, please come up with a more comprehensive solution (i.e. various start ratings) but with minimal server impact. [[User:Kevinalewis|Kevinalewis]] 10:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Largely on the strength of the strain on the servers, this becomes "Expense" which should be avoided, except for '''Real benefit'''. Tha's not quite the right way to put it, functionally this is a really good idea, but so is [[User:KittenKlub|KittenKlub]]'s (see last post). Personally the I believe the whole thing should be rethought and the issue of star ratings of different number base's included in the reworking. Ratings out of 10 are very common and should be allowed for, please come up with a more comprehensive solution (i.e. various start ratings) but with minimal server impact. [[User:Kevinalewis|Kevinalewis]] 10:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:45, 21 December 2005

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

December 21

Template:Stars

Adds an extra three levels of metatemplate cruft to album infoboxes, solely to add alt text to an image (which is already there in many cases, sometimes in superior form). If the alt text is that important, it can be added by a bot. —Cryptic (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm all for getting the proper alt-text but this is not the way (bot?). Using the switch and the template is a needless waste of resources. This template is not likely to change... we are not likely going to get new stars (if we did we'd just change the image anyways) so I see no use to this template. gren グレン 06:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong KEEP!. I've seen this start to be flowed onto Album infoboxes. All it is, is an easier way to flow ratings from AllMusic.com and elsewhere into the infobox. Never throw oout something useful, it would be like replacing the hatch on a submarine with a screen door, or replacing the healthy food in your fridge with junk food. --Cjmarsicano 06:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, please spare our servers the torture, and help fix it instead. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now. In terms of usability, it seems much easier to me, especially the way you type for a half star: {{stars|2.5}} instead of [[Image:2hv stars out of 5.png|2.5 stars out of 5]], which always felt very unintuitive. Very few people bother with typing alternate text, because editing gets done by imitation (for the most part) and no-one else is doing it. Imitation isn't that hard to master, so I'm not very moved by the argument that it is a burden to learn a handful of characters worth of syntax. I'm equally unmoved by the fact that "almost all of them [placed] by User:ScudLee" – he attempted to discuss the idea at Project albums talk page, no one objected or even responded really, and no-one else really bothered about the work as much as he did. However, if there is an extra burdon on servers then that's not good, but I can't really comment on that aspect because I wouldn't know what I'm talking about. Could we use subst: to get around this problem? Having read the talk page for the template, it's quite clear that subst will be much worse than just typing out [[Image:..]] --Qirex 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, shouldn't the TFD notice go on the template talk page so as not to screw up all those infoboxes?? See for example To the Extreme --Qirex 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only way some people will even know this template is up for deletion is if the notice is on the template itself (not the talk page). I moved it from the talk page so it would, hopefully, get a fair shake here at TfD.. (otherwise, it's possible it would get deleted without a proper debate). Yes it makes it ugly, but plenty of other templates face TfD and deal with the ugly factor; it's an effective means of informing editors that a template they might use is being considered for deletion. (Now if only IfD had a way of superimposing a notice over an image when it's up for deletion...) —Locke Cole 08:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The template is one of the best ideas that I've seen in a while, and yet you're considering it for deletion? --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not useful enough to justify the expense.--Sean|Black 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Creator). There is a secondary purpose to this template which I neglected to mention when I created it. My intention from the start was to replace the existing stars with images of my own. These images have a transparent interior, allowing the actual color of the stars to be decided by the background of a surrounding span tag. This is only really feasible if it is handled within a template. Because they have a different appearance to the current stars, I was going to do the switchover once I'd replaced all usages, to maintain consistency, that, perhaps, was a mistake. - Lee (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not just the template, but because it only works on 5 stars. If it were to work for 3/4 or 8/10 it would be a std approach to handling ratings. KittenKlub 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Largely on the strength of the strain on the servers, this becomes "Expense" which should be avoided, except for Real benefit. Tha's not quite the right way to put it, functionally this is a really good idea, but so is KittenKlub's (see last post). Personally the I believe the whole thing should be rethought and the issue of star ratings of different number base's included in the reworking. Ratings out of 10 are very common and should be allowed for, please come up with a more comprehensive solution (i.e. various start ratings) but with minimal server impact. Kevinalewis 10:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be fairly trivial to introduce a second parameter to handle the total number of stars without breaking current usage (it can default to 5). It would mean drawing even more images to handle all the cases, but other than that, that doesn't present a problem. - Lee (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can do all that and remove the need for the metatemplate you would provide the holy grain of star rating templates! Kevinalewis 11:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's easy enough to learn new syntax if it's for the good as far as the servers go. I'm a new user but would be happy to copy others' use of the new (or old) syntax. Crazyale 12:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

Template:Church and Template:Vatican

Template:Lennonist

Delete. As is noted on the talk page, this is just a duplicate of Template:User lennonist. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 19:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phnom Penh infobox

Already merged: Single-use template, already merged into article. Golbez 09:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Self-rule

Doesn't belong in the template namespace. — Dan | talk 06:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unimage

  • Ambigious copyright tag, the text basically says we don't know the copyright of this image. Images in this category should be dealt with under the existing fair use system, delete.--nixie 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepNeutral Specifies the image to be UN property. Maybe the UN will grant us rights to use their images sometime in the future. Then we will be lamenting the loss of this template. Ashibaka tock 01:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they do, we can always undelete it. Delete for now. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Jbamb 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we shouldn't encourage people to use this tag, and there's few images currently using it so no big deal cleaning it up. JYolkowski // talk 03:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If rewritten, this template could be used to indicate UN ownership and used together with an appropriate license tag. But we already ahve a general tag for images with no copyright or license information. DES (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have rewitten this to make it clar that it specifies ownership, not copyright status. i have looked at every image tagged with this, and all now have another image tag specifing their licensaing status, although in some cases it is {{no license}} and in a number of cases it is {{fairusein}}, some of which are also tagged with {{fairusereview}}. Under these cericumstances, i think this template and the associated category is useful for indicating the source/copyright of images derived from UN publications, although it is obviously not enough to indicate the licensing status. DES (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to rewrite by DES. Agnte 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How do you plan to notify users about source templates? Obviously this tag even as re-written is inappropriate for listing on the image copyright tag page, as it does not assert anything about copyright. Unless someone plans to roll out a new system for image source tags, the tag is still quite useless and should not be used in place of correct source information.--nixie 23:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the UN owns it, how are we going to prove permission to use? -- Jbamb 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some UN sources explicitly grant permission for general reuse. Some give permisisons addresses, to which a user can write, just as with any other request for permission. Some are old enough to be PD. Many have good fair use claims. Some we won't be able to use, and will need to be propmptly deleted. And in some cases an image may have been published by a UN agency, but the copyright is not in the UN. This tempalte really just adds some info about the provonance of the iamges in question, and groups them into a reasoanble category.DES (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian Broadcast Television

Delete: Redundant with {{Broadcast Television}} (which contains everything in this template except for the logos), and the logos are not fair use on this template. Ronald20 ☎ ✎ 01:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; explanation found here. Will remove logos. — Stickguy 14:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the logo issue out of the way, I'd actually prefer having separate templates for Canada, the United States and Mexico to having a single one that combines all three. Keep this (albeit with a rename to fix the capitalization), and delete the unified template (but create separate Mexico and US templates if they don't already exist). Bearcat 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

Template:Dubious

Breaks article flow and improperly injects the reader into page content disputes (which was the primary objection raised against Template:Afd-noconsensus and Template:Twoversions). It also contains a cross-namespace link to the article talk page. Firebug 23:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and per User:Agentsoo at Template talk:Dubious. (For the record, his comment was, "Sites that reproduce our articles rarely reproduce the Talk pages, and certainly any printed version would not. It seems to break the normal rules of namespace boundaries. A simple note that the fact is disputed seems adequate, and readers can consult the Talk page if they so desire.") --Idont Havaname 05:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's quite OK for it to cross link to discussion since dubious content should not be in wikipedia, an article marked like this is a work in progress. This is very different from where the actual subject matter is in dispute, there you have both views etc. Here it's wikipedia's description of the subject, not the subject itself that is in dispute. 67.165.96.26 16:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not draw a line between "work in progress" articles and "finished articles", if only because all of our articles are (at least for now) very much in the former category. If part of an article is disputed then it should be moved to the Talk page until a source can be found. Yes, this is sometimes tedious (as I discovered with this, where there's still lots of stuff on the Talk page), but the alternative is much worse. This existence of this template implies an "official" attitude to Talk-namespace links that is simply incorrect. The sooner it's deleted the better. Soo 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I have a question for you: how should people deal with things like this paragraph. I added this tag on a paragraph that just didn't make sense to me, and especailly after seeing other people have the same concern on the talk page. However someone wrote it, and (especially) maybe I am missing something, so didn't want to just delete it. OTOH I didn't want a huge box at the top of the page or section marking DISPUTED, since it really wasn't a very big issue. This tag was perfect, but I'm open to other suggestions. 67.165.96.26 20:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep give a more succient warning tag. Much like NPOV section. J. D. Redding 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please -- at least long enough for me to deal with a dispute at Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky#Biography. <>< tbc 08:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Language link; also equivalent Template:Ll

Subst and delete: Worse than useless. Doesn't save significant typing; is supposed to be always used with subst, but often isn't; confuses newbie editors; if subst is used then the template doesn't even save any typing. Equivalent Template:Ll is absolutely mystifying to newbie editors when used without subst. - Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the inappropriateness of this template is underlined by the hideous way this is showing up in articles now that I tagged it with {{tfd}}: most of the time it's sitting in the middle of prose. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I changed {{tfd}} to {{tfd-inline}} to fix that issue. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AustraliaGov

Template:SummersEve

Template:Parappa

Template:Lowercase-Apple

Delete, and put all articles with this template back into {{lowercase}}.: This is template-creep. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK A

This and Template:UK B don't appear to be used. Their function is to convert code such as {{UK A|50}} to [[A50 road|A50]], a saving of 5 characters for a two-digit road (and no saving at all if used with subst:). I'm nominating it for deletion because bulk use of this template (such as this previous version of List of B roads in Great Britain) would seem to be unnecessary server load. sjorford (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Both templates created by User:SPUI - I would have posted a note on his talk page, but I don't think I want to tread in it. ;) sjorford (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK B

Please see the discussion of Template:UK A above.

Template:ContraSub

Delete. Unlike templates such as {{disputed}} and {{pov}}, this tag is intended to permanently reside within "controversial" articles, warning users against editing without prior discussion (a very un-wiki instruction). Thus far, it's been added to Pedophilia and Gay Nigger Association of America. While these obviously are controversial subjects, the same is true of countless other topics (particularly those of a political or religious nature). Should we be branding all such articles with this template? We already have {{controversial}} for talk pages, and it's entirely inappropriate for a similar (actually stricter, because {{controversial}} merely instructs users to read the talk page before editing) tag to encroach upon the actual articles. —Lifeisunfair 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

Template:S

Delete: Only used to present a Unicode character. Wikiacc (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mexico Broadcast Television

Delete: Redundant with {{Broadcast Television}} (which contains everything in this template except for the logos), and the logos are not fair use on this template. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the reasons listed above. Or better yet, extract the Mexican portion of the misnamed Broadcast Television template and transplant it into this template, do the same for the Canadian portion into the Canadian Broadcast Television template, and then create a United States broadcast template for the rest (and then lower-case the first two templates). BlankVerse 03:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the logos, but keep; my preference would be for Mexican, Canadian and American television to each have their own separate template rather than getting combined into a unified North American box. Broadcast television in North America simply isn't that closely intertwined. Bearcat 19:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. – Adrian | Talk 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 17

Template:Policylist

A) We don't need goofy cartoon pictures making our policy pages look like jokes. B) Perfectly adequately addressed by categories. C) Overly selective. D) The world does not need more ugly boxes. Phil Sandifer 23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UKUSA Community

Delete: This template was used only on the UKUSA Community article, and I've subst'ed it there already. It has no potential to be used elsewhere. NormanEinstein 21:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: BostonInfoBox

Delete: It's a template used for only one article, namely Boston, Massachusetts. Furthermore, it's sufficiently the same as Template:Infobox City. Plus, Infobox City is nicely standard. --Mark Adler (Markles) 12:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Afd-noconsensus

Delete. An article is either deleted or kept. The failure to reach a consensus does not reduce an article to a lower status, and we already place notices on the corresponding talk pages. —Lifeisunfair 12:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Why would an AFD result of "no consensus" have any bearing on whether or not someone would want to read an article? → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Exposes too much of the workings of Wikipedia to the casual reader. Also, as per nom and the guy with the big sig above me. :) FreplySpang (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gives the false impression that "no consensus" is not functionally "keep", which it is. Other templates already allow one to note that the result was "no consensus". Also, the "You may wish to take this into consideration when deciding whether or not to read this article." is horrifyingly POVed and presumptive. -Silence 14:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perplexed by the link to the deleted page notice, which invites the reader to pretend that the page has been deleted and protected. —Lifeisunfair 14:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unused template with no apparent use. BDAbramson T 02:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Correction

Delete. From the newbie that brought us {{spoiler3}} comes {{correction}}, a template used to sign articles (and take credit for specific corrections), as seen here and here. —Lifeisunfair 01:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a template: If there's a mistake, fix it!--Sean|Black 01:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ironic how "corection" is mis-spelled there. BDAbramson T 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, per my interpretation of §G1 and §G2 →AzaToth 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible. This style of editing is severely inappropriate, and the creation of a template to edit articles this way is ridiculous:
    1. Article mistakes should be fixed.
    2. Conflicting opinions should be resolved on talk pages.
    3. The template consists of almost zero code, and therefore does not actually make any kind of editing, disruptive or not, easier. This strikes me as a deliberate attempt to legitimise the edits.
    4. The way in which the user signs their name to these corrections runs contrary to Wikipedia policy.
--Qirex 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler3

Delete. Another spoiler template. Yuck! It uses the text-hiding method (which is listed on the spoiler warning guideline page as an "unacceptable alternative"). —Lifeisunfair 01:17/01:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 16

Template:Album_infobox_2

It's time to put this one out of its misery. If the discussion when this deletion was first proposed wasn't (quite) convincing (archived here [2] ), the choices of active editors are now clear. So far this month, for example, it's been used in only 14 new album articles; in contrast, the standard template has been used in more than 750. Overall, this template is currently used in just under 750 articles, while the standard template is used in nearly 10,000. Since nobody's made an argument against a uniform infobox style in album articles, and the preference of active editors is overwhelmingly clear, I can't see any reason not to Delete (with whatever cleanup of the existing use is required). Monicasdude 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about just setting it as a REDIRECT? There wouldn't be need for any cleanup. --Tokle 20:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PC

Delete: Do we really need templates for four articles relating to one brand that is only sold in one country? The name is ambiguous, since it could just as well be about personal computers or political correctness, and the template is unused. (Note: A template with the same name was deleted in July, but that template seems to have been about political correctness) Aecis praatpaal 20:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fancruft

Unused, does not warn of something that actually violates any written policies, is generally just a very dumb idea. Phil Sandifer 17:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fictional animals cat

Delete: First, this template is large and almost all of the entries are in alphabetical order. Second, it is currenty only used on category pages, no articles – thus redundant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK ties

delete: Orphaned at some point, {{UK ties2}} used in place of it. Thanks/wangi 12:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and redirect {{UK ties2}} to it. I prefer this version. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias - SoM 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias--Mais oui! 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{UK ties2}} is used only on United Kingdom. Subst either of these templates and then delete both. No need to clutter the template namespace with single-use templates that will only slow us down (in more ways than one). Chris talk back 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias(if you think its clutering up the template list then just delete it from the list - gawh ) --Whywhywhy 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the tfd notice was removed on the template, I've since added this back plus started a discussion on the Talk:United Kingdom#UK ties templates page regarding these three templates {{UK ties}}, {{UK ties2}} & {{UK ties3}} (2 of which are unused, 1 single use). It's probably a better place to discuss the way forward, but personally I think all three need to be deleted and the content subst in. Thanks/wangi 14:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:As the original creator of all three templates, I'm certainly fine with deleting them all and including the content in the page; good housekeeping and so forth. I'd like to find a way of archiving the old situation, however, for the historical record. Any ideas on how? Doops | talk 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:P-protected

And Category:Protected due to publicity

This template is for protection due to high visibility... which is unwiki and against current policy. We protect pages that have excessive vandalism ({{vprotect}}), but not before. In fact, the fact that an article was mentioned somewhere that it is getting attention is good and presents our face to new visitors. As well as the fact that new visitors represent a chance for our article to improve by their edits, and shouldn't be protected from them except in extraordinary circumstances. As well, it's in direct contradiction to WP:PPol, which says:

When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.

May also want to review User:Raul654/protection for the reasons behind this. Should be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom.--Sean|Black 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - regardless of the protection policy, recent events have made it clear that this is not the case, as Jimbo protected the Seigenthaler article prior to the CNN appearance, and Kyra Phillips was protected the moment she mentioned it. This ought not become regular behavior, however it is clear that there is a threshold at which point we protect, in which case this template is important. Note that this template also encourages users towards other articles that they can edit, mitigating many of the problems of "But we want the first article people hit to be editable" Phil Sandifer 07:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not about wanting the readers to be able to edit, it's about the encyclopedia. Editing is how our encyclopedia functions. In any case, this template is not a good way to make policy, or even common practice. If you want to propose this policy (which I would dispute at this point), do so, but don't put it into practice without consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not putting it into practice. Jimbo already has put it into practice. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This template is an attempt to make it common practice without community support. You cannot pretend that Seigenthaler is an ordinary situation. The fact is that while Jimbo has the ultimate goal of our encyclopedia always in mind, he is sometimes out of touch with the specifics of how things work at a given time (a certain 17 second block comes to mind). He has worries other than editing here every day. If anything I would say this is a much more IAR necessitated action, rather than a new practice that is anything like policy yet. Dmcdevit·t 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not the ideal forum for policy considerations, which is the basis of Dmcdevit's objections. Besides, IMHO, that paragraph in WP:PPOL is unjustifiably optimistic (and appears to refer only to online sources, to boot), and should probably be changed. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but I think that this would make sense if there was a policy proposal... but right now it's just wrong. Nothing will reasonably be protected with this template. Dmcdevit·t 09:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, high volume public pages need some sort of label.  ALKIVAR™ 10:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No article should ever be "protected due to publicity", since the entire point of getting publicity for Wikipedia is to let people edit the article being publicized so the Wikipedia process gets the news out. Also, it's not a good habit to protect articles just because they're being vandalized; reverting vandalism is easy, and articles that are receiving lots of edits are also getting plenty of good editors in addition to the vandals. Protecting pages should only be used as an anti-vandalism measure in truly extreme cases, not as a regular, everyday tool (for the same reason articles featured on the main page aren't locked). All it takes to make sure that none of the vandalisms are slipping through is to do what I always do: do a compare between the current version and the version 20 or 30 edits ago, and see if any new vandalism has slipped in (particularly effective since I've found that major edits that aren't vandalism are relatively rare for high-publicity articles). In any case, this template is unnecessary and redundant to other templates that already address the "protected due to vandalism" and "prone to vandalism due to having been recently cited or linked to" issues. Also, embarrassingly self-referential and bloated; does it really need the "800,000" self-advertisement bit added at the end? -Silence 10:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may say that no article should ever be protected due to publicity, but Jimbo directly countered you on that one, so the objection is moot - he had John Seigenthaler Sr. protected before going on CNN. As for the self-advertisement bit, yes - the expectation is that the page in question is going to be the first Wikipedia page hit by a huge swarm of people who do not know much about Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already know that Jimbo directly countered me on this one, as you've already stated it above. This would certainly influence my vote, were it not for the simple matter.. that Jimbo is wrong. Templates like this will do nothing but embarass Wikipedia and stunt it's growth at times when it most needs to be consistent and open to new contributions and exploration of the editing process. The best response to vandalism is reversion, not protection; protection should be the exception, for only the most brutal cases of vandalizing—not the norm. And if there's a vandalism storm going on, whether the article's being frequently populated right now or not isn't irrelevant, as the problem's still the same. -Silence 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of how grave my misunderstanding is, Jimbo doesn't become any more right no matter how many times one says "Jimbo did X". If my opinion is invalid because Jimbo is a god on earth whose will is not to be defied by the likes of mere mortals, then feel free to ignore my opinion, but that in itself will neither change it nor prevent me from expressing it. If our only purpose here is to interpret what we think Jimbo wants, not to interpret Wikipedia policy and goals and what's best for the articles, then we should probably skip the voting process on this issue altogether and just ask Jimbo to cast the only vote on the matter, then go with that. No need to run around in circles if the decision's pre-made, sure. But it's still a poor template that does not benefit Wikipedia.
  • Incidentally, based on what I know of the situation involving the articles that Jimbo protected, don't you think that it's more likely that he protected those articles because the ongoing news they were involved in directly related to Wikipedia? Plenty of articles get linked to and mentioned in the news all the time, but they don't usually get protected right off the bat; the difference here is not that the articles were especially prone to vandalism, but rather that vandalism was especially dangerous because Wikipedia's reputation was on the line due to the subject of the news being Wikipedia itself. So, even if protecting a page is warranted in such a situation, protecting it with a tag like this one is pointless and highly misleading. A tag involving the fact that the article is in the news because of itself (as was the case with John Seigenthaler Sr.) would be much more relevant and honest. -Silence 21:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again as per Silence's comments above. Thanks/wangi 14:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High profile articles might be what draws attention to wikipedia, but new users should spend some time getting to know the correct way to edit articles. They shouldn't be editing the first page they ever see. By the time they learn the ropes, the page that got them here will no longer be protected and they will be able to make whatever reasonable improvements they want. Kafziel 19:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete. Ugly, verbose, and unecessary. BlankVerse 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Publicity draws new experts to articles; those experts can't contribute if article is protected. 66.167.138.184 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete contrary to policy, based on a misuderstanding of Jimbo's actions in the Seigenthaler case; per Silence. It's a mistake anyone could have made, but it's still a mistake. Articles are not and should not be protected due to publicity; they are (sometimes) protected due to self-reference (i.e. the Main Page is particularly visible in Wikipedia therefore it is protected), the Seigenthaler (and Kyra) page's were particularly visible due to their subjects involvement with Wikipedia, therefore they were protected). JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the moment, and eventually Redirect to {{sprotect}}, when that comes online. I view this as a patch measure, since Semi-protection seems to cover the reasons for this template, but isn't operational yet. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 20:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the fact is, high profile pages are often protected to counter vandalism: deleting or keeping this template does not change how protection is used; although, the policy may need to be updated to indicate that protection is indeed often used when an article has been linked from a high-traffic area: Linking from the main page or major web sites is a common case where protection is used, the protection is no coincidence, and the message given by this template explains the reason for the protection more adequately in this common case than the vague one-liner given by {{vprotected}}. --Mysidia (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference

Delete Not used anywhere, seems to be redundant with {{Heartland Conference}}. --Sherool (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CHSUB

Delete: Template does nothing more than add article to a category (Category:Subdivisions of Switzerland) and add irrelevant text to the article page Mike5904 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; useless, noise only. Schutz 06:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC

Template:2004

Delete seems to be created by mistake, reads like the opening of a bio. Not used and not edited since December 2004. --Sherool (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

Template:Webber

Delete: Found on Wikipedia:Neglected articles, this oddity is a template from one editor warning other editors not to revert his edits. BDAbramson T 21:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mainarticles

Template not used. Superseded by {{main}}. CG 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supercbbox

Delete: It's unnecessary to have a infobox for every little thing. This template just contains information that can all easily be covered in the lead section. Also, it lists the title both on top and then again in Statistics for no apparent reason. And it's only used on a handful of articles, hardly filled-out in some of them (like Alias (comics)). All in all, it's not very helpful and rather chunky. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

Template:FrTed

Quotes from Father Ted are not all that relevant to a lot of our users, so they send a confusing message. Cute at the expense of effectiveness. FreplySpang (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. Userfying is probably the best solution; no one would object to this template if it was at, say, User:Jtdirl/FrTed, and the template would still have the exact same effect when someone typed {{User:Jtdirl/FrTed}}. It's having bad jokes and nonsense like this on the Template namespace that's a problem. -Silence 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Endspoiler

Unnecessary clutter; not particularly useful. — Dan | talk 23:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Behave

Ugly; puerile; redundant with the test templates. — Dan | talk 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If {{test}} is inappropriate, then nothing needs to be said at all. If it is the clear case of an honest mistake, the article can be reverted without further comment. If the same user does the same sort of thing more than once or twice, then he or she has moved on into vandalism. We all started here as newbies at one point or another; we didn't all go around messing up articles at random. Kafziel 15:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{test} is appropriate when the vandal/newbie made a test. It if was clearly simple vandalism ("Tom loves Sally" kind of thing), then it means nothing to them. I don't know if you've ever been on RC Patrol, but they don't understand it. I've even been asked what it meant. Izehar (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I don't care anymore. I'm withdrawing my "delete" vote.
  • Keep the redesigned version. Greatly improved, just about all the problems I had with the box are fixed now. Even the tone is better: stern, yet friendly. Good job, Ashibaka. -Silence 17:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But on the other hand, now that the "behave" catchphrase has been completely removed from the template (thank god), the template's name doesn't really having anything to do with its content, and may actually counteract the efforts of those who use it (i.e. a vandal is calmed down by the text, but then sees that the template is called "behave" and gets annoyed at the condescending word). So, I'm switching back to Delete, but move the current template to a new, more fitting name, since I actually like it and it will probably be quite useful to vandal-greeters. -Silence 17:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your excellent improvements have been reverted, so my above comments (after the first one, which still very much applies) are moot regarding the template. As such, strong delete; template will dramatically increase, rather than decrease, the amount of vandalism on Wikipedia. -Silence 19:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'changes' were rubbish. They completely misunderstood the whole point of the template and undermined its effectiveness. As to the suggestion that it would increase the amount of vandalism, obviously you don't spend your time dealing with vandalism. If you did you'd realise how nonsensical the claim is. It is specifically targeted at a type of lightweight vandalism and is designed in those cases to say "very funny, but please don't." Where it has been used in those cases it has worked. It is not intended to be used for real heavy vandalism. You don't seem to understand the different types of vandalism and the different tones that need to be used in dealing with them. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Routeboxint

I've been in a bit of a revert war on Interstate 76 (east) about this template (see [3] for its use). I have taken it here as suggested on IRC:

<DavidGerard> KILL IT WITH A STICK. <DavidGerard> that one should go to TFD as a complete eyesore.

I have created an alternate template, currently on Interstate 76 (east) (and on Talk:Interstate 76 (east) if it's reverted again), that includes much of the information with less space, and does not include the huge junction box (which only duplicates information in the exit list further down in the article). A long Interstate can be split into multiple articles like Interstate 80 in New Jersey to keep the size of the article, including the exit list, manageable. --SPUI (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Having twelve articles for I-80 is a very bad idea indeed, as I-80 spans CA, NV, UT, WY, NE, IA, IL, IL, OH, PA, NJ, and NY. When this fragmentation idea is extended to all inter-state interstates, there would be an explosion of little snippets that have no cohesion. The whole point of focusing on the inter-state identity of an interstate (especially the two-digit ones) is to show the regional or national interconnectivity of that road. The purpose of an interstate is to connect traffic flow without regard to the rather arbitrary/antiquated/historically-accidental state lines (or county lines). The purpose of an article for an interstate should be to focus on this national/regional aspect of interstates, not on some local's love-romance with how I-80 in the NYC suburbs in NJ is truly the most special and emotionally dear thing in some fan's life or whether the 17 mile stretch of I-29 in North Dakota was first in the nation to test the such-and-such road experimental pavement. The interstate articles should be focused on the user of that interstate to accomplish a traversal of that interstate (e.g., route planning of which that interstate is merely a portion of the route), not for heaping on some local's praise of his/her section. Sectionalism of interstates should be at best eradicated and at worst de-emphasized. Use of the interstate should be emphasized in the article for that interstate. — optikos 02:56 18 December 2005
    • Furthermore, if such a fragmentation of an interstate article would be pursued, be prepared for someone from Chicagoland to request that the I-80 freeway has an entirely different personality & word-name & toll-payment & governmental ownership than the I-294/I-80 concurrency, which in turn has an entirely different personality & word-name & governmental ownership than the I-80/I-94 concurrent freeway, which in turn has an entirely different personality & word-name than the I-80/I-90 concurrent toll-road, but I-94 (the Dan Ryan) has an entirely different personality & word-name than the I-80/I-94 concurrency. Be prepared to shatter I-80 into those tiny little articles too. This is further proof that shattering an interstate article into how the locals romance it is unwise, because it is a slippery slope that might have no end. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
      I recommend a state getting its own article if and only if it has the most information, and the article is deemed too big. (probably based on the wikipedia maximum recommended article length. If it's still too big after one is split, then the next biggest should be split, and so on.) I am against any further fragmentation; however, the toll roads themselves and so forth get their own, even if they are only part of an Interstate in that state. Ex: New York State Thruway, New Jersey Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike. Splitting every Interstate article into every state would be insane. --Chris 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or fork/split into a "slimmer, trimmer" version. I agree fields are underused in current template, but there really is no happy medium between listing every intersection (I really don't want to do that) and listing bigger junctions (which is what the junction box is there for) except a table. Tables in the current template look more concise. I can do without "Browse State Highways". This particular template wielded properly isn't an eyesore. --Rob 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why we need to list any intersections in the infobox. This information is already in text in the route description and in a table in the exit list; scrolling through the exit list makes it easy to find Interstate junctions (as they're shown with shields). --SPUI (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea of an infobox isn't to contain unique information. Most city infoboxes, for example, contain population and other info that is in the body of the article. The idea is create a concise overview of the interstate highway for people who just want the information quickly. The suggested replacement only contains the endpoints, the establishment date, and the useless links to the adjacent state highways in numerical order. I wouldn't mind if the state highways part were deleted from the template but the rest of routeboxint is fine. Listing the Interstate junctions provides a first level look at the important junctions. The detailed intersection tables are fine, but are a lot to go through for a quick scan. It will be even more cumbersome if all of the intersections, Interstate and state highway, for a coast-to-coast Interstate go onto the main page, or if it is necessary to go to a page for each state to see the Interstate junctions. --Beirne 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all as the template's creator I'm wondering why I wasn't informed of it's TFD. To continue, it has been accepted by the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways as well as other roadgeeks. The templates look good and can be shrunken if needed. Interstate 5, Interstate 90, etc. There is much more information packed into this template than in the othertemplate proposed at Talk:Interstate 76 (east). Also, the browse state highways should stay because it is needed for the CA, WA, KY, NH, TX, OH, PA, NJ Interstates so their routeboxes can connect with the individual state routeboxes/ other templates (Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways explains why) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shrink the damn thing if you don't kill it with a stick. It was three screens long on my laptop - David Gerard 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? Is page length a fossil fuel that must be conserved lest we run out? optikos 14:35 18 December 2005
      No, but the point of an infobox is to briefly list some standard important information. --Chris 22:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but shrink it. It's too wide, and far too long. Something I just recently noticed is the color scheme is sort of ugly. As for the SPUI one, it first of all must be discussed someplace other than here and there. My biggest problem is that any Interstate that goes through three states will be 1/2 taken up by those stupid state highway browsers, which I already hate. I know some of the highway guys like them, but I'd be interested to see what the rest of the Wikipedians think about them. Other than that, I don't have too much of a problem with SPUI's infobox. Maybe just add a bit here or there. However, many articles already use the old one. (In the event of any sort of change, all Routeboxint info that will be lost should be moved to the body of the article.) So therefore, I'm just in favor of cutting down on Template:Routeboxint by doing the following (this should cut it down to a quarter of the original on something like Interstate 84 (east)):
    • Perhaps lower the width.
    • Make interstate junctions much smaller, by limiting the number of junctions (perhaps 5 or so), and by cutting out the milepost column, but perhaps keeping a state abbreviation.
    • Throw away the legend; that sort of detail will be unnecessary in a brief list. A similar legend may be used to color-code the full list in the body of the article.
    • Kill the browse state highways. Perhaps the States Traversed section should link to List of New York state highways or whatever.
    • Remove the seperate east and west terminii sections. Perhaps the brief junction list should include the first, last, and 3 most major in between.

--Chris 01:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with removing Browse State Highways is that someone on WA-4 can get to I-5... but then how do they get to WA-6? We could split the legend off to a subpage... and I'm not attached to terminii... width needs to be fixed too. If we limit the junctions on the primary interstates to just Primary Interstates, things will be better (we could even cut down more on Interstate 90.) I'll fix Interstate 5 so it does this. If every page had an exit list, I would say throw away the junctions section- but not every page does, so I'm not saying it. But yeah. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the state highway box issue, people may make it up to I-5, but I wonder how many people browsing through Washington state highways make it up to I-90? I would suspect that most give up long before that, because there isn't any useful relation between adjacently numbered highways. (And yes, I know north-south, east-west, etc. but the schemes tend to conflict in various ways so it still doesn't work out.) I don't think it makes sense for the projects of states like WA or CA either, although I know that those are different projects out of the scope of this one. The legend probably needs to be there to help interpret the colors if we are going to use them, otherwise we should probably just skip the color-coding altogether because it is going to be too mysterious for most people. I think the terminii are exactly the sort of meaningful pieces of information that should be in the routebox. The provide a visual sense of length, direction, and the route. Every page should have a junction list since a bulleted list is part of the Interstate Project guidelines, but the box provides a convenient overview. Being an overview, though, listing the primaries should be fine and a good compromise. --Beirne 12:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken on the WA-4, I-5, WA-6 thing, but regardless of what each state does, that doesn't mean they need to be in the infobox. (I'm giving up on eliminating them altogether, in favor of compromise.) The legend should at the very least be split off someplace else, but it wouldn't be necessary at all if the junctions list were to be turned into just a brief lists of other interstates it Interchanges with. (as opposed to a list of interchanges with other Interstates; yes there is a difference) If an individual interstate article wishes to use a similar color scheme on it's body interchange list, then obviously the legend can either be in or be linked to in the body. Seperately listing the terminii is uneccsary if the brief junction list is in order. --Chris 02:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We can't list every single city that for example Interstate 5 goes through. I've changed the routebox on I-5 to be smaller... does it look better? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally still think there is too many cities there. Interstate 5#Major cities along the route can still contain as many as the authors want. I'd say the junction list is good, but is it necessary in the north and south to say anything beyond Canada border and Mexico border? --Chris 17:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shoot. Repeatedly. Big, ugly, and too hard to maintain. --Carnildo 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Patcat88 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to express accuracy Expand the ability to describe east-west/north-south designation on a per-section basis (in one article). Expand the ability to describe established-date on a per-section basis. Neither of these two fields apply to the entire interstate from terminus to terminus for all interstates. Keep the template as is or expand it as I have indicated below. Either way deploy it fully to every interstate without exception. Move factual information that is currently in prose to the template-table's contents to reduce the impact of my-favorite-interstate-section pontiffication in the prose of the article. Make all interstate articles have the same look-and-feel, which also will dilute my-favorite-interstate-section pontiffication. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
    • In any interstate template that has an established-date field, what is that date: 1) the date that the oldest section of that roadway was built to interstate specifications opened (even under a different name that was later renamed an interstate, as is common nowadays to build an interstate named as a state-road or US highway then upon completion of the entire route, e.g., I-68 was named US48 for years until the day of its completion at its eastern terminus, I-469 was named Indiana SR469 for years until completion of its northern terminus)? 2) the date that that roadway was first named I-suchandsuch even if it existed twenty years prior to that as a famous freeway? 3) the date that the most recent section of it opened (e.g., it will be misleading to say that I-69 was established in 1967 referring to the oldest part of the Indiana section when it is completed all the way to Mexico one of these next few decades) — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
    • In any interstate template that has a direction field, the direction often does not apply to the entire length of that interstate. Take I-69 for example. The Indiana section that I lived near as a child is signed as a north-south interstate as one would expect from the odd final digit, but the Michigan section "north" of Lansing is signed as east-west almost as though I-69 is some variation of I-96 (which is what it feels like when driving around Lansing). Conversely, many of the supposedly east-west interstates run either nearly north-south or due north-south in Chicagoland, but are signed as east-west. This leads to much confusion in the Chicagoland area that would be very nice to succintly disclose in a table for I-94 and I-90. Similarly, when driving in a new-to-me metropolitan area, I would love to have any reference Wiki or Rand McNally or otherwise that discloses to me ahead of time which sections/exits of I-465 in Indy or I-410 in San Antonio are signed east-west and which are signed north-south. In all of these cases, having an explicit directionality of signage in the template on a section-by-section basis would be valuable information that is not easily accessible anywhere else other than going the wrong way on the road and then turning around once one figures how the local Dept of Transportion decided to creatively sign this interstate. What would be absolutely perfect would be directionality of signage (e.g., N-S versus E-W) sitting right next to degrees from North from the compass between two exits point-to-point, such as for the Dan Ryan in Chicago: E-W/0°-180°; or for I-69 east of Lansing: E-W/89°-271°. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
    • Move more factual prose to these template tables, so that information does not get buried in some fan's touting of the verbose praise of how this section is named the Whosywhatsit Memorial Expressway. I have recently visited every interstate article. I have noticed way too much variance from article to article. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
      Let me make sure I understand. Do you wish to make it even bigger than it already is?? (You make some valid points, although I personally disagree with some of it; but regardless of that, it is way too much to put in an infobox.) --Chris 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a rather useful summary of an interstate highway. That being said, it is way too big. How about placing the legend on a separate page (perhaps a subpage of the WikiProject), and linking to it? And something needs to be done about the "browse state highways" section -- it's attracted way too much criticism. Scott5114 06:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a great summary, and I've been wondering why they've been dissapearing. I utilised the core of it for Template:UK motorway routebox and would be mortified if that was TFD'd. Erath 09:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I suggest some bits be split into different templates. Lots of the things in this don't belong in an infobox, but are still useful in template form. --Golbez 23:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Extremely useful information, they should be kept. BTW I also agree with subpages on long Interstates (and other long multi-state highways) when pages become too long. CrazyC83 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, a quick vote count makes it seem like those who wish to completely delete it are in a small minority, but the idea of shrinking it seems popular. Why not discuss shrinking it on Template talk:Routeboxint? (I and perhaps others have advocated removing some things in discussions there since way before it was put on TFD.) --Chris 22:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for frak sake. This and templates like it are both easy to navigate and are being maintained by a large and dedicated group of users. There is no basis for deletion here except one user's anger over a revert war.Gateman1997 01:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks extremely useful, especially on the Interstate 355 article. --JohnDBuell 01:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler MC top

An unused combination of {{spoiler top}} and {{solution}}. —Cryptic (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler top and Template:Spoiler bottom

Unlike {{spoiler2}} and {{spoiler-red}}, these used to have a distinct purpose, but they've been obsolesced by the revival and widespread use of {{endspoiler}}. The javascript mentioned on Template talk:Spoiler top doesn't work anymore, but if anyone's really interested, I can fix it for the standard {{spoiler}}/{{spoiler-about}}/{{spoiler-other}}/{{solution}} - {{endspoiler}} series. —Cryptic (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler-red

As below. —Cryptic (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maintained

  • Delete: Copying my reasoning from the Pump: In effect, the template seems to be saying The following users are watching this page. Please clear any changes with them first. I'd content that the less experienced the editor who reads the template, the more likely they are to interpret it that way. Conversely, more experienced editors are likely to respond with a "So what?" I'd really like to have the purpose of the template explained clearly. Casual vandals are unlikely to read talk pages. The listed users will have the article on their watchlists and will spot and fix vandalism just as quickly without the template. Non-vandals who want to make good-faith edits should not have to refer (or defer) to self-styled experts who, thanks to their watchlists, will soon see any changes anyway.. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Comment: Rather than this knee-jerk reaction to delete, you could have suggested an alternate wording that you thought would not communicate what you feel is a message of "ownership". Instead, you chose not to participate in any discussion and move directly to delete. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:22
  • Keep: There should be enough reasons in the last few days to have a necessity for these kind of persons thus implementing something like this in articles at least to make vandals that aren't caught by RC Patrols and else be stopped by this method. Lincher 12:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. That is NOT the intention of this template at all, and I am really getting tired of explaining this for people who can't bother themselves to read any of the past discussion. The template is acting as a contact list of people who have identified themselves as either knowing the content of the article or knowing its sources. It is for any reader who wants to confirm the facts in an article, or confirm its sources. It has nothing to do with "ownership" of this article, so please stop pushing this ridiculous apocalyptic notion. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:14
    • Replying to these three comments. A) I have not used the word "ownership"; please respond to the stated reasons for listing here rather than continuing a previous argument of which I was not part. B) I have not suggested an alternate wording because I believe that there is no need for any such template. and C) Please explain how the template is going to be any more effective against vandalism than having the same group of users add the article to their watchlist. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You were not part of any discussion. You moved directly to delete the template within the very same message that you misrepresented the intention of the template. That has been your only part in the discussion, "I don't like it, so I will move to delete it." It is NOT the intention of this template to be "effective against vandalism". As I have already stated 3 times on different pages (which I'm assuming you've read...), the intention of this template is to do exactly what it says: let the readers know that there are people watching it for vandalism, maintaining it, and who can be contacted regarding any factuality/verifiability concerns the readers have. As I have also repeatedly stated, people tend to check their email more than their watchlist. So, having a direct link to email a useful contact on an article is very useful for the reader. I have already gotten emails from readers and new users verifying with me that arcticles' content is accurate, so it is already working exactly as I had intended. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:37
        • Articles have talk pages were such concerns can be raised in full view of all those with an interest in the article. Can you not at least concede that moving this discussion to the talk pages of individual users is open to potential abuse. I raised the vandalism question because it was part of one of the keep votes. You have raised it again yourself just now ("there are people watching it for vandalism"). Finally, please stop the bolded uppercase shouting, which does nothing to further your arguments. BTW, I check my watchlist far more often than I check my e-mails. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not shouting, it is concerned emphasis. Please stop misrepresenting this template on people's talk pages to get them to vote in your favor, calling this template "the latest item of worship." — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:56
  • Speedy Keep - Can this thing be ended as soon as possible so the annoying TfD text can go away from the pages the template is used on? Thanks. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 13:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifications: This template provides direct contact to email someone, something with which all readers are familiar, rather than assuming that all readers will know what the "history" tab is for, how to check for significant contributors who thus might know something about the article (ie: looking for non-minor, non-bot, significant edits). Besides the contact, one of the main points is to let readers know that the page is being maintained by people, that it is being watched for vandalism, and that some people will hold themselves accountable for its contents. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06
  • Also note, anyone can remove anyone from the template's list of users, if those users become inactive, since the point is to provide a list of contacts and a list of people who are volunteering their time to protect the article against vandalism and are knowledgeable about its facts/sources. The point is not to provide a list of "contributors". If you feel the template is sending the wrong message, please suggest alternate wordings. This is more productive than typing 7 letters.. (ie "Delete"). — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06
  • Keep. Filiocht is quite right—experienced editors (and even not-so-experienced ones) will happily ignore the template. But it is inteneded primarily to benefit the casual reader, who has no idea how Wikipedia works or how he might go about questioning the veracity of a statement. An obvious "email this person if you have questions" box is quite useful in such cases. —Kirill Lokshin 14:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template cruft - the casual reader will figure out, by looking at all the buttons above (That's what I did when I was one). --Gurubrahma 14:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are assuming that all readers will understand the system as easily/quickly as you claim to have. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Keep. Let's see it in action for a bit, give it a chance to improve, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Use it. --JWSchmidt 14:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Best new idea in a long time. Creating a visable presence on an article is a way to make soft-tiers of users (not unlike the 3-tiers of "anon->user->admin", but on a per-article basis, and "soft-tier") which will add stability and discourage the natural processes of entropy. It's the closest thing to a traditional encyclopedia "signed article" but maintaining the openess of Wikipedia. It certainly does not over-ride the Wikipedia Constitutional rules about "ownership". --Stbalbach 15:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We must keep the cabal as secret. --Peter McConaughey 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The wording on the template may need to be altered so that it can't be misinterpreted as 'ownership' of an article, but overall its a good idea. Agnte 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above. —Locke Cole 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources and references should be provided in the article itself. The entire idea of Wikipedia is to judge facts and contributions, not contributors. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 19:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course the article should have sources. We're not trying to judge contributors. Even if it lists sources, it can still be vandalized, and readers can still have questions about ambiguities or other things related to the topic. That is why it is important to show that people are watching the content, can be contacted regarding any questions, and do hold themselves accountable for the content. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 19:44
      • If the article is unclear or incomplete, you make it more clear and you complete it. The only way this template would be of any help is if the template said, "The following persons have volunteered to clarify and expand the article if it seems unclear or incomplete. Feel free to share your concerns with them." But then again, isn't that the purpose of a talk page in the first place? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've used this to mark pages that I'm interested in and know a fair bit about, to indicate that I can probably answer or address whatever questions or concerns people might have. Perhaps it should be reworded to say something like "If you have questions about this article or its sources, the following users may be able to help: Example (talk · contribs · email), misterhand43 (talk · contribs · email), Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs · email)." Or something like that—the point being to list helpful contacts that someone may not otherwise find, not to indicate any measure of ownership or control. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the wording as per this suggestion. Agnte 20:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reword as per Mirv, to clarify that no ownership is implied. Kusma (討論) 19:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Might need some improvement to remove any implication of article "ownership" but I like this template and the ideas behind it. Let's give it a chance to develop. android79 19:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a good idea. But I agree with android79.algumacoisaqq 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've always thought this feature should be built in to the Mediawiki software. I'm glad I found it.
  • Strong keep, per everybody else. Perhaps needs tweaking to alleviate Android's concerns, but otherwise good.--Sean|Black 20:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Matt Crypto 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No matter how the message is worded, it's going to smack of asserting ownership over an article and discourage others from contributing. Questions about an article should be made on the article's talk page, not directly to the maintainers. —Psychonaut 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite the guideline/policy that suggests the statement you just made. I (and I'm sure others) have been contacted multiple times about different articles. The sole purpose isn't simply to act as contact points, though, and your statement that the wording cannot be fixed is baseless. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 23:28
      • The guideline about posting questions and comments on the article talk page is called "common sense". As a collaborative encyclopedia, a reader is far more likely to get a useful response if he posts a public message rather than a private one. To suggest that a reader do otherwise also implies that the editors named on the template have more authority over the article than other editors. —Psychonaut 03:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about the current form of the message? There is no way that your original complaint is true now. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 20:01
  • Keep. Jacoplane 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Use of the template subtly implies ownership, even if it is not explicitly worded as such. Sources should be in the body of the article. There should never be a need to contact anyone to verify information; the article should stand on its own. Use of this template will encourage people to not make self-standing articles. Kwertii 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
    • You are stating a lot of "shoulds", which would be fine, except Wikipedia currently doesn't exist in a perfect state. I am simply acknowledging that, whereas you are hindering its development. An article can be filled with sources, but a reader still has no reason to trust its contents, since the article can easily be vandalized. This template lets them have some trust in the article, or at least contact someone who can verify information presented in the article, information which may not be laid out in any sources (for example, if the article was vandalized). — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-15 00:10
  • Possibly reword, but Keep. On the other hand, I'd like clear criteria for its use: it ought to be clear that multiple individuals can place it on the same talk page, and that it shouldn't be placed on highly controversial articles, where the issue of implied "ownership" could be much more serious. For example, I'd be very suspicious of the motives of someone who unilaterally claimed to be "maintaining" Libertarianism or Ted Kennedy. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a great idea and long overdue. If you don't like the wording in the template, then build a consensus for changing it. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Jmabel about avoiding it on controversial topics, but its use on most articles is undoubtedly a good idea. Brisvegas 09:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Kwertii. Also, any question someone might ask these editors is far better placed on the talk page, where everbody can see it (and profit from the answer). The argument that this is mostly to help newcomers who aren't familiar with Wiki isn't convincing to me: The template is supposed to go on the talk page, right? So if a newcomer figures out how to read the talk page, I'm sure they will figure out how to post their question there. Plus, I personally too check my watchlist far more often then my e-mails. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are multiple benefits of this template. You have only addressed one of those, ignoring the rest. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Delete readers do not want to see the nicknames of the editors - it totally ruins the image of the "serious encyclopaedia". Izehar (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On what is this claim based? Nobody has to edit the article to add their name to the list of knowledgeable people. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Keep this template might need some minor word revisions, but the idea behind it is good, and its meant mainly to show who knows the most about the article. Magicmonster 13:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think I like the idea behind this. It gives people an idea of who to ask if they need help working on an article, and moreover lets people know who to turn to if they encounter something that they don't think should be there.

--Vortex 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Ok, first, I see very little advantage to it compared to the history tab and watchlists from active editors. However, I think that it exposes us to some dangers. First, it implies an expert status to some editors, whether that is the intent or not. Second, it suggests some form of ownership of an article, that an article is a particular editor's playground or fenced in yard, although that is probably not the intent of the creator. Finally, if we use the template strictly as the author does intend, to indicate an emergency contact number, as it were, on the vandal playgrounds, there would be a creeping suggestion that all articles need such angels, such protectors, and such ministers and advocates. So, I see three reasons why this template does "harm" and no distinct harm that it cures. Rather than saying, "Please don't use this template," I have to say delete, because I think we would need to demonstrate an acute need and prove that this template is a wholly satisfactory curing of that need before we should willingly face the three dangers I list above. Geogre 12:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of advantages to it. For one, if there's a sign that says someone is watching over the article, it means two things: One is that either a vandal's desire to vandalize could be deterred, or quickly reverted. The other is that a more civilized user wishing to contribute to or correct an article can do so in the knowledge that there's at least one person other himself concerned enough with the topic to wish to maintain it, and can do so without worry. So, it seems to me that whatever objections you have to the template pale in comparison to how mcuh good this template could do. --Cjmarsicano 21:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Following your logic, vandals will then eagerly vandalize pages without the notice, because they think no one is watching them. Maybe we need a general notice on all pages stating that users are watching every page. The current template which names names and excludes other users has too many negative effects, and too few positive ones. -- Rmrfstar 02:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not to deter vandals. The point is to let readers know we are protecting the article against vandals. 71% of mainspace articles are unwatched, so it will be fairly easy for vandals to find unwatched pages. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:13
  • Delete - remind me what is the point of the talk page again... If someone has a question regarding an article then that can be left on the article's talk page. Moving this flow of information off to user talk pages sounds counter-ituitive to me and only serves to setup cliques. Thanks/wangi 13:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course the talk page can be useful, but why can't this be useful as well? It is useful as both assurance that the article is being watched for vandalism, and that someone can be contacted directly through email regarding sources/facts/verification. You have not addressed any of this. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:09
  • Delete useless: duplicates already existing functionality (history/talk).  Grue  17:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have only addressed one of its benefits. There are several, and they combine to make this template better than any individual other item. That's why it is necessary. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
    • Of course the talk page can be useful, but why can't this be useful as well? It is useful as both assurance that the article is being watched for vandalism, and that someone can be contacted directly through email regarding sources/facts/verification. You have not addressed any of this. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:09
  • Strong Keep This is extremely helpful when you have a question to ask about some statement made in an article, but nobody is reading the Talk page anymore. Remember, this is a huge encyclopedia, and people might miss important edits on their watchlist. It's totally harmless and does not claim ownership over anything. Ashibaka tock 23:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template appears to have been made just a few days ago, on the 13th of December 2005. It adds articles to the Maintained articles category, also created around the same time. I note that there appear to be at least 141 articles which are now in that category. While I did not check each one, I did check a few, and each has the template, and I saw at least 5 different editors listed as a contact for that article, that is, that multiple editors chose to add the template. I therefore conclude that this template serves a need, and is already being adopted and has the potential to be in widespread use. Note also that as other editors have commented, non wikipedians may not be familiar with the mechanics of looking up article history to determine who a good contact person might be. I do think that refinement of the wording to clarify that it's a person that wants to be helpful, not an "owner", that is being listed, might still be in order (although I note people have already been working on it), but that is not an argument for Delete. NB, I am inclusionist. ++Lar 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, attempts at ownership of articles are a direct and egtregious violation of Wikiquette. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
    • Please do not voice your disapproval of the template by deleting it from talk pages. See Talk:Anglo-Saxon literature. --Stbalbach 04:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll be needing to point me to the part of this template that claims ownership over articles. —Locke Cole 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you've violated guidelines to correct what you believe are "violations of guidelines". Interesting... — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 08:27
    • Ok, why do you say that's POINT instead of BOLD? After all, we're to be bold in editing. Now, what if there is a topic of controversy. I'm working on, let's say, Oroonoko, and someone has a contrary point of view. That person slaps on the Maintained template and proclaims herself the patroller of Oroonoko. I can't remove it? I can't say, "This person doesn't actually understand Aphra Behn and certainly doesn't understand this novel?" Instead, I (if I were less known to the community) would be the presumed intruder. I would have to justify to everyone around that I do know the subject, that I am a scholar of Restoration and Augustan literature? All because someone with a controversial view slapped on a template? We don't have to wait for hypothetical harms: these comments show that it is already occurring. Second case: someone puts the maintained template on Oroonoko and lists me. I don't want to be contacted. I'll fix the article any time people mess it up, but I don't want to chat with every college freshman assigned the novel in a class who wants me to write his paper for him. I don't want the members of the Aphra Behn Society asking me my real name so that they can chat with me or bother me at the next conference. Too bad, eh? I either have to be a second rate voice on the article, or I have to be Mr. Sociable, and all because this template says so? Geogre 13:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a guideline for that to the template's talk page. See how productive work is accomplished? If you think that guideline is not good enough, please, suggest another! This is much more productive than just assuming that the template will only be placed on controversial articles and that it therefore should not exist. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 14:29
    • How about an indication that there must be consensus on a talk page for the list of patrollers before the template can be used? That way, if I see that I am listed, I have to agree to it, and if I see that someone with a fancy for an article but not expertise has become annointed, I can object. At least that would forestall this set of harms. It doesn't change my view, however. I think we have more templates than users can even find, much less use, and I think this one accomplishes few benefits while exposing us to damage. However, a requirement of consensus would prevent this being used as a weapon in an RFC or its being used to promote a controversialist's campaign. Geogre 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this template encourages people to be more responsible for certain articles and also gives some increased sense of verification to those articles that are more likely to be accurate. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not totally sold on this as a great idea, but like many above I think it's worth continuing the experiment for a while. I certainly wish users would stop --pending the outcome of consensus-seeking discussions such as this-- the petulant deletions of these templates where they have been used. It's really contemptuous. Pete.Hurd 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have not used this template myself; it being brand new, most editors presumably have never heard of it. But it seems like a possibly useful concept, one that I can imagine using myself. Allowing editors to volunteer themselves as resources for particular pages might often be useful; and is not the same as imposing a requirement to get permission for edits. Give it a chance! If this is around and non-productive for six months, renominate it. But don't kill the idea after a week. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally liked the idea of using this template, but I see now that I was only giving in to satisfy my feelings of ownership of a few articles. Nevermind that. There are very few good effects of this template. Posting a comment on a talk page doesn't need to be any easier and discussion of an article should be kept on Wikipedia for everyone to read, for obvious reasons. Also, as was said above, the articles should be completely (within Wikipedia) stand-alone, such a template encourages and expresses the idea that an article can be confusing, or incomplete etc. and that a reader can email a contributor if they have any questions. -- Rmrfstar 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have ignored all the benefits of the template. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Delete as gross policy violation - connotes ownership of the article, however it may have been intended. I've kludged onto it that it does not connote such, but it still needs to die - David Gerard 19:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Current version rates a neutral - I'm still not sure it's a good idea at all, but it doesn't make me want to shoot it - David Gerard 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is nonsenseible. You said yourself that the wording just needs to be changed. But, instead, you'd rather delete it? Without even giving it a chance? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 19:27
  • Delete. However sugarcoated the words, it is a disinvitation to those not in the club to edit the article. In order to view the template, the user must navigate to the talk page anyway--interested editors can watch the talk page, which is how I've gotten "in touch" with the editors of specific articles in the past. Whatever marginal benefit emailing individual users about article content has (and since when was that such a great idea?) it is countered by putting this perimeter around articles. Note: this disinvitation is inherent in the very idea of making a list of editors, so for me it's not a matter of "fixing the wording". Demi T/C 19:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a list of editors. Nobody needs to add a single word to the article to be able to add themselves to the template. It is only recommended that they have knowledge of the contents, for the template to be useful, since that is the point of the template: to be useful to readers. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:42
  • Neutral although I respect the reasoning behind the deletion votes, some template like this may be suitable for topics where popular understanding and serious scholarship may be at odds. Such articles may have unsuitably long talk pages. Well intentioned readers sometimes insert information in the belief that some omission is an oversight (for example, by adding "January 6" to [[Joan of Arc|Joan of Arc's] birthdate). Sometimes a notion gains a popular following even though the academic community rejects it unanimously. See scalping. The problem with this template is its potential for abuse by partisan editors. Durova 20:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we needed a template like this. QQ 22:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Filiocht had it right all the way up there, and Geogre makes some good points too. "Active monitors" ought to be obvious from the talk page anyway, and will have it on their watchlist. If people want to know about sources or anything else, they can leave a query on the talk page. The template doesn't need tweaking, it needs to be disposed of. --ajn (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have only criticized one of the benefits of the template. There are several, and they combine to make it better than any one thing currently offerred. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Delete - Geogre has very persuasively demonstrated the potential problems that could arise with this template. Worldtraveller 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • His criticisms were of an older version of the template. Can you please look at the new version??? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
    • Of course there can be problems, but that's why there are guidelines, which the community can add to. Why trash the whole thing when several people obviously think it useful? Please assume good faith, I am in no way trying to take ownership of an article. Have you seen the new version of the template? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 02:42
      • It is possible to assume that your every intention is aboveboard, forthright, well-meaning, and completely without guile or malice, while still believing that you are wrong. Nothing about the former precludes the latter. Nothing about the latter indicates an abandonment of the former. Reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 03:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has the potential to create more problems than it solves. Zocky 04:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you won't even give it chance? You'd rather delete it for its "potential problems", than try to fix those problems? They call this a "discussion" at the top of the page. It really is a joke. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 05:24
  • Delete - no benefit - articles should stand on their own - if they need sources or clarification, add them, don't list yourself as a "maintainer"(i.e. according to FOLDOC: "The person responsible for coordinating changes"); discussion about articles should be publically viewable on the wiki, not in private, non-archived, hidden discussion via email. This is a basic violation of the transparency of Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please be aware that the TfD notice for this template has been removed, subtly hidden in "noinclude" tags (so it will appear to people checking it directly that it has the notice, but will fail in it's intended purpose of publicizing the discussion) and made effectivly unreadable (via a application of "small" tags to the already very small text) multiple times. (I only reverted the "small" trick just now; otherwise, it has been in place the whole time this TfD has been running - if that's not abuse of the process, I'm not sure what it is.) Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 3, part 2. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Im not defending the use of small fonts in this case and had no part in it, but small fonts are used all over Wikipedia in official and unofficial capacity, to say it was "hidden" and made unreadable is an inaccurate portrayal.--Stbalbach 15:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Making it small was just an attempt to make it less annoying, since others were complaining. Maybe the TFD folks could bother to improve the notice's appearance. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:57
  • Keep. This template is a novel idea. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete History/talk/watchlist/community collaboration pages is enough IMHO. Assuming that "more people read their email than the watchlists" is wrong in my case at least --- when I get an email from the Wikipedia, I will usually perceive this as a "push" attempt to make me deal with some WP issues when I have my daytime activities pressure on me for doing other things (yes, I know that I can autosort them all into a special folder). The watchlist is a "pull" interface, which I may prefer to use whenever I like. Also, the template usage can easily become stale and mislead others (making them think --- well, if it's maintained, I shouldn't bother reviewing the changes too hard)... I do see the benefits for some of the users as stated by them, but personally I feel the negative arguments outweigh them. For the active supporters of either delete or keep, please don't jump the decision and don't abuse the process (removing the TfD from pages/the small font trick/whatever). BACbKA 10:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've only criticized one of the benefits of the template. There are several. They combine to make this template better than any one thing currently available. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:56
  • Delete, per nominator. --NormanEinstein 15:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator was complaining about an older version of this template. Have you even looked at the changes that have been made? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:56
      • The nominator has followed the changes in wording and the attempts to disguise the TfD tag with interest and would still like to see this template deleted. The question of article ownership is not one I addressed, but there is clearly a degree of concern about this. I am more worried by the fact that this template will tend to remove content discussions from the public forum of article talk pages to the private forum of editors' e-mail inboxes. This is a very bad thing is wiki terms. I am further concerned by the assumption that anyone who votes to delete is not assuming good faith, with the hanging implication that they are acting in bad faith. I always get concerned when proponents of anything feel it necessary to question every single vote against them. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even with new wording, it still strongly conveys an assertion of ownership or, at the least, an assertion that some editors are more equal than others (with no guarantee, as they are self-appointed, that they are genuinely worth contacting regarding verification or sources). What if a POV warrior applies this tag? Tearlach 23:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are guidelines for that, and new guidelines can be created. The whole concept shouldn't be trashed on the basis of a "what if". — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 05:12
  • Delete - To find notable contributors look at the history instead. Connotates ownership/elitism. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How could it possibly connotate ownership when the template says: this does not connote any form of article ownership?? Did you even look at the template? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 05:14
      • Connotation is in the eye of the beholver. Just because it says that it does not have that connotation, doesn't mean that users won't interpret and act on the template in that way. Ripe for abuse, this template goes against wiki spirit and should be deleted IMO. BTW, don't assume bad faith. I looked at the template and carefully considered its possible uses. Finding frequent editors via history and article talk pages are more open. Use of this template will harm wikipedia IMO. I have had problems with people claiming that all edits need to be approved by themselves, and having this template available will increase/legitimize such behavior IMO. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The whole point of connotation is that it isn't a literal thing; that is, no amount of saying "this does not connote ownership" will prevent it from doing so. Demi T/C 05:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this does not imply ownership, merely that stated user is an expert in this field.  ALKIVAR™ 00:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And how do we know that's true? Tearlach 00:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'll find out as soon as you ask the person a question about the subject. Please assume good faith on the part of the "expert". — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 05:11
        • Comment: reasonable anticipation of problems isn't a breach of good faith. Many Wikipedia fundamentals - such as Wikipedia:Cite sources and WP:NPOV - are built on the assumption that edits might be unreliable or biased. Design of any template should consider the possibility and consequences of its misuse, and this one is a gift to POV warriors and wannabe article owners. Tearlach 13:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It makes it look like ownership, goes against all that is wikipedia. -- Jbamb 05:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting idea, but ultimately useless and counter-productive in practice. Unintentionally establishes a "class hierarchy" within articles, whereby new editors are less important to the article than the old editors who self-listed themselves. Also, in the long run, these userlists will slowly grow out-of-date and cluttered by trivial entries over time, as editors drift away from articles or from Wikipedia altogether without bothering to update the dozens of lists they could have put themselves on in the past; as a result, when the exceedingly rare time comes when a list like this actually could prove useful, in theory, it probably won't prove useful in practice because the list won't accurately reflect who's watching the list as well as simply checking the recent History and Talk page entries surely will. Also, for well-populated articles like Jesus and George W. Bush, lists like this could easily grow to be pages and pages in length, and become even more useless due to obsolete entries. Simply not worth it. This sort of box is alien to the very idea of Wikipedia, and will ultimately cause more harm than good by establishing an artificial and arbitrary class division between editors working on an article. -Silence 06:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am moved by the concerns that this template implies ownership of articles, even though I realize that is not the idea behind it at all. I also think that it is slightly redundant with the history function where you can easily see who has been contributing what to the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per George. Raul654 17:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand the good intentions of this template and realize that it's not implying ownership. That said, this template has too many disadvatages and not enough advantages to justify its use. I agree with comments made by Filocht and Geogre and also have a few concerns of my own. Who decides what users should be listed in the template? Who's job is it to maintain a "Maintained" template? Users regularly go on Wikibreak or stop editing certain articles, yet their names will be left on templates all across Wikipedia. What about users who turn out not to be especially knowledgeable or helpful on a certain article? Can other users remove their name from the template? How is a template on the talk page going to stop the casual vandal given that the vast majority never even look at the talk page? I agree with what's trying to be accomplished here, but this template doesn't seem like the best way to achieve that goal. Carbonite | Talk 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. Weak arguments all around on the anti-template side of this debate. In reality, there is no way that the template conveys ownership or original creation (the latter would be the focus of another template entirely). Therefore, let me modify and reinforce my vote to read: Very, very, very, super-strong KEEP as per everyone else that has seen fit to support this. --Cjmarsicano 17:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This template seems to me like treating wikipedia as some sort of "club". People shouldn't assert nor consider themselves as "maintainers" or any such artificial title, because that is a form of egotism and exclusion of others, direct or indirect. Andyluciano 00:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template:Vwatched

Pointless template - adds nothing to the article. Should never have been created and should never be used. Raul654 01:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this becomes widely used, won't the absence of it encourage vandals even more? Kusma (討論) 01:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (creator): This was created for use on high-profile pages that would normally be protected, particularly pages describing current events. Protection of such pages allows out-of-date or incorrect information to remain for a prolonged period of time during the peak viewing time of the page. The intent of the template is to allow such pages to be unprotected, allowing editorial collaboration on the live article, while notifying vandals that their usual right to deface a page three or four times before being dealt with doesn't apply.
         A notable example is the Stanley Williams article, whose subject was executed earlier today, which was protected for much of the time leading up to and after the event. The template was created and placed there as an alternative to continuing a prolonged protection, and the article was positively edited by many editors with very little vandalism (and no major vandalism). The template was in place for just under an hour before being removed by Raul654 (nominator). I disagree that the template will encourage vandalism; it simply points out that vandalism on that page is dealt with more immediately than usual, not that vandalism on other articles isn't dealt with. // Pathoschild 02:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep useful as an extreme warning. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The very presence of this warning will encourage vandalism, if not on the article in question, then on other articles. Let the vandals assume by default that all articles are closely watched for vandalism, which is usually the case anyway. —Psychonaut 02:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Useless. An extreme warning contributes nothing to Wikipedia articles, as there are already countless tags for such matters as "controversial topics". If it isn't currently locked to deal with vandalism, we shouldn't discourage valid contributions to articles with intimidating. Just continue to revert vandalisms as we always have. As soon as we brand perfectly good articles with big ugly boxes just because of vandalism, the vandals win: they've successfully made a strong impression, and can gladly continue their efforts on this and other articles when they want a similar amusing reaction, a sort of "badge of honor" for the hard work they've put into messing with others' hard work. -Silence 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use on George W. Bush. If the only other alternative is protection, this is a good last ditch effort to preserve the Wiki-way. Firebug 03:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you realize that GWB will still have to be proteted from vandalism when it gets out of control, completely regardless of whether the tag is here. There is no "other option", this is just a poorly-thought-out and meaningless overlabeling that will in the end only cause more vandalisms and subsequent page protections for every article that ever uses it, GWB included. -Silence 06:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Television 3

Delete, not used →AzaToth 00:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

Template:XD6

Experimental deletion is not an approved Wikipedia process, and implementation of it is not appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get rid of the ever increasing crap on WP, this is a GOOD IDEA (probably one of the best). I just found it, but now your telling me not to use it!! Weird!--Light current 23:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking of Wikipedia content is not an acceptable method of getting articles deleted. The CSD and AfD processes are the only methods approved by Wikipedia consensus. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subst:NPOV and Template:Subst:Prettytable

These templates are pointless because the leading subst: stops them from being used. Susvolans ⇔ 19:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, ugly, waste of the Wiki. --Computerjoe 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pittsburgh Universities

Delete: Cumbersome; Better served by Category:Universities and colleges in Pittsburgh 141.151.176.253 13:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FFII

Navigational Aid between pages that have now been merged together. Redundent. Speedy Delete if possible. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)


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

Tools

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

Closing discussions

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

To review

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

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Other

  • See Primefac's note above. Just keep using the existing templates. They will be converted for you during the merge process, whenever it happens (these merges sometimes take a while, as you can see above). When the conversion is done, the merged template will support the features that you need. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's helpful. Is there a change that could be usefully made to the display text in {{being deleted}}? Or maybe the assumption is that no one reads beyond the first line anyway. Thincat (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meta

  • None currently

To convert

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

To substitute

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

  • None currently

To orphan

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

Ready for deletion

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

  • None currently

Listings

December 21

Template:Stars

Adds an extra three levels of metatemplate cruft to album infoboxes, solely to add alt text to an image (which is already there in many cases, sometimes in superior form). If the alt text is that important, it can be added by a bot. —Cryptic (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm all for getting the proper alt-text but this is not the way (bot?). Using the switch and the template is a needless waste of resources. This template is not likely to change... we are not likely going to get new stars (if we did we'd just change the image anyways) so I see no use to this template. gren グレン 06:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong KEEP!. I've seen this start to be flowed onto Album infoboxes. All it is, is an easier way to flow ratings from AllMusic.com and elsewhere into the infobox. Never throw oout something useful, it would be like replacing the hatch on a submarine with a screen door, or replacing the healthy food in your fridge with junk food. --Cjmarsicano 06:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, please spare our servers the torture, and help fix it instead. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now. In terms of usability, it seems much easier to me, especially the way you type for a half star: {{stars|2.5}} instead of [[Image:2hv stars out of 5.png|2.5 stars out of 5]], which always felt very unintuitive. Very few people bother with typing alternate text, because editing gets done by imitation (for the most part) and no-one else is doing it. Imitation isn't that hard to master, so I'm not very moved by the argument that it is a burden to learn a handful of characters worth of syntax. I'm equally unmoved by the fact that "almost all of them [placed] by User:ScudLee" – he attempted to discuss the idea at Project albums talk page, no one objected or even responded really, and no-one else really bothered about the work as much as he did. However, if there is an extra burdon on servers then that's not good, but I can't really comment on that aspect because I wouldn't know what I'm talking about. Could we use subst: to get around this problem? Having read the talk page for the template, it's quite clear that subst will be much worse than just typing out [[Image:..]] --Qirex 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, shouldn't the TFD notice go on the template talk page so as not to screw up all those infoboxes?? See for example To the Extreme --Qirex 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only way some people will even know this template is up for deletion is if the notice is on the template itself (not the talk page). I moved it from the talk page so it would, hopefully, get a fair shake here at TfD.. (otherwise, it's possible it would get deleted without a proper debate). Yes it makes it ugly, but plenty of other templates face TfD and deal with the ugly factor; it's an effective means of informing editors that a template they might use is being considered for deletion. (Now if only IfD had a way of superimposing a notice over an image when it's up for deletion...) —Locke Cole 08:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The template is one of the best ideas that I've seen in a while, and yet you're considering it for deletion? --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not useful enough to justify the expense.--Sean|Black 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Creator). There is a secondary purpose to this template which I neglected to mention when I created it. My intention from the start was to replace the existing stars with images of my own. These images have a transparent interior, allowing the actual color of the stars to be decided by the background of a surrounding span tag. This is only really feasible if it is handled within a template. Because they have a different appearance to the current stars, I was going to do the switchover once I'd replaced all usages, to maintain consistency, that, perhaps, was a mistake. - Lee (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not just the template, but because it only works on 5 stars. If it were to work for 3/4 or 8/10 it would be a std approach to handling ratings. KittenKlub 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Largely on the strength of the strain on the servers, this becomes "Expense" which should be avoided, except for Real benefit. Tha's not quite the right way to put it, functionally this is a really good idea, but so is KittenKlub's (see last post). Personally the I believe the whole thing should be rethought and the issue of star ratings of different number base's included in the reworking. Ratings out of 10 are very common and should be allowed for, please come up with a more comprehensive solution (i.e. various start ratings) but with minimal server impact. Kevinalewis 10:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be fairly trivial to introduce a second parameter to handle the total number of stars without breaking current usage (it can default to 5). It would mean drawing even more images to handle all the cases, but other than that, that doesn't present a problem. - Lee (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can do all that and remove the need for the metatemplate you would provide the holy grain of star rating templates! Kevinalewis 11:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's easy enough to learn new syntax if it's for the good as far as the servers go. I'm a new user but would be happy to copy others' use of the new (or old) syntax. Crazyale 12:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

Template:Church and Template:Vatican

Template:Lennonist

Delete. As is noted on the talk page, this is just a duplicate of Template:User lennonist. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 19:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phnom Penh infobox

Already merged: Single-use template, already merged into article. Golbez 09:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Self-rule

Doesn't belong in the template namespace. — Dan | talk 06:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unimage

  • Ambigious copyright tag, the text basically says we don't know the copyright of this image. Images in this category should be dealt with under the existing fair use system, delete.--nixie 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepNeutral Specifies the image to be UN property. Maybe the UN will grant us rights to use their images sometime in the future. Then we will be lamenting the loss of this template. Ashibaka tock 01:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they do, we can always undelete it. Delete for now. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Jbamb 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we shouldn't encourage people to use this tag, and there's few images currently using it so no big deal cleaning it up. JYolkowski // talk 03:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If rewritten, this template could be used to indicate UN ownership and used together with an appropriate license tag. But we already ahve a general tag for images with no copyright or license information. DES (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have rewitten this to make it clar that it specifies ownership, not copyright status. i have looked at every image tagged with this, and all now have another image tag specifing their licensaing status, although in some cases it is {{no license}} and in a number of cases it is {{fairusein}}, some of which are also tagged with {{fairusereview}}. Under these cericumstances, i think this template and the associated category is useful for indicating the source/copyright of images derived from UN publications, although it is obviously not enough to indicate the licensing status. DES (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to rewrite by DES. Agnte 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How do you plan to notify users about source templates? Obviously this tag even as re-written is inappropriate for listing on the image copyright tag page, as it does not assert anything about copyright. Unless someone plans to roll out a new system for image source tags, the tag is still quite useless and should not be used in place of correct source information.--nixie 23:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the UN owns it, how are we going to prove permission to use? -- Jbamb 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some UN sources explicitly grant permission for general reuse. Some give permisisons addresses, to which a user can write, just as with any other request for permission. Some are old enough to be PD. Many have good fair use claims. Some we won't be able to use, and will need to be propmptly deleted. And in some cases an image may have been published by a UN agency, but the copyright is not in the UN. This tempalte really just adds some info about the provonance of the iamges in question, and groups them into a reasoanble category.DES (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian Broadcast Television

Delete: Redundant with {{Broadcast Television}} (which contains everything in this template except for the logos), and the logos are not fair use on this template. Ronald20 ☎ ✎ 01:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; explanation found here. Will remove logos. — Stickguy 14:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the logo issue out of the way, I'd actually prefer having separate templates for Canada, the United States and Mexico to having a single one that combines all three. Keep this (albeit with a rename to fix the capitalization), and delete the unified template (but create separate Mexico and US templates if they don't already exist). Bearcat 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

Template:Dubious

Breaks article flow and improperly injects the reader into page content disputes (which was the primary objection raised against Template:Afd-noconsensus and Template:Twoversions). It also contains a cross-namespace link to the article talk page. Firebug 23:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and per User:Agentsoo at Template talk:Dubious. (For the record, his comment was, "Sites that reproduce our articles rarely reproduce the Talk pages, and certainly any printed version would not. It seems to break the normal rules of namespace boundaries. A simple note that the fact is disputed seems adequate, and readers can consult the Talk page if they so desire.") --Idont Havaname 05:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's quite OK for it to cross link to discussion since dubious content should not be in wikipedia, an article marked like this is a work in progress. This is very different from where the actual subject matter is in dispute, there you have both views etc. Here it's wikipedia's description of the subject, not the subject itself that is in dispute. 67.165.96.26 16:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia does not draw a line between "work in progress" articles and "finished articles", if only because all of our articles are (at least for now) very much in the former category. If part of an article is disputed then it should be moved to the Talk page until a source can be found. Yes, this is sometimes tedious (as I discovered with this, where there's still lots of stuff on the Talk page), but the alternative is much worse. This existence of this template implies an "official" attitude to Talk-namespace links that is simply incorrect. The sooner it's deleted the better. Soo 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I have a question for you: how should people deal with things like this paragraph. I added this tag on a paragraph that just didn't make sense to me, and especailly after seeing other people have the same concern on the talk page. However someone wrote it, and (especially) maybe I am missing something, so didn't want to just delete it. OTOH I didn't want a huge box at the top of the page or section marking DISPUTED, since it really wasn't a very big issue. This tag was perfect, but I'm open to other suggestions. 67.165.96.26 20:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep give a more succient warning tag. Much like NPOV section. J. D. Redding 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please -- at least long enough for me to deal with a dispute at Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky#Biography. <>< tbc 08:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Language link; also equivalent Template:Ll

Subst and delete: Worse than useless. Doesn't save significant typing; is supposed to be always used with subst, but often isn't; confuses newbie editors; if subst is used then the template doesn't even save any typing. Equivalent Template:Ll is absolutely mystifying to newbie editors when used without subst. - Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the inappropriateness of this template is underlined by the hideous way this is showing up in articles now that I tagged it with {{tfd}}: most of the time it's sitting in the middle of prose. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I changed {{tfd}} to {{tfd-inline}} to fix that issue. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AustraliaGov

Template:SummersEve

Template:Parappa

Template:Lowercase-Apple

Delete, and put all articles with this template back into {{lowercase}}.: This is template-creep. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK A

This and Template:UK B don't appear to be used. Their function is to convert code such as {{UK A|50}} to [[A50 road|A50]], a saving of 5 characters for a two-digit road (and no saving at all if used with subst:). I'm nominating it for deletion because bulk use of this template (such as this previous version of List of B roads in Great Britain) would seem to be unnecessary server load. sjorford (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Both templates created by User:SPUI - I would have posted a note on his talk page, but I don't think I want to tread in it. ;) sjorford (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK B

Please see the discussion of Template:UK A above.

Template:ContraSub

Delete. Unlike templates such as {{disputed}} and {{pov}}, this tag is intended to permanently reside within "controversial" articles, warning users against editing without prior discussion (a very un-wiki instruction). Thus far, it's been added to Pedophilia and Gay Nigger Association of America. While these obviously are controversial subjects, the same is true of countless other topics (particularly those of a political or religious nature). Should we be branding all such articles with this template? We already have {{controversial}} for talk pages, and it's entirely inappropriate for a similar (actually stricter, because {{controversial}} merely instructs users to read the talk page before editing) tag to encroach upon the actual articles. —Lifeisunfair 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

Template:S

Delete: Only used to present a Unicode character. Wikiacc (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mexico Broadcast Television

Delete: Redundant with {{Broadcast Television}} (which contains everything in this template except for the logos), and the logos are not fair use on this template. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the reasons listed above. Or better yet, extract the Mexican portion of the misnamed Broadcast Television template and transplant it into this template, do the same for the Canadian portion into the Canadian Broadcast Television template, and then create a United States broadcast template for the rest (and then lower-case the first two templates). BlankVerse 03:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the logos, but keep; my preference would be for Mexican, Canadian and American television to each have their own separate template rather than getting combined into a unified North American box. Broadcast television in North America simply isn't that closely intertwined. Bearcat 19:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. – Adrian | Talk 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 17

Template:Policylist

A) We don't need goofy cartoon pictures making our policy pages look like jokes. B) Perfectly adequately addressed by categories. C) Overly selective. D) The world does not need more ugly boxes. Phil Sandifer 23:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UKUSA Community

Delete: This template was used only on the UKUSA Community article, and I've subst'ed it there already. It has no potential to be used elsewhere. NormanEinstein 21:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: BostonInfoBox

Delete: It's a template used for only one article, namely Boston, Massachusetts. Furthermore, it's sufficiently the same as Template:Infobox City. Plus, Infobox City is nicely standard. --Mark Adler (Markles) 12:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Afd-noconsensus

Delete. An article is either deleted or kept. The failure to reach a consensus does not reduce an article to a lower status, and we already place notices on the corresponding talk pages. —Lifeisunfair 12:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Why would an AFD result of "no consensus" have any bearing on whether or not someone would want to read an article? → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Exposes too much of the workings of Wikipedia to the casual reader. Also, as per nom and the guy with the big sig above me. :) FreplySpang (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gives the false impression that "no consensus" is not functionally "keep", which it is. Other templates already allow one to note that the result was "no consensus". Also, the "You may wish to take this into consideration when deciding whether or not to read this article." is horrifyingly POVed and presumptive. -Silence 14:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perplexed by the link to the deleted page notice, which invites the reader to pretend that the page has been deleted and protected. —Lifeisunfair 14:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unused template with no apparent use. BDAbramson T 02:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Correction

Delete. From the newbie that brought us {{spoiler3}} comes {{correction}}, a template used to sign articles (and take credit for specific corrections), as seen here and here. —Lifeisunfair 01:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a template: If there's a mistake, fix it!--Sean|Black 01:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ironic how "corection" is mis-spelled there. BDAbramson T 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, per my interpretation of §G1 and §G2 →AzaToth 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible. This style of editing is severely inappropriate, and the creation of a template to edit articles this way is ridiculous:
    1. Article mistakes should be fixed.
    2. Conflicting opinions should be resolved on talk pages.
    3. The template consists of almost zero code, and therefore does not actually make any kind of editing, disruptive or not, easier. This strikes me as a deliberate attempt to legitimise the edits.
    4. The way in which the user signs their name to these corrections runs contrary to Wikipedia policy.
--Qirex 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler3

Delete. Another spoiler template. Yuck! It uses the text-hiding method (which is listed on the spoiler warning guideline page as an "unacceptable alternative"). —Lifeisunfair 01:17/01:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 16

Template:Album_infobox_2

It's time to put this one out of its misery. If the discussion when this deletion was first proposed wasn't (quite) convincing (archived here [5] ), the choices of active editors are now clear. So far this month, for example, it's been used in only 14 new album articles; in contrast, the standard template has been used in more than 750. Overall, this template is currently used in just under 750 articles, while the standard template is used in nearly 10,000. Since nobody's made an argument against a uniform infobox style in album articles, and the preference of active editors is overwhelmingly clear, I can't see any reason not to Delete (with whatever cleanup of the existing use is required). Monicasdude 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about just setting it as a REDIRECT? There wouldn't be need for any cleanup. --Tokle 20:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PC

Delete: Do we really need templates for four articles relating to one brand that is only sold in one country? The name is ambiguous, since it could just as well be about personal computers or political correctness, and the template is unused. (Note: A template with the same name was deleted in July, but that template seems to have been about political correctness) Aecis praatpaal 20:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fancruft

Unused, does not warn of something that actually violates any written policies, is generally just a very dumb idea. Phil Sandifer 17:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fictional animals cat

Delete: First, this template is large and almost all of the entries are in alphabetical order. Second, it is currenty only used on category pages, no articles – thus redundant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK ties

delete: Orphaned at some point, {{UK ties2}} used in place of it. Thanks/wangi 12:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and redirect {{UK ties2}} to it. I prefer this version. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias - SoM 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias--Mais oui! 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{UK ties2}} is used only on United Kingdom. Subst either of these templates and then delete both. No need to clutter the template namespace with single-use templates that will only slow us down (in more ways than one). Chris talk back 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias(if you think its clutering up the template list then just delete it from the list - gawh ) --Whywhywhy 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the tfd notice was removed on the template, I've since added this back plus started a discussion on the Talk:United Kingdom#UK ties templates page regarding these three templates {{UK ties}}, {{UK ties2}} & {{UK ties3}} (2 of which are unused, 1 single use). It's probably a better place to discuss the way forward, but personally I think all three need to be deleted and the content subst in. Thanks/wangi 14:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:As the original creator of all three templates, I'm certainly fine with deleting them all and including the content in the page; good housekeeping and so forth. I'd like to find a way of archiving the old situation, however, for the historical record. Any ideas on how? Doops | talk 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:P-protected

And Category:Protected due to publicity

This template is for protection due to high visibility... which is unwiki and against current policy. We protect pages that have excessive vandalism ({{vprotect}}), but not before. In fact, the fact that an article was mentioned somewhere that it is getting attention is good and presents our face to new visitors. As well as the fact that new visitors represent a chance for our article to improve by their edits, and shouldn't be protected from them except in extraordinary circumstances. As well, it's in direct contradiction to WP:PPol, which says:

When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.

May also want to review User:Raul654/protection for the reasons behind this. Should be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom.--Sean|Black 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - regardless of the protection policy, recent events have made it clear that this is not the case, as Jimbo protected the Seigenthaler article prior to the CNN appearance, and Kyra Phillips was protected the moment she mentioned it. This ought not become regular behavior, however it is clear that there is a threshold at which point we protect, in which case this template is important. Note that this template also encourages users towards other articles that they can edit, mitigating many of the problems of "But we want the first article people hit to be editable" Phil Sandifer 07:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not about wanting the readers to be able to edit, it's about the encyclopedia. Editing is how our encyclopedia functions. In any case, this template is not a good way to make policy, or even common practice. If you want to propose this policy (which I would dispute at this point), do so, but don't put it into practice without consensus. Dmcdevit·t 08:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not putting it into practice. Jimbo already has put it into practice. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This template is an attempt to make it common practice without community support. You cannot pretend that Seigenthaler is an ordinary situation. The fact is that while Jimbo has the ultimate goal of our encyclopedia always in mind, he is sometimes out of touch with the specifics of how things work at a given time (a certain 17 second block comes to mind). He has worries other than editing here every day. If anything I would say this is a much more IAR necessitated action, rather than a new practice that is anything like policy yet. Dmcdevit·t 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not the ideal forum for policy considerations, which is the basis of Dmcdevit's objections. Besides, IMHO, that paragraph in WP:PPOL is unjustifiably optimistic (and appears to refer only to online sources, to boot), and should probably be changed. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but I think that this would make sense if there was a policy proposal... but right now it's just wrong. Nothing will reasonably be protected with this template. Dmcdevit·t 09:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, high volume public pages need some sort of label.  ALKIVAR™ 10:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No article should ever be "protected due to publicity", since the entire point of getting publicity for Wikipedia is to let people edit the article being publicized so the Wikipedia process gets the news out. Also, it's not a good habit to protect articles just because they're being vandalized; reverting vandalism is easy, and articles that are receiving lots of edits are also getting plenty of good editors in addition to the vandals. Protecting pages should only be used as an anti-vandalism measure in truly extreme cases, not as a regular, everyday tool (for the same reason articles featured on the main page aren't locked). All it takes to make sure that none of the vandalisms are slipping through is to do what I always do: do a compare between the current version and the version 20 or 30 edits ago, and see if any new vandalism has slipped in (particularly effective since I've found that major edits that aren't vandalism are relatively rare for high-publicity articles). In any case, this template is unnecessary and redundant to other templates that already address the "protected due to vandalism" and "prone to vandalism due to having been recently cited or linked to" issues. Also, embarrassingly self-referential and bloated; does it really need the "800,000" self-advertisement bit added at the end? -Silence 10:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may say that no article should ever be protected due to publicity, but Jimbo directly countered you on that one, so the objection is moot - he had John Seigenthaler Sr. protected before going on CNN. As for the self-advertisement bit, yes - the expectation is that the page in question is going to be the first Wikipedia page hit by a huge swarm of people who do not know much about Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already know that Jimbo directly countered me on this one, as you've already stated it above. This would certainly influence my vote, were it not for the simple matter.. that Jimbo is wrong. Templates like this will do nothing but embarass Wikipedia and stunt it's growth at times when it most needs to be consistent and open to new contributions and exploration of the editing process. The best response to vandalism is reversion, not protection; protection should be the exception, for only the most brutal cases of vandalizing—not the norm. And if there's a vandalism storm going on, whether the article's being frequently populated right now or not isn't irrelevant, as the problem's still the same. -Silence 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of how grave my misunderstanding is, Jimbo doesn't become any more right no matter how many times one says "Jimbo did X". If my opinion is invalid because Jimbo is a god on earth whose will is not to be defied by the likes of mere mortals, then feel free to ignore my opinion, but that in itself will neither change it nor prevent me from expressing it. If our only purpose here is to interpret what we think Jimbo wants, not to interpret Wikipedia policy and goals and what's best for the articles, then we should probably skip the voting process on this issue altogether and just ask Jimbo to cast the only vote on the matter, then go with that. No need to run around in circles if the decision's pre-made, sure. But it's still a poor template that does not benefit Wikipedia.
  • Incidentally, based on what I know of the situation involving the articles that Jimbo protected, don't you think that it's more likely that he protected those articles because the ongoing news they were involved in directly related to Wikipedia? Plenty of articles get linked to and mentioned in the news all the time, but they don't usually get protected right off the bat; the difference here is not that the articles were especially prone to vandalism, but rather that vandalism was especially dangerous because Wikipedia's reputation was on the line due to the subject of the news being Wikipedia itself. So, even if protecting a page is warranted in such a situation, protecting it with a tag like this one is pointless and highly misleading. A tag involving the fact that the article is in the news because of itself (as was the case with John Seigenthaler Sr.) would be much more relevant and honest. -Silence 21:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again as per Silence's comments above. Thanks/wangi 14:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High profile articles might be what draws attention to wikipedia, but new users should spend some time getting to know the correct way to edit articles. They shouldn't be editing the first page they ever see. By the time they learn the ropes, the page that got them here will no longer be protected and they will be able to make whatever reasonable improvements they want. Kafziel 19:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete. Ugly, verbose, and unecessary. BlankVerse 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Publicity draws new experts to articles; those experts can't contribute if article is protected. 66.167.138.184 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete contrary to policy, based on a misuderstanding of Jimbo's actions in the Seigenthaler case; per Silence. It's a mistake anyone could have made, but it's still a mistake. Articles are not and should not be protected due to publicity; they are (sometimes) protected due to self-reference (i.e. the Main Page is particularly visible in Wikipedia therefore it is protected), the Seigenthaler (and Kyra) page's were particularly visible due to their subjects involvement with Wikipedia, therefore they were protected). JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the moment, and eventually Redirect to {{sprotect}}, when that comes online. I view this as a patch measure, since Semi-protection seems to cover the reasons for this template, but isn't operational yet. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 20:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the fact is, high profile pages are often protected to counter vandalism: deleting or keeping this template does not change how protection is used; although, the policy may need to be updated to indicate that protection is indeed often used when an article has been linked from a high-traffic area: Linking from the main page or major web sites is a common case where protection is used, the protection is no coincidence, and the message given by this template explains the reason for the protection more adequately in this common case than the vague one-liner given by {{vprotected}}. --Mysidia (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference

Delete Not used anywhere, seems to be redundant with {{Heartland Conference}}. --Sherool (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CHSUB

Delete: Template does nothing more than add article to a category (Category:Subdivisions of Switzerland) and add irrelevant text to the article page Mike5904 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; useless, noise only. Schutz 06:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC

Template:2004

Delete seems to be created by mistake, reads like the opening of a bio. Not used and not edited since December 2004. --Sherool (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

Template:Webber

Delete: Found on Wikipedia:Neglected articles, this oddity is a template from one editor warning other editors not to revert his edits. BDAbramson T 21:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mainarticles

Template not used. Superseded by {{main}}. CG 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supercbbox

Delete: It's unnecessary to have a infobox for every little thing. This template just contains information that can all easily be covered in the lead section. Also, it lists the title both on top and then again in Statistics for no apparent reason. And it's only used on a handful of articles, hardly filled-out in some of them (like Alias (comics)). All in all, it's not very helpful and rather chunky. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

Template:FrTed

Quotes from Father Ted are not all that relevant to a lot of our users, so they send a confusing message. Cute at the expense of effectiveness. FreplySpang (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. Userfying is probably the best solution; no one would object to this template if it was at, say, User:Jtdirl/FrTed, and the template would still have the exact same effect when someone typed {{User:Jtdirl/FrTed}}. It's having bad jokes and nonsense like this on the Template namespace that's a problem. -Silence 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Endspoiler

Unnecessary clutter; not particularly useful. — Dan | talk 23:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Behave

Ugly; puerile; redundant with the test templates. — Dan | talk 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If {{test}} is inappropriate, then nothing needs to be said at all. If it is the clear case of an honest mistake, the article can be reverted without further comment. If the same user does the same sort of thing more than once or twice, then he or she has moved on into vandalism. We all started here as newbies at one point or another; we didn't all go around messing up articles at random. Kafziel 15:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{test} is appropriate when the vandal/newbie made a test. It if was clearly simple vandalism ("Tom loves Sally" kind of thing), then it means nothing to them. I don't know if you've ever been on RC Patrol, but they don't understand it. I've even been asked what it meant. Izehar (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I don't care anymore. I'm withdrawing my "delete" vote.
  • Keep the redesigned version. Greatly improved, just about all the problems I had with the box are fixed now. Even the tone is better: stern, yet friendly. Good job, Ashibaka. -Silence 17:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But on the other hand, now that the "behave" catchphrase has been completely removed from the template (thank god), the template's name doesn't really having anything to do with its content, and may actually counteract the efforts of those who use it (i.e. a vandal is calmed down by the text, but then sees that the template is called "behave" and gets annoyed at the condescending word). So, I'm switching back to Delete, but move the current template to a new, more fitting name, since I actually like it and it will probably be quite useful to vandal-greeters. -Silence 17:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your excellent improvements have been reverted, so my above comments (after the first one, which still very much applies) are moot regarding the template. As such, strong delete; template will dramatically increase, rather than decrease, the amount of vandalism on Wikipedia. -Silence 19:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'changes' were rubbish. They completely misunderstood the whole point of the template and undermined its effectiveness. As to the suggestion that it would increase the amount of vandalism, obviously you don't spend your time dealing with vandalism. If you did you'd realise how nonsensical the claim is. It is specifically targeted at a type of lightweight vandalism and is designed in those cases to say "very funny, but please don't." Where it has been used in those cases it has worked. It is not intended to be used for real heavy vandalism. You don't seem to understand the different types of vandalism and the different tones that need to be used in dealing with them. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Routeboxint

I've been in a bit of a revert war on Interstate 76 (east) about this template (see [6] for its use). I have taken it here as suggested on IRC:

<DavidGerard> KILL IT WITH A STICK. <DavidGerard> that one should go to TFD as a complete eyesore.

I have created an alternate template, currently on Interstate 76 (east) (and on Talk:Interstate 76 (east) if it's reverted again), that includes much of the information with less space, and does not include the huge junction box (which only duplicates information in the exit list further down in the article). A long Interstate can be split into multiple articles like Interstate 80 in New Jersey to keep the size of the article, including the exit list, manageable. --SPUI (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Having twelve articles for I-80 is a very bad idea indeed, as I-80 spans CA, NV, UT, WY, NE, IA, IL, IL, OH, PA, NJ, and NY. When this fragmentation idea is extended to all inter-state interstates, there would be an explosion of little snippets that have no cohesion. The whole point of focusing on the inter-state identity of an interstate (especially the two-digit ones) is to show the regional or national interconnectivity of that road. The purpose of an interstate is to connect traffic flow without regard to the rather arbitrary/antiquated/historically-accidental state lines (or county lines). The purpose of an article for an interstate should be to focus on this national/regional aspect of interstates, not on some local's love-romance with how I-80 in the NYC suburbs in NJ is truly the most special and emotionally dear thing in some fan's life or whether the 17 mile stretch of I-29 in North Dakota was first in the nation to test the such-and-such road experimental pavement. The interstate articles should be focused on the user of that interstate to accomplish a traversal of that interstate (e.g., route planning of which that interstate is merely a portion of the route), not for heaping on some local's praise of his/her section. Sectionalism of interstates should be at best eradicated and at worst de-emphasized. Use of the interstate should be emphasized in the article for that interstate. — optikos 02:56 18 December 2005
    • Furthermore, if such a fragmentation of an interstate article would be pursued, be prepared for someone from Chicagoland to request that the I-80 freeway has an entirely different personality & word-name & toll-payment & governmental ownership than the I-294/I-80 concurrency, which in turn has an entirely different personality & word-name & governmental ownership than the I-80/I-94 concurrent freeway, which in turn has an entirely different personality & word-name than the I-80/I-90 concurrent toll-road, but I-94 (the Dan Ryan) has an entirely different personality & word-name than the I-80/I-94 concurrency. Be prepared to shatter I-80 into those tiny little articles too. This is further proof that shattering an interstate article into how the locals romance it is unwise, because it is a slippery slope that might have no end. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
      I recommend a state getting its own article if and only if it has the most information, and the article is deemed too big. (probably based on the wikipedia maximum recommended article length. If it's still too big after one is split, then the next biggest should be split, and so on.) I am against any further fragmentation; however, the toll roads themselves and so forth get their own, even if they are only part of an Interstate in that state. Ex: New York State Thruway, New Jersey Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike. Splitting every Interstate article into every state would be insane. --Chris 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or fork/split into a "slimmer, trimmer" version. I agree fields are underused in current template, but there really is no happy medium between listing every intersection (I really don't want to do that) and listing bigger junctions (which is what the junction box is there for) except a table. Tables in the current template look more concise. I can do without "Browse State Highways". This particular template wielded properly isn't an eyesore. --Rob 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why we need to list any intersections in the infobox. This information is already in text in the route description and in a table in the exit list; scrolling through the exit list makes it easy to find Interstate junctions (as they're shown with shields). --SPUI (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea of an infobox isn't to contain unique information. Most city infoboxes, for example, contain population and other info that is in the body of the article. The idea is create a concise overview of the interstate highway for people who just want the information quickly. The suggested replacement only contains the endpoints, the establishment date, and the useless links to the adjacent state highways in numerical order. I wouldn't mind if the state highways part were deleted from the template but the rest of routeboxint is fine. Listing the Interstate junctions provides a first level look at the important junctions. The detailed intersection tables are fine, but are a lot to go through for a quick scan. It will be even more cumbersome if all of the intersections, Interstate and state highway, for a coast-to-coast Interstate go onto the main page, or if it is necessary to go to a page for each state to see the Interstate junctions. --Beirne 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all as the template's creator I'm wondering why I wasn't informed of it's TFD. To continue, it has been accepted by the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways as well as other roadgeeks. The templates look good and can be shrunken if needed. Interstate 5, Interstate 90, etc. There is much more information packed into this template than in the othertemplate proposed at Talk:Interstate 76 (east). Also, the browse state highways should stay because it is needed for the CA, WA, KY, NH, TX, OH, PA, NJ Interstates so their routeboxes can connect with the individual state routeboxes/ other templates (Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways explains why) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shrink the damn thing if you don't kill it with a stick. It was three screens long on my laptop - David Gerard 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? Is page length a fossil fuel that must be conserved lest we run out? optikos 14:35 18 December 2005
      No, but the point of an infobox is to briefly list some standard important information. --Chris 22:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but shrink it. It's too wide, and far too long. Something I just recently noticed is the color scheme is sort of ugly. As for the SPUI one, it first of all must be discussed someplace other than here and there. My biggest problem is that any Interstate that goes through three states will be 1/2 taken up by those stupid state highway browsers, which I already hate. I know some of the highway guys like them, but I'd be interested to see what the rest of the Wikipedians think about them. Other than that, I don't have too much of a problem with SPUI's infobox. Maybe just add a bit here or there. However, many articles already use the old one. (In the event of any sort of change, all Routeboxint info that will be lost should be moved to the body of the article.) So therefore, I'm just in favor of cutting down on Template:Routeboxint by doing the following (this should cut it down to a quarter of the original on something like Interstate 84 (east)):
    • Perhaps lower the width.
    • Make interstate junctions much smaller, by limiting the number of junctions (perhaps 5 or so), and by cutting out the milepost column, but perhaps keeping a state abbreviation.
    • Throw away the legend; that sort of detail will be unnecessary in a brief list. A similar legend may be used to color-code the full list in the body of the article.
    • Kill the browse state highways. Perhaps the States Traversed section should link to List of New York state highways or whatever.
    • Remove the seperate east and west terminii sections. Perhaps the brief junction list should include the first, last, and 3 most major in between.

--Chris 01:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with removing Browse State Highways is that someone on WA-4 can get to I-5... but then how do they get to WA-6? We could split the legend off to a subpage... and I'm not attached to terminii... width needs to be fixed too. If we limit the junctions on the primary interstates to just Primary Interstates, things will be better (we could even cut down more on Interstate 90.) I'll fix Interstate 5 so it does this. If every page had an exit list, I would say throw away the junctions section- but not every page does, so I'm not saying it. But yeah. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the state highway box issue, people may make it up to I-5, but I wonder how many people browsing through Washington state highways make it up to I-90? I would suspect that most give up long before that, because there isn't any useful relation between adjacently numbered highways. (And yes, I know north-south, east-west, etc. but the schemes tend to conflict in various ways so it still doesn't work out.) I don't think it makes sense for the projects of states like WA or CA either, although I know that those are different projects out of the scope of this one. The legend probably needs to be there to help interpret the colors if we are going to use them, otherwise we should probably just skip the color-coding altogether because it is going to be too mysterious for most people. I think the terminii are exactly the sort of meaningful pieces of information that should be in the routebox. The provide a visual sense of length, direction, and the route. Every page should have a junction list since a bulleted list is part of the Interstate Project guidelines, but the box provides a convenient overview. Being an overview, though, listing the primaries should be fine and a good compromise. --Beirne 12:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken on the WA-4, I-5, WA-6 thing, but regardless of what each state does, that doesn't mean they need to be in the infobox. (I'm giving up on eliminating them altogether, in favor of compromise.) The legend should at the very least be split off someplace else, but it wouldn't be necessary at all if the junctions list were to be turned into just a brief lists of other interstates it Interchanges with. (as opposed to a list of interchanges with other Interstates; yes there is a difference) If an individual interstate article wishes to use a similar color scheme on it's body interchange list, then obviously the legend can either be in or be linked to in the body. Seperately listing the terminii is uneccsary if the brief junction list is in order. --Chris 02:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We can't list every single city that for example Interstate 5 goes through. I've changed the routebox on I-5 to be smaller... does it look better? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally still think there is too many cities there. Interstate 5#Major cities along the route can still contain as many as the authors want. I'd say the junction list is good, but is it necessary in the north and south to say anything beyond Canada border and Mexico border? --Chris 17:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shoot. Repeatedly. Big, ugly, and too hard to maintain. --Carnildo 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Patcat88 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to express accuracy Expand the ability to describe east-west/north-south designation on a per-section basis (in one article). Expand the ability to describe established-date on a per-section basis. Neither of these two fields apply to the entire interstate from terminus to terminus for all interstates. Keep the template as is or expand it as I have indicated below. Either way deploy it fully to every interstate without exception. Move factual information that is currently in prose to the template-table's contents to reduce the impact of my-favorite-interstate-section pontiffication in the prose of the article. Make all interstate articles have the same look-and-feel, which also will dilute my-favorite-interstate-section pontiffication. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
    • In any interstate template that has an established-date field, what is that date: 1) the date that the oldest section of that roadway was built to interstate specifications opened (even under a different name that was later renamed an interstate, as is common nowadays to build an interstate named as a state-road or US highway then upon completion of the entire route, e.g., I-68 was named US48 for years until the day of its completion at its eastern terminus, I-469 was named Indiana SR469 for years until completion of its northern terminus)? 2) the date that that roadway was first named I-suchandsuch even if it existed twenty years prior to that as a famous freeway? 3) the date that the most recent section of it opened (e.g., it will be misleading to say that I-69 was established in 1967 referring to the oldest part of the Indiana section when it is completed all the way to Mexico one of these next few decades) — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
    • In any interstate template that has a direction field, the direction often does not apply to the entire length of that interstate. Take I-69 for example. The Indiana section that I lived near as a child is signed as a north-south interstate as one would expect from the odd final digit, but the Michigan section "north" of Lansing is signed as east-west almost as though I-69 is some variation of I-96 (which is what it feels like when driving around Lansing). Conversely, many of the supposedly east-west interstates run either nearly north-south or due north-south in Chicagoland, but are signed as east-west. This leads to much confusion in the Chicagoland area that would be very nice to succintly disclose in a table for I-94 and I-90. Similarly, when driving in a new-to-me metropolitan area, I would love to have any reference Wiki or Rand McNally or otherwise that discloses to me ahead of time which sections/exits of I-465 in Indy or I-410 in San Antonio are signed east-west and which are signed north-south. In all of these cases, having an explicit directionality of signage in the template on a section-by-section basis would be valuable information that is not easily accessible anywhere else other than going the wrong way on the road and then turning around once one figures how the local Dept of Transportion decided to creatively sign this interstate. What would be absolutely perfect would be directionality of signage (e.g., N-S versus E-W) sitting right next to degrees from North from the compass between two exits point-to-point, such as for the Dan Ryan in Chicago: E-W/0°-180°; or for I-69 east of Lansing: E-W/89°-271°. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
    • Move more factual prose to these template tables, so that information does not get buried in some fan's touting of the verbose praise of how this section is named the Whosywhatsit Memorial Expressway. I have recently visited every interstate article. I have noticed way too much variance from article to article. — optikos 15:55 18 December 2005
      Let me make sure I understand. Do you wish to make it even bigger than it already is?? (You make some valid points, although I personally disagree with some of it; but regardless of that, it is way too much to put in an infobox.) --Chris 20:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a rather useful summary of an interstate highway. That being said, it is way too big. How about placing the legend on a separate page (perhaps a subpage of the WikiProject), and linking to it? And something needs to be done about the "browse state highways" section -- it's attracted way too much criticism. Scott5114 06:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a great summary, and I've been wondering why they've been dissapearing. I utilised the core of it for Template:UK motorway routebox and would be mortified if that was TFD'd. Erath 09:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I suggest some bits be split into different templates. Lots of the things in this don't belong in an infobox, but are still useful in template form. --Golbez 23:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Extremely useful information, they should be kept. BTW I also agree with subpages on long Interstates (and other long multi-state highways) when pages become too long. CrazyC83 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, a quick vote count makes it seem like those who wish to completely delete it are in a small minority, but the idea of shrinking it seems popular. Why not discuss shrinking it on Template talk:Routeboxint? (I and perhaps others have advocated removing some things in discussions there since way before it was put on TFD.) --Chris 22:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for frak sake. This and templates like it are both easy to navigate and are being maintained by a large and dedicated group of users. There is no basis for deletion here except one user's anger over a revert war.Gateman1997 01:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks extremely useful, especially on the Interstate 355 article. --JohnDBuell 01:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler MC top

An unused combination of {{spoiler top}} and {{solution}}. —Cryptic (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler top and Template:Spoiler bottom

Unlike {{spoiler2}} and {{spoiler-red}}, these used to have a distinct purpose, but they've been obsolesced by the revival and widespread use of {{endspoiler}}. The javascript mentioned on Template talk:Spoiler top doesn't work anymore, but if anyone's really interested, I can fix it for the standard {{spoiler}}/{{spoiler-about}}/{{spoiler-other}}/{{solution}} - {{endspoiler}} series. —Cryptic (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler-red

As below. —Cryptic (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maintained

  • Delete: Copying my reasoning from the Pump: In effect, the template seems to be saying The following users are watching this page. Please clear any changes with them first. I'd content that the less experienced the editor who reads the template, the more likely they are to interpret it that way. Conversely, more experienced editors are likely to respond with a "So what?" I'd really like to have the purpose of the template explained clearly. Casual vandals are unlikely to read talk pages. The listed users will have the article on their watchlists and will spot and fix vandalism just as quickly without the template. Non-vandals who want to make good-faith edits should not have to refer (or defer) to self-styled experts who, thanks to their watchlists, will soon see any changes anyway.. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Comment: Rather than this knee-jerk reaction to delete, you could have suggested an alternate wording that you thought would not communicate what you feel is a message of "ownership". Instead, you chose not to participate in any discussion and move directly to delete. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:22
  • Keep: There should be enough reasons in the last few days to have a necessity for these kind of persons thus implementing something like this in articles at least to make vandals that aren't caught by RC Patrols and else be stopped by this method. Lincher 12:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. That is NOT the intention of this template at all, and I am really getting tired of explaining this for people who can't bother themselves to read any of the past discussion. The template is acting as a contact list of people who have identified themselves as either knowing the content of the article or knowing its sources. It is for any reader who wants to confirm the facts in an article, or confirm its sources. It has nothing to do with "ownership" of this article, so please stop pushing this ridiculous apocalyptic notion. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:14
    • Replying to these three comments. A) I have not used the word "ownership"; please respond to the stated reasons for listing here rather than continuing a previous argument of which I was not part. B) I have not suggested an alternate wording because I believe that there is no need for any such template. and C) Please explain how the template is going to be any more effective against vandalism than having the same group of users add the article to their watchlist. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You were not part of any discussion. You moved directly to delete the template within the very same message that you misrepresented the intention of the template. That has been your only part in the discussion, "I don't like it, so I will move to delete it." It is NOT the intention of this template to be "effective against vandalism". As I have already stated 3 times on different pages (which I'm assuming you've read...), the intention of this template is to do exactly what it says: let the readers know that there are people watching it for vandalism, maintaining it, and who can be contacted regarding any factuality/verifiability concerns the readers have. As I have also repeatedly stated, people tend to check their email more than their watchlist. So, having a direct link to email a useful contact on an article is very useful for the reader. I have already gotten emails from readers and new users verifying with me that arcticles' content is accurate, so it is already working exactly as I had intended. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:37
        • Articles have talk pages were such concerns can be raised in full view of all those with an interest in the article. Can you not at least concede that moving this discussion to the talk pages of individual users is open to potential abuse. I raised the vandalism question because it was part of one of the keep votes. You have raised it again yourself just now ("there are people watching it for vandalism"). Finally, please stop the bolded uppercase shouting, which does nothing to further your arguments. BTW, I check my watchlist far more often than I check my e-mails. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not shouting, it is concerned emphasis. Please stop misrepresenting this template on people's talk pages to get them to vote in your favor, calling this template "the latest item of worship." — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:56
  • Speedy Keep - Can this thing be ended as soon as possible so the annoying TfD text can go away from the pages the template is used on? Thanks. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 13:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifications: This template provides direct contact to email someone, something with which all readers are familiar, rather than assuming that all readers will know what the "history" tab is for, how to check for significant contributors who thus might know something about the article (ie: looking for non-minor, non-bot, significant edits). Besides the contact, one of the main points is to let readers know that the page is being maintained by people, that it is being watched for vandalism, and that some people will hold themselves accountable for its contents. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06
  • Also note, anyone can remove anyone from the template's list of users, if those users become inactive, since the point is to provide a list of contacts and a list of people who are volunteering their time to protect the article against vandalism and are knowledgeable about its facts/sources. The point is not to provide a list of "contributors". If you feel the template is sending the wrong message, please suggest alternate wordings. This is more productive than typing 7 letters.. (ie "Delete"). — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 14:06
  • Keep. Filiocht is quite right—experienced editors (and even not-so-experienced ones) will happily ignore the template. But it is inteneded primarily to benefit the casual reader, who has no idea how Wikipedia works or how he might go about questioning the veracity of a statement. An obvious "email this person if you have questions" box is quite useful in such cases. —Kirill Lokshin 14:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template cruft - the casual reader will figure out, by looking at all the buttons above (That's what I did when I was one). --Gurubrahma 14:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are assuming that all readers will understand the system as easily/quickly as you claim to have. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Keep. Let's see it in action for a bit, give it a chance to improve, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Use it. --JWSchmidt 14:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Best new idea in a long time. Creating a visable presence on an article is a way to make soft-tiers of users (not unlike the 3-tiers of "anon->user->admin", but on a per-article basis, and "soft-tier") which will add stability and discourage the natural processes of entropy. It's the closest thing to a traditional encyclopedia "signed article" but maintaining the openess of Wikipedia. It certainly does not over-ride the Wikipedia Constitutional rules about "ownership". --Stbalbach 15:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We must keep the cabal as secret. --Peter McConaughey 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The wording on the template may need to be altered so that it can't be misinterpreted as 'ownership' of an article, but overall its a good idea. Agnte 17:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above. —Locke Cole 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources and references should be provided in the article itself. The entire idea of Wikipedia is to judge facts and contributions, not contributors. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 19:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course the article should have sources. We're not trying to judge contributors. Even if it lists sources, it can still be vandalized, and readers can still have questions about ambiguities or other things related to the topic. That is why it is important to show that people are watching the content, can be contacted regarding any questions, and do hold themselves accountable for the content. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 19:44
      • If the article is unclear or incomplete, you make it more clear and you complete it. The only way this template would be of any help is if the template said, "The following persons have volunteered to clarify and expand the article if it seems unclear or incomplete. Feel free to share your concerns with them." But then again, isn't that the purpose of a talk page in the first place? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've used this to mark pages that I'm interested in and know a fair bit about, to indicate that I can probably answer or address whatever questions or concerns people might have. Perhaps it should be reworded to say something like "If you have questions about this article or its sources, the following users may be able to help: Example (talk · contribs · email), misterhand43 (talk · contribs · email), Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs · email)." Or something like that—the point being to list helpful contacts that someone may not otherwise find, not to indicate any measure of ownership or control. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the wording as per this suggestion. Agnte 20:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reword as per Mirv, to clarify that no ownership is implied. Kusma (討論) 19:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Might need some improvement to remove any implication of article "ownership" but I like this template and the ideas behind it. Let's give it a chance to develop. android79 19:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a good idea. But I agree with android79.algumacoisaqq 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've always thought this feature should be built in to the Mediawiki software. I'm glad I found it.
  • Strong keep, per everybody else. Perhaps needs tweaking to alleviate Android's concerns, but otherwise good.--Sean|Black 20:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Matt Crypto 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No matter how the message is worded, it's going to smack of asserting ownership over an article and discourage others from contributing. Questions about an article should be made on the article's talk page, not directly to the maintainers. —Psychonaut 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite the guideline/policy that suggests the statement you just made. I (and I'm sure others) have been contacted multiple times about different articles. The sole purpose isn't simply to act as contact points, though, and your statement that the wording cannot be fixed is baseless. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 23:28
      • The guideline about posting questions and comments on the article talk page is called "common sense". As a collaborative encyclopedia, a reader is far more likely to get a useful response if he posts a public message rather than a private one. To suggest that a reader do otherwise also implies that the editors named on the template have more authority over the article than other editors. —Psychonaut 03:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about the current form of the message? There is no way that your original complaint is true now. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 20:01
  • Keep. Jacoplane 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Use of the template subtly implies ownership, even if it is not explicitly worded as such. Sources should be in the body of the article. There should never be a need to contact anyone to verify information; the article should stand on its own. Use of this template will encourage people to not make self-standing articles. Kwertii 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
    • You are stating a lot of "shoulds", which would be fine, except Wikipedia currently doesn't exist in a perfect state. I am simply acknowledging that, whereas you are hindering its development. An article can be filled with sources, but a reader still has no reason to trust its contents, since the article can easily be vandalized. This template lets them have some trust in the article, or at least contact someone who can verify information presented in the article, information which may not be laid out in any sources (for example, if the article was vandalized). — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-15 00:10
  • Possibly reword, but Keep. On the other hand, I'd like clear criteria for its use: it ought to be clear that multiple individuals can place it on the same talk page, and that it shouldn't be placed on highly controversial articles, where the issue of implied "ownership" could be much more serious. For example, I'd be very suspicious of the motives of someone who unilaterally claimed to be "maintaining" Libertarianism or Ted Kennedy. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a great idea and long overdue. If you don't like the wording in the template, then build a consensus for changing it. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Jmabel about avoiding it on controversial topics, but its use on most articles is undoubtedly a good idea. Brisvegas 09:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Kwertii. Also, any question someone might ask these editors is far better placed on the talk page, where everbody can see it (and profit from the answer). The argument that this is mostly to help newcomers who aren't familiar with Wiki isn't convincing to me: The template is supposed to go on the talk page, right? So if a newcomer figures out how to read the talk page, I'm sure they will figure out how to post their question there. Plus, I personally too check my watchlist far more often then my e-mails. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are multiple benefits of this template. You have only addressed one of those, ignoring the rest. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Delete readers do not want to see the nicknames of the editors - it totally ruins the image of the "serious encyclopaedia". Izehar (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On what is this claim based? Nobody has to edit the article to add their name to the list of knowledgeable people. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Keep this template might need some minor word revisions, but the idea behind it is good, and its meant mainly to show who knows the most about the article. Magicmonster 13:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think I like the idea behind this. It gives people an idea of who to ask if they need help working on an article, and moreover lets people know who to turn to if they encounter something that they don't think should be there.

--Vortex 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Ok, first, I see very little advantage to it compared to the history tab and watchlists from active editors. However, I think that it exposes us to some dangers. First, it implies an expert status to some editors, whether that is the intent or not. Second, it suggests some form of ownership of an article, that an article is a particular editor's playground or fenced in yard, although that is probably not the intent of the creator. Finally, if we use the template strictly as the author does intend, to indicate an emergency contact number, as it were, on the vandal playgrounds, there would be a creeping suggestion that all articles need such angels, such protectors, and such ministers and advocates. So, I see three reasons why this template does "harm" and no distinct harm that it cures. Rather than saying, "Please don't use this template," I have to say delete, because I think we would need to demonstrate an acute need and prove that this template is a wholly satisfactory curing of that need before we should willingly face the three dangers I list above. Geogre 12:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of advantages to it. For one, if there's a sign that says someone is watching over the article, it means two things: One is that either a vandal's desire to vandalize could be deterred, or quickly reverted. The other is that a more civilized user wishing to contribute to or correct an article can do so in the knowledge that there's at least one person other himself concerned enough with the topic to wish to maintain it, and can do so without worry. So, it seems to me that whatever objections you have to the template pale in comparison to how mcuh good this template could do. --Cjmarsicano 21:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Following your logic, vandals will then eagerly vandalize pages without the notice, because they think no one is watching them. Maybe we need a general notice on all pages stating that users are watching every page. The current template which names names and excludes other users has too many negative effects, and too few positive ones. -- Rmrfstar 02:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not to deter vandals. The point is to let readers know we are protecting the article against vandals. 71% of mainspace articles are unwatched, so it will be fairly easy for vandals to find unwatched pages. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:13
  • Delete - remind me what is the point of the talk page again... If someone has a question regarding an article then that can be left on the article's talk page. Moving this flow of information off to user talk pages sounds counter-ituitive to me and only serves to setup cliques. Thanks/wangi 13:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course the talk page can be useful, but why can't this be useful as well? It is useful as both assurance that the article is being watched for vandalism, and that someone can be contacted directly through email regarding sources/facts/verification. You have not addressed any of this. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:09
  • Delete useless: duplicates already existing functionality (history/talk).  Grue  17:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have only addressed one of its benefits. There are several, and they combine to make this template better than any individual other item. That's why it is necessary. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
    • Of course the talk page can be useful, but why can't this be useful as well? It is useful as both assurance that the article is being watched for vandalism, and that someone can be contacted directly through email regarding sources/facts/verification. You have not addressed any of this. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-16 19:09
  • Strong Keep This is extremely helpful when you have a question to ask about some statement made in an article, but nobody is reading the Talk page anymore. Remember, this is a huge encyclopedia, and people might miss important edits on their watchlist. It's totally harmless and does not claim ownership over anything. Ashibaka tock 23:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template appears to have been made just a few days ago, on the 13th of December 2005. It adds articles to the Maintained articles category, also created around the same time. I note that there appear to be at least 141 articles which are now in that category. While I did not check each one, I did check a few, and each has the template, and I saw at least 5 different editors listed as a contact for that article, that is, that multiple editors chose to add the template. I therefore conclude that this template serves a need, and is already being adopted and has the potential to be in widespread use. Note also that as other editors have commented, non wikipedians may not be familiar with the mechanics of looking up article history to determine who a good contact person might be. I do think that refinement of the wording to clarify that it's a person that wants to be helpful, not an "owner", that is being listed, might still be in order (although I note people have already been working on it), but that is not an argument for Delete. NB, I am inclusionist. ++Lar 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, attempts at ownership of articles are a direct and egtregious violation of Wikiquette. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not assume good faith? Neither the template nor its users are claiming ownership in any way, and I don't like being knee-jerk characterized as such. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
    • Please do not voice your disapproval of the template by deleting it from talk pages. See Talk:Anglo-Saxon literature. --Stbalbach 04:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll be needing to point me to the part of this template that claims ownership over articles. —Locke Cole 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you've violated guidelines to correct what you believe are "violations of guidelines". Interesting... — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 08:27
    • Ok, why do you say that's POINT instead of BOLD? After all, we're to be bold in editing. Now, what if there is a topic of controversy. I'm working on, let's say, Oroonoko, and someone has a contrary point of view. That person slaps on the Maintained template and proclaims herself the patroller of Oroonoko. I can't remove it? I can't say, "This person doesn't actually understand Aphra Behn and certainly doesn't understand this novel?" Instead, I (if I were less known to the community) would be the presumed intruder. I would have to justify to everyone around that I do know the subject, that I am a scholar of Restoration and Augustan literature? All because someone with a controversial view slapped on a template? We don't have to wait for hypothetical harms: these comments show that it is already occurring. Second case: someone puts the maintained template on Oroonoko and lists me. I don't want to be contacted. I'll fix the article any time people mess it up, but I don't want to chat with every college freshman assigned the novel in a class who wants me to write his paper for him. I don't want the members of the Aphra Behn Society asking me my real name so that they can chat with me or bother me at the next conference. Too bad, eh? I either have to be a second rate voice on the article, or I have to be Mr. Sociable, and all because this template says so? Geogre 13:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a guideline for that to the template's talk page. See how productive work is accomplished? If you think that guideline is not good enough, please, suggest another! This is much more productive than just assuming that the template will only be placed on controversial articles and that it therefore should not exist. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 14:29
    • How about an indication that there must be consensus on a talk page for the list of patrollers before the template can be used? That way, if I see that I am listed, I have to agree to it, and if I see that someone with a fancy for an article but not expertise has become annointed, I can object. At least that would forestall this set of harms. It doesn't change my view, however. I think we have more templates than users can even find, much less use, and I think this one accomplishes few benefits while exposing us to damage. However, a requirement of consensus would prevent this being used as a weapon in an RFC or its being used to promote a controversialist's campaign. Geogre 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this template encourages people to be more responsible for certain articles and also gives some increased sense of verification to those articles that are more likely to be accurate. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not totally sold on this as a great idea, but like many above I think it's worth continuing the experiment for a while. I certainly wish users would stop --pending the outcome of consensus-seeking discussions such as this-- the petulant deletions of these templates where they have been used. It's really contemptuous. Pete.Hurd 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have not used this template myself; it being brand new, most editors presumably have never heard of it. But it seems like a possibly useful concept, one that I can imagine using myself. Allowing editors to volunteer themselves as resources for particular pages might often be useful; and is not the same as imposing a requirement to get permission for edits. Give it a chance! If this is around and non-productive for six months, renominate it. But don't kill the idea after a week. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally liked the idea of using this template, but I see now that I was only giving in to satisfy my feelings of ownership of a few articles. Nevermind that. There are very few good effects of this template. Posting a comment on a talk page doesn't need to be any easier and discussion of an article should be kept on Wikipedia for everyone to read, for obvious reasons. Also, as was said above, the articles should be completely (within Wikipedia) stand-alone, such a template encourages and expresses the idea that an article can be confusing, or incomplete etc. and that a reader can email a contributor if they have any questions. -- Rmrfstar 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have ignored all the benefits of the template. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Delete as gross policy violation - connotes ownership of the article, however it may have been intended. I've kludged onto it that it does not connote such, but it still needs to die - David Gerard 19:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Current version rates a neutral - I'm still not sure it's a good idea at all, but it doesn't make me want to shoot it - David Gerard 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is nonsenseible. You said yourself that the wording just needs to be changed. But, instead, you'd rather delete it? Without even giving it a chance? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 19:27
  • Delete. However sugarcoated the words, it is a disinvitation to those not in the club to edit the article. In order to view the template, the user must navigate to the talk page anyway--interested editors can watch the talk page, which is how I've gotten "in touch" with the editors of specific articles in the past. Whatever marginal benefit emailing individual users about article content has (and since when was that such a great idea?) it is countered by putting this perimeter around articles. Note: this disinvitation is inherent in the very idea of making a list of editors, so for me it's not a matter of "fixing the wording". Demi T/C 19:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a list of editors. Nobody needs to add a single word to the article to be able to add themselves to the template. It is only recommended that they have knowledge of the contents, for the template to be useful, since that is the point of the template: to be useful to readers. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:42
  • Neutral although I respect the reasoning behind the deletion votes, some template like this may be suitable for topics where popular understanding and serious scholarship may be at odds. Such articles may have unsuitably long talk pages. Well intentioned readers sometimes insert information in the belief that some omission is an oversight (for example, by adding "January 6" to [[Joan of Arc|Joan of Arc's] birthdate). Sometimes a notion gains a popular following even though the academic community rejects it unanimously. See scalping. The problem with this template is its potential for abuse by partisan editors. Durova 20:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we needed a template like this. QQ 22:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Filiocht had it right all the way up there, and Geogre makes some good points too. "Active monitors" ought to be obvious from the talk page anyway, and will have it on their watchlist. If people want to know about sources or anything else, they can leave a query on the talk page. The template doesn't need tweaking, it needs to be disposed of. --ajn (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have only criticized one of the benefits of the template. There are several, and they combine to make it better than any one thing currently offerred. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
  • Delete - Geogre has very persuasively demonstrated the potential problems that could arise with this template. Worldtraveller 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • His criticisms were of an older version of the template. Can you please look at the new version??? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 03:08
    • Of course there can be problems, but that's why there are guidelines, which the community can add to. Why trash the whole thing when several people obviously think it useful? Please assume good faith, I am in no way trying to take ownership of an article. Have you seen the new version of the template? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 02:42
      • It is possible to assume that your every intention is aboveboard, forthright, well-meaning, and completely without guile or malice, while still believing that you are wrong. Nothing about the former precludes the latter. Nothing about the latter indicates an abandonment of the former. Reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 03:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has the potential to create more problems than it solves. Zocky 04:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you won't even give it chance? You'd rather delete it for its "potential problems", than try to fix those problems? They call this a "discussion" at the top of the page. It really is a joke. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 05:24
  • Delete - no benefit - articles should stand on their own - if they need sources or clarification, add them, don't list yourself as a "maintainer"(i.e. according to FOLDOC: "The person responsible for coordinating changes"); discussion about articles should be publically viewable on the wiki, not in private, non-archived, hidden discussion via email. This is a basic violation of the transparency of Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please be aware that the TfD notice for this template has been removed, subtly hidden in "noinclude" tags (so it will appear to people checking it directly that it has the notice, but will fail in it's intended purpose of publicizing the discussion) and made effectivly unreadable (via a application of "small" tags to the already very small text) multiple times. (I only reverted the "small" trick just now; otherwise, it has been in place the whole time this TfD has been running - if that's not abuse of the process, I'm not sure what it is.) Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 3, part 2. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Im not defending the use of small fonts in this case and had no part in it, but small fonts are used all over Wikipedia in official and unofficial capacity, to say it was "hidden" and made unreadable is an inaccurate portrayal.--Stbalbach 15:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Making it small was just an attempt to make it less annoying, since others were complaining. Maybe the TFD folks could bother to improve the notice's appearance. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:57
  • Keep. This template is a novel idea. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete History/talk/watchlist/community collaboration pages is enough IMHO. Assuming that "more people read their email than the watchlists" is wrong in my case at least --- when I get an email from the Wikipedia, I will usually perceive this as a "push" attempt to make me deal with some WP issues when I have my daytime activities pressure on me for doing other things (yes, I know that I can autosort them all into a special folder). The watchlist is a "pull" interface, which I may prefer to use whenever I like. Also, the template usage can easily become stale and mislead others (making them think --- well, if it's maintained, I shouldn't bother reviewing the changes too hard)... I do see the benefits for some of the users as stated by them, but personally I feel the negative arguments outweigh them. For the active supporters of either delete or keep, please don't jump the decision and don't abuse the process (removing the TfD from pages/the small font trick/whatever). BACbKA 10:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've only criticized one of the benefits of the template. There are several. They combine to make this template better than any one thing currently available. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:56
  • Delete, per nominator. --NormanEinstein 15:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator was complaining about an older version of this template. Have you even looked at the changes that have been made? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 19:56
      • The nominator has followed the changes in wording and the attempts to disguise the TfD tag with interest and would still like to see this template deleted. The question of article ownership is not one I addressed, but there is clearly a degree of concern about this. I am more worried by the fact that this template will tend to remove content discussions from the public forum of article talk pages to the private forum of editors' e-mail inboxes. This is a very bad thing is wiki terms. I am further concerned by the assumption that anyone who votes to delete is not assuming good faith, with the hanging implication that they are acting in bad faith. I always get concerned when proponents of anything feel it necessary to question every single vote against them. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even with new wording, it still strongly conveys an assertion of ownership or, at the least, an assertion that some editors are more equal than others (with no guarantee, as they are self-appointed, that they are genuinely worth contacting regarding verification or sources). What if a POV warrior applies this tag? Tearlach 23:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are guidelines for that, and new guidelines can be created. The whole concept shouldn't be trashed on the basis of a "what if". — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 05:12
  • Delete - To find notable contributors look at the history instead. Connotates ownership/elitism. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How could it possibly connotate ownership when the template says: this does not connote any form of article ownership?? Did you even look at the template? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 05:14
      • Connotation is in the eye of the beholver. Just because it says that it does not have that connotation, doesn't mean that users won't interpret and act on the template in that way. Ripe for abuse, this template goes against wiki spirit and should be deleted IMO. BTW, don't assume bad faith. I looked at the template and carefully considered its possible uses. Finding frequent editors via history and article talk pages are more open. Use of this template will harm wikipedia IMO. I have had problems with people claiming that all edits need to be approved by themselves, and having this template available will increase/legitimize such behavior IMO. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The whole point of connotation is that it isn't a literal thing; that is, no amount of saying "this does not connote ownership" will prevent it from doing so. Demi T/C 05:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this does not imply ownership, merely that stated user is an expert in this field.  ALKIVAR™ 00:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And how do we know that's true? Tearlach 00:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'll find out as soon as you ask the person a question about the subject. Please assume good faith on the part of the "expert". — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 05:11
        • Comment: reasonable anticipation of problems isn't a breach of good faith. Many Wikipedia fundamentals - such as Wikipedia:Cite sources and WP:NPOV - are built on the assumption that edits might be unreliable or biased. Design of any template should consider the possibility and consequences of its misuse, and this one is a gift to POV warriors and wannabe article owners. Tearlach 13:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It makes it look like ownership, goes against all that is wikipedia. -- Jbamb 05:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting idea, but ultimately useless and counter-productive in practice. Unintentionally establishes a "class hierarchy" within articles, whereby new editors are less important to the article than the old editors who self-listed themselves. Also, in the long run, these userlists will slowly grow out-of-date and cluttered by trivial entries over time, as editors drift away from articles or from Wikipedia altogether without bothering to update the dozens of lists they could have put themselves on in the past; as a result, when the exceedingly rare time comes when a list like this actually could prove useful, in theory, it probably won't prove useful in practice because the list won't accurately reflect who's watching the list as well as simply checking the recent History and Talk page entries surely will. Also, for well-populated articles like Jesus and George W. Bush, lists like this could easily grow to be pages and pages in length, and become even more useless due to obsolete entries. Simply not worth it. This sort of box is alien to the very idea of Wikipedia, and will ultimately cause more harm than good by establishing an artificial and arbitrary class division between editors working on an article. -Silence 06:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am moved by the concerns that this template implies ownership of articles, even though I realize that is not the idea behind it at all. I also think that it is slightly redundant with the history function where you can easily see who has been contributing what to the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per George. Raul654 17:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand the good intentions of this template and realize that it's not implying ownership. That said, this template has too many disadvatages and not enough advantages to justify its use. I agree with comments made by Filocht and Geogre and also have a few concerns of my own. Who decides what users should be listed in the template? Who's job is it to maintain a "Maintained" template? Users regularly go on Wikibreak or stop editing certain articles, yet their names will be left on templates all across Wikipedia. What about users who turn out not to be especially knowledgeable or helpful on a certain article? Can other users remove their name from the template? How is a template on the talk page going to stop the casual vandal given that the vast majority never even look at the talk page? I agree with what's trying to be accomplished here, but this template doesn't seem like the best way to achieve that goal. Carbonite | Talk 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. Weak arguments all around on the anti-template side of this debate. In reality, there is no way that the template conveys ownership or original creation (the latter would be the focus of another template entirely). Therefore, let me modify and reinforce my vote to read: Very, very, very, super-strong KEEP as per everyone else that has seen fit to support this. --Cjmarsicano 17:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This template seems to me like treating wikipedia as some sort of "club". People shouldn't assert nor consider themselves as "maintainers" or any such artificial title, because that is a form of egotism and exclusion of others, direct or indirect. Andyluciano 00:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template:Vwatched

Pointless template - adds nothing to the article. Should never have been created and should never be used. Raul654 01:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this becomes widely used, won't the absence of it encourage vandals even more? Kusma (討論) 01:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (creator): This was created for use on high-profile pages that would normally be protected, particularly pages describing current events. Protection of such pages allows out-of-date or incorrect information to remain for a prolonged period of time during the peak viewing time of the page. The intent of the template is to allow such pages to be unprotected, allowing editorial collaboration on the live article, while notifying vandals that their usual right to deface a page three or four times before being dealt with doesn't apply.
         A notable example is the Stanley Williams article, whose subject was executed earlier today, which was protected for much of the time leading up to and after the event. The template was created and placed there as an alternative to continuing a prolonged protection, and the article was positively edited by many editors with very little vandalism (and no major vandalism). The template was in place for just under an hour before being removed by Raul654 (nominator). I disagree that the template will encourage vandalism; it simply points out that vandalism on that page is dealt with more immediately than usual, not that vandalism on other articles isn't dealt with. // Pathoschild 02:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep useful as an extreme warning. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The very presence of this warning will encourage vandalism, if not on the article in question, then on other articles. Let the vandals assume by default that all articles are closely watched for vandalism, which is usually the case anyway. —Psychonaut 02:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Useless. An extreme warning contributes nothing to Wikipedia articles, as there are already countless tags for such matters as "controversial topics". If it isn't currently locked to deal with vandalism, we shouldn't discourage valid contributions to articles with intimidating. Just continue to revert vandalisms as we always have. As soon as we brand perfectly good articles with big ugly boxes just because of vandalism, the vandals win: they've successfully made a strong impression, and can gladly continue their efforts on this and other articles when they want a similar amusing reaction, a sort of "badge of honor" for the hard work they've put into messing with others' hard work. -Silence 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use on George W. Bush. If the only other alternative is protection, this is a good last ditch effort to preserve the Wiki-way. Firebug 03:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you realize that GWB will still have to be proteted from vandalism when it gets out of control, completely regardless of whether the tag is here. There is no "other option", this is just a poorly-thought-out and meaningless overlabeling that will in the end only cause more vandalisms and subsequent page protections for every article that ever uses it, GWB included. -Silence 06:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Television 3

Delete, not used →AzaToth 00:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

Template:XD6

Experimental deletion is not an approved Wikipedia process, and implementation of it is not appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get rid of the ever increasing crap on WP, this is a GOOD IDEA (probably one of the best). I just found it, but now your telling me not to use it!! Weird!--Light current 23:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking of Wikipedia content is not an acceptable method of getting articles deleted. The CSD and AfD processes are the only methods approved by Wikipedia consensus. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subst:NPOV and Template:Subst:Prettytable

These templates are pointless because the leading subst: stops them from being used. Susvolans ⇔ 19:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, ugly, waste of the Wiki. --Computerjoe 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pittsburgh Universities

Delete: Cumbersome; Better served by Category:Universities and colleges in Pittsburgh 141.151.176.253 13:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FFII

Navigational Aid between pages that have now been merged together. Redundent. Speedy Delete if possible. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)


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

Tools

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

Closing discussions

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

To review

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

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Other

  • See Primefac's note above. Just keep using the existing templates. They will be converted for you during the merge process, whenever it happens (these merges sometimes take a while, as you can see above). When the conversion is done, the merged template will support the features that you need. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's helpful. Is there a change that could be usefully made to the display text in {{being deleted}}? Or maybe the assumption is that no one reads beyond the first line anyway. Thincat (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meta

  • None currently

To convert

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

To substitute

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

  • None currently

To orphan

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

Ready for deletion

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

  • None currently
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=32230185"