Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Listings

December 23

Template:Image-license

Delete: Created to standardize image templates and leave room for the EXIF Metatable (in its old location). Now that the metatable has moved and some uses have been reverted, it's time for this to go. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:if

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

• Keep, it is an API to be used in other templates. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It has been deprecated and is defunct. See also Template talk:if. – Adrian | Talk 09:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Good to know. Changing my vote to to Del ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now it's no longer required. —Phil | Talk 10:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete my bot didnt touch 15,000 articles for nothing. Martin 10:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak redirect to {{qif}}. What's the "q" stand for, anyway? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:HKCrownCopyright

in zh wp deleted. seezh:Wikipedia:删除投票和请求/2005年12月15日 and [1]--Shizhao 01:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Middle-earth portal

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

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

• Keep - Obviously as the creator I'm biased. That said, at most I'd think the template should be changed if consensus finds that it's purpose is confusing. Some of the issues listed above are actually standard practice for portals. For instance, it is standard to link articles related to a portal to that portal and put the portal links at the top of the page - see for instance Template:Philosophy portal and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Philosophy portal. Where images at the top of the page conflict the portal link can be moved down, as it always was for The Lord of the Rings, Middle-earth, History of Arda, and various others. The 'easter egg' was intended to be self evident to anyone familiar with the topic and follow the general concept of making portals 'personalized' to the topics they cover, but if there is concern about that the text can easily be replaced with a generic 'Middle-earth portal' message. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Undecided at the moment, but I'd like to add that I had no idea what it was when I first saw it. My first impulse was to delete it from the page because I took it for an irrelevant image (on The Hobbit, where the door of Moria isn't germaine to the subject) and didn't notice what it was until I was editing the page. It doesn't communicate its purpose very well even to one intimately familiar with the subject. But really, I think Wikipedia features should be aimed at the general reader. I'd vote to delete it in its present form, but with appropriate changes I'd vote to keep it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Recent changes are improvements, but could a different image be found? The current one is barely recognizable, and unless you already know what it's supposed to be it doesn't look in the least like a door. Not at my screen resolution anyway. (1024x768 on a 19" CRT. Didn't look good on the flat panel I use at work either.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Really? It looked pretty good on my screens, but I tend to use higher resolution (1280 x 1024). I'll check it under different settings and see if it can be cleaned up. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm glad I spotted this one. It's creative. An element that is often stifled in encyclopedias. But this is Wikipedia, which encourages creativity and novel approaches to encyclopedia design. Though a portal link such as this should mention the portal. Simply add the link "Middle-earth portal" in a sentence immediately following the fabled line from the book. So that takes care of the easter egg issue. As for the picture, is there any way to make a picture part of a link? I'd really like to know. If not, perhaps it can be iconized. But this doesn't matter, since the picture is definitely on-theme, and if its text includes "Middle-earth portal", the user will know that's a clickable link. But the picture is a bit dark, and itself needs to be freshened up, but that's easy to fix. I agree that the template clashes on some pages, but it is a nice touch on those with nothing to clash with. And the statement about "this kind of link would be more appropriate in text form under "See also" headings" argues against portal link templates in general, but they are in common use throughout Wikipedia, so this is not the place to be pushing such an agenda, as it pertains to general policy. Portal link templates are a Wikipedia tradition, and are a means to centralize portals, which helps portals be precisely what they are supposed to be: centralized. Therefore, this deletion nomination should never have been posted. Instead, an effort should have been made to fix the template and adjust its placement. I don't see any evidence of such an effort on Qirex's part. Just a knee-jerk "let's kill it" response. Besides, this portal link accents the Middle-earth theme quite well, and using a picture of a portal to represent a Wikipedia portal is brilliant. This one's a keeper. Go for it! 02:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think to characterise this nomination as "a knee-jerk "let's kill it" response" is a misrepresentation. I came across template when I noticed some placement issues of {{bakshi}}, and went to ~10 pages to see if I could resolve the problem (see the second and third pages of my contribs). I am a firm believer in fixing problems where they exist. I nominated this template because I honestly do not see the need to place large and prominent links to portals mixed in with the main body of text, and if the template is to go at the bottom of the page anyway, then it may as well be represented with plain text under an internal links section; simpler is better. --Qirex 08:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Qirex, I can see your viewpoint, but the problem is that it runs contrary to virtually EVERY portal on Wikipedia. I didn't come up with the idea of putting portal links with images at the top of related articles... I just followed the standard set by earlier portals in doing so. Most of them use the generic portal link template, but it's still an image box. I haven't found a single WikiPortal which follows the 'text link in 'See also' section' standard you propose. This is therefore really a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Portal to determine if the way all portals are linked should be changed. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'd like to vote 'delete' but alas, I cannot. I wouldnt read them books if I was tortured, but I understand that some people adore poor prose – so for their sake I vote this way.--Ezeu 02:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Phil Sandifer 02:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I've fixed it so if the image is clicked on, it also takes you to the Portal (and not to the Image info). —Locke Cole 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's pretty cool. I know that's not exactly the strongest argument on Wikipedia, but there you have it. Kafziel 03:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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

• Keep. Some of noms issues have been resolved, and others can be fixed by where its placed on the page. And, if for some reason it really doesnt work on a page, just dont use the graphic version, it's all optional anyway. --Stbalbach 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It can be very easily improved (and certainly will be) into a worthwhile portal link. In addition to changing the text and sharpening up or replacing the image, I would propose moving the text to the side as with the Philosophy portal, which I think is more attractive and less intrusive on the page. AGGoH 09:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

December 22

Template:NYC Hudson River crossings

Delete: A template covering the entire Hudson River, Template:Hudson River crossings, has been created (and already used north of the city line), and I think it would be good to put that all along the Hudson River. Having both would make them a bit cluttered, not to mention the fact that all really within the City have Template:NY-bt. I have already put notices on all of the talk pages for these articles, and noone has strongly objected. I suggest that first Template:Hudson River crossings be used all along, and then, pending the result of this TFD, all instances of Template:NYC Hudson River crossings be removed and it be deleted. Redirection would not work, since the newer one uses north and south parameters. Chris 16:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. It should be noted that user Cacophony, active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges, thinks that the other, newer one: Template:Hudson River crossings, is the one to delete. However I feel that all 3 are not needed in one article (see, for example Lincoln Tunnel for an example of the clutter having all three gives), and that Template:NY-bt makes Template:NYC Hudson River crossings redundant, while Template:NYC Hudson River crossings does not extend far enough upriver to handle, for example, Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge, nor should it, and Template:Hudson River crossings does. ++Lar 17:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. Kafziel 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:ReligionScotland

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

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

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

December 21

Template:Irish Republicanism

Delete: Impossible topic to be actively NPOV with and guaranteed to produce endless edit wars over who is a real republican party and who isn't (Republican Sinn Féiners and Sinn Féiners will fight about each others' true republicanism for a start, while Fine Gael, a pro-Commonwealth party in the 1940s, actually declared the Republic of Ireland some would argue should be in on that basis), what linear links join what organisation (were the Officials marxist or republican), whose analysis is valid/invalid/biased, etc. Also inaccurate in many places - Griffith was a monarchist. Connolly wanted a socialist republic not a nationalist republic. Why is Bobby Sands in but Sean MacBride out in the list of "key figures"? How key is Sands anyway? What about Sean MacStiofáin? Cathal Goulding? Sean Lemass? The topic is far too complicated and already provokes too many edit wars across a range of articles without adding a template full of questionable presumptions and definitions, most of them POV, into the mix. This is one template due an early trip to the wiki-bin.

• delete FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV magnet, topic is too broad for a template of this type.--Sean|Black 01:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. May provoke edit wars, but we can manage with things like fasicsm... -- Jbamb 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep: if you want Sean MacStiofain add him, when I made it I made it clear it was just the skeleton of a template and that it should be added to, I didn't want it as my creation, the many pages that relate to Irish Republicanism have no coherent order at all, this Template could go some way to bringing a bit of order. Communism has a Template, with POV issues all the time, why not delete that too eh? How about the Anarchism one, that's a really broad topic too, send it to the wiki-bin? Escobar600ie 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wildly POV part of the provo claim to be the true faith descendents of the War of Independence. --Red King 18:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Some User templates

To remove

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

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

Userfy

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

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

• • • Comment As far as i know, templates outside tempalte space now work just fine -- i have tested several in my user space before moving them to template space, and I have a couple for personal use that stay in my user space. But i don't know what the problems were before, so i can't be sure that they are gone. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Templates in userspace work fine these days, so I would prefer if the various users mentioned here moved these templates to their userspace. But I see little point in deleting them. Radiant_>|< 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Pointless and frankly absurd nomination. It is this sort of nonsense that gives this page and the whole deletion process a bad name. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if it works in user space now, that's where it belongs. -- Jbamb 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think a userfy would hurt, but don't delete them. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfying sounds reasonable. There's no need for them to be in the template space. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Single user templates like these in the Template namespace aught to have a speedy-move criteria. ^BlankVerse 04:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no policy against moving anything belonging to a user, or only used by that user, into that user's userspace (but it would be nice to ask the user first). Userfy, no problems with speedying. Radiant_>|< 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Hebrewterm

Makes a pretty cluttery little box that gives the translation of a Hebrew term. This causes a colossal mess on pages already overloaded with boxes and navigational aids, and the translation of a word can easily be mentioned in the text without any further need for boxes. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per nominator.Template has changed to have the box removed --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Amir E. Aharoni 20:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (a little history: my first vote :) )
  • Comment: A proper etymology template is what Wikipedia needs. I'm really sorry to disappoint Humus sapiens.--Amir E. Aharoni 07:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Humus sapiens convinced me. This is a free encyclopedia and i exercise my right to change my mind. The way it looks now at Yerida is OK. Some structure is better than no structure at all. I still think that there's a need for a proper etymology template, though.--Amir E. Aharoni 09:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Let's discuss first: this is a day-old template, still in development. The possibilities are to add pronunciation/sound link, etc. or it may be made a single-line template. Now it is similar to Template:Arabicterm, Template:Russianterm. Remove or move it around in the articles where you think it adds clutter. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; I really don't see why we can't include a Hebrew word, its transliteration or translation in a text if it's needed, without using a box. EldKatt (Talk) 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: it doesn't necessarily have to be a box, another option is to make it in-text. The idea was to introduce consistency, please see Template talk:Hebrewterm. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Consistency in formatting is great, but I think more flexibility is needed than this template can provide. You don't always need a translation of a term, for example (if the meaning is implied by the context or explained elsewhere), and in such and similar cases it's undesirable to rely on this template for consistency of style. A guideline of some kind would be more flexible and useful. EldKatt (Talk) 11:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Upon seeing it used at Yerida, I suddenly understand its point. I previously assumed that it were supposed to be used in articles wherever a Hebrew word is used, which I do think is not a good idea. But keep, for use in the head of articles such as Yerida. EldKatt (Talk) 11:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep: I agree that as it is, it is an annoyance. If we could use it for making inline use of foriegn terms more consistent, then great! But see my comments on Template Talk. I'm willing to change my vote if this becomes feasible or surely unfeasible. jnothman ^talk 23:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Completely rewritten to be in-text with optional params: plural and audio for now. Please reconsider/comment/improve rather than delete. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This looks very useful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Change - As it is I can see little need for it - there is no appreciable saving of keystrokes, all it add is consistency (good but not worth the candle). If this was formatted up like the Template:Arabicterm then there are far more possiblities. Then I would vote keep but not as it is! Kevinalewis 11:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually it was created as a box, but the consensus seems to have it in-text. Could you tell us what are "far more possiblities", perhaps they can be accomodated in this or another template. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it as a text version as with {{hebrewterm|ירידה|yerida|descent}} in Yerida. But hey, what is this going to do to all of User:Gilgamesh's "Tiberian Hebrew" extras in so many of the Hebrew worded articles? Hmmm, where is he? I think I'll ask him to come over and give his POV. IZAK 08:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Oy! If needed, we can add more optional params. I am learning the syntax, so any help is appreciated. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Db-crystalball

Used for speedy deletion on grounds that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". But that is not in fact a criterion for speedy deletion. Radiant_>|< 15:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Owen× ☎ 15:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Crush by elephant (delete) Templates giving speedy delete reasons not supported by WP:CSD] are very pernicious. Indeed perhaps they should be speedy deleted? (Grin). DES ^(talk) 17:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Also, {{Crystalball}} which is a redirect to this template should be deleted for the same reasons. DES ^(talk) 17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, to avoid CSD-creep. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Squishy squishy. -- Jbamb 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a CSD reasoning (these are all cases for AfD). BTW, the {{Crystalball}} redirect was created by a move for consistency reasons by me, {{Crystalball}} was the original name of the template. Just wanted to note this. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not all "crystal ball" articles are even good AfD candidates, never mind CSD, despite the rabid imaginings of some. Phil | Talk 10:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • It doesn't actually make it easier; it just makes people have to learn a new syntax. Here's what happens when someone tries to figure it out by trial and error. Alt text is useful. Crippling the servers is not. (And for the user who helpfully moved the tfd notice from the talk page, note that the template has been placed into some 1600 articles (almost all of them by User:ScudLee), all of whose caches you just broke.) —Cryptic (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Not a problem, glad to help make sure this TfD receives a fair "trial". Next time, please don't try to hide the fact that you're nominating a template for deletion by placing the notice only on the talk page. —Locke Cole 08:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Nobody was trying to hide anything; thanks for your assumption of good faith. Its far-and-away most-frequent user is presumeably watching the talk page (since he created it), and it was noted on Template talk:Album infobox, which will be watched by anyone at all likely to use it. The notice was placed on the talk page because editing a template used on as many pages as this one is will fully occupy the servers for about ten seconds (see WP:AUM). —Cryptic (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I was just returning the favor for your assumption of good faith on my part. My concern isn't with server load, it's with ensuring this TfD nomination has a chance to be heard fairly. I'm aware of WP:AUM, I'm also aware that many people don't keep frequently used templates on their watchlist. It makes sense that these people should be notified. —Locke Cole 09:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, please spare our servers the torture, and help fix it instead. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
  • It's a good idea to put horrible strain on the servers?--Sean|Black 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Switching to abstain for the time being then. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 09:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not useful enough to justify the expense.--Sean|Black 08:40, 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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. 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 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• Keep.—thegreentrilby 14:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This info box is truely a good way to link to AMG, a standard music service. Makenji-san 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Um. Nobody's saying we should delete {{Album infobox}}. Or even get rid of the reviews section. Or even the images of stars. Just the template that, very inefficiently, puts the images there. —Cryptic (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above, and per WP:AUM. Radiant_>|< 15:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. --NormanEinstein 15:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Creator is working on a Switch-less version, and {{switch}} is in any case one of the lighter-weight If Templates. I just can't see this as the straw that would break the camel's back. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Notice: I have now eliminated the {{switch}} templates. This template no longer includes any other templates. Please consider revising your comments above to reflect the new situation. I have also remove the TfD notice from the template itself to minimize server load (can {{tfd}} be substed?). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this is a change of vote - although not moving beyond the 5 star basis, this is now NOT a metatemplate. So arguements on that basis have lost all relevance to this template. Purhaps someone will generate the other base star ratings in time. Thanks—Ilmari Karonen - Kevinalewis 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Question: isn't it still effectively a metatemplate since it gets placed inside a template? Or, is it not a metatemplate now because it doesn't, itself, contain a template? --Qirex 01:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It was never a meta-template, as described at WP:AUM (although it used to contain a couple). Meta-templates are templates used within another template, whilst Stars is used directly in articles. The fact that it's usually passed as a parameter in {{Album infobox}} is (AFAIK) neither here nor there. Edits to Stars don't, for example, automatically invalidate the cache of every page that contains Album infobox, just the ones with the stars template in them (like any other template). - Lee (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

December 20

Template:Church and Template:Vatican

• Image copyright tags, both with ambigious content, both directing the uploader to retag the images with the appropriate copyright tag. These tags should not be used in place of correct copyright tagging and should both be deleted to clear up the copyright issues, delete.--nixie 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep but rewrite Seems it deals less with matters of copyright but approval of items from the Vatican. Should be clarified and could be useful. -- Jbamb 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Not useful. --Carnildo 23:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think these templates would confuse people trying to properly tag images. --NormanEinstein 15:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. They are both confusing. --Valentinian 15:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. They are confusing - I almost used these instead the correct template. Kenj0418 14:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or major rewrite. I can't make any sense of either in their current form, and they are no help with copyright tagging (in fact just confuses it). — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Speedy delete - Speaking as the template's creator. I was trying to create {{user lennonist}} and accidentally created this. Daykart 21:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Phnom Penh infobox

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

Template:Self-rule

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

• I don't think it belongs anywhere, but delete because it's completely ridiculous.--Sean|Black 06:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete -- Jbamb 06:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, stat! Raul654 06:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it applies to itself. -Silence 06:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No, on second thought BJAODN. Better obey Raul654, since he stands so high in the cabal and all... ;-) -- SCZenz 06:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Copied to BJAODN. All hail Jimbo, the one true creator of the Great Wikipedia. Blessings unto Raul, great saint of Delaware. Dragons flight 20:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.Of no obvious use.--Dakota ^{? e} 08:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you don't like it then don't use it. How is it "ridiculous"? Why delete what was designed for the non official WP:0RR guideline? How does it "apply to itself" and how would that be grounds for deletion? zen master T 11:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• It applies to itself in that it is not approved by the cabal. -Silence 11:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't belong in the template namespace. Carbonite | Talk 11:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in the name of the almighty cabal, who do not tolerate insurrection. "As promoters of self-rule, the users of this page recognize changes made only by those who have adopted and practice the principles herein." I love this part. You're not allowed to edit the page until you renounce the cabal. Obviously members of the cabal could never do so! Fnord. JRM · Talk 19:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, nor in anarchy. android79 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is true. It is an experiment in communism. -- Jbamb 20:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete rubbish. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the editors who follow this rule would be creating a cabal by themselves... and then, what to do? See recursion. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's been BJAODN so it will be deleted by the Cabal. Hedley 17:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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)
• 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)
• If they do, we can always undelete it. Delete for now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Jbamb 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep due to rewrite by DES. Agnte 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • If the UN owns it, how are we going to prove permission to use? -- Jbamb 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 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)

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)

• Delete, for the reasons listed above. Or better yet, extract the Canadian portion of the misnamed Broadcast Television template and transplant it into this template, do the same for the Mexican portion into the Mexican 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)
  • Keep the reworked template (but rename to a lower-case version), Create a {{US Broadcast television}} template, and delete the huge and misnamed {{Broadcast Television}}. ^BlankVerse 03:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Better than the overly broad {{Broadcast Television}}. Why are the logos not fair use on this template? Skeezix1000 07:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, same reasons as above. Have asked previously re logos so would also appreciate explanation. — Stickguy 13:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Never mind; explanation found here. Will remove logos. — Stickguy 14:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Given the apparent consensus, have renamed Canadian / Mexican templates, created new {{U.S. broadcast television}} template, and redirected {{Broadcast Television}} (which is now used on U.S. nets only) to new template. Will edit net pages directly as time allows. — Stickguy 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep, having seperate templates is much better organized than the mess of the old {{Broadcast Television}}. Also, isn't this nomination (more or less) a clone of the nomination I made for {{Mexico Broadcast Television}}? They look very similar... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • This IP has fewer than 30 article-namespace edits and has existed for about three weeks. Soo 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's because I've had about 5 ip's. I been editing for more then a year. And no, at this time, I don't want an account. 67.165.96.26 20:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Keep give a more succient warning tag. Much like NPOV section. J. D. Redding 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

Comment: I changed {{tfd}} to {{tfd-inline}} to fix that issue. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Subst and delete. Agree with Jmabel. --Khoikhoi 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Subst and delete --Gareth Hughes 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Language" is a word that is frequently misspelled, whereas "subst:ll" is rather more difficult to get wrong. Chris talk back 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is "subst:ll" easier to get right than "language"? Your argumentation is not immediately convincing. Delete. EldKatt (Talk) 09:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Subst and delete as overcomplication for little benefit. [[English language|English]] is easy to type and understand. sjorford (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Subst and delete, this is pointless. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 16:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wastes server resources. If there was a way to assure it would always be subst-ed then I wouldn't care if it stayed. gren グレン 19:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:AustraliaGov

• Uninformative and ambigious image copyright tag, there is a very good tag for PD images from Australia {{PD-Australia}}, fair use images that might be tagged with this tag should be tagged within the current fair use structure, delete.--nixie 23:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We have {{PD-Australia}} and {{PD-Australia-CC}}. This template doesnt do anything new. Agnte 23:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• So what do we do with the images that have this tag? If we know the image is 50+ years old, we tag it {{PD-Australia-CC}}, but otherwise, what tag should they have? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've already moved everything that could be more accurately tagged, all that remains is some military insignia which I see can be tagged with {{Military-Insignia}}.--nixie 01:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not useful as a copyright tag. JYolkowski // talk 03:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Well, delete, I guess. I created the tag, and so far as I know I'm the only one who used it. (At the time, I don't think better tags existed. They do now.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 03:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:SummersEve

• Delete.: Can we speedy this? Its only purpose is for personal attacks on users. BrianSmithson 22:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: First, there is nothing in the speedy policy to allow this to go fast. Second, anything can be used as personal attacks, that doesn't mean anything. If people are engaging in personal attacks, there is a policy for that. This is valuable in increasing the morale of the wiki editors and provides entertainment if used tastefully. -- Jbamb 22:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete.--nixie 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and sanction creator. Guettarda 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Its an attack template. It shouldn't be used WP:NPA Agnte 23:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• I cleared it, delete it. -- Jbamb 23:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted, at request--Sean|Black 23:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Parappa

• Delete: The songs just redirect back to the article that the template is on or are not yet created. Not needed. Thorpe 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There was an AFD about the song articles, and the consensus was to merge and redirect into Parappa the Rapper. This template is all that remains of the pre-AFD version of things. — BrianSmithson 23:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete, we can't be this specific for this type of thing, and the Apple logo is not fair use on this template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above (but perhaps put a noinclude thing around the tfd tag because it's ugly on some pages). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too specific; {{lowercase}} is just fine for this purpose. —Psychonaut 00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Talrias and WCQuidditch. Also, unnecessarily disrupts wikipedia's uniformity of appearance, which I think causes pages to looks bad. --Qirex 10:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per the good reasons above. Thanks/wangi 10:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. This has also been disputed at the Macintosh WikiProject between project participants.— Wackymacs 14:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This template is absurd. --BigBlueFish 19:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and speedy remove "fair use" logo. gren グレン 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We have iTunes, iPhoto, iMac, iBook, iLife, iMovie, iSight, iDVD... a template for 8 pages? When we have another template that suits it pretty well? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Comment: I've left a note on SPUI's talk page. Thanks/wangi 11:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete - against longstanding Wikipedia custom not to put tags permanently on article pages. Also, the hand-in-a-stop-sign image is widely (on Wikipedia) used to mean - "you've been blocked, or are in deep trouble in some way" and so is inappropriate for a mere friendly alert that a topic is controversial. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would suggest putting it on the talk pages, but seeing that {{controversial}} already does that, there's no need for this template, as placing them on the article page is quite bad form. Also, it should be {{ControSub}}, not {{ContraSub}}, but that's a different matter. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 06:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Every casual reader will see this and a casual reader doesn't need to have his attention drawn to the talk page; it was added to GNAA because of the AfDs and Featured article nominations, but any editor experienced enough to AfD or nominate things for FA status will probably know to look at talk pages first anyway. CanadianCaesar 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, this goes against BE BOLD. "Discuss changes on the talk page first"? No thank you. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Controversial articles need more editing, not less. -Silence 13:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this thing is pure evil--Anyone who 03:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Very anti-wiki. Agnte 12:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above.--nixie 04:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or else more than half of WP could probably be marked with it, I suspect. Xoloz 15:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

December 18

Template:S

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

• Delete - Unless I'm missing something, this serves no purpose --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - See User:Kukkurovaca/BuddhistShortcuts for the original intent. - Mark Hurd 16:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now that it has been SUBSTed where it was actually being used (which should have been done before nomination IMHO). —Phil | Talk 17:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the character can be inserted from the Insert box where needed. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 08:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • Keep the reworked template (but rename to a lower-case version), Create a {{US Broadcast television}} template, and delete the huge and misnamed {{Broadcast Television}}. ^BlankVerse 02:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Update: I've removed the logos. Bearcat 23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)>
• (Keep) Given the apparent consensus (here and in Canadian template), have renamed Canadian / Mexican templates, created new {{U.S. broadcast television}} template, and redirected {{Broadcast Television}} (which is now used on U.S. nets only) to new template. Will edit directly as time allows. — Stickguy 04:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination and keep, now that the big {{Broadcast Television}} template has been split into two more templates apart from this one. I did not know at the time of nomination that this would be done. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Elink

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

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)

• Comment: This has been temporarily commented out of the policy pages and a shrunken version is being hacked on - see also Template talk:Policylist - David Gerard 19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Too big, and overshadows the policy page itself. Maybe a little something at the bottom, but this is too much. -- SCZenz 23:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks good to me. Conveys a serious link between important WP policies and guidelines in an aesthetically pleasing way, jguk 23:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems fine to me. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if the images are removed. They look silly, and Snidely there can't be fair use in this template, can he? android79 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, looks like "Snidely" is just a very, very good imitation. Still don't like the images, though. android79 01:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What I was trying to promote was making personal attacks "evil" with the picture but over objections I replaced that image with the "dont bite newbies" one. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not sure what to do about the images, though. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If you image-search Google for Snidely Whiplash, that image shows up on quite a few different sites, apparently identified as the cartoon character. Whatever its origin, it appears to be so easily confused with the copyrighted/trademarked character as to be inappropriate for use like this. Monicasdude 02:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It wasnt a copy vio but, I did decide to replace it with "dont bite newbies" image. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• A template with a list of key policies might be useful if it could be maintained. I am skeptical about the feasibility of that task. I would rather have no list than an incomplete list. As such, my opinion is a weak delete. The cartoons on this list, however, trivialize the policies and present an attitude not of informality but of ridicule. They are entirely inappropriate. I don't really care if someone used this on their userpage but I strongly object to its use on any regular page. If kept in its current format (with the cartoons), I must argue that we are better off without it altogether and would change my opinion to strong delete. Rossami (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The "selection criteria" question seems to have been answered on the template's Talk page. While I'm not sure that we have the right content yet, that's a discussion that can be continued on the Talk page. Change my "weak delete" opinion to abstain. Rossami (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep I do not see whats wrong with it. There is nothing goofy about the cartoons. It is indeed overly selective however it does link to everything. which is several pages long (just the list). The most imperative policies are mentioned for beginners Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedie delete since I am not allowed to use images on it, I have no reason to support the existance of that template. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, hey Phil, this sounds like a content dispute to me. Why not debate this on the templates talk page and gain consensus rather than "nuking the site from orbit". —Locke Cole 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is fine for user pages, but on the actual policy pages it is redundant with the {{policy}} template (which is also much more attractive and and has a cleaner presentation). If it's proposed that this be on policy pages, I'd say delete just to keep it the heck away from them. If it's going to be only on user pages and other pages that aren't facing our entire user base, then I'd say keep.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 04:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes I know that but we have too many policies and its confusing. These really are the core policies. What is core and what isn't is subject to a discussion, no doubt. However I really feel listing everything on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines on this template (which does link to that page) a very bad idea. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 04:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps that means that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines needs a rewrite, not that we need a new box? If this is just a band-aid (and I'm not presuming that it is right yet), then it's not going to help in the long run.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful summary of major policies. Trödel|talk 04:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• I removed all three pictures, both because they were too big and because the "Villain" picture was tpo unserious for a policy page. Keep revised version. Firebug 05:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Cool Cat seems to have a problem with others editing it. --SPUI (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have problem with you editing. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Chill out, Cool Cat. android79 06:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh I am calm :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Then assume some nice, calm good faith. Phil Sandifer 06:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Not to SPUI. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes. To SPUI. Phil Sandifer 19:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Nope I have a zero tolerance policy towards trolls. I cannot. Sorry. GNAA is as trollish as one gets. With that offensive user talk page of his braging about 'helping drive him off!' admins he will recive maximum hostily from me. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, doesn't look ugly. - 211.30.173.113 06:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Not sure. Not an inherently awful idea, but I'd lose no sleep if it died. WAY too big. Not sure about ordering. Possibly acceptable with serious work. I'll try to find time to have a hack at it - David Gerard 10:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Boy, and after I'd taken my crack at it and made it smaller. Check the history, this thing was ghastly big originally (but unlike some, I see the potential!). =) —Locke Cole 12:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep revised version. the wub "?!" 17:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the box, get rid of pictures. Zocky 22:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It is missing all of the useful and important policies. Bensaccount 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but hopefully improve. All the wikipedia guidelines and policies are like a big unsorted "to do" list. This is a step in the right direction where users might take them seriously as having some sort of finiteness. Stevage 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment In response to objections raised that it was inappropriate to have a TFD tag prominently featured on policy pages, I created a refactored deletion notice that fits into the bottom of the navigation box and has wording that may be less intimidating to newbies. I hope this is acceptable. Firebug 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I also added WP:POINT and WP:BEANS. Firebug 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Since when was BEANS a policy or a guideline? -Splash^talk 02:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hideous, selective and being spammed all over the place. -Splash^talk 02:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it's fantastic. The template has been transformed in recent days and it looks good, and is concise and to-the-point. A welcome addition. Dan100 (Talk) 11:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and it seems as though that we are now discussing a different template (in the evolution of templates, anyway) than the one that was originally nominated for deletion. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that it has been cleaned up and looks professional, and as long as the goofy pictures aren't included. --NormanEinstein 15:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- Jbamb 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep— Per recent update it's useful _→AzaToth 17:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks like a helpful and useful template. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: y'know, I think this would make a great side bar (below toolbox)... Dan100 (Talk) 12:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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).

• Speedy Delete - It was probably made by a user who didn't quite know what they're doing. The page that linked to it has been fixed to use Infobox City, so there's no need for this thing to be around any longer. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• 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 {^yakł_blah} 13:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• Delete, boxcruft. AfD conclusions belong on talk pages, not in big ugly boxes at the top of the article. If there is doubt about factual accuracy, use {{disputed}}. In any case, AfD is not for deciding whether the content is accurate or not, but merely whether the subject is worth including in Wikipedia at all. The two issues are orthogonal, and should not be confused like this template does. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. android79 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme predjudice against further attempts to suggest that articles need 2/3 consensus to exist in the first place. Phil Sandifer 19:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per everybody.--Sean|Black 19:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, also per everybody. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ugh. Delete borderline nonsense with the link to the deleted page; it does indeed show malice to articles kept by no consensus. CanadianCaesar 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This template was created by Firebug because he doesn't like the result of an Afd that he participated in. He's been trying all sorts of desperate measures including redirecting the article without consensus (and without even seeking a conensus). Here he is placing it on the article: [2] RJII 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per reasons above. gtdp 18:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete. Deletion policy needs a dynamite enema in general, but we can start by unpicking things like this that are used for assumption of bad faith - David Gerard 19:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - There is a difference between a consensus keep and a technical keep. One means that there was agreement to keep the article, the other means that there wasn't agreement to delete. The existing template allows the closing admin to specify the result, be it "keep" or "no consensus", we don't need another template for this specific case when the general one will do. Chris talk back 02:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. "Consensus" that there is no consensus is somewhat of a misnomer, and that's one of the many problems that needs to be fixed in AfD (although, as was already pointed out, AfD needs much more work than just that). Regarding the second paragraph of that template: do people need instructions on where to go in order to read an article that's right below this big, ugly notice? Other deletion debates are just linked to on talk pages; that should suffice for no-consensus cases too. --Idont Havaname 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Readers can decide for themselves if they want to read articles or not. We do not need to have huge ugly warning templates about previous AFD discussions for that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Jbamb 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Place Subject Here-footer

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

• It looks like a "template for making templates". Just copying the syntax from another template is usually enough, and this is neither special nor educational. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete, not a template: If there's a mistake, fix it!--Sean|Black 01:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ironic how "corection" is mis-spelled there. BDAbramson T 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per my interpretation of §G1 and §G2 _→AzaToth 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)

• Speedied. Call me a rouge admin if you like, but these bulletin-board-style posts have no place in any article, ever. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete. We only need one spoiler template. Really.--Sean|Black 01:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if we needed another, this is not it. BDAbramson T 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per my interpretation of §G1 and §G2 _→AzaToth 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination. Yuck indeed. --Qirex 10:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Okay guys, I'm sorry I ever made {{spoiler2}}, I had no idea it would lead to this ... --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 19:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I still think we need a better spoiler template than the one we have, but this one is clearly not acceptable. Kafziel 00:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gerard Foley 06:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• I won't get into the spoiler-template design thing outside of the fact that this is an unneeded, unacceptable template that should be deleted. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not acceptable. -- DS1953 ^talk 13:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Modify then Delete Even if people still want to use it, they can get it from my talk page. --Cat lover 16:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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 [3] ), 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)

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

• Keep – the preference is not overwhelmingly clear. It takes more effort for people to use this template, and couple this with the fact that it's not as well advertised, I'm not surprised at the disparity in usage. I'll also note that you went through at least five albums and removed this template from them prior to nominating it here. IMO that's bad faith, and I'll be digging further through your contribs to see if you've been violating WP:POINT. —Locke Cole 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. There is a clear infobox recommendation. If you want to try to build consensus for a change to a new template, convince the WikiProject to adopt it. Removing this template is editing to the guidelines of both a WikiProject, WP:FAC standards, and to Wikipedia:Fair use. Jkelly 20:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I am well aware of WikiProject Albums and aware of the template promoted there. This template is nearly identical to the template there except for the additional navigational images. In so far as your latter comment: the only way it "edits to the guidelines" of WP:FAC is in so far as it agrees with a WikiProject exactly, and I've made my arguement in the previous sentence for why I think that's irrelevant. This isn't some drastically different template/fork, it's nearly identical to the one used by the WikiProject. As to Fair use, it is my opinion that usage of images in this way is in compliance with fair-use. I liken the relationship between {{Album infobox}} and {{Album infobox 2}} as being the same as {{Afd}} and {{Afdx}}. Very minor, but enough of a difference that it warrants a seperate template. —Locke Cole 01:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My arguments for this are at Template talk:Album infobox 2. Briefly, this template differs from the WikiProject recommendation by adding two more album covers. That means more graphics to d/l, a bigger box, and more overuse of unfree content. Wikipedia:Fair use encourages us to use copyrighted images as little as possible, and WP:FAC examines that use very strictly. The use of this template (and the ensuing edit-wars) means that album articles are often frustrating to work on. Jkelly 20:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - makes additional use of fair use images which should be kept down (and is in my opinion more irritating than helpful as the images link to the image pages, and not to the album's articles). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Template is useful, more presentable and any claims of "fair use" abuse have not been proven. This discussion is a waste of time, as it was in October. BGC 21:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There seems to be a clear consensus against this version and no consensus to use it in place of the pre-existing template. Gamaliel 21:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, both templates seem to be used pretty substantially. No compelling reason to delete has been offered. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an unnecessary template fork. - Lee (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Encourages the mis-use of non-free images. Also a usability nightmare, as the "next cover" and "previous cover" images don't link to the articles they seem to be linking to. --Carnildo 23:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Argue, don't fork. Fair-use issues, etc. Bad idea. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As it's been covered already: I've seen no convincing argument that this isn't covered by fair use; the "additional images to download" argument is rediculous, even on dial-up, the size of those images is negligble; I see no convincing argument to delete. As an additional note, if someone can point out a statement from the concensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums against the use of this template, I'll change my vote to delete. Their page lists infobox as the standard, which it is. This means that it has the majority of use, not that the other shouldn't be used. Until something more convincing comes along, I will continue to vote keep. Arturus 01:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.Carolaman 02:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo.—jiy (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same as my previous vote over this. The "navigational images" direct the user to the image page itself. Fair use issue (i.e., it isn't fair use). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I am not convinced that this is in conflict with fair use policy, due to the very small display size (50px) and the fact that the albums displayed are only the preceding, current, and following albums. I have seen numberous instances where editors have created discographies of musicians and displayed 100px+ images for each album ever released by that artist (eg The Beatles discography, U2 discography, Michael Jackson discography, Pink Floyd discography, Led Zeppelin discography etc). That is excessive, not this. I do not necessarily advocate this infobox over the other one, however I personally use album infobox 2 when placing an infobox on an album page where one is not already present. I don't think it is right to change album infobox 2 to album infobox nor visa versa. If people are passionate about which infobox they percieve to be the correct one, I urge those users to place whatever they want at any of the albums listed here, and not to change existing infoboxes as that is far less constructive and far more likely to cause unnecessary conflict. --Qirex 08:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I find it more irritating than helpful for navigation, as the images link to the image pages rather than the article pages. I also think it's completely pointless to display the same image for an album twice in an infobox. HarryCane 12:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Is it possible to make the pictures link to the album though? ProveIt 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You can say there's a same problem with pictures not linking to the intended page at Wikipedia:Reference desk, but they aren't complaining, are they? Keep because it's harmless. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Template forks suck. See my comments on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace for details. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo, and also Mirv's comments on template forking. --NormanEinstein 22:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo, Mirv. android79 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Carnildo and Wikipedia:Fair use. Extraordinary Machine 16:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, think there is an amount of certainty for fair use for such articles. -- Natalinasmpf 21:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nat is right. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Carnildo; also per Mirv, especially as the template fork introduces inconsistency when navigating through a band's albums and different albums use different templates. Nothings 07:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: BTW, for anyone concerned about usability issues (specifically, that when you click on the image you're taken to the image page, not the specific album pictured), please look at {{Click}}. Assuming this survives TfD, someone should look into integrating this into {{Album infobox 2}}. —Locke Cole 08:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have made an attempt at integrating "click" into the template at Template:Album infobox test. I can't get it to work right though. Someone with a bit more programing skill should take a look at it. --Tokle 22:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've modified it slightly to get it to work, but there are still (hopefully minor) positioning issues. Please take a look at the example I've provided at Template talk:Album infobox test. —Locke Cole 05:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I quite agee with the infrobox 2 but do appreciate the usability issue raised in the last posting. Click on the image should take the user to the album NOT the image, that can happen on the main album page itself. Kevinalewis 11:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kevinalewis. Album cover ABSOLUTELY should be linked to the article, NOT the picture. --Cjmarsicano 22:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, --Tokle 14:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Cassandra Leo 22:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For a consistent look across all album pages. This template is not much of an improvement over the other. Also, why two of the same album cover images? --דוד ♣ D Monack 08:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: about the fact that the same cover is displayed twice, this is just an extension of the original which listed the album twice, in effect. It's just to show the current album next to the preceding and following albums; to show it in chronological context. If there is consensus that it shouldn't be shown, it's not a big deal to modify the template to only show the previous and next albums, omitting the current album, and so this argument is not a valid reason to delete in my view. --Qirex 08:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons I mentioned in the earlier nom. I don't think this qualifies as fair use because the album covers are being used solely for decoration. Tuf-Kat 14:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: They are not being used for decoration. Some people actually recognize albums better by their cover artwork than by their names, and this is especially true for people who grew up during the vinyl era (with more importance to cover art). If I ask my parents and many of my friends' parents, they will very easily be able to tell me about cover art, but most of them don't remember the title of the album. "It's the one with the two faces on the cover!" I think we can't overlook this fact. --Comics 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - against template forks. Rhobite 22:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

agreed - but just maybe the new version should superceed the earlier. Kevinalewis 09:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - it looks better and is more user friendly to the reader. Once the tag has been altered to link the thumbnails to the actual album entries (rather than the images themselves) it will be even more usable. As far as the 'fair use' image aspect is concerned I can't see any record company objecting to the additional tiny thumbnails used in the box. Ian Dunster 12:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete becuase of copyright, unfair fair use concerns. Personally, I think this should probably be an arbitrary decision by wikimedia based on whether it's legal or not. If this is unquestionably legal my vote becomes an "I don't care". gren グレン 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Surachit 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- hate forks. Per Wikipedia:Fair use#Images: ..."generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith: Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary). 05:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to {{PresChoice}} or something that removes the ambiguity (I don't think that an apostrophe can be used in the title, right?). Courtland 01:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - we really don't need this- agree with Aecis' arguments. --G Rutter 11:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I think there's too many templates out there anyway. -^demon 15:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete for the following reasons: (1) orphan (2) silly (3) don't put self-references on article pages unless they're REALLY important! Ashibaka tock 22:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. There's no such thing as fancruft, it's just a buzzword for people to use when they want to convince other people that a topic isn't noteworthy. Concerns like this should be brought up on the Talk page, where civil discussion is possible, not introduced with something as hostile as a buub (big ugly useless box) stamped on the page. -Silence 17:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, bordering on nonsense outside AfD CanadianCaesar 00:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If you believe there is such a thing as fancruft, as I do, the solution to that is to remove it from the article, not to add this ugly-ass notice to the top. android79 01:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well put. -Silence 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subsumed by Template:Cleanup et al. —Psychonaut 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete - David Gerard 19:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as well as Android79. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete take it to the talk page. QQ 22:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps it should be replaced by this? Chris talk back 17:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless warning template. Keep those warning templates to things like original research, NPOV and accuracy. We do not need to warn people that what they're about to read is fiction which someone else doesn't like. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Baleet, possible cowbell candidate as per Chris. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Silence and Psychonaut. jareha 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• • Question: redundant with what? What else already exists that does the job of this template? Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Listify and then delete. ^BlankVerse 20:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Question; where would you put this list? —Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. 66.167.138.184 20:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Listify and delete I agree with BlankVerse Arturus 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Listify and delete, per above. BDAbramson T 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I am somewhat mystified as to the actual problem with this template. It provides navigation between a huge number of related categories: how would this be made any easier by forcing users to navigate via some other separate list? —Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Category:Fictional animals provides the same kind of navigation between these related categories. How is this not redundant? EldKatt (Talk) 08:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Even more so: Category:Lists of fictional animals — Catherine\^talk 06:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:UK ties

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

Keep, and redirect {{UK ties2}} to it. I prefer this version. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias - SoM 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias--Mais oui! 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

{{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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, I've figured out how. Would whoever takes action on this deletion request please do the following?

• Copy-and-paste template 1 into the bottom of the article, with an edit comment saying "copied from deleted template UK_ties"
• Then replace it with template 2, with an edit comment saying "replacing with content of deleted template UK_ties2"
• do likewise with template 3
• finally, revert if necessary to your preferred version. (Template 2 is the one currently in use, I believe.)

Thus it will in future be possible to understand any references on talk pages to the relative merits of the three templates. Thanks. Doops | talk 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete, per nom.--Sean|Black 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • I'm not putting it into practice. Jimbo already has put it into practice. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Speedy Keep, high volume public pages need some sort of label.  ALKIVAR™ 10:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

• You gravely misunderstand how Wikipedia policy works. Phil Sandifer 21:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

• Delete, again as per Silence's comments above. Thanks/wangi 14:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• Extreme delete. Ugly, verbose, and unecessary. ^BlankVerse 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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).
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete, per Dmcdevit and Silence. Pages should not be protected just because they have been linked to or mentioned. The high influx of traffic is not always a bad thing, and sometimes greatly improve an article. Editors should be aware that the article has been linked to, but by using the {{high-traffic}} template. Pages should be protected if there is persistent vandalism, but that is what the {{vprotect}} template is for. --Mark Yen 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but reword and Delete Category:Protected due to publicity — There needs to be something to "warn" new users and onlookers that we know they're probably gonna vandalize the page. But it shouldn't be because of the publicity, we should just say that it is popular, it is being vandalized, just not because —24.130.32.99 01:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference

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

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)

• Delete; useless, noise only. Schutz 06:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC
• Delete per nomination. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 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)

• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. BDAbramson T 19:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Holding cell

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

Tools

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

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

Closing discussions

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

To review

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

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

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

• Merge into the singular {{infobox ship}} (currently a redirect):
  • Template:Infobox_ship_begin2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_career2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_characteristics2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_characteristics ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_class_overview2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_class_overview ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_image2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_image ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_service_record2022 April 30 – Infobox_service_record ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

    I have hacked Module:Infobox ship which implements ship infoboxen without the external wikitable that the above templates require. Uses Module:Infobox; {{infobox ship begin}} is no longer required; parameter names are changed from sentence- to snake-case; section header height for career, characteristics, service record sections is normalized; custom fields are supported. I chose to retain the individual section templates as subtemplates:

    • {{Infobox ship/image}}
    • {{Infobox ship/career}}
    • {{Infobox ship/characteristic}}
    • {{Infobox ship/class}}
    • {{Infobox ship/service record}} – Module:Infobox ship implements only the 'ship' portion of {{Infobox service record}}

    In the main infobox these subtemplates are called with the |section<n>= parameters (aliases of |data<n>=).

    Comparisons between wikitable infoboxen and Module:Infobox ship infoboxen can bee seen at my sandbox (permalink).

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

    Since the intent is to use Module:Infobox directly, why is Module:Infobox ship being used to generate the infobox? I can understand if there is need for a backend module to validate a value or something, but is there really a reason to have this unique code? Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

    The original complaint was that the ship infoboxen templates are table templates masquerading as infobox templates. None of those templates use Module:Infobox. Module:Infobox ship answers that complaint. Yeah, we still have subtemplates, but, in my opinion, that is a good thing because the appropriate parameters and their data are contained in each particular subtemplate. The container subtemplates make it relatively easy for an editor reading an article's wikitext to understand. The current ship infobox system allows sections in any order (except for the position of {{infobox ship begin}} – not needed with Module:Infobox ship); whatever the final outcome of this mess, that facility must not be lost.

    Module:Infobox ship does do some error checking (synonymous parameters |ship_armor= / |ship_armour=, |ship_draft= / |ship_draught=, |ship_honors= / |ship_honours=, and |ship_stricken= / |ship_struck=). Whether {{infobox ship}} directly calls Module:Infobox or whether {{infobox ship}} calls Module:Infobox ship which then calls Module:Infobox is really immaterial so long as the final rendered result is a correctly formatted infobox.

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Trappist the monk are you still interested in working on this Module? If not, I'd like to try to get it finished myself. The massive deviation I had in mind was to make one invocation of the module do everything. Each page will require individual attention to complete the merge into a proper infobox anyway, so I reason to go the extra mile to make it nicer in general. Repeatable parameters will have the normal n number appended to the end of the parameter. An alternative would be to have subboxes for repeating sections, which would be easier in general to replace and implement. SWinxy (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

    Sure, but I don't think that this page is the proper place to discuss. Choose some place more proper and let me know where that is?

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Replacement with {{Infobox aircraft}}:
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_type2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_type ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_career2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_program2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_program ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_begin2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_engine2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_engine ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
    • For {{Infobox aircraft engine}}, There is an ongoing discussion about whether the aircraft engine Infobox should be merged with the Infobox aircraft or not. Except for the engine Infobox, other Infoboxes can be orphaned and there are no objection for that. Prarambh20 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
      • This discussion is still ongoing, so I have moved it back to the "to merge" list with the others. Primefac (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
      • The discussion has now ended (diff), with the consensus NOT TO MERGE {{Infobox aircraft engine}} with the others. However {{infobox aircraft begin}} may or may not end up being merged into {{Infobox aircraft engine}}. The template pages should be updated accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• Template:Infobox_climber2024 June 29 – Infobox_climber ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Infobox_mountaineer2024 June 29 – Infobox_mountaineer ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

Navigation templates

• None currently

Link templates

• Template:Lx2023 October 1 – Lx ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Pagelinks2023 October 1 – Pagelinks ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Because Lx has the option to hide certain links and PageLinks itself doesn't, a direct merge is impossible. The next best thing would be to convert the transclusions to invocations of Module:PageLinks. Doesn't look too impossible at first glance. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

    Problem: Lx's 20,000 transclusions are kinda fake, because almost all of them are transclusions of transclusions.
    Even if we restrict it to the template namespace, most of those are transclusions of transclusions of transclusions in the doc subpage. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

    The more I look at this, the more it appears technically infeasible. Lx has some really bizarre arguments like tag and label which can't be replicated by Module:PageLinks. When Lx was used to link to a normal page, namespace is usually Talk and label is usually talk, but when it's used to link to a talk page, either could be anything. Also, the recursive transclusion issue means the only way to get our pages would be an insource search, which means we'd also have to deal with pages like this.

    Replacing all uses of the format \{\{[Ll]x\|1=\|2=(.*)\|3=Talk\|4=talk\}\} with {{Pagelinks|$1}} could be a start. From there, I'm totally lost. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

    What if we only replaced uses matching an insource search in the template namespace, and then substed everything else? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Other

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

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

• 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)

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)

• Template:Facebook_page2024 February 21 – Facebook_page ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Facebook2024 February 21 – Facebook ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • While the result was "merge" it seems that this should be moved to "convert" as looking at Craig Kilborn, the ID used there is "The-Kilborn-File/107748632605752", while the new one is at https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100082874612029. The number is different. Unless I'm missing something else there is nothing here to merge. --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Template:Mop2024 February 27 – Mop ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Needs merging into Template:Icon. See the discussion for details. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Plastikspork: is there anything left to do for this merge? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Looks like it has already been added to Module:Icon/data, so other than fixing transclusions, I would say nothing left to do here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Template:WikiProject Animation
• Template:WikiProject_Florida_Gators2024 August 17 – WikiProject_Florida_Gators ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:WikiProject_University_of_Florida2024 August 17 – WikiProject_University_of_Florida ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

Meta

• Template:Resize2024 August 9 – Resize ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Midsize2024 August 9 – Midsize ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To convert

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

• 2023 October 25
  • Template:R to related2023 October 25 – R to related ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - convert to {{R from related word}} or {{R to related topic}} as appropriate
  • Adding this from RfD as it's template related. --Gonnym (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

    Started toying with this and came to the conclusion that I was very the wrong person because there are definitely cases where the appropriate template is neither of the two of interest. We need to leave this refinement on the user talk pages of some people who know what they're doing. Izno (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Template:S-line/IT-Eurostar_left/Frecciabianca2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_left/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:S-line/IT-Eurostar_right/Frecciabianca2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_right/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia2024 April 25 – Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To substitute

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

• Template:DARRD_poster2024 September 2 – DARRD_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To orphan

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

• Template:Longpigs2024 September 2 – Longpigs ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Shostakovich_string_quartets2024 September 2 – Shostakovich_string_quartets ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Villa-Lobos_string_quartets2024 September 2 – Villa-Lobos_string_quartets ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Schaff-Herzog_poster2024 September 2 – Schaff-Herzog_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:DCBL_poster2024 September 2 – DCBL_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:DGRA_poster2024 September 2 – DGRA_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:DGRG_poster2024 September 2 – DGRG_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Jewish_Encyclopedia_poster2024 September 2 – Jewish_Encyclopedia_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:DGRC_poster2024 September 2 – DGRC_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

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 23

Template:Image-license

Delete: Created to standardize image templates and leave room for the EXIF Metatable (in its old location). Now that the metatable has moved and some uses have been reverted, it's time for this to go. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:if

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

• Keep, it is an API to be used in other templates. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It has been deprecated and is defunct. See also Template talk:if. – Adrian | Talk 09:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Good to know. Changing my vote to to Del ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now it's no longer required. —Phil | Talk 10:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete my bot didnt touch 15,000 articles for nothing. Martin 10:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak redirect to {{qif}}. What's the "q" stand for, anyway? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:HKCrownCopyright

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

Template:Middle-earth portal

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

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

• Keep - Obviously as the creator I'm biased. That said, at most I'd think the template should be changed if consensus finds that it's purpose is confusing. Some of the issues listed above are actually standard practice for portals. For instance, it is standard to link articles related to a portal to that portal and put the portal links at the top of the page - see for instance Template:Philosophy portal and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Philosophy portal. Where images at the top of the page conflict the portal link can be moved down, as it always was for The Lord of the Rings, Middle-earth, History of Arda, and various others. The 'easter egg' was intended to be self evident to anyone familiar with the topic and follow the general concept of making portals 'personalized' to the topics they cover, but if there is concern about that the text can easily be replaced with a generic 'Middle-earth portal' message. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Undecided at the moment, but I'd like to add that I had no idea what it was when I first saw it. My first impulse was to delete it from the page because I took it for an irrelevant image (on The Hobbit, where the door of Moria isn't germaine to the subject) and didn't notice what it was until I was editing the page. It doesn't communicate its purpose very well even to one intimately familiar with the subject. But really, I think Wikipedia features should be aimed at the general reader. I'd vote to delete it in its present form, but with appropriate changes I'd vote to keep it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Recent changes are improvements, but could a different image be found? The current one is barely recognizable, and unless you already know what it's supposed to be it doesn't look in the least like a door. Not at my screen resolution anyway. (1024x768 on a 19" CRT. Didn't look good on the flat panel I use at work either.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Really? It looked pretty good on my screens, but I tend to use higher resolution (1280 x 1024). I'll check it under different settings and see if it can be cleaned up. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm glad I spotted this one. It's creative. An element that is often stifled in encyclopedias. But this is Wikipedia, which encourages creativity and novel approaches to encyclopedia design. Though a portal link such as this should mention the portal. Simply add the link "Middle-earth portal" in a sentence immediately following the fabled line from the book. So that takes care of the easter egg issue. As for the picture, is there any way to make a picture part of a link? I'd really like to know. If not, perhaps it can be iconized. But this doesn't matter, since the picture is definitely on-theme, and if its text includes "Middle-earth portal", the user will know that's a clickable link. But the picture is a bit dark, and itself needs to be freshened up, but that's easy to fix. I agree that the template clashes on some pages, but it is a nice touch on those with nothing to clash with. And the statement about "this kind of link would be more appropriate in text form under "See also" headings" argues against portal link templates in general, but they are in common use throughout Wikipedia, so this is not the place to be pushing such an agenda, as it pertains to general policy. Portal link templates are a Wikipedia tradition, and are a means to centralize portals, which helps portals be precisely what they are supposed to be: centralized. Therefore, this deletion nomination should never have been posted. Instead, an effort should have been made to fix the template and adjust its placement. I don't see any evidence of such an effort on Qirex's part. Just a knee-jerk "let's kill it" response. Besides, this portal link accents the Middle-earth theme quite well, and using a picture of a portal to represent a Wikipedia portal is brilliant. This one's a keeper. Go for it! 02:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think to characterise this nomination as "a knee-jerk "let's kill it" response" is a misrepresentation. I came across template when I noticed some placement issues of {{bakshi}}, and went to ~10 pages to see if I could resolve the problem (see the second and third pages of my contribs). I am a firm believer in fixing problems where they exist. I nominated this template because I honestly do not see the need to place large and prominent links to portals mixed in with the main body of text, and if the template is to go at the bottom of the page anyway, then it may as well be represented with plain text under an internal links section; simpler is better. --Qirex 08:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

    Qirex, I can see your viewpoint, but the problem is that it runs contrary to virtually EVERY portal on Wikipedia. I didn't come up with the idea of putting portal links with images at the top of related articles... I just followed the standard set by earlier portals in doing so. Most of them use the generic portal link template, but it's still an image box. I haven't found a single WikiPortal which follows the 'text link in 'See also' section' standard you propose. This is therefore really a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Portal to determine if the way all portals are linked should be changed. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'd like to vote 'delete' but alas, I cannot. I wouldnt read them books if I was tortured, but I understand that some people adore poor prose – so for their sake I vote this way.--Ezeu 02:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Phil Sandifer 02:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I've fixed it so if the image is clicked on, it also takes you to the Portal (and not to the Image info). —Locke Cole 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's pretty cool. I know that's not exactly the strongest argument on Wikipedia, but there you have it. Kafziel 03:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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

• Keep. Some of noms issues have been resolved, and others can be fixed by where its placed on the page. And, if for some reason it really doesnt work on a page, just dont use the graphic version, it's all optional anyway. --Stbalbach 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It can be very easily improved (and certainly will be) into a worthwhile portal link. In addition to changing the text and sharpening up or replacing the image, I would propose moving the text to the side as with the Philosophy portal, which I think is more attractive and less intrusive on the page. AGGoH 09:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

December 22

Template:NYC Hudson River crossings

Delete: A template covering the entire Hudson River, Template:Hudson River crossings, has been created (and already used north of the city line), and I think it would be good to put that all along the Hudson River. Having both would make them a bit cluttered, not to mention the fact that all really within the City have Template:NY-bt. I have already put notices on all of the talk pages for these articles, and noone has strongly objected. I suggest that first Template:Hudson River crossings be used all along, and then, pending the result of this TFD, all instances of Template:NYC Hudson River crossings be removed and it be deleted. Redirection would not work, since the newer one uses north and south parameters. Chris 16:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. It should be noted that user Cacophony, active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges, thinks that the other, newer one: Template:Hudson River crossings, is the one to delete. However I feel that all 3 are not needed in one article (see, for example Lincoln Tunnel for an example of the clutter having all three gives), and that Template:NY-bt makes Template:NYC Hudson River crossings redundant, while Template:NYC Hudson River crossings does not extend far enough upriver to handle, for example, Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge, nor should it, and Template:Hudson River crossings does. ++Lar 17:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. Kafziel 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:ReligionScotland

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

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

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

December 21

Template:Irish Republicanism

Delete: Impossible topic to be actively NPOV with and guaranteed to produce endless edit wars over who is a real republican party and who isn't (Republican Sinn Féiners and Sinn Féiners will fight about each others' true republicanism for a start, while Fine Gael, a pro-Commonwealth party in the 1940s, actually declared the Republic of Ireland some would argue should be in on that basis), what linear links join what organisation (were the Officials marxist or republican), whose analysis is valid/invalid/biased, etc. Also inaccurate in many places - Griffith was a monarchist. Connolly wanted a socialist republic not a nationalist republic. Why is Bobby Sands in but Sean MacBride out in the list of "key figures"? How key is Sands anyway? What about Sean MacStiofáin? Cathal Goulding? Sean Lemass? The topic is far too complicated and already provokes too many edit wars across a range of articles without adding a template full of questionable presumptions and definitions, most of them POV, into the mix. This is one template due an early trip to the wiki-bin.

• delete FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV magnet, topic is too broad for a template of this type.--Sean|Black 01:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. May provoke edit wars, but we can manage with things like fasicsm... -- Jbamb 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep: if you want Sean MacStiofain add him, when I made it I made it clear it was just the skeleton of a template and that it should be added to, I didn't want it as my creation, the many pages that relate to Irish Republicanism have no coherent order at all, this Template could go some way to bringing a bit of order. Communism has a Template, with POV issues all the time, why not delete that too eh? How about the Anarchism one, that's a really broad topic too, send it to the wiki-bin? Escobar600ie 15:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wildly POV part of the provo claim to be the true faith descendents of the War of Independence. --Red King 18:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Some User templates

To remove

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

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

Userfy

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

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

• • • Comment As far as i know, templates outside tempalte space now work just fine -- i have tested several in my user space before moving them to template space, and I have a couple for personal use that stay in my user space. But i don't know what the problems were before, so i can't be sure that they are gone. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Templates in userspace work fine these days, so I would prefer if the various users mentioned here moved these templates to their userspace. But I see little point in deleting them. Radiant_>|< 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Pointless and frankly absurd nomination. It is this sort of nonsense that gives this page and the whole deletion process a bad name. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if it works in user space now, that's where it belongs. -- Jbamb 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think a userfy would hurt, but don't delete them. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfying sounds reasonable. There's no need for them to be in the template space. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Single user templates like these in the Template namespace aught to have a speedy-move criteria. ^BlankVerse 04:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no policy against moving anything belonging to a user, or only used by that user, into that user's userspace (but it would be nice to ask the user first). Userfy, no problems with speedying. Radiant_>|< 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Hebrewterm

Makes a pretty cluttery little box that gives the translation of a Hebrew term. This causes a colossal mess on pages already overloaded with boxes and navigational aids, and the translation of a word can easily be mentioned in the text without any further need for boxes. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per nominator.Template has changed to have the box removed --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Amir E. Aharoni 20:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (a little history: my first vote :) )
  • Comment: A proper etymology template is what Wikipedia needs. I'm really sorry to disappoint Humus sapiens.--Amir E. Aharoni 07:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Humus sapiens convinced me. This is a free encyclopedia and i exercise my right to change my mind. The way it looks now at Yerida is OK. Some structure is better than no structure at all. I still think that there's a need for a proper etymology template, though.--Amir E. Aharoni 09:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Let's discuss first: this is a day-old template, still in development. The possibilities are to add pronunciation/sound link, etc. or it may be made a single-line template. Now it is similar to Template:Arabicterm, Template:Russianterm. Remove or move it around in the articles where you think it adds clutter. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; I really don't see why we can't include a Hebrew word, its transliteration or translation in a text if it's needed, without using a box. EldKatt (Talk) 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: it doesn't necessarily have to be a box, another option is to make it in-text. The idea was to introduce consistency, please see Template talk:Hebrewterm. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Consistency in formatting is great, but I think more flexibility is needed than this template can provide. You don't always need a translation of a term, for example (if the meaning is implied by the context or explained elsewhere), and in such and similar cases it's undesirable to rely on this template for consistency of style. A guideline of some kind would be more flexible and useful. EldKatt (Talk) 11:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Upon seeing it used at Yerida, I suddenly understand its point. I previously assumed that it were supposed to be used in articles wherever a Hebrew word is used, which I do think is not a good idea. But keep, for use in the head of articles such as Yerida. EldKatt (Talk) 11:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep: I agree that as it is, it is an annoyance. If we could use it for making inline use of foriegn terms more consistent, then great! But see my comments on Template Talk. I'm willing to change my vote if this becomes feasible or surely unfeasible. jnothman ^talk 23:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Completely rewritten to be in-text with optional params: plural and audio for now. Please reconsider/comment/improve rather than delete. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This looks very useful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Change - As it is I can see little need for it - there is no appreciable saving of keystrokes, all it add is consistency (good but not worth the candle). If this was formatted up like the Template:Arabicterm then there are far more possiblities. Then I would vote keep but not as it is! Kevinalewis 11:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually it was created as a box, but the consensus seems to have it in-text. Could you tell us what are "far more possiblities", perhaps they can be accomodated in this or another template. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it as a text version as with {{hebrewterm|ירידה|yerida|descent}} in Yerida. But hey, what is this going to do to all of User:Gilgamesh's "Tiberian Hebrew" extras in so many of the Hebrew worded articles? Hmmm, where is he? I think I'll ask him to come over and give his POV. IZAK 08:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Oy! If needed, we can add more optional params. I am learning the syntax, so any help is appreciated. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Db-crystalball

Used for speedy deletion on grounds that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". But that is not in fact a criterion for speedy deletion. Radiant_>|< 15:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Owen× ☎ 15:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Crush by elephant (delete) Templates giving speedy delete reasons not supported by WP:CSD] are very pernicious. Indeed perhaps they should be speedy deleted? (Grin). DES ^(talk) 17:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Also, {{Crystalball}} which is a redirect to this template should be deleted for the same reasons. DES ^(talk) 17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, to avoid CSD-creep. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Squishy squishy. -- Jbamb 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a CSD reasoning (these are all cases for AfD). BTW, the {{Crystalball}} redirect was created by a move for consistency reasons by me, {{Crystalball}} was the original name of the template. Just wanted to note this. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not all "crystal ball" articles are even good AfD candidates, never mind CSD, despite the rabid imaginings of some. Phil | Talk 10:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • It doesn't actually make it easier; it just makes people have to learn a new syntax. Here's what happens when someone tries to figure it out by trial and error. Alt text is useful. Crippling the servers is not. (And for the user who helpfully moved the tfd notice from the talk page, note that the template has been placed into some 1600 articles (almost all of them by User:ScudLee), all of whose caches you just broke.) —Cryptic (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Not a problem, glad to help make sure this TfD receives a fair "trial". Next time, please don't try to hide the fact that you're nominating a template for deletion by placing the notice only on the talk page. —Locke Cole 08:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Nobody was trying to hide anything; thanks for your assumption of good faith. Its far-and-away most-frequent user is presumeably watching the talk page (since he created it), and it was noted on Template talk:Album infobox, which will be watched by anyone at all likely to use it. The notice was placed on the talk page because editing a template used on as many pages as this one is will fully occupy the servers for about ten seconds (see WP:AUM). —Cryptic (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I was just returning the favor for your assumption of good faith on my part. My concern isn't with server load, it's with ensuring this TfD nomination has a chance to be heard fairly. I'm aware of WP:AUM, I'm also aware that many people don't keep frequently used templates on their watchlist. It makes sense that these people should be notified. —Locke Cole 09:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, please spare our servers the torture, and help fix it instead. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
  • It's a good idea to put horrible strain on the servers?--Sean|Black 08:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Switching to abstain for the time being then. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 09:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not useful enough to justify the expense.--Sean|Black 08:40, 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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. 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 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• Keep.—thegreentrilby 14:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This info box is truely a good way to link to AMG, a standard music service. Makenji-san 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Um. Nobody's saying we should delete {{Album infobox}}. Or even get rid of the reviews section. Or even the images of stars. Just the template that, very inefficiently, puts the images there. —Cryptic (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above, and per WP:AUM. Radiant_>|< 15:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. --NormanEinstein 15:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Creator is working on a Switch-less version, and {{switch}} is in any case one of the lighter-weight If Templates. I just can't see this as the straw that would break the camel's back. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Notice: I have now eliminated the {{switch}} templates. This template no longer includes any other templates. Please consider revising your comments above to reflect the new situation. I have also remove the TfD notice from the template itself to minimize server load (can {{tfd}} be substed?). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this is a change of vote - although not moving beyond the 5 star basis, this is now NOT a metatemplate. So arguements on that basis have lost all relevance to this template. Purhaps someone will generate the other base star ratings in time. Thanks—Ilmari Karonen - Kevinalewis 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Question: isn't it still effectively a metatemplate since it gets placed inside a template? Or, is it not a metatemplate now because it doesn't, itself, contain a template? --Qirex 01:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It was never a meta-template, as described at WP:AUM (although it used to contain a couple). Meta-templates are templates used within another template, whilst Stars is used directly in articles. The fact that it's usually passed as a parameter in {{Album infobox}} is (AFAIK) neither here nor there. Edits to Stars don't, for example, automatically invalidate the cache of every page that contains Album infobox, just the ones with the stars template in them (like any other template). - Lee (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

December 20

Template:Church and Template:Vatican

• Image copyright tags, both with ambigious content, both directing the uploader to retag the images with the appropriate copyright tag. These tags should not be used in place of correct copyright tagging and should both be deleted to clear up the copyright issues, delete.--nixie 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep but rewrite Seems it deals less with matters of copyright but approval of items from the Vatican. Should be clarified and could be useful. -- Jbamb 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Not useful. --Carnildo 23:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think these templates would confuse people trying to properly tag images. --NormanEinstein 15:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. They are both confusing. --Valentinian 15:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. They are confusing - I almost used these instead the correct template. Kenj0418 14:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or major rewrite. I can't make any sense of either in their current form, and they are no help with copyright tagging (in fact just confuses it). — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Speedy delete - Speaking as the template's creator. I was trying to create {{user lennonist}} and accidentally created this. Daykart 21:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Phnom Penh infobox

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

Template:Self-rule

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

• I don't think it belongs anywhere, but delete because it's completely ridiculous.--Sean|Black 06:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete -- Jbamb 06:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, stat! Raul654 06:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it applies to itself. -Silence 06:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No, on second thought BJAODN. Better obey Raul654, since he stands so high in the cabal and all... ;-) -- SCZenz 06:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Copied to BJAODN. All hail Jimbo, the one true creator of the Great Wikipedia. Blessings unto Raul, great saint of Delaware. Dragons flight 20:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.Of no obvious use.--Dakota ^{? e} 08:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you don't like it then don't use it. How is it "ridiculous"? Why delete what was designed for the non official WP:0RR guideline? How does it "apply to itself" and how would that be grounds for deletion? zen master T 11:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• It applies to itself in that it is not approved by the cabal. -Silence 11:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't belong in the template namespace. Carbonite | Talk 11:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in the name of the almighty cabal, who do not tolerate insurrection. "As promoters of self-rule, the users of this page recognize changes made only by those who have adopted and practice the principles herein." I love this part. You're not allowed to edit the page until you renounce the cabal. Obviously members of the cabal could never do so! Fnord. JRM · Talk 19:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, nor in anarchy. android79 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is true. It is an experiment in communism. -- Jbamb 20:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete rubbish. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the editors who follow this rule would be creating a cabal by themselves... and then, what to do? See recursion. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's been BJAODN so it will be deleted by the Cabal. Hedley 17:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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)
• 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)
• If they do, we can always undelete it. Delete for now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Jbamb 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep due to rewrite by DES. Agnte 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • If the UN owns it, how are we going to prove permission to use? -- Jbamb 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 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)

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)

• Delete, for the reasons listed above. Or better yet, extract the Canadian portion of the misnamed Broadcast Television template and transplant it into this template, do the same for the Mexican portion into the Mexican 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)
  • Keep the reworked template (but rename to a lower-case version), Create a {{US Broadcast television}} template, and delete the huge and misnamed {{Broadcast Television}}. ^BlankVerse 03:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Better than the overly broad {{Broadcast Television}}. Why are the logos not fair use on this template? Skeezix1000 07:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, same reasons as above. Have asked previously re logos so would also appreciate explanation. — Stickguy 13:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Never mind; explanation found here. Will remove logos. — Stickguy 14:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Given the apparent consensus, have renamed Canadian / Mexican templates, created new {{U.S. broadcast television}} template, and redirected {{Broadcast Television}} (which is now used on U.S. nets only) to new template. Will edit net pages directly as time allows. — Stickguy 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep, having seperate templates is much better organized than the mess of the old {{Broadcast Television}}. Also, isn't this nomination (more or less) a clone of the nomination I made for {{Mexico Broadcast Television}}? They look very similar... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • This IP has fewer than 30 article-namespace edits and has existed for about three weeks. Soo 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's because I've had about 5 ip's. I been editing for more then a year. And no, at this time, I don't want an account. 67.165.96.26 20:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Keep give a more succient warning tag. Much like NPOV section. J. D. Redding 22:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

Comment: I changed {{tfd}} to {{tfd-inline}} to fix that issue. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Subst and delete. Agree with Jmabel. --Khoikhoi 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Subst and delete --Gareth Hughes 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Language" is a word that is frequently misspelled, whereas "subst:ll" is rather more difficult to get wrong. Chris talk back 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is "subst:ll" easier to get right than "language"? Your argumentation is not immediately convincing. Delete. EldKatt (Talk) 09:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Subst and delete as overcomplication for little benefit. [[English language|English]] is easy to type and understand. sjorford (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Subst and delete, this is pointless. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 16:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wastes server resources. If there was a way to assure it would always be subst-ed then I wouldn't care if it stayed. gren グレン 19:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:AustraliaGov

• Uninformative and ambigious image copyright tag, there is a very good tag for PD images from Australia {{PD-Australia}}, fair use images that might be tagged with this tag should be tagged within the current fair use structure, delete.--nixie 23:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We have {{PD-Australia}} and {{PD-Australia-CC}}. This template doesnt do anything new. Agnte 23:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• So what do we do with the images that have this tag? If we know the image is 50+ years old, we tag it {{PD-Australia-CC}}, but otherwise, what tag should they have? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've already moved everything that could be more accurately tagged, all that remains is some military insignia which I see can be tagged with {{Military-Insignia}}.--nixie 01:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not useful as a copyright tag. JYolkowski // talk 03:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Well, delete, I guess. I created the tag, and so far as I know I'm the only one who used it. (At the time, I don't think better tags existed. They do now.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 03:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:SummersEve

• Delete.: Can we speedy this? Its only purpose is for personal attacks on users. BrianSmithson 22:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: First, there is nothing in the speedy policy to allow this to go fast. Second, anything can be used as personal attacks, that doesn't mean anything. If people are engaging in personal attacks, there is a policy for that. This is valuable in increasing the morale of the wiki editors and provides entertainment if used tastefully. -- Jbamb 22:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete.--nixie 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and sanction creator. Guettarda 23:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Its an attack template. It shouldn't be used WP:NPA Agnte 23:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• I cleared it, delete it. -- Jbamb 23:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted, at request--Sean|Black 23:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Parappa

• Delete: The songs just redirect back to the article that the template is on or are not yet created. Not needed. Thorpe 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There was an AFD about the song articles, and the consensus was to merge and redirect into Parappa the Rapper. This template is all that remains of the pre-AFD version of things. — BrianSmithson 23:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete, we can't be this specific for this type of thing, and the Apple logo is not fair use on this template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above (but perhaps put a noinclude thing around the tfd tag because it's ugly on some pages). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too specific; {{lowercase}} is just fine for this purpose. —Psychonaut 00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Talrias and WCQuidditch. Also, unnecessarily disrupts wikipedia's uniformity of appearance, which I think causes pages to looks bad. --Qirex 10:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per the good reasons above. Thanks/wangi 10:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. This has also been disputed at the Macintosh WikiProject between project participants.— Wackymacs 14:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This template is absurd. --BigBlueFish 19:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and speedy remove "fair use" logo. gren グレン 19:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We have iTunes, iPhoto, iMac, iBook, iLife, iMovie, iSight, iDVD... a template for 8 pages? When we have another template that suits it pretty well? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Comment: I've left a note on SPUI's talk page. Thanks/wangi 11:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete - against longstanding Wikipedia custom not to put tags permanently on article pages. Also, the hand-in-a-stop-sign image is widely (on Wikipedia) used to mean - "you've been blocked, or are in deep trouble in some way" and so is inappropriate for a mere friendly alert that a topic is controversial. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would suggest putting it on the talk pages, but seeing that {{controversial}} already does that, there's no need for this template, as placing them on the article page is quite bad form. Also, it should be {{ControSub}}, not {{ContraSub}}, but that's a different matter. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 06:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Every casual reader will see this and a casual reader doesn't need to have his attention drawn to the talk page; it was added to GNAA because of the AfDs and Featured article nominations, but any editor experienced enough to AfD or nominate things for FA status will probably know to look at talk pages first anyway. CanadianCaesar 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, this goes against BE BOLD. "Discuss changes on the talk page first"? No thank you. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Controversial articles need more editing, not less. -Silence 13:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this thing is pure evil--Anyone who 03:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Very anti-wiki. Agnte 12:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above.--nixie 04:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or else more than half of WP could probably be marked with it, I suspect. Xoloz 15:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

December 18

Template:S

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

• Delete - Unless I'm missing something, this serves no purpose --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - See User:Kukkurovaca/BuddhistShortcuts for the original intent. - Mark Hurd 16:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now that it has been SUBSTed where it was actually being used (which should have been done before nomination IMHO). —Phil | Talk 17:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the character can be inserted from the Insert box where needed. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 08:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • Keep the reworked template (but rename to a lower-case version), Create a {{US Broadcast television}} template, and delete the huge and misnamed {{Broadcast Television}}. ^BlankVerse 02:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Update: I've removed the logos. Bearcat 23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)>
• (Keep) Given the apparent consensus (here and in Canadian template), have renamed Canadian / Mexican templates, created new {{U.S. broadcast television}} template, and redirected {{Broadcast Television}} (which is now used on U.S. nets only) to new template. Will edit directly as time allows. — Stickguy 04:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination and keep, now that the big {{Broadcast Television}} template has been split into two more templates apart from this one. I did not know at the time of nomination that this would be done. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Elink

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

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)

• Comment: This has been temporarily commented out of the policy pages and a shrunken version is being hacked on - see also Template talk:Policylist - David Gerard 19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Too big, and overshadows the policy page itself. Maybe a little something at the bottom, but this is too much. -- SCZenz 23:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks good to me. Conveys a serious link between important WP policies and guidelines in an aesthetically pleasing way, jguk 23:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems fine to me. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if the images are removed. They look silly, and Snidely there can't be fair use in this template, can he? android79 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, looks like "Snidely" is just a very, very good imitation. Still don't like the images, though. android79 01:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What I was trying to promote was making personal attacks "evil" with the picture but over objections I replaced that image with the "dont bite newbies" one. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not sure what to do about the images, though. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If you image-search Google for Snidely Whiplash, that image shows up on quite a few different sites, apparently identified as the cartoon character. Whatever its origin, it appears to be so easily confused with the copyrighted/trademarked character as to be inappropriate for use like this. Monicasdude 02:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It wasnt a copy vio but, I did decide to replace it with "dont bite newbies" image. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• A template with a list of key policies might be useful if it could be maintained. I am skeptical about the feasibility of that task. I would rather have no list than an incomplete list. As such, my opinion is a weak delete. The cartoons on this list, however, trivialize the policies and present an attitude not of informality but of ridicule. They are entirely inappropriate. I don't really care if someone used this on their userpage but I strongly object to its use on any regular page. If kept in its current format (with the cartoons), I must argue that we are better off without it altogether and would change my opinion to strong delete. Rossami (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The "selection criteria" question seems to have been answered on the template's Talk page. While I'm not sure that we have the right content yet, that's a discussion that can be continued on the Talk page. Change my "weak delete" opinion to abstain. Rossami (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep I do not see whats wrong with it. There is nothing goofy about the cartoons. It is indeed overly selective however it does link to everything. which is several pages long (just the list). The most imperative policies are mentioned for beginners Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedie delete since I am not allowed to use images on it, I have no reason to support the existance of that template. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, hey Phil, this sounds like a content dispute to me. Why not debate this on the templates talk page and gain consensus rather than "nuking the site from orbit". —Locke Cole 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• This is fine for user pages, but on the actual policy pages it is redundant with the {{policy}} template (which is also much more attractive and and has a cleaner presentation). If it's proposed that this be on policy pages, I'd say delete just to keep it the heck away from them. If it's going to be only on user pages and other pages that aren't facing our entire user base, then I'd say keep.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 04:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes I know that but we have too many policies and its confusing. These really are the core policies. What is core and what isn't is subject to a discussion, no doubt. However I really feel listing everything on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines on this template (which does link to that page) a very bad idea. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 04:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps that means that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines needs a rewrite, not that we need a new box? If this is just a band-aid (and I'm not presuming that it is right yet), then it's not going to help in the long run.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful summary of major policies. Trödel|talk 04:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• I removed all three pictures, both because they were too big and because the "Villain" picture was tpo unserious for a policy page. Keep revised version. Firebug 05:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Cool Cat seems to have a problem with others editing it. --SPUI (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have problem with you editing. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Chill out, Cool Cat. android79 06:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh I am calm :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Then assume some nice, calm good faith. Phil Sandifer 06:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Not to SPUI. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes. To SPUI. Phil Sandifer 19:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Nope I have a zero tolerance policy towards trolls. I cannot. Sorry. GNAA is as trollish as one gets. With that offensive user talk page of his braging about 'helping drive him off!' admins he will recive maximum hostily from me. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, doesn't look ugly. - 211.30.173.113 06:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Not sure. Not an inherently awful idea, but I'd lose no sleep if it died. WAY too big. Not sure about ordering. Possibly acceptable with serious work. I'll try to find time to have a hack at it - David Gerard 10:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Boy, and after I'd taken my crack at it and made it smaller. Check the history, this thing was ghastly big originally (but unlike some, I see the potential!). =) —Locke Cole 12:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep revised version. the wub "?!" 17:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the box, get rid of pictures. Zocky 22:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It is missing all of the useful and important policies. Bensaccount 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but hopefully improve. All the wikipedia guidelines and policies are like a big unsorted "to do" list. This is a step in the right direction where users might take them seriously as having some sort of finiteness. Stevage 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment In response to objections raised that it was inappropriate to have a TFD tag prominently featured on policy pages, I created a refactored deletion notice that fits into the bottom of the navigation box and has wording that may be less intimidating to newbies. I hope this is acceptable. Firebug 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I also added WP:POINT and WP:BEANS. Firebug 02:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Since when was BEANS a policy or a guideline? -Splash^talk 02:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hideous, selective and being spammed all over the place. -Splash^talk 02:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it's fantastic. The template has been transformed in recent days and it looks good, and is concise and to-the-point. A welcome addition. Dan100 (Talk) 11:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and it seems as though that we are now discussing a different template (in the evolution of templates, anyway) than the one that was originally nominated for deletion. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that it has been cleaned up and looks professional, and as long as the goofy pictures aren't included. --NormanEinstein 15:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- Jbamb 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep— Per recent update it's useful _→AzaToth 17:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks like a helpful and useful template. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: y'know, I think this would make a great side bar (below toolbox)... Dan100 (Talk) 12:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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).

• Speedy Delete - It was probably made by a user who didn't quite know what they're doing. The page that linked to it has been fixed to use Infobox City, so there's no need for this thing to be around any longer. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• 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 {^yakł_blah} 13:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• Delete, boxcruft. AfD conclusions belong on talk pages, not in big ugly boxes at the top of the article. If there is doubt about factual accuracy, use {{disputed}}. In any case, AfD is not for deciding whether the content is accurate or not, but merely whether the subject is worth including in Wikipedia at all. The two issues are orthogonal, and should not be confused like this template does. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. android79 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme predjudice against further attempts to suggest that articles need 2/3 consensus to exist in the first place. Phil Sandifer 19:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per everybody.--Sean|Black 19:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, also per everybody. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ugh. Delete borderline nonsense with the link to the deleted page; it does indeed show malice to articles kept by no consensus. CanadianCaesar 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This template was created by Firebug because he doesn't like the result of an Afd that he participated in. He's been trying all sorts of desperate measures including redirecting the article without consensus (and without even seeking a conensus). Here he is placing it on the article: [5] RJII 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per reasons above. gtdp 18:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete. Deletion policy needs a dynamite enema in general, but we can start by unpicking things like this that are used for assumption of bad faith - David Gerard 19:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - There is a difference between a consensus keep and a technical keep. One means that there was agreement to keep the article, the other means that there wasn't agreement to delete. The existing template allows the closing admin to specify the result, be it "keep" or "no consensus", we don't need another template for this specific case when the general one will do. Chris talk back 02:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. "Consensus" that there is no consensus is somewhat of a misnomer, and that's one of the many problems that needs to be fixed in AfD (although, as was already pointed out, AfD needs much more work than just that). Regarding the second paragraph of that template: do people need instructions on where to go in order to read an article that's right below this big, ugly notice? Other deletion debates are just linked to on talk pages; that should suffice for no-consensus cases too. --Idont Havaname 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Readers can decide for themselves if they want to read articles or not. We do not need to have huge ugly warning templates about previous AFD discussions for that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Jbamb 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Place Subject Here-footer

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

• It looks like a "template for making templates". Just copying the syntax from another template is usually enough, and this is neither special nor educational. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete, not a template: If there's a mistake, fix it!--Sean|Black 01:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ironic how "corection" is mis-spelled there. BDAbramson T 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per my interpretation of §G1 and §G2 _→AzaToth 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)

• Speedied. Call me a rouge admin if you like, but these bulletin-board-style posts have no place in any article, ever. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete. We only need one spoiler template. Really.--Sean|Black 01:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if we needed another, this is not it. BDAbramson T 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per my interpretation of §G1 and §G2 _→AzaToth 03:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination. Yuck indeed. --Qirex 10:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Okay guys, I'm sorry I ever made {{spoiler2}}, I had no idea it would lead to this ... --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 19:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I still think we need a better spoiler template than the one we have, but this one is clearly not acceptable. Kafziel 00:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gerard Foley 06:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• I won't get into the spoiler-template design thing outside of the fact that this is an unneeded, unacceptable template that should be deleted. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not acceptable. -- DS1953 ^talk 13:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Modify then Delete Even if people still want to use it, they can get it from my talk page. --Cat lover 16:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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 [6] ), 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)

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

• Keep – the preference is not overwhelmingly clear. It takes more effort for people to use this template, and couple this with the fact that it's not as well advertised, I'm not surprised at the disparity in usage. I'll also note that you went through at least five albums and removed this template from them prior to nominating it here. IMO that's bad faith, and I'll be digging further through your contribs to see if you've been violating WP:POINT. —Locke Cole 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. There is a clear infobox recommendation. If you want to try to build consensus for a change to a new template, convince the WikiProject to adopt it. Removing this template is editing to the guidelines of both a WikiProject, WP:FAC standards, and to Wikipedia:Fair use. Jkelly 20:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I am well aware of WikiProject Albums and aware of the template promoted there. This template is nearly identical to the template there except for the additional navigational images. In so far as your latter comment: the only way it "edits to the guidelines" of WP:FAC is in so far as it agrees with a WikiProject exactly, and I've made my arguement in the previous sentence for why I think that's irrelevant. This isn't some drastically different template/fork, it's nearly identical to the one used by the WikiProject. As to Fair use, it is my opinion that usage of images in this way is in compliance with fair-use. I liken the relationship between {{Album infobox}} and {{Album infobox 2}} as being the same as {{Afd}} and {{Afdx}}. Very minor, but enough of a difference that it warrants a seperate template. —Locke Cole 01:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My arguments for this are at Template talk:Album infobox 2. Briefly, this template differs from the WikiProject recommendation by adding two more album covers. That means more graphics to d/l, a bigger box, and more overuse of unfree content. Wikipedia:Fair use encourages us to use copyrighted images as little as possible, and WP:FAC examines that use very strictly. The use of this template (and the ensuing edit-wars) means that album articles are often frustrating to work on. Jkelly 20:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - makes additional use of fair use images which should be kept down (and is in my opinion more irritating than helpful as the images link to the image pages, and not to the album's articles). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Template is useful, more presentable and any claims of "fair use" abuse have not been proven. This discussion is a waste of time, as it was in October. BGC 21:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There seems to be a clear consensus against this version and no consensus to use it in place of the pre-existing template. Gamaliel 21:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, both templates seem to be used pretty substantially. No compelling reason to delete has been offered. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an unnecessary template fork. - Lee (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Encourages the mis-use of non-free images. Also a usability nightmare, as the "next cover" and "previous cover" images don't link to the articles they seem to be linking to. --Carnildo 23:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Argue, don't fork. Fair-use issues, etc. Bad idea. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As it's been covered already: I've seen no convincing argument that this isn't covered by fair use; the "additional images to download" argument is rediculous, even on dial-up, the size of those images is negligble; I see no convincing argument to delete. As an additional note, if someone can point out a statement from the concensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums against the use of this template, I'll change my vote to delete. Their page lists infobox as the standard, which it is. This means that it has the majority of use, not that the other shouldn't be used. Until something more convincing comes along, I will continue to vote keep. Arturus 01:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.Carolaman 02:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo.—jiy (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same as my previous vote over this. The "navigational images" direct the user to the image page itself. Fair use issue (i.e., it isn't fair use). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I am not convinced that this is in conflict with fair use policy, due to the very small display size (50px) and the fact that the albums displayed are only the preceding, current, and following albums. I have seen numberous instances where editors have created discographies of musicians and displayed 100px+ images for each album ever released by that artist (eg The Beatles discography, U2 discography, Michael Jackson discography, Pink Floyd discography, Led Zeppelin discography etc). That is excessive, not this. I do not necessarily advocate this infobox over the other one, however I personally use album infobox 2 when placing an infobox on an album page where one is not already present. I don't think it is right to change album infobox 2 to album infobox nor visa versa. If people are passionate about which infobox they percieve to be the correct one, I urge those users to place whatever they want at any of the albums listed here, and not to change existing infoboxes as that is far less constructive and far more likely to cause unnecessary conflict. --Qirex 08:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I find it more irritating than helpful for navigation, as the images link to the image pages rather than the article pages. I also think it's completely pointless to display the same image for an album twice in an infobox. HarryCane 12:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Is it possible to make the pictures link to the album though? ProveIt 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You can say there's a same problem with pictures not linking to the intended page at Wikipedia:Reference desk, but they aren't complaining, are they? Keep because it's harmless. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Template forks suck. See my comments on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace for details. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo, and also Mirv's comments on template forking. --NormanEinstein 22:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo, Mirv. android79 22:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Carnildo and Wikipedia:Fair use. Extraordinary Machine 16:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, think there is an amount of certainty for fair use for such articles. -- Natalinasmpf 21:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nat is right. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Carnildo; also per Mirv, especially as the template fork introduces inconsistency when navigating through a band's albums and different albums use different templates. Nothings 07:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: BTW, for anyone concerned about usability issues (specifically, that when you click on the image you're taken to the image page, not the specific album pictured), please look at {{Click}}. Assuming this survives TfD, someone should look into integrating this into {{Album infobox 2}}. —Locke Cole 08:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have made an attempt at integrating "click" into the template at Template:Album infobox test. I can't get it to work right though. Someone with a bit more programing skill should take a look at it. --Tokle 22:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've modified it slightly to get it to work, but there are still (hopefully minor) positioning issues. Please take a look at the example I've provided at Template talk:Album infobox test. —Locke Cole 05:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I quite agee with the infrobox 2 but do appreciate the usability issue raised in the last posting. Click on the image should take the user to the album NOT the image, that can happen on the main album page itself. Kevinalewis 11:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kevinalewis. Album cover ABSOLUTELY should be linked to the article, NOT the picture. --Cjmarsicano 22:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, --Tokle 14:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Cassandra Leo 22:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For a consistent look across all album pages. This template is not much of an improvement over the other. Also, why two of the same album cover images? --דוד ♣ D Monack 08:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: about the fact that the same cover is displayed twice, this is just an extension of the original which listed the album twice, in effect. It's just to show the current album next to the preceding and following albums; to show it in chronological context. If there is consensus that it shouldn't be shown, it's not a big deal to modify the template to only show the previous and next albums, omitting the current album, and so this argument is not a valid reason to delete in my view. --Qirex 08:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons I mentioned in the earlier nom. I don't think this qualifies as fair use because the album covers are being used solely for decoration. Tuf-Kat 14:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: They are not being used for decoration. Some people actually recognize albums better by their cover artwork than by their names, and this is especially true for people who grew up during the vinyl era (with more importance to cover art). If I ask my parents and many of my friends' parents, they will very easily be able to tell me about cover art, but most of them don't remember the title of the album. "It's the one with the two faces on the cover!" I think we can't overlook this fact. --Comics 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - against template forks. Rhobite 22:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

agreed - but just maybe the new version should superceed the earlier. Kevinalewis 09:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - it looks better and is more user friendly to the reader. Once the tag has been altered to link the thumbnails to the actual album entries (rather than the images themselves) it will be even more usable. As far as the 'fair use' image aspect is concerned I can't see any record company objecting to the additional tiny thumbnails used in the box. Ian Dunster 12:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete becuase of copyright, unfair fair use concerns. Personally, I think this should probably be an arbitrary decision by wikimedia based on whether it's legal or not. If this is unquestionably legal my vote becomes an "I don't care". gren グレン 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Surachit 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- hate forks. Per Wikipedia:Fair use#Images: ..."generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith: Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary). 05:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to {{PresChoice}} or something that removes the ambiguity (I don't think that an apostrophe can be used in the title, right?). Courtland 01:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - we really don't need this- agree with Aecis' arguments. --G Rutter 11:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I think there's too many templates out there anyway. -^demon 15:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete for the following reasons: (1) orphan (2) silly (3) don't put self-references on article pages unless they're REALLY important! Ashibaka tock 22:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. There's no such thing as fancruft, it's just a buzzword for people to use when they want to convince other people that a topic isn't noteworthy. Concerns like this should be brought up on the Talk page, where civil discussion is possible, not introduced with something as hostile as a buub (big ugly useless box) stamped on the page. -Silence 17:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, bordering on nonsense outside AfD CanadianCaesar 00:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If you believe there is such a thing as fancruft, as I do, the solution to that is to remove it from the article, not to add this ugly-ass notice to the top. android79 01:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well put. -Silence 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subsumed by Template:Cleanup et al. —Psychonaut 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete - David Gerard 19:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as well as Android79. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete take it to the talk page. QQ 22:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps it should be replaced by this? Chris talk back 17:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless warning template. Keep those warning templates to things like original research, NPOV and accuracy. We do not need to warn people that what they're about to read is fiction which someone else doesn't like. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Baleet, possible cowbell candidate as per Chris. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Silence and Psychonaut. jareha 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• • Question: redundant with what? What else already exists that does the job of this template? Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Listify and then delete. ^BlankVerse 20:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Question; where would you put this list? —Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. 66.167.138.184 20:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC).
• Listify and delete I agree with BlankVerse Arturus 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Listify and delete, per above. BDAbramson T 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I am somewhat mystified as to the actual problem with this template. It provides navigation between a huge number of related categories: how would this be made any easier by forcing users to navigate via some other separate list? —Phil | Talk 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Category:Fictional animals provides the same kind of navigation between these related categories. How is this not redundant? EldKatt (Talk) 08:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Even more so: Category:Lists of fictional animals — Catherine\^talk 06:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:UK ties

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

Keep, and redirect {{UK ties2}} to it. I prefer this version. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias - SoM 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias--Mais oui! 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and reverse-redirect per Talrias FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

{{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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, I've figured out how. Would whoever takes action on this deletion request please do the following?

• Copy-and-paste template 1 into the bottom of the article, with an edit comment saying "copied from deleted template UK_ties"
• Then replace it with template 2, with an edit comment saying "replacing with content of deleted template UK_ties2"
• do likewise with template 3
• finally, revert if necessary to your preferred version. (Template 2 is the one currently in use, I believe.)

Thus it will in future be possible to understand any references on talk pages to the relative merits of the three templates. Thanks. Doops | talk 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Delete, per nom.--Sean|Black 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • I'm not putting it into practice. Jimbo already has put it into practice. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Speedy Keep, high volume public pages need some sort of label.  ALKIVAR™ 10:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

• You gravely misunderstand how Wikipedia policy works. Phil Sandifer 21:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

• Delete, again as per Silence's comments above. Thanks/wangi 14:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• Extreme delete. Ugly, verbose, and unecessary. ^BlankVerse 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• 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).
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete, per Dmcdevit and Silence. Pages should not be protected just because they have been linked to or mentioned. The high influx of traffic is not always a bad thing, and sometimes greatly improve an article. Editors should be aware that the article has been linked to, but by using the {{high-traffic}} template. Pages should be protected if there is persistent vandalism, but that is what the {{vprotect}} template is for. --Mark Yen 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but reword and Delete Category:Protected due to publicity — There needs to be something to "warn" new users and onlookers that we know they're probably gonna vandalize the page. But it shouldn't be because of the publicity, we should just say that it is popular, it is being vandalized, just not because —24.130.32.99 01:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference

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

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)

• Delete; useless, noise only. Schutz 06:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC
• Delete per nomination. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 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)

• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. BDAbramson T 19:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Holding cell

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

Tools

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

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

Closing discussions

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

To review

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

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

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

• Merge into the singular {{infobox ship}} (currently a redirect):
  • Template:Infobox_ship_begin2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_career2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_characteristics2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_characteristics ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_class_overview2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_class_overview ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_ship_image2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_image ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_service_record2022 April 30 – Infobox_service_record ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

    I have hacked Module:Infobox ship which implements ship infoboxen without the external wikitable that the above templates require. Uses Module:Infobox; {{infobox ship begin}} is no longer required; parameter names are changed from sentence- to snake-case; section header height for career, characteristics, service record sections is normalized; custom fields are supported. I chose to retain the individual section templates as subtemplates:

    • {{Infobox ship/image}}
    • {{Infobox ship/career}}
    • {{Infobox ship/characteristic}}
    • {{Infobox ship/class}}
    • {{Infobox ship/service record}} – Module:Infobox ship implements only the 'ship' portion of {{Infobox service record}}

    In the main infobox these subtemplates are called with the |section<n>= parameters (aliases of |data<n>=).

    Comparisons between wikitable infoboxen and Module:Infobox ship infoboxen can bee seen at my sandbox (permalink).

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

    Since the intent is to use Module:Infobox directly, why is Module:Infobox ship being used to generate the infobox? I can understand if there is need for a backend module to validate a value or something, but is there really a reason to have this unique code? Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

    The original complaint was that the ship infoboxen templates are table templates masquerading as infobox templates. None of those templates use Module:Infobox. Module:Infobox ship answers that complaint. Yeah, we still have subtemplates, but, in my opinion, that is a good thing because the appropriate parameters and their data are contained in each particular subtemplate. The container subtemplates make it relatively easy for an editor reading an article's wikitext to understand. The current ship infobox system allows sections in any order (except for the position of {{infobox ship begin}} – not needed with Module:Infobox ship); whatever the final outcome of this mess, that facility must not be lost.

    Module:Infobox ship does do some error checking (synonymous parameters |ship_armor= / |ship_armour=, |ship_draft= / |ship_draught=, |ship_honors= / |ship_honours=, and |ship_stricken= / |ship_struck=). Whether {{infobox ship}} directly calls Module:Infobox or whether {{infobox ship}} calls Module:Infobox ship which then calls Module:Infobox is really immaterial so long as the final rendered result is a correctly formatted infobox.

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Trappist the monk are you still interested in working on this Module? If not, I'd like to try to get it finished myself. The massive deviation I had in mind was to make one invocation of the module do everything. Each page will require individual attention to complete the merge into a proper infobox anyway, so I reason to go the extra mile to make it nicer in general. Repeatable parameters will have the normal n number appended to the end of the parameter. An alternative would be to have subboxes for repeating sections, which would be easier in general to replace and implement. SWinxy (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

    Sure, but I don't think that this page is the proper place to discuss. Choose some place more proper and let me know where that is?

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Replacement with {{Infobox aircraft}}:
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_type2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_type ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_career2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_program2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_program ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_begin2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
  • Template:Infobox_aircraft_engine2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_engine ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
    • For {{Infobox aircraft engine}}, There is an ongoing discussion about whether the aircraft engine Infobox should be merged with the Infobox aircraft or not. Except for the engine Infobox, other Infoboxes can be orphaned and there are no objection for that. Prarambh20 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
      • This discussion is still ongoing, so I have moved it back to the "to merge" list with the others. Primefac (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
      • The discussion has now ended (diff), with the consensus NOT TO MERGE {{Infobox aircraft engine}} with the others. However {{infobox aircraft begin}} may or may not end up being merged into {{Infobox aircraft engine}}. The template pages should be updated accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• Template:Infobox_climber2024 June 29 – Infobox_climber ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Infobox_mountaineer2024 June 29 – Infobox_mountaineer ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

Navigation templates

• None currently

Link templates

• Template:Lx2023 October 1 – Lx ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Pagelinks2023 October 1 – Pagelinks ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Because Lx has the option to hide certain links and PageLinks itself doesn't, a direct merge is impossible. The next best thing would be to convert the transclusions to invocations of Module:PageLinks. Doesn't look too impossible at first glance. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

    Problem: Lx's 20,000 transclusions are kinda fake, because almost all of them are transclusions of transclusions.
    Even if we restrict it to the template namespace, most of those are transclusions of transclusions of transclusions in the doc subpage. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

    The more I look at this, the more it appears technically infeasible. Lx has some really bizarre arguments like tag and label which can't be replicated by Module:PageLinks. When Lx was used to link to a normal page, namespace is usually Talk and label is usually talk, but when it's used to link to a talk page, either could be anything. Also, the recursive transclusion issue means the only way to get our pages would be an insource search, which means we'd also have to deal with pages like this.

    Replacing all uses of the format \{\{[Ll]x\|1=\|2=(.*)\|3=Talk\|4=talk\}\} with {{Pagelinks|$1}} could be a start. From there, I'm totally lost. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

    What if we only replaced uses matching an insource search in the template namespace, and then substed everything else? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Other

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

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

• 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)

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)

• Template:Facebook_page2024 February 21 – Facebook_page ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Facebook2024 February 21 – Facebook ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • While the result was "merge" it seems that this should be moved to "convert" as looking at Craig Kilborn, the ID used there is "The-Kilborn-File/107748632605752", while the new one is at https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100082874612029. The number is different. Unless I'm missing something else there is nothing here to merge. --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Template:Mop2024 February 27 – Mop ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  • Needs merging into Template:Icon. See the discussion for details. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Plastikspork: is there anything left to do for this merge? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Looks like it has already been added to Module:Icon/data, so other than fixing transclusions, I would say nothing left to do here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Template:WikiProject Animation
• Template:WikiProject_Florida_Gators2024 August 17 – WikiProject_Florida_Gators ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:WikiProject_University_of_Florida2024 August 17 – WikiProject_University_of_Florida ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

Meta

• Template:Resize2024 August 9 – Resize ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Midsize2024 August 9 – Midsize ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To convert

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

• 2023 October 25
  • Template:R to related2023 October 25 – R to related ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - convert to {{R from related word}} or {{R to related topic}} as appropriate
  • Adding this from RfD as it's template related. --Gonnym (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

    Started toying with this and came to the conclusion that I was very the wrong person because there are definitely cases where the appropriate template is neither of the two of interest. We need to leave this refinement on the user talk pages of some people who know what they're doing. Izno (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Template:S-line/IT-Eurostar_left/Frecciabianca2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_left/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:S-line/IT-Eurostar_right/Frecciabianca2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_right/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia2024 April 25 – Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To substitute

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

• Template:DARRD_poster2024 September 2 – DARRD_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To orphan

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

• Template:Longpigs2024 September 2 – Longpigs ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Shostakovich_string_quartets2024 September 2 – Shostakovich_string_quartets ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Villa-Lobos_string_quartets2024 September 2 – Villa-Lobos_string_quartets ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Schaff-Herzog_poster2024 September 2 – Schaff-Herzog_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:DCBL_poster2024 September 2 – DCBL_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:DGRA_poster2024 September 2 – DGRA_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:DGRG_poster2024 September 2 – DGRG_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:Jewish_Encyclopedia_poster2024 September 2 – Jewish_Encyclopedia_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
• Template:DGRC_poster2024 September 2 – DGRC_poster ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

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